ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: onebigmonkey on June 07, 2025, 06:18:32 AM
-
The "Apollo Detectives" channel is absolutely chock full of absolute garbage, and as anyone posting anything remotely critical is banned in short order, and/or their comments deleted, it seems a shame that their utter stupidity goes unchallenged (the excellent work of their nemesis Phase52012 aside https://www.youtube.com/@Phase52012).
I thought it was time critique of their failings was made here, as it's bound to get back to them and annoy them a lot.
Their latest vomitus contains many ridiculous claims, but the first one is that this image:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21063236643/in/album-72157658983462236
Contains a defect. They have decided, because ChatGPT said so and as we all know AI can never be wrong about anything, that it shows a hole in the backdrop that NASA were somehow incapable of realising was there.
That "hole" doesn't appear in the photos either side of AS17-140-2149.
When I looked at the flickr view of that photo, it looked different to the one they were showing, so I had a more careful look. As you can see the two defects are different sizes and overall shape:
(https://i.ibb.co/GvcqFfXf/Screenshot-2025-06-07-104242.png) (https://ibb.co/nszFRqTq)
(https://i.ibb.co/20dp8n3y/Screenshot-2025-06-07-104337.png) (https://ibb.co/My7J82ks)
They do, however, share common feature - like the loop across the top and centre. the long filament on the left hand side, and the overall shape of the right hand side (and another long filament). Two different backdrops, or maybe a piece of detritus whose shape has been altered by different scanning processes? Which do we think is more likely?
The LM is visible in that photo, and Marcus says: "isn't that amazing nobody's pointed that out".
Well, this edition of Aviation week and Space technology from January 1973 certainly pointed it out:
http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/ephemera/AWST/AWST_Jan_15_73.pdf
as did some of the assembled pans in the USGS Geology report:
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a17/A17PP_Plate07-treated.jpg
(https://i.ibb.co/xppL3K4/Screenshot-2025-06-07-105124.png) (https://ibb.co/cGG3xKm)
The other claim they make regards Apollo 12 photographs of the ALSEP offload from the SEQ bay (AS12-46-6783 onwards).
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21077369024/in/album-72157659081038325
Their claim is that in photos taken after the offload, the SEQ bay door is taped shut, and that this is impossible because it would be too high for the astronauts.
What they don't seem to understand is that the main SEQ bay door was raised, and lowered, by pulling a lanyard - it can be seen in diagrams here:
https://www.ninfinger.org/karld/My%20Space%20Museum/lmdiags.htm
and in video here
The door itself is hinged, and you can see that on raising the door, more of the lower half is revealed (the tape inside the green box)
(https://i.ibb.co/fzgf5vHZ/6tHul3t6.jpg) (https://ibb.co/C3cgZ2Q4)
(The red circles highlight studs that can be seen on the door when it's lowered).
So no, the scene wasn't "reset" to take the photos after the offload, they just closed the door by the simple mechanism of pulling on a rope. The tape you think is sealing the door is just holding the Mylar in place on the panel.
Feel free to add any other easily debunked stupidity (this could be a long thread!).
-
I haven't watched the video, but Marcus is nothing but a grifter, deluxe.
-
Even our beloved Najak takes issue with the Apollo Detectives
-
As far as the "hole" is concerned, they're backtracking a little now - claiming that it was AI what made them say it, mainly because Jarrah has weighed in with an equally incorrect claim that it is a hole in the actual positive film. A hole that has changed size and shape over time.
Yeah right.
Anyhow, their latest effort has latched on to a different claim:L the tarnsition from 12 fps top 6ps in Apollo 11's magazine H of th e16mm film: the ascent from the surface. For some reason they're picking on interpoloated footage, rather than an unprocessed version. amnd because they find all kinds of extra things in there (you know, the kind of things entirely consistent with AI interpolation), then there must be some sort of faking going on.
The best bit is their insistence that the frame rate change represents an edit, and is really the transition from them filming over a model to filming lunar orbit images or some such garbage.
Here's your challenge "Detectievcs": find the lunar orbiter images that show the detail of the area that is contained in the Apollo 16mm footage. I'll even tell you which ones you need to look at: Lunar Orbiter 4, images 84 and 85.
You can get them here:
https://planetarydata.jpl.nasa.gov/img/data/lo/LO_1001/DATA/LO4/
Here's just a tiny example, taken at the point they get all excited about. I've rotated the AJF version of the 16mm footage
to match the LRO view.
