[Split]Moon hoaxes - split from: Mars Voyage too Soon?

[uruk]

{snip}
Seems technologically feasible to me.

In 2007 technology or 1965 technology?
1960's technology was 1/4" video tape and 64k of magnetc core ram.
Read post 200
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3198132&postcount=200

{snip}

Portrayed 'hard vaccuum'? What's that look like then?!

Look at the dust that is being kicked up by the astronauts boots as the move around the surface. Also look at the video of the dust bing kicked up by the wheels on the lunar rover. The dirt goes straight up then down in nice straight arcs. The dust does not exhibit any turbulance or become suspended in air or as it would in an atmosphere.

Also, on Apollo 15 Alan Sheppard did an experiment for school children where he dropped a feather and a hammer to prove Gallileo's thoery that things fall at an equal rate in a vaccum
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk

Have you seen the lunar surface video footage speeded up?!

Yes, the other actions like the Astronauts arm movements and the movement of other equipment becomes unnaturally accelerated. That's why the Moon Hoax videos only show you short sequences. You would notice the unnaturally accelerated movements of the other objects in the film if it were to play long enough.

{snip}

 

[uruk]

BTW, just looked over a gorgeous J-size drawing (yes, an actual blueprinted drawing) - "ALSEP Subpackage 2 Assy" - from 1967. I was a little afraid to open it up, but it's still in pretty good shape. They did good work back in the day.

I also flipped through one of the Bendix monthly progress reports from that time. Subsystem status, nonconformance reports and their solutions, cost variances, system weight vs. target weight evolution, change review boards, test planning, hardware flows, etc., etc. - nearly two hundred pages detailing the hard work of an army of people on a fast-moving program.

Have you seen Bob Andrepont's web site? He has hundreds of documents for downloading concerning the space program that he conitinues to update.
http://www.geocities.com/bobandrepont/spacepdf.htm

Hundreds of the thousands of documents that have been generated on Apollo alone. That seems like whole lot of unnecessary paper work to generate for a hoax. Much less keeping it hanging around taking up space for someone to look through it to find somekind of slip up or mistake.

 

[Mashuna]

I'm coming in late to this. I just wanted to check if I understood Southwind's alternative theories here.

So instead of simply sending men to the Moon, NASA launched (with 1960s technology) ...

Are you inferring something here?

He might be implying something, I don't know.

... fully automated radio and television repeater stations? ...

Seems technologically feasible to me.

Seems fair enough, you're happy that space missions happened, so here's one with some kind of automated repeater stations. I don't know what the size or complexity of one of these would be at the time, but let's say this isn't a problem to fit into a lander.

... Landed them on the Moon ...

No great shake.

This bit confuses me. You're happy that NASA were able to launch this equipment, then land it and deploy it on the moon, all remotely. They're doing this in order to fake a broadcast showing people on the moon.

So, to sum up.

• NASA can get people into space
• NASA can land objects on the moon, delicately enough that these electronic devices still work perfectly.
• You doubt that they were able to land people on the moon

Is that what you're arguing? I realise that you've said you're only 5% convinced of this conspiracy, so I'm only talking about that 5% doubt you have.

 

[Belz...]

Have you seen the lunar surface video footage speeded up?!

Why would you want to do that ? Unlike in movies, your movements don't slow down in a vaccum or when gravity is reduced (in fact, without air resistance...).

Plus, you might want to check to trajectory of the dust ejected by the rover's wheels. Can't simulate that with an atmosphere. (ETA: Damn, beaten by uruk)

 

[sts60]

Have you seen Bob Andrepont's web site? He has hundreds of documents for downloading concerning the space program that he conitinues to update.
http://www.geocities.com/bobandrepont/spacepdf.htm

I've had Bob's site bookmarked for a long time. He really does a nice job collating reports from various sources.

Speaking of useful sites, the advance of capable servers and cheap storage has enabled lots and lots of previously offline data to be made easily accessible; anyone who wishes to view or download ALSEP data (or data from a host of other missions) can start at the National Space Science Data Center site; navigating from there to the Coordinated Data Web System provides a service to plot or download data from both active and older missions.

