Merged: Apollo "hoax" discussion - continuation thread

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Hans Peper

It starts to get boring.

You all know, what is right and what not, but nobody is able to see what is hidden in Wendys pages. How could that fit ?


Hans

Why can you not present your evidence?

Instead you present a claim that Apollo12 is somehow encoded into The Shining. Cut to the chase and show where Apollo 12 is encoded into Wendy's pages.

As to the Room 237 malarkey, that idea is just nonsense. On what basis do you remove the extraneous R? Because you WANT to. No other reason.

It is no different than if I took your user name, removed an N and added a P to get "has pepper", thereby concluding that you use a lot of pepper on your food.

Similarly, you could take my user name and by fooling around with letters, come up with "Abandon", and thereby conclude that I had a deep seated need to abandon something, which, of course, you could then endlessly speculate about.

Such games amount to nothing.

[Peter May]

More fanciful claims from Aulis concerning Apollo 17, albeit, 40 years after the fact!
Quote;
Harrison Schmitt would have unquestionably understood the potentially fatal consequences of frolicking on rock and glass shards putting himself a mere razor’s edge from oblivion. Yet despite this obvious danger, the logical Schmitt actually keelhauled his relatively vulnerable spacesuit over identical shards to those that destroyed the container seals
http://aulis.com/sickman.htm

No mention is made in the Apollo 17 debrief of any sample containers being compromised, (to the LM atmosphere) is there any truth that “Shards of glass” could have compromising Smitt’s spacesuit, or the sample containers seals? There is mention however that “sample bags” “blew up".

Who is David Orbell anyway?

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17tecdbrf.html

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Peter May

Who is David Orbell anyway?

I don't know, but his prose style seems somehow familiar.

[threadworm]

Originally Posted by Peter May

More fanciful claims from Aulis concerning Apollo 17, albeit, 40 years after the fact!
Quote;
Harrison Schmitt would have unquestionably understood the potentially fatal consequences of frolicking on rock and glass shards putting himself a mere razor’s edge from oblivion. Yet despite this obvious danger, the logical Schmitt actually keelhauled his relatively vulnerable spacesuit over identical shards to those that destroyed the container seals
http://aulis.com/sickman.htm

No mention is made in the Apollo 17 debrief of any sample containers being compromised, (to the LM atmosphere) is there any truth that “Shards of glass” could have compromising Smitt’s spacesuit, or the sample containers seals? There is mention however that “sample bags” “blew up".

Who is David Orbell anyway?

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17tecdbrf.html

Well what they're doing is assuming that SiO2 (or as we scientists call it: sand) fused together from impacts and then degraded over time is the equivalent of this:

http://artandcritique.com/wp-content...02/broken2.jpg

Edited by LashL:

Changed hotlinked image to regular link. Please see Rule 5.

when in fact it has pretty much turned back into sand again. Silica is indeed very abrasive - it's the primary ingredient in pumice stone and of course it's why sandpaper works, but it does not automatically slice flesh to the bone through layers of protective garments. It's hyperbole run riot.

While some lunar samples were in sealed boxes, anyone who has ever tried to seal anything in a box knows that nothing is perfect, and dust on a seal will do a fine job of not allowing the seal to work perfectly. Of course once you have a NASA badge on this automatically means some foul and sinister purpose to your failings at sample sealing.

The rest of it is the usual blah blah we don't believe it opinion. There's even an outright lie in there about there being a lack of interest in the Apollo samples. The samples are still being analysed and reported on even now. The fact that they don't know about them is not at all surprising.

Orbell's hit piece is nothing more than pointing fingers and knowing nods and winks. There is nothing in there that resembles anything but hot air.

I've no idea who Orbell is, but he publishes on Aulis, which says all you need to know about him.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Peter May

More fanciful claims from Aulis concerning Apollo 17, albeit, 40 years after the fact!
Quote;
Harrison Schmitt would have unquestionably understood the potentially fatal consequences of frolicking on rock and glass shards putting himself a mere razor’s edge from oblivion. Yet despite this obvious danger, the logical Schmitt actually keelhauled his relatively vulnerable spacesuit over identical shards to those that destroyed the container seals
http://aulis.com/sickman.htm

This simply a load of ignorant handwaving that begs the question of the hazard. "Razor's edge from oblivion" and "obvious danger" and "relatively vulnerable" are scare words that do not even remotely approach an accurate description.