(https://i.ibb.co/cc4CfrPn/Screenshot-2025-06-14-154921.png) (https://ibb.co/sv86xVhY)
(https://i.ibb.co/dsTs10xC/Screenshot-2025-06-14-155049.png) (https://ibb.co/mrjr1CgZ)
Now let's zoom in to the area in the red box:
(https://i.ibb.co/zTsJ60xs/Screenshot-2025-06-14-155131.png) (https://ibb.co/391zRLd1)
(https://i.ibb.co/xSfC37YG/Screenshot-2025-06-14-155155.png) (https://imgbb.com/)
This is the best Lunar Orbiter view of the same wide scale area:
(https://i.ibb.co/xqBw1jJD/Screenshot-2025-06-14-155527.png) (https://ibb.co/qYchNskd)
Where's the detail "detectives"? Where are all the craters and rocks that the 16mm footage picked out?
Lunar Orbiter images did not contain the detail required of the Apollo landing sites to produce a model of any kind that would show the detail in the 16mm footage and photos. You can claimn it was a model all you like, but how did they make it with information they didn't have?
-
Yes, I've recently commented on their videos to point out the flaws in their 'analysis' of Apollo 11 Mag-H. Of course, their response (seen in their latest two efforts) is . . . lacking, shall I say? ;D
-
Who are these detectives anyway as I don't do FB.
-
Ah bless them, they've released a "critique" of Dave McKeegan's excellent video on the Apollo surface photographs, which is here:
They don't start off well by changing the title of Dave's video to strawman his position, misrepresent what his video is actually about, and then ad hominem their way through a huge assumption that Dave has never used film cameras, but that's the least of their mistakes.
Despite Allen appealing to his own authority, something that seems very much out of place, they get so many things wrong. They include footage of Dave Scott taking a panorama, something they claim that they can only be done with viewfinders or there would be gaps and misalignments - blissfully unaware that there are many panoramas that have exactly those things - including the very first one that Neil can be seen taking at the foot of the ladder:
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a11/a11pan1093226HR.jpg
They don't seem to understand the modifications made to the cameras to allow them to be used. They invent a whole new branch of physics by claiming objects instantly reach their maximum temperature the very second they're exposed to sunlight, they seem entirely unaware of the hours of training carried out in photography - despite Dave covering it very well.
They make great play about Dave not having access to the precise film that Apollo used, so his analyses must be invalid, and also that it's impossible to recreate the kind of vacuum on the moon so how could NASA test them, then without a trace of irony make claims about their own tests that obviously also aren't using the SO film or lunar vacuum.
Just one example of how dumb, ignorant and ill-informed they are can be found when they discuss the famous bootprint photo:
"Now, did he take the camera off his chest, point it down at the ground, having altered the focus ring, which required it to be focused to 3 ft, the shortest distance he can focus at, point it at the ground without a viewfinder, and get it all nicely in frame. That's a question that hasn't been answered."
If only there was footage showing it happening that anyone who had the in-depth knowledge about Apollo that they claim would know about.
Phase52012 has already stepped in with a response, but I haven't seen it uet, but it's pretty much shooting dumb fish in a barrel.
-
"Now, did he take the camera off his chest, point it down at the ground, having altered the focus ring, which required it to be focused to 3 ft, the shortest distance he can focus at, point it at the ground without a viewfinder, and get it all nicely in frame. That's a question that hasn't been answered."
Pretty sure I made a video about this a few years ago. Maybe I'll update it.
Marcus knows he's been given all the answers already, but grifters gotta grift.
-
"Now, did he take the camera off his chest, point it down at the ground, having altered the focus ring, which required it to be focused to 3 ft, the shortest distance he can focus at, point it at the ground without a viewfinder, and get it all nicely in frame. That's a question that hasn't been answered."
Pretty sure I made a video about this a few years ago. Maybe I'll update it.
Marcus knows he's been given all the answers already, but grifters gotta grift.
Amen to that fact.
-
They are the grift that keeps on giving. They've put out a part two of their attempted hatchet job on McKeegan. I've skimmed through it and already have some gems:
Henderson opens it up with a claim that dust from the LRV would "stay up there for days" and you wouldn't be able to see anything. How would it stray up Scott? What would keep it up there?
They also claim that somehow Collins was totally ignored while in orbit, despite pages and opages of audio transcript between Houston and the CSM while Armstrong and Aldrin were on the surface - they somehow have this idea that because the people on the surface couldn't directly communicate with the CSM, no-one did.
