Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[threadworm]

Both links point to your website - no video.

I must say, though, I do like what you have on your site.

Bah - I really shouldn't make posts first thing in the morning!

The correct site to which I was referring is:

http://www.firstmenonthemoon.com/

 

[Erock]

Bah - I really shouldn't make posts first thing in the morning!

The correct site to which I was referring is:

http://www.firstmenonthemoon.com/

That is such a brilliant piece of work. It really brings the event into a teamwork perspective.

 

[SUSpilot]

That is an outstanding piece of work. Thanks for doing it!

 

[BazBear]

Apollo enthusiasts may like to see this:

http://www.firstmenonthemoon.com/

Which is a re-run of the Apollo 11 landing footage with the MOCR audio as well as the usual Capcom to crew dialogue.

I've also re-done my satellite research document as a webpage. I dedicated part of the acknowledgements on that web version especially to people like FatFreddy

There's other stuff too on the Apollo section of my shiny website:

http://onebigmonkey.comoj.com/obm/

This thread was sleeping nicely, and I wondered why someone woke it up! But I see you had a good reason Threadworm, thanks

 

[Peter May]

For those of you who do not already know, Aulis Online continue to avail themselves of obscure Russian “scientists, This time it’s The underweight Apollo Command Module, and ex. US astronaut Ed Mitchell. Perhaps some of our members might feel inclined to “drop them a line.
They can be found here. http://www.aulis.com/command_module.htm

Why was the Apollo CM much lighter than stated?
An investigation that suggests there is a major discrepancy in the Apollo record

by Andrey Kudryavets
Technical Physics Major
Graduate of the Moscow Engineering Physics Institute, Russia

And here: http://www.aulis.com/edgar_mitchell.htm

Edgar Mitchell at Autographica, UK 2012
Contradictory statements by Apollo astronauts on the subject of stars in space
by David Orbell
He [Neil Armstrong] didn't know what he was talking about!' – Ed Mitchell


To allay any negative, preconceived notions members of this thread may have about me, I include a copy of my email to David Percy. See copy below.

Edgar Mitchell at Autographica, UK 2012
Contradictory statements by Apollo astronauts on the subject of stars in space
by David Orbell

Hello David
Perhaps the title is an unfortunate one. I think all astronauts agree that there are stars in space, even Mr. Mitchell.

Best regards
Peter.

P.S. How might I contact your obscure Russian scientists to refute their article?
P.P.S It’s some four months now since you wrote that you would reply to my refutations, shortly,
especially the “Billowing flag” refutation.

 

[threadworm]

David Orbell is clearly an idiot.

Armstrong never said that he couldn't see stars. Armstrong responded to a very specific question by Patrick Moore with a very specific answer. The words Orbell used in his question were deliberately misleading and based on untruths. It's a shame Buzz didn't punch him in the face.

Mitchell's response is evidently one of frustration at being asked stupid questions by a moron.

The CM nonsense?

They have basically decided that the CM was floating too high and made up some numbers to account for it. They don't seem to get that the CM would displace the same volume of water whether it was vertical or off-vertical in the water. The mention salt water but make no attempt to actually calculate the influence of the more dense fluid on the way the CM sat in the water. They make no attempts to find what a 5.3 tonne mass should behave like in salt water in order to compare it with the allegedly underweight CMs they look at.

The don't mention the photos of the CM submerged to a much greater degree when no flotation collar is attached, as shown in this document

http://home.comcast.net/~cmptj/LRD/stories/BP1101A.pdf

or photos where it is submerged to a much higher degree even with flotation devices, as at 40 seconds in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94AECQPxUOw

Yeah they ignore all the evidence that they don't like. Weird that.