Quote:

No mention is made in the Apollo 17 debrief of any sample containers being compromised, (to the LM atmosphere)

The SESC seal damage wasn't known at the time the crew debrief had been conducted, nor would that have been a topic for the crew debriefing. The first mention in the literature of possible contamination due to in-flight seal failure is in 1973. It has been discussed several times in the engineering literature as we contemplate a return to the Moon and more viable seal types.

The author here wants to make it sound as if NASA has kept this secret for decades. But in fact it's just the author's ignorance of the literature. Given that his article is single-sourced and relies exclusively on secondary and tertiary sources, he cannot be expected to speak from a well-informed position.

Quote:

is there any truth that “Shards of glass” could have compromising Smitt’s spacesuit, or the sample containers seals?

None whatsoever, where the suit is concerned. The author here just frantically begs the question that the astronauts were in mortal danger of having their suits punctured by spherule shards. Apollo 11 was asked to be careful because the hazards of the lunar environment were not well known at that time. But by Apollo 17 there had been enough operational experience with the lunar surface environment. It was reasonably known that the abrasion or puncture hazard for the A7L space suit was almost negligible.

Lunar spherules are typically 0.1 mm in diameter. Their shards can obviously be no longer than this diameter. They pose absolutely no danger for the suit. They can, in some cases, work their way into the Beta cloth weave, but go no farther than the first polyamide layers. A dozen thicknesses of that alternated with cloth have to be breached before the pressure garment is reached. The outer Beta cloth layer is similar to the stuff gym bags are made of, only tougher.

For the SESC and SRC seals, yes small particles such as spherule fragments do pose a danger. See below.

Quote:

There is mention however that “sample bags” “blew up".

The container in question is the SESC, which is a small self-contained tube. It used the same seal mechanism as the SRCs, which are briefcased-sized and held Teflon bags of individual samples: a knife edge that is driven by a highly-leveraged clamp mechanism into a strip of soft metal alloy. Spherule and regolith particles driven into the alloy by the blade edge leave grooves behind them, and air can enter through the pressure side of the groove and pass between the knife edge and the contaminant particle into the corresponding groove on the vacuum side.

Quote:

Who is David Orbell anyway?

Well, apparently someone who doesn't know what he's talking about. There's an email address in the Aulis article, so you can email him and ask him. The name doesn't stand out as notable among Apollo historians, professional or amateur.

[nomuse]

I was wondering if there was any official response they had for leaks. At a certain point in SF literature you couldn't turn around without an astronaut-hero slapping a patch on his trusty space suit.

My guess was, given the relatively low pressure differential, response to a significant tear in the pressure bladder would be, "So much for the EVA, I'm going back inside now."

Or possibly slap some duck tape on it.

But was there a more official contingency that anyone has heard about?

[AtomicDog]

Orbell sounds like he wants to take the "argument from medical incredulity" mantle from Dr. Socks.

[Tanalia]

Originally Posted by nomuse

I was wondering if there was any official response they had for leaks. At a certain point in SF literature you couldn't turn around without an astronaut-hero slapping a patch on his trusty space suit.

My guess was, given the relatively low pressure differential, response to a significant tear in the pressure bladder would be, "So much for the EVA, I'm going back inside now."

Or possibly slap some duck tape on it.

But was there a more official contingency that anyone has heard about?

Apollo 11 Patch Kit at Smithsonian NASM

[JoeMorgue]

Question.

How exactly does Apollo 13 fit into the conspiracy that we never landed on the Moon? Why would NASA fake a failed mission?

[thedopefishlives]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

Question.

How exactly does Apollo 13 fit into the conspiracy that we never landed on the Moon? Why would NASA fake a failed mission?

Because if everything went right, no one would believe it. Seriously, that's their excuse for it.