Another beauty is an "if I ran the zoo" variant, whining that Saturn V launches always had a big countdown clock but there wasn't one on the moon. They don't seem to know that the final words from the crew before ascent were:
"124:21:54 Aldrin: 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, Abort Stage, Engine Arm, Ascent, Proceed."
looks like a count to me, and prior to that are reams of dialogue of them preparing for launch, something the ADs don't seem to think they did.
In the previous video, they make reference to the TETR satellites. which evening the tiniest bit of research would tell them could not have been used for Apollo. They were specifically used to train ground stations in handover procvedures, and the only one available for any of the first three Apollos and an S-Band failure, so couldn't have replicated the Apollo signal.
That Apollo signal came from the moon, and as TETR satellites were in LEO, they could not have been used by ground stations for much more than 10 minutes at a time, not the hours required. If ground stations wanted to train on things on their way to the moon, they used things that were doing just that (eg Lunar Orbiter). I cover it here:
https://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/CATM2/ch5/9/nasasats.html
Speaking of S-Band, their favourite lapdog still parades his ignorance in the comment section, claiming that the Soviets did not have the capability to intercept and decode S-Band signals. As I detail here:
https://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/CATM2/ch5/7/zond.html
they absolutely did. Besides that, you don't need S-Band decoders and receivers to detect that something is at or on the moon, you only need those if you want to tell what the S-Band signal contains.
-
They've put out a part two of their attempted hatchet job on McKeegan.
Wouldn't be the first time they've done that. First time they were accusing McKeegan of having taken down his video about them, all the while it was clearly visible in the list of videos they were showing on screen.
In the previous video, they make reference to the TETR satellites.
Speaking off the top of my head here, but weren't TETR satellites knocked out by Starfish Prime? I have a vague recollection that there was a claim they were knocked out was so they could be used for the hoax transmissions. Not at home, limited checking capability at the moment.
-
They are the grift that keeps on giving.
Shouldn't that be "griving"? :P
-
That Apollo signal came from the moon, and as TETR satellites were in LEO, they could not have been used by ground stations for much more than 10 minutes at a time, not the hours required.
Phil Webb made some excellent videos debunking Jarrah White's claims about the TETR satellites
-
In their latest hit piece (essentially a half hour ad hominen filled strawman ridden whine about how clever they are and Dave McKeegan and scimandan need to research like what they do) they make more basic howlers.
One of the claims they address is Dan's response to the no stars" argument. They argue that no-one ever makes that claim, when an examination of any social media post about Apollo, and their own comments section, shows that it's one that is routinely trotted out.
They also make the claim that spectators of Apollo launches were positioned so far away because the decibel rating of the F1 engines would have "liquified their organs".
Well, no, people are kept at a distance because rockets explode, and the safe perimeter was based on how far bits of Saturn V would travel if it went bang.
They claim that the 200+ decibels of the F1 rocket would have been fatal to the crew. Well, yes, if they had been stood next to them, but when you add in the fact that a sound suppression system was in use to cut sound down to around 140 decibels, the sound was directed away from the crew, the crew were some distance from the sound source and inside a sealed cabin and inside a space suit, then no, for the short period of time they were travelling below the speed of sou d it really wasn't a problem.
Meanwhile elsewhere on YouTube, a respondent to Dave McKeegan's video showing how taking photos using a chest camera and gloves is absolutely not impossible, one critic goes off topic and rants that the Apollo 16 grand Prix footage shows that they faked it because the LM was the wrong size when viewed from Buster crater, which is the last location mentioned before the video footage was taken.
What neither he, nor anyone opposing his claim, has spotted is that the footage actually started next to the ALSEP, just 100m away.
-
What neither he, nor anyone opposing his claim, has spotted is that the footage actually started next to the ALSEP, just 100m away.
Heh, almost like there's a reason we don't want to research the same way they do.
-
Jarrah has. at least, weighed in with a correction for their decibel levels (even if he can't spell decibel), but he seems blissfully unaware that there was a required sound limit in the CM of around 75 decibels, what with them wanting to be able to speak to the crew and all:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20160000818/downloads/20160000818.pdf
and that the crew complained more about the noise from spacecraft systems than engines.
They also seemed to have forgotten that a big hope for them is assuming the crew stayed in LEO. Much of that engine noise is directed ast getting them to orbit. Your move detectives.
And how could I miss Scott Henderson's comment on Apollo 17's launch where he claims, and this is a direct quote:
"you can see the sound waves going up and it's vibrating the air that it makes it turn to light. Okay? It actually vibrates the molecules in the air and it becomes light."