Hundreds of the thousands of documents that have been generated on Apollo alone. That seems like whole lot of unnecessary paper work to generate for a hoax. Much less keeping it hanging around taking up space for someone to look through it to find somekind of slip up or mistake.

The flip side of that is that an effort to hoax ALSEP alone would require lots and lots of documentation in addition to all the hardware that would have to be built and the people who would have to be in on it. People who haven't worked on fair-sized aerospace projects don't realize this. (And that's without even addressing the fake science required.) Yet no traces of such paperwork, or hardware, or the people involved in the secret fake program have surfaced in lo these many years.

Plus, you might want to check to trajectory of the dust ejected by the rover's wheels. Can't simulate that with an atmosphere. (ETA: Damn, beaten by uruk)

I'm currently involved in a lunar power system study. The ejection of dust from rover wheels is a concern, as it changes the optical properties of the radiator system. Where did I go for some information? The Apollo engineering and scientific data, of course.

But, hey, I really wanted to talk over Southwind17's comments on issues discussed in post 85 and post 192; sorry for the derail.

 

[PixyMisa]

Are you inferring something here?

Mashuna took that one.

Seems technologically feasible to me.

And uruk took that one. Sure, now, forty years later, this looks easy enough. As uruk points out, the state of the art of computer memory at the time was little ferrite donuts strung onto a wire mesh!

No great shake.

For a fragile computerised radio and TV repeater station?

Known to be feasible.

See below.

Portrayed 'hard vaccuum'? What's that look like then?!

For a start, dust doesn't disperse as it would in an atmosphere. This is very clear in the video footage. The entire stage, and it would have to be enormous, given what we saw of the rover in the later missions, would have to be in vacuum.

Have you seen the lunar surface video footage speeded up?!

As uruk points out, if you speed things up so that objects fall at the right speed, the motions of the astronauts look absurd.

Again, known to be feasible.

The film crew is also operating in hard vacuum.

No great shake.

Not trivial. They're beaming television broadcasts to a robotic repeater station on the moon. Nothing of the sort was required for what actually happened.

Seems technically feasible.

Already addressed.

Isn't this what happened?

What do you think?

Given the above, it doesn't exactly seem impossible, does it!

Yes. Completely impossible.

Do these astronauts walk on the Moon, by any chance?!

What is it that you think is so difficult about walking on the Moon?

You are quite open to the notion of robotic lunar landers that would have been nightmarishly complicated for 1960s technology, and to the fact that men were launched into Earth orbit throughout the 1960s, performing a variety of activities including spacewalks.

You still haven't pointed out any reason at all why landing men on the Moon would pose any further difficulties.

I don't know either; I'm just postulating.

No; you're handwaving.

 

[Vincent Vega]

That would be this question:


You don't seem to quite understand. I'm not disputing for one second all of the great work and effort that went into the Apollo program, I'm simply skeptical about whether we actually went so far as to set foot on the Moon. There is a preponderance of evidence that indicates that we did, and there's a limited amount of evidence that suggests we might not have. But when you categorize the evidence into, say, still photographs, video, technology, etc., the preponderance diminishes drastically, and the categories where absolutely no contradictory evidence exists becomes very small in number.

I think you misunderstand what constitutes 'evidence'. There is NO evidence that suggests the US might not have walked on the Moon. There are people who think they see 'anomalies' is some of the photographic evidence.

That is NOT evidence that affirms a position either way. It only negatively questions a portion of the affirmative evidence.

 

[slyjoe]

I think you misunderstand what constitutes 'evidence'. There is NO evidence that suggests the US might not have walked on the Moon. There are people who think they see 'anomalies' is some of the photographic evidence.

That is NOT evidence that affirms a position either way. It only negatively questions a portion of the affirmative evidence the hoaxers rationality and intelligence.

That sounds more correct.