[LaurelHS]

Originally Posted by thedopefishlives

Because if everything went right, no one would believe it. Seriously, that's their excuse for it.

Some CTs also say that people were losing interest in the Apollo program, so NASA staged a dramatic crisis to get their attention.

[Jrrarglblarg]

My standard response to CTs is that A13 is the only one that actually landed, and the "accident" was cover in case the astronauts were so fried by the "searing radiation hell" on the surface of the moon that they would need to scuttle the crew. All the other missions, I tell them, were faked in underground caverns in Siberia made by underground nuclear test explosions.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon

My standard response to CTs is that A13 is the only one that actually landed, and the "accident" was cover in case the astronauts were so fried by the "searing radiation hell" on the surface of the moon that they would need to scuttle the crew. All the other missions, I tell them, were faked in underground caverns in Siberia made by underground nuclear test explosions.

Do you have a brochure or pamphlet to which I may subscribe?

[Jrrarglblarg]

Originally Posted by abaddon

Do you have a brochure or pamphlet to which I may subscribe?

IF you meet the criteria to become a paid NASA shill you will get the internal newsletter "ReBunk'r" about two days after each paycheck where you will learn about such things as "Searing Radiation Hell," "How to fill a cave with vacuum" and one of our favorite articles "Flying A Quarter Million Miles On a Thimble Full of Fuel."

[SUSpilot]

Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon

IF you meet the criteria to become a paid NASA shill you will get the internal newsletter "ReBunk'r" about two days after each paycheck where you will learn about such things as "Searing Radiation Hell," "How to fill a cave with vacuum" and one of our favorite articles "Flying A Quarter Million Miles On a Thimble Full of Fuel."

Great! Those titles were all classified! I refer you to policy number [redacted] issued on [redacted]. Now we have to send you to [redacted] to [redacted]!

[Border Reiver]

Not again!

[Muc]

This should keep the moon hoaxers in general and the cluesforum in particular busy for a bit:

"China’s Chang’e-3 and the lunar rover Yutu (Jade Rabbit) have landed on the lunar surface at 1:11 pm UTC on Saturday. The duo were launched by a Long March 3B on December 1, which was followed by a nominal flight into lunar orbit and subsequently China’s first soft landing on the Moon."

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/...lunar-arrival/

Apparently the moon rover is already transmitting pictures for the conspiracy theorists to "analyze". Let's see if they show stars in the background.

[threadworm]

What's that...stars you say?

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

I'm also working my way through these:

http://www3.telus.net/summa/faruv/

[Dcdrac]

ok CT believers tell just how the Chinese faked this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25388131

[threadworm]

Because....well...just because, duh!!

That crater looks big enough (just) to visible on the LRO photos - any co-ordinates yet?

[threadworm]

http://lunarnetworks.blogspot.co.uk/...e-imbrium.html

[Muc]

Originally Posted by threadworm

Because....well...just because, duh!!

That's basically the reasoning on below video, uploaded by an armchair expert only hours after the landing. His real time commentary of the news is most eloquent:

"This isn't real! They're not above the moon! Because, guess why ... Why is that? ... No one went to the moon! Neil Armstrong, the whole ******* crew, none of them! Period! At all, ever! If you say that you're a liar!"

This goes on for around 8 mins.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[threadworm]

I took the first frame of the landing gif and did some re-orientation around the location given in the site I linked to above:



I used the LRO quickmap page as it has better contrast.

I think the crater the little rabbit is heading for is the largest one with the rocks.

[mrbusdriver]

Originally Posted by Muc

That's basically the reasoning on below video, uploaded by an armchair expert only hours after the landing. His real time commentary of the news is most eloquent:

"This isn't real! They're not above the moon! Because, guess why ... Why is that? ... No one went to the moon! Neil Armstrong, the whole ******* crew, none of them! Period! At all, ever! If you say that you're a liar!"

This goes on for around 8 mins.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Utter, absolute denial. It's disturbing...this person likely votes, drives a car....a bit troubling.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally Posted by mrbusdriver

Utter, absolute denial. It's disturbing...this person likely votes, drives a car....a bit troubling.

Also reproduces, though I concede that's a long shot.