And there's the research that people actually did with real models not just vapid assumptions

http://ia600808.us.archive.org/17/items/nasa_techdoc_19700078257/19700078257.pdf

They use the damning evidence of the astronauts 'acting funny' - they surely must have been crippingly incapacitated by a long space trip but weren't. They are baffled by the accuracy of the Apollo landings but fail to mention the dedicated crews aimed at making sure they knew where they needed to splashdown and the trajectories and entry points they needed to use to achieve that. They mention the 'crippled Apollo 13 CM' when the CM that landed in the Pacific was not crippled at all. The service module was damaged but this was discarded before re-entry. Their tame Russian physicist would be better off looking at why the Soviet space programme failed instead of using that failure as a basis for claiming Apollo couldn't have succeeded.

They then show a complete ignorance of the LM design and the choice of atmosphere used in the flight.

Some of the references they use just point at blog posts by the authors & translators.

It's garbage, and they won't reply to your emails because you don't want to buy their DVDs.

Like all of their garbage they have decided on a conclusion and are making the evidence fit.

 

[Mr. Scott]

When "Moon Landing Exposed" (link below) appeared uninvited on YouTube, I decided to check it out since I find it so easy and fun to refute ridiculous conspiracy theories.

Unfortunately, a few points on this really got under my skin.

Neil Armstrong was confronted by filmmakers with a Bible and asked to swear on it that he did, in fact, walk on the moon. He refused. I don't understand why, unless he was afraid to lie. His companion made the weird remark that the bible presented to him was probably fake. It would have been so easy to have just complied. I'd assumed Armstrong was Christian, though wiki claims he considered himself a deist.

There are other items in this film that really challenge my critical thinking, so I'm binging materials from on both sides of the issue to learn as much as I can.

Another claim in the film is that Gus Grissom was assassinated in the purportedly intentional Apollo 1 fire for dissing the moon program, as a warning to the other astronauts (he hung a lemon on the capsule).

I hate to be drawn into moon hoax claims this way. I just want to be comfortable every nail is firmly set in its coffin.

Bible moment at 0:51:20

 

[grmcdorman]

The bible issue was with Bart Sibrel^WP, who was known to the astronauts as a stalker. Basically, he'd edit or otherwise abuse the video evidence to produce the result he wanted.

A classic encounter with him was with Buzz Aldrin, where he used false pretenses to get Aldrin to come to a meeting, and then was aggressive and blocking Aldrin's exit. Aldrin lost his temper and punched him. Tellingly, Sibrel subsequently turned to the camera man and asked "Did you get that?"

The lemon issue is similar cherry picking.

Apollo is one of the most documented engineering endeavours in history. The hoax proponents have even less than most other conspiracy theories, which isn't saying much.

 

[LaurelHS]

Gus Grissom hung a lemon on the simulator, not the actual Command Module.

If NASA was so concerned about good public relations that they would "assassinate" Gus Grissom (and Ed White and Roger Chaffee) for "dissing the Moon program", why would they do it in a way that caused bad press and Congressional investigations? This is just one of the hoax claims doesn't make sense, and accusing people of murder without evidence is extremely offensive.

 

[JayUtah]

Neil Armstrong was confronted by filmmakers with a Bible and asked to swear on it that he did, in fact, walk on the moon. He refused. I don't understand why, unless he was afraid to lie.

Or unless he recognized the "filmmaker" as the infamous conspiracy theorist and astronaut stalker Bart Sibrel, with whom he had had previous unpleasant encounters.

His companion made the weird remark that the bible presented to him was probably fake.

Not weird when you know that the astronauts and their associates are quite acquainted with Bart Sibrel and his shenanigans.

It would have been so easy to have just complied.

What motivated Armstrong to cooperate with Sibrel in any way? Would you cooperate with someone who had publicly called you a liar, stalked you, trespassed on your property, lured you to an interview under false pretenses, and asked you to do something apparently innocent while his cameraman films you? Would you trust that he had no further secret plans or ulterior motives?