 

[SpitfireIX]

<snip>

Here is how the space program is different from accounting.
Accounting is a made up artifact. Accounting is arbitrary, as is law. We can cook books. We can invent entities. We can make structures that are intangible. Not only that, accounting is generally boring and yet complicated. Unless paid to do so, how many people find it interesting to analyze a complex web of arbitrarily created flows of cash and credits?
The physical universe is something that stands on its own, and cannot be fudged. The order of the physical world is such that it is, no matter how much we may want to change it. The only way that the data could have been fooled with would have been via a cooperation of willing conspirators who would have to have known what they were doing.

In accounting, individuals can more easily go along if things seem unreasonable, because it is human arbitrariness that decides 'what is reasonable'. Who can know everything?

In science, individuals can spot things that are not reasonable or things that are faked, and generally can do so for a long time after the event, if sufficient data has been recorded. I believe that is the case here in the point be argued. But the whistle blower to whom you give credence, is not basing his claim on anything that stands up to scientific inquiry. The other individuals who use science as the deciding criteria easily point out the holes in his claims.

So that's why I'd say your comparison to Enron scandal is not valid.

As a former acountant and auditor, and current mechanical engineering student, I was going to comment on Southwind17's Enron analogy, but you've quite eloquently said most of what I wanted to say.

Two additional points: First, the insiders at Enron were only able to maintain their deception for a few years. Second, the only reason they were able to get away with such gross accounting fraud for so long is that their auditors, Arthur Andersen^WP LLP, basically turned a blind eye to evidence of major irrigularities that should have occasioned a deeper investigation into the company's financial affairs.

I agree that people can believe stupid things or wrong things in the safety of large groups (even scientists and other technical people can). But I think that only happens in cases where it is too difficult for individuals to get their hands on the raw data. In the case of the program, too many of us had our hands on the data and knew other people who had their hands on other pieces of the data.

If a group of insiders pulled off a hoax to trick us, the group of insiders would have had to have been as large or larger than the group that was duped. The cost of the space program would have been double, at least, what it was to put people on the moon.

So if you think I could have been fooled, being inside the space program (and also being outside the space program when I worked for the US Air Force), I wonder if you think it is a weakness of mine, or if you think you would have been so easily fooled if you had been in my shoes?

Jay Windley's essay "The Problem of Scale" deals with the issue of the size of any potential conspiracy:

It comes down to whether one tells the contractors or not. If you leave the contractors out of the conspiracy, you get viable space hardware and therefore no real reason for a hoax. If you tell them, you get the big conspiracy with too many loose cannons.

Once you tell the contractors you bring in a whole lot of people. Each contractor has its own hierarchy of leadership and management and senior engineers who will have to be told. So that's, say, a hundred people at Boeing, a hundred people at Grumman, a hundred people at Douglas, a hundred people at North American, a hundred people at Lockheed, and so forth. Just deciding to inform the contractors (at least at the management level) adds several hundred people to the inner circle. That's one small step for NASA, one giant leap into chaos.

It can be argued that the average production line employee wouldn't know whether or not he was building real space hardware. They have a fairly limited field of view. But you can't as easily compartmentalize the engineers. Even the junior engineers in an aerospace venture require the big picture in order to do their work. Remember that you have to buy off enough of the work force in order to produce convincing hardware without producing working hardware.

In short, there is no middle of this road. Either you produce real hardware, or you have a very large conspiracy with no leaks after thirty years.

 

[Trifikas]

Portrayed 'hard vaccuum'? What's that look like then?!

This, and the Lunar Gravity, are the ones you can't fake on a sound stage. There is dust on the moon, and it's behavior in a vaccuum is different from in an atmosphere. Air Currents disturb the dust, bouying it and moving it when it's disturbed. In a vaccuum, dust would move in a ballistic arc, assuming normal gravity.

Also, slowing down the film does not accuratly reflect the difference in gravity. And it would also mean there is post-production going on, since the Sound of "...one giant leap for mankind" is not distorted by slowing the film.

 

[sts60]

No great shake.

For a fragile computerised radio and TV repeater station?