Citation most definitely required there Scott.
-
And how could I miss Scott Henderson's comment on Apollo 17's launch where he claims, and this is a direct quote:
"you can see the sound waves going up and it's vibrating the air that it makes it turn to light. Okay? It actually vibrates the molecules in the air and it becomes light."
Citation most definitely required there Scott.
Where is the Nobel prize for this man?
-
In their latest vomitus, another rambling and barely coherent "if I ran the zoo" session, Scott Henderson states categorically that nothing landed on the lunar surface in the 1960s. Nothing. Not one thing. Everything was done with simulations and telescopes.
Which makes it all the more remarkable that modern probes image that hardware on the surface, and provides detailed imagery showing features no-one knew existed before they started, you know, landing things on the surface.
They pronounce themselves baffled at all the failed modern landings, using them as some sort of proof that the unmanned Surveyor (and the Soviet ones too) couldn't have happened). They skip over the ones that have actually landed successfully, but their fans are too dumb to notice that.
They question why the ALSEPs were turned off, given that they apparently would work forever and cost nothing to run - obviously all the facilities on the ground are free to run, are staffed by volunteers and everyone analyses the data for fun not a salary, right?
They complain that the TV cameras weren't left on forever, pointd at Earth, because that would have a point, and those batteries in the LRV that they also claim weren't up to the job anyway now suddenly last for decades. They whine that "it makes no sense" (nothing ever does to them) to immediately turn the cameras off the second they get in the LM and that you could use them to film after the EVAs and the take off, all the while showing footage taken after the EVAs and the launch back to Earth. They even, bizarrely, claim that missions had 3 TV cameras - one stood up, on on the side of the LM, and one on teh rover. Dear sweet Lord above fellas are you so dumb you don't know it was just one camera they moved around? Are you that thick?
-
And they're back with yet another half hour of 'if Ir and the zoo' fallacies and argumentum ab ignorantia.
Williams spends a good few minutes whining that he can't find a diagram with a label for the PLSS water tank. He spent A WHOLE 15 MINUTES looking and couldn't find one. It took me 2 minutes to find one with 'feedwater reservoir' clearly identified. Over to you Bob.
Their next whine is that there are diagrams showing astronauts standing on a box to use the LM optical alignment telescope. Why oh why, they argue, did they waste money putting in a box for them to stand on that could be moved out of the way or perhaps serve some other purpose, when they could massively over-engineer a periscope type arrangement that would add weight, complexity and design costs to the structure? Gee detectives, which solution do you think makes more sense?
There's more, but I hadn't had breakfast when I started watching it so felt nauseous.
-
A tiny amount of googling and actual effort shows that the 'box' they're so concerned about is actually a PLSS. It's just one of the storage spots.
"Why would they stand on something so important they might die, it makes no sense to me..." in 3..2..1..
-
HIlariously, no sooner than they pronounce htemselves baffled as to what the myusterious box that the diagram shows could be, they then go on to show images taken inside the LM showing...wait for it...a PLSS in exactly that position.
They then decide that the PLSS has a long groove down the centre of it and it's supported by a block of wood, and the groove is there to provide ventilation.
What they think is a block of wood is actually a mounting plate that can be returned to a floor recess, and for which there is a convenient place at either end of the PLSS.
Apparently Scott thinks there's also a piece of wood on the rover seat. There is indeed something there to support the PLSS, but it's not wood, you blithering idiots.
After this they get puzzled by a sticker with a radiation symbol on it, but fail to read the wording that alerts people to radiactive material on switches (they helped them to glow in the dark).
Finally, they show themselves absolutely incapable of distinguishing between the real thing and a test up of the LM for training.
They are phenomally dumb in every area you can imagine, and their entire schtick is to strawman some garbage into existence and proclaim that it makes no sense. If they weren't conning money out of people (yes, there's a paypal link) it would be hilarious.
(https://i.ibb.co/WNZjzrZR/Screenshot-2025-08-13-175617.png) (https://ibb.co/RGfd6XfJ)
(https://i.ibb.co/nsq0d96x/Screenshot-2025-08-13-180818.png) (https://imgbb.com/)
(https://i.ibb.co/s9fDtRxS/Screenshot-2025-08-13-175712.png) (https://ibb.co/hF6nC9Q5)
-
The defectives continue to troll lDave McKeegan's channel, and have made a comment on his latest video
which is an excellent analysis of parallax anbd other features of Apollo imagery showing that a studio setting was pretty much impossibler given the scale of the area.