We're all familiar with the incident he'd had with Buzz Aldrin. Foolishly, Sibrel tried to press charges for assault (or battery) and had to make a statement to the Los Angeles prosecutor. For a few days until the prosecutor declined to charge Aldrin, the complaint was published on Groklaw. Sibrel revealed that his plan had been to lure Aldrin to an interview and offer him an honorarium to talk about the Apollo 11 mission, then accuse him of taking money for something he didn't do and catch his reaction on camera. In case the connection isn't clear, Sibrel's trap for Aldrin counted on him claiming he'd been to the Moon. Hence it's reasonable to believe that Sibrel's plan for Armstrong had a similar contingency. Sibrel didn't need his victims to agree to or deny anything; he only needed their cooperation. Armstrong refused to cooperate and thus effectively thwarted Sibrel.

Another claim in the film is that Gus Grissom was assassinated in the purportedly intentional Apollo 1 fire for dissing the moon program...

...which he didn't do. Your link gets so many of the facts wrong, it's difficult to find any that they got right. Yes, the Apollo 1 crew was reprimanded for their impromptu press conference, not so much because of its content but because NASA felt it important to carefully manage its image. Had they really been in that much trouble, they would have been replaced with their backup crew. NASA knows how to deal with pilots, specifically what makes them stay in line: threatening their flight status.

LaurelHS got it right. Let's say all that your link claims is true. Let's say that Grissom et al. had so egregiously violated NASA's secrecy and control that he had to be "eliminated." Why would they do it in a highly public way? The FBI became involved. Congress got interested and nearly cancelled the project. They destroyed a very expensive prototype spacecraft in the process, and committed three counts of a capital felony on federal property. And the cover story required them to assert that their own multi-billion dollar technology was dangerous and unready.

In other words, it's the stupidest possible way to "eliminate" someone.

And how exactly does this alleged murder send a message to the other astronauts? What would motivate them to stay in the program at all after this? According to the conspiracy theorists, they knew they wouldn't actually be going to the Moon anyway. So these highly regarded combat and test pilots leave their exciting careers flying the most advanced aircraft in the world, to sit around Houston and lie about going to the Moon, being threatened with death if they disobey. Where's the attraction?

he hung a lemon on the capsule.

No, he hung a lemon on the simulator. The difference is important. The pilots depended on the simulator being accurate, especially for a spacecraft that did not yet exist in flyable form. Because North American had been in such a crunch to complete the actual spacecraft, they had let the simulator fall behind. They had made many changes to the spacecraft that hadn't yet been reflected in the simulator, making it less useful as training tool. That's what Grissom objected to.

I just want to be comfortable every nail is firmly set in its coffin.

Well put, but you've got people like Sibrel prying up the same nails over and over again for their own profit and attention. At a certain point, when you run across something that some "researcher" or "filmmaker" or "journalist" (i.e., a conspiracy theorist inflating his credentials) has said, you have to realize its likelihood of being true and of really undermining 40 years of knowledgeable acceptance by the entire community of science, engineering, and history. If you're going to scratch your head over something as innocuous as Armstrong refusing to play games, then the conspiracy theorists have you right where they want you.

 

[kookbreaker]

Neil Armstrong was confronted by filmmakers with a Bible and asked to swear on it that he did, in fact, walk on the moon. He refused. I don't understand why, unless he was afraid to lie.

Others have already pointed out the criminal & deceptive acts of Bart Sibrel, the bozo with the bible, but adding to his antics I will note that one astronaut Bart stalked (Mitchell?) *did* sweat on Sibrel's bible, yet Sibrel continued to claim that no astronaut would swear.

 

[R.A.F.]

Your link gets so many of the facts wrong, it's difficult to find any that they got right.

There is nothing in that flim that "challenges" my critical thinking....just sayin'.

 

[R.A.F.]

... I will note that one astronaut Bart stalked (Mitchell?) *did* sweat on Sibrel's bible...

Well, I hope he got it all soggy.



Sorry....couldn't resist.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Thanks guys. Makes lots of sense. Don't you hate it that the original tape of the Apollo 11 moon landing footage was erased or lost, and all the videos that remain are those horrible scan conversions? I can't help but think they could have done much better in 1969. You'd think they'd treat the original materials with more respect.