It was a challenge to soft-land unmanned machines on the Moon, but both we (Surveyor) and the Russians (Luna and Cosmos) did it. So PixyMisa's objection is not in itself fatal to a "repeater" claim; the real problems with such claims lie elsewhere.

I'll leave aside the problems with timing associated with faking the live two-way conversations with the Apollo crews, and simply consider the ALSEP transmissions. As I indicated before, the nature of the ALSEP telemetry did not have the same kind of severe faking-timing problems.

But what would have been required was an ALSEP receiver, an ALSEP transmitter, a purpose-built transponder, a purpose-built controller, and of course a radioisotope generator. For each of the five fake ALSEPs. (Well, six, unless the Apollo 13 accident was also staged...)

We also would have needed a Surveyor-class descent vehicle capable of navigating to a soft landing on the Moon and autonomously pointing the S-band antenna. For each of the fake ALSEPs.

We also would have needed an Atlas-Centaur class launch vehicle to lug all this stuff to the Moon. For each of the fake ALSEPs.

We also would have needed an entire fake lunar science program; one good enough to fool all the principal investigators and their teams, and all the other scientists of the time (selenologists, astrophysicists) who used some of the roughly thirty gigabits of data returned by the ALSEP program. That means a team of experts smart enough to fool all the other experts in the world. For... well, it's been almost four decades now.

We also would have needed a really impressive system to create the science data in real time for over eight years - different authentic-looking data for each of the fake ALSEPs, not to mention the short-lived Apollo 11 EASEP - so it wouldn't flatly contradict the space environment data returned by a host of spacecraft (including sounding rocket and ground-based observations) from the U.S., the USSR, and other nations.

We also would have needed a system capable of continually distributing this generated-on-the-fly "authentic" data to tracking stations around the world for eight years - and the personnel at those stations, and the network technicians involved in passing this data, would need to be in on the hoax, and maintain their silence to the grave. Beyond, really - there's always the will or "to be opened on event of my death" envelope trick too.

We also would have needed people and nations incapable of noticing launches of large, unscheduled and unannounced rockets and tracking such spacecraft to the Moon, even though Apollo and other vehicles were tracked to the Moon worldwide. And that means more people in on the hoax.

And, yes, all of this means a lot of paperwork, test articles, engineering development hardware, and quite a lot of plutonium produced, prepared into oxide form, encapsulated, shipped, etc... without anybody noticing and with completely successful eradication of all artifacts by the fall of 1977 or so.

But then, I've already mentioned this sort of thing in posts 85 and 192 and 285, haven't I? This has been a very superficial treatment, I admit, but I'd enjoy discussing the notion in detail.

 

[PetersCreek]

Just for clarification, Southwind...is it your contention that the use of robotic landers is a plausible alternative explanation to the manned landings you question? If so, do you not see the immense difficulties of pulling such a thing off covertly?

You've also proposed that a relay of some kind would have sufficed to convincingly hoax the interactive video and audio communications with the CSM/LM while in LEO, in transit, and on station. The robotic probe scenario requires a second, totally secret data stream to control and monitor the probe, that's undetectable by any unauthorized ground-based receiver.

Next, you have to resolve the question of whether one robotic probe was used for each mission, or if more than one was required to perform the multiple tasks that were ostensibly performed by adaptable, versatile humans.

If it was just one, there's the problem of complex, high-level, performance that convincingly mimics the activities of human beings...something that subsequent probes have never acheived, even with the benefit of more advanced technology. If we're talking about multiple probes, there's the problem of getting them to the Moon undetected...with 100% certainty. Oh yeah...and additional telemetry for each additional probe.

Take Apollo 17 as food for thought. Not only would the probe(s) have to deploy experiments and sensors as with every other mission, and collect other rock and soil samples as on every other mission, it would also have to obtain Deep Drill Core Sample 70009-70001. From a report on the sample:

The drill core is a continuous section of the top of the regolith, 3 meters long, that represents an historic achievement (and much appreciated by the science community). Drilling the lowest 20 cm was very difficult, because the basal material was very cohesive. Extraction was also very difficult, although for this mission it was facilitated by a specially designed “treadle”. A neutron probe was successfully inserted into the open hole (figure 1). Two surface soils were collected nearby – 70180 and 70160.