[Huttosaurus]

Originally Posted by threadworm

I made this point myself the other day. I was the 'official' photographer at my stepson's wedding a couple of months ago, during which lovely weekend I took more photographs than in the Apollo 11 and 12 EVA's combined.

While I appreciate I was using a digital camera, I think this was slightly compensated for by the fact that there was only one photographer and that photographer was quite drunk by the end of the day.

You take bursts of photographs, you do other stuff, you take bursts of photographs, you do other stuff. It's not difficult.

The "too many photos" argument is one I've only come across recently, and it immediately makes me think the people putting it forward don't take very many photos of anything. I photograph airshows as a hobby and 500+ photos over the course of a few hours of a flying display is easily achievable, even when I was still using film. Professionals shoot even more.

[Huttosaurus]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

The SESC seal damage wasn't known at the time the crew debrief had been conducted, nor would that have been a topic for the crew debriefing. The first mention in the literature of possible contamination due to in-flight seal failure is in 1973. It has been discussed several times in the engineering literature as we contemplate a return to the Moon and more viable seal types.

I'm not sure if this has come up at all, but I've just been re-reading Gene Cernan's "Last Man on the Moon" and he mentions handling a moon rock with his bare hands in the LM post EVA. That struck me as odd given the measures taken to avoid sample contamination.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Huttosaurus

The "too many photos" argument is one I've only come across recently, and it immediately makes me think the people putting it forward don't take very many photos of anything. I photograph airshows as a hobby and 500+ photos over the course of a few hours of a flying display is easily achievable, even when I was still using film. Professionals shoot even more.

I suspect it is a hangover from the days of snapshotting, where you had 24 frames in your camera, and eked them out, carefully composing your holiday snaps as the development cost per frame was always in the back of your mind. I know I did, even though I did some of my own development.

IMHO, the prevalence of digital these days has given a false sense to the CT crowd about development of film. I will go further. The astronauts were unconcerned about that cost, and treated their cameras in much the same way as we treat modern digital cameras. Even my kids know to multi shot and discard the bogies. They can do panoramas easily. They can even capture without looking through any viewfinder or screen, shooting from the hip, as it were.

I did not do more than explain the basics, yet they glommed onto it no problem, to the extent that it is a preferred mode of shooting for candid photography, and they get it right with ease.

If a child can do it, I am pretty sure a trained astronaut can do it.

Hoax believers must hate the digital age, it easily proves them wrong.

[Vermonter]

Originally Posted by Muc

That's basically the reasoning on below video, uploaded by an armchair expert only hours after the landing. His real time commentary of the news is most eloquent:

"This isn't real! They're not above the moon! Because, guess why ... Why is that? ... No one went to the moon! Neil Armstrong, the whole ******* crew, none of them! Period! At all, ever! If you say that you're a liar!"

This goes on for around 8 mins.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

That guy is incredibly disturbed. Notice the whole obsession with numerology and symbolism in the video. You couldn't even hold a reasonable conversation with him. He doesn't even explain -why- he thinks it's fake, he just knows it is and everyone else is a liar. How sad.

[threadworm]

Originally Posted by Huttosaurus

I'm not sure if this has come up at all, but I've just been re-reading Gene Cernan's "Last Man on the Moon" and he mentions handling a moon rock with his bare hands in the LM post EVA. That struck me as odd given the measures taken to avoid sample contamination.

I could be wrong, but I think by Apollo 17 they had stopped worrying too much about that. They certainly weren't concerned about the samples contaminating the astronauts by then given what they'd found in the preceding missions.

Besides. You just would, wouldn't you?

Meanwhile back in lala-land, the deniers are still desperately clinging on to their fantasy world. The Chinese are in on it and use the same fakery techniques as the Americans. Same tinfoil, same lack of stars, same damp topsoil, same dust behaving exactly as it should in a zero atmosphere low gravity environment, oh...wait...no they don't mention that last one...