What's the answer to all those claims the Van Allen Belts would have fried them?

Is there a good site for answers to hoax claims I can browse so I'll be bothering you guys less? Thanks!

 

[LaurelHS]

What's the answer to all those claims the Van Allen Belts would have fried them?

Gemini 10 and 11 entered the Van Allen belts too and the astronauts returned safely. The USSR sent turtles and insects around the Moon on Zond 5 in 1968, and the specimens survived. The International Space Station regularly travels through an area of the belts called the South Atlantic Anomaly and the crew does not get fried. Either all of these missions are hoaxes, or the conspiracy theorists are overstating the dangers of space radiation. Which is more likely?

Regarding the last question, try http://www.clavius.org/.

 

[JayUtah]

Don't you hate it that the original tape of the Apollo 11 moon landing footage was erased or lost...

No, because that's not what happened.

The telemetry tapes were erased and reused. For Apollo 11 only, the television signal was embedded in the telemetry, and was in a one-time, one-off format that could only be interpreted by hand-built slow-scan television displays. The video was extracted on the fly, by re-recording the slow-scan image using an NTSC camera. There was never any plan to extract the video in any different way, and the telemetry tapes were retained only in case something went wrong with the on-the-fly method and they needed to try to read it out again later. Since the on-the-fly method worked, and the extracted video was preserved in a standard NTSC format, there was no need for the largely unintelligible telemetry signal.

You'd think they'd treat the original materials with more respect.

They did, until there was an unforeseen expedient need to reuse the tapes. Yes, now we have understood that had the telemetry tapes been preserved, we could have used digital methods to extract better information from the telemetry. However, that wasn't a concern in 1969. The NTSC conversion was the best that could have been accomplished at the time, by any means, so it was considered an acceptable preservation.

What's the answer to all those claims the Van Allen Belts would have fried them?

The answer is that the Van Allen belts wouldn't have fried them. The people who say that would have happened are not physicists, engineers, or scientists in any way, nor have done any sort of calculation or experiment to justify their expectations. If you want answers, ask them.

Is there a good site for answers to hoax claims I can browse so I'll be bothering you guys less? Thanks!

http://www.clavius.org/

 

[R.A.F.]

Don't you hate it that the original tape of the Apollo 11 moon landing footage was erased or lost....

What gave you that idea?

...all the videos that remain are those horrible scan conversions?

Well, that's not quite true...there is, of course, the 16mm film, and those "horrible scan versions" have been cleaned up and look rather nice when compared to the original video.

I can't help but think they could have done much better in 1969.

40+ year hindsight is soooo 20/20. The Apollo program was a smashing success...it was what it was and "complaining" about aspects you can do nothing about is an exercise in futility....in my opinion.

 

[BazBear]

Deleted: redundant by the time I posted it.

 

[Erock]

Neil Armstrong was confronted by filmmakers with a Bible and asked to swear on it that he did, in fact, walk on the moon. He refused. I don't understand why, unless he was afraid to lie. His companion made the weird remark that the bible presented to him was probably fake. It would have been so easy to have just complied.

No, Armstrong made that remark.

 

[abaddon]

No, because that's not what happened.

The telemetry tapes were erased and reused. For Apollo 11 only, the television signal was embedded in the telemetry, and was in a one-time, one-off format that could only be interpreted by hand-built slow-scan television displays. The video was extracted on the fly, by re-recording the slow-scan image using an NTSC camera. There was never any plan to extract the video in any different way, and the telemetry tapes were retained only in case something went wrong with the on-the-fly method and they needed to try to read it out again later. Since the on-the-fly method worked, and the extracted video was preserved in a standard NTSC format, there was no need for the largely unintelligible telemetry signal.

Correct me if I am wrong, Jay, but AFAIK, the equipment to read such tapes is dead and gone by now?