Next...as if that wasn't enough of a feat...the probe has to load all of the rocks, soil samples, and core tubes (there were more than one, totalling more than 54 feet from all missions) into a sample return vehicle (how'd that get there?) for the secret return to Earth. Fake samples, you say? That opens up a whole 'nuther can of worms that won't catch any fish worth keepin'.

 

[ktesibios]

It seems simple enough:

Due to technical problems with the Great Honkin' Big Low Gravity Vacuum Soundstage at area 51, all of the film, video and still photography for the Apollo Hoax had to be shot on location on the Moon.

 

[Corsair 115]

Please answer with only one word, EITHER 'yes' or 'no': Do you consider that ALSEP alone, on its own, nothing else, PROOVES BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT that man has walked on the Moon?

I've said as much multiple times. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Here, I'll answer again in such a way that there is no possibility of you missing it: YES.

Then add in thousands of photos, thousands and thousands of pages of supporting documents, dozens of hours of television footage, hundreds of thousands of people who worked on Apollo in one fashion or another, hundreds of pound of rocks brought back and analyzed by scientists from around the world. All of which proves conclusively and beyond any reasonable doubt that the lunar landings were real.

Now go crack open some books and educate yourself on the subject.

As I've explained before, my concern is over the contradictory evidence, not the confirmatory evidence.

Please be specific:

WHAT CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE?

It's a little like a court case... It's the prosecution's duty to present sufficient compelling contradictory evidence.

Indeed. So it is your job to demonstrate why the landings were faked. You're making the accusation, so that makes you the prosecution. Your claim, your burden of proof. You allege there was a fraud, so get to it already. Present your evidence. Make your case that the landings are a fraud.

The defence will present its case once you are done.

If the defence can immediately show that the defendant could not possibly have done it (or, in the case of Apollo, did do it) then the prosecution's case immediately collapses.

There's the problem. You think it's our job to prove it was real. It isn't. You're the one making the claim of fraud, so that makes it your job to prove that accusation. You're the prosecution, not me. So get to it, present your evidence of fraud.

So far, we have a plethora of circumstantial evidence in Apollo's favour, and a relatively limited amount against.

You have a funny definition of "circumstantial evidence."

IThe explanation you're seeking from me is that the low intensity light enamating from stars is insufficient to expose the photograph to enable the stars show up in it.

You're only half right. You left out something very important in regards to the exposure.

 

[rwguinn]

Ignorance is cureable.
Stupid is forever.

 

[Southwind17]

I've said as much multiple times. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Here, I'll answer again in such a way that there is no possibility of you missing it: YES.

Then add in thousands of photos, thousands and thousands of pages of supporting documents, dozens of hours of television footage, hundreds of thousands of people who worked on Apollo in one fashion or another, hundreds of pound of rocks brought back and analyzed by scientists from around the world. All of which proves conclusively and beyond any reasonable doubt that the lunar landings were real.

Now go crack open some books and educate yourself on the subject.

You seem completely incapable of answering very simple, unambiguous questions Corsair. I asked for a one-word answer; you gave me 105 words! Don't get me wrong, I can see the word 'YES' in your response, but it's the other 104 words (well, most of them) that concern me, as they introduce a complete myriad of additional evidence.

OK, I'm gonna try just one more time Corsair. Let's see if we can't make this as simple as it possibly can be made. If you fail the most basic test I can devise then I guess we'll be left with either never knowing whether your answer's 'yes' or 'no', or we'll have to assume that it's 'no', if you can't answer with a simple 'yes', and nothing more.

Acknowledging that I've read and appreciate your paragraph above commencing "Then add in thousands ..." and ending "... the lunar landings were real.", putting that paragraph aside just for the purpose of this question, and this post: Do you consider that ALSEP alone demonstrates beyond all reasonable doubt that man has walked on the Moon?