[threadworm]

As if to prove my point, here's this prime bit of ignorance:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showp...&postcount=126

Quote:

If this was light from the Sun...surely the sky would not be jet black? Its never black on Earth when the sun is shining or giving light

This is in response to Mandelbrot's post who has long used sophistry and walls of text to try and prove that Apollo was a hoax. Mandelbrot himself displays a similar level of ignorance in his own post, failing to do even basic research into the mission's proposed length and objectives and trots out the same BS about the Apollo 11 press conference.

Stupid is as stupid does.

The entire China moon thread at DIF is here in all it's head banging teeth grinding moron-o-matic CT by numbers splendour:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=263572

[SUSpilot]

Ugh - I looked at the first few posts and my brain hurts already.

[Erock]

I see Jarrah White has had his youtube account terminated. I doubt it is for very long but it serves him right, he's filed 100 or so fraudulent DMCA claims against pro-Apollo members. I recall Astrobrant2 has had this done to him twice and was down for a few months.

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkATHUUod4hjv4v-A48mTCw

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by Erock

I see Jarrah White has had his youtube account terminated. I doubt it is for very long but it serves him right, he's filed 100 or so fraudulent DMCA claims against pro-Apollo members. I recall Astrobrant2 has had this done to him twice and was down for a few months.

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkATHUUod4hjv4v-A48mTCw

Here's a statement from the guy who got JW's account terminated (per Youtube). Not sure this is the best approach. I, and I think most of the people here, believe that the answer to the problems with free speech is generally more free speech.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[SUSpilot]

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

Here's a statement from the guy who got JW's account terminated (per Youtube). Not sure this is the best approach. I, and I think most of the people here, believe that the answer to the problems with free speech is generally more free speech.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

You are absolutely correct.

[Erock]

Originally Posted by SUSpilot

You are absolutely correct.

Yep. Sadly, two wrongs don't make a right, but in all fairness, Jarrah White has taken extreme liberties and actually got that guy's account permanently closed. He had some videos up showing JW's deliberate deception and actually saying he was deliberately deceptive, when he was. His account was closed for "harassment" of JW!!

His response was to file the exact same bad DCMA claims as JW had previously done. Youtube is pretty crap when it comes to looking at these claims in even cursory detail.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by threadworm

As if to prove my point, here's this prime bit of ignorance:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showp...&postcount=126



This is in response to Mandelbrot's post who has long used sophistry and walls of text to try and prove that Apollo was a hoax. Mandelbrot himself displays a similar level of ignorance in his own post, failing to do even basic research into the mission's proposed length and objectives and trots out the same BS about the Apollo 11 press conference.

Stupid is as stupid does.

The entire China moon thread at DIF is here in all it's head banging teeth grinding moron-o-matic CT by numbers splendour:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=263572

From the thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by thenosferatu View Post
Amazing that anyone would think that someone landing on the moon in 2013 is a hoax....given that you can track the craft all the way in real time in HD on a PC and watch the entire journey.
I will believe only if I hear at least 10 000 of people went to the Earth's orbit and came back healthy and not injured.

If you say that I would earn 10 milions of something, show me at least a half milion to have any credence.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by thenosferatu View Post
And this Moon ship was built where exactly? Where did they build the moon?

It was built or hollowed-out to be alien base in DRACO system. This planetoid was one of DRACO planets, allegedly.

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by thenosferatu View Post
And how did they place it in orbit? or is it just hovering? How do they fuel it?

By antigravitational technology.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by salutations View Post
It's real.

Accept it and move on.

It's hoax.

Accept it and move on.



The moon landing is a hoax but the moon being artificial is totally plausible.

[Fishstick]

Originally Posted by tsig

From the thread:



If you say that I would earn 10 milions of something, show me at least a half milion to have any credence.


It was built or hollowed-out to be alien base in DRACO system. This planetoid was one of DRACO planets, allegedly.

Quote:


By antigravitational technology.

It's hoax.

Accept it and move on.



The moon landing is a hoax but the moon being artificial is totally plausible.

And also antigrav technology, apparently.

[Anders Lindman]

Sources:

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/nasa-...bit-2D11765763

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/...5-88-11866.jpg

[JayUtah]

Because colors in photographs are always true and unchanged regardless of technology or circumstances.