Their comment is attached to this post.
The duplicity of their contribution is staggering. They have made many claims about the use of a studio, and attemtped to identify which building could have been used. If they count Sibrel as one of their number (and they do when it suits). his entire grift of late has been based on allegations that it was all done in an air base hangar.
They allude to the recreation of lunar orbiter photos at as site near Flagstaff. Sadly some of the respondents aren't aware of it but yes, they recreated a small portion of one of the potential landing sites for training purposes, using a Lunar Oribter image. See my page here for more on that.
http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/sights/a11/landingsa11.html
Their problem there is that this training site (which was never, as far as I can discover, visited by any of the Apollo 11 crew) is 7km from the actual landing site and bears no resemblance to either it or any of the other Apollo sites. The nearest they got to it was flying over it on the way down to the surface.
They seem to have latched on to the notion of optical printers, but no optical printer is going to reproduce details they didn't know about in advance, and would not work on live TV broadcasts or (I'm assuming) 16mm video. The parallax evident in the Apollo record that illustrates just how large an area in which they were operating would have to have been recreated, correctly, for every photograph and theywould need to be on the moon to do that.
Unless, of course, they're claiming that remote probes took cameras and film through the radioactive hell and harsh vacuum of space [sic], took photos remotely and returned them to Earth, where they could be interspersed by person or persons unknown at an undisclosed location with footage taken on Earth.
As with the Corona imagery, the more complex they make the chain of events required to fake the Apollo images the more unlikely it is that their claims stand up to the slightest scrutiny.
-
Well once again something a hoax loon says makes me do what I believe the hep cats these days call a 'deep dive' into optical printers.
Seems they were in common use in movies, and this site:
http://nzpetesmatteshot.blogspot.com/2015/10/optical-effects-magical-moments.html
has many examples of how they worked, and the end resuls, so yes, 16mm footage could have been produced using optical printing methods. However, before the defectives get all moist over that statement, they still need to explain how those elements comprising the Apollo 16mm footage were obtained, given that they contain precise details not known in advance of the missions, they actual look genuine, rather than the very obvious studio effects in moveis from the time, as well as who did them, when and where. Can does not equal did.
Looking at that site led me to another page of it
http://nzpetesmatteshot.blogspot.com/2015/12/more-magical-moments-from-optical.html
and this image
(https://i.ibb.co/hRttQNhr/Life-of-Brian-optical.jpg) (https://ibb.co/cc77f9MR)
from notes relating to the special effects in the space sequence if Mont Python's Life of Brian.
This sequence:
I immediately recognised the image on the website as an Apollo 17 one, used in this part of the sequence
(https://i.ibb.co/m5r39z7m/Screenshot-2025-09-07-100141.jpg) (https://ibb.co/9Hm7bYjJ)
and it's this https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21516586310/in/album-72157659085112111 - AS17-148-22749, shown here cropped and zoomed in
(https://i.ibb.co/qMT06NKN/Screenshot-2025-09-07-095804.jpg) (https://ibb.co/LzVQKxmx)
The first view of Earth in the sequence is obviously from Apollo 4 (https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/browse/AS04/01/650.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/dw5Nq3vr/Screenshot-2025-09-07-074757.jpg) (https://ibb.co/KprtkQgX)
but the last one took some finding:
(https://i.ibb.co/bMs7Wr9s/Screenshot-2025-09-07-092038.jpg) (https://ibb.co/nN7RgDJ7)
I knew I recognised it, and eventually tracked it down to Apollo 12 - AS12-50-7331 https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21676811596/in/album-72157656754109323/
(https://i.ibb.co/QFzfQfX5/Screenshot-2025-09-07-095826.jpg) (https://ibb.co/1fhLQLbS)
That distinctive weather formation appeared in a live TV broadcast by Apollo 12, shown here with corroborating weather satellite evidence.
(https://i.ibb.co/35J32VD4/a12wea-THE.jpg) (https://ibb.co/9mMD6BFc)
(see here for more http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/CATM2/A12/01/a12_day01.html )
So if the defectives want to explain how optical printers were used to produce a live TV broadcast showing verifiable views of Earth, they can, and should, knock themselves out.
See here for more examples of Apollo imagery used in the movies: http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/CATM2/ch5/5/discusq5.html
-
More stream of consciousness nonsense from the ADs this week, and amongst other things they turn their attention to the amateur interception of lunar conversations, which they have declared to be impossible, for, well, reasons. They