One word please Corsair: either 'yes' or 'no'. The important word in the question is the one I've highlighted: 'alone'. If you answer 'yes' again and add other words that introduce additional evidence I'll take that to mean 'no', and this particular debate, so far as I'm concerned, will be over. I'll also interpret it as evidence of a severe lack of comprehension on your part, which will serve to negate in my mind any views that you might have regarding the significance of ALSEP and all the other information regarding the Apollo program, and it will, consequently, be futile debating with you any further. If you do answer 'yes' but then add some other words, please don't be surprised if I ignore your response, plus all future posts of yours, even if you claim that that constitutes tacit acceptance of your argument, as point-scoring people like you tend to do.

Now, I don't believe that can be any simpler or clearer a request. Let's see how you go shall we.

Please be specific:

WHAT CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE?

OK, let's continue with the famous Aldrin photo, as that's already been discussed in this thread but not debunked yet.

Indeed. So it is your job to demonstrate why the landings were faked. You're making the accusation, so that makes you the prosecution. Your claim, your burden of proof. You allege there was a fraud, so get to it already. Present your evidence. Make your case that the landings are a fraud.

The defence will present its case once you are done.

There's the problem. You think it's our job to prove it was real. It isn't. You're the one making the claim of fraud, so that makes it your job to prove that accusation. You're the prosecution, not me. So get to it, present your evidence of fraud.

You just don't get it do you, I am re-presenting some of the evidence that has been publicized before; evidence that I don't believe has been satisfactorily debunked. I've admitted earlier that the burden of proof is on me. You really should pay attention Corsair!

You have a funny definition of "circumstantial evidence."

What 'definition' would that be, then?

You're only half right. You left out something very important in regards to the exposure.

I didn't see the need to write a thesis on the subject just to prove I understand something about photography. Be honest Corsair, you posed the question to me because you haven't been paying attention, and as a consequence you erroneously believe that I agree with all the CT accusations, including the obliteration of stars from photos because it would be too difficult for NASA to map them properly and that would give the game away. Much of the CT accusations, like that one, are utter crap. I know exactly why the stars don't show on the photos, and therefore I wouldn't expect them to show! For the record, though, perhaps you'd care to 'enlighten' us as to what the very important aspect is regarding exposure that you clearly seem to think is of great relevance to this discussion. Please.

 

[Southwind17]

Let's take the video stuff then.
To me that's the prime candidate for proof.

The sheer length of the footage for each "scene" is phenomenal ...

Meaning and proving what?

... all done, you would have us believe, with 1960s special effects?

Which 'effects' are you alluding to?

The distances travelled in some of the shots precludes a soundstage, so where was this shot?

Can you clarify what you mean by 'distances travelled' and why a 'soundstage' would need to be a necessity?

 

[Brainache]

I don't get it. Corsair answered your question with a definite "YES". He/she then went on to a new paragraph listing some of the other rock solid evidence. What's your problem? Too much evidence proves it's fake? What?

 

[Brainache]

...

Which 'effects' are you alluding to?

Umm I would guess the special effects needed to fake pictures of people on the moon in 1969.

Can you clarify what you mean by 'distances travelled' and why a 'soundstage' would need to be a necessity?

Well see they hop on the rover with the camera rolling and drive for a mile or so. They don't crash into the cyclorama screen and they aren't driving in a circle. That's a big studio...

Of course a sound stage isn't necessary if you are shooting on location, ON THE MOON!

 

[Southwind17]

This bit confuses me. You're happy that NASA were able to launch this equipment, then land it and deploy it on the moon, all remotely. They're doing this in order to fake a broadcast showing people on the moon.

So, to sum up.

NASA can get people into space

Agreed.

NASA can land objects on the moon, delicately enough that these electronic devices still work perfectly.

Agreed, although I'm not sure delicacy is necessary, given black-box flight recorders. Could be wrong though.

You doubt that they were able to land people on the moon

No, I'm pretty sure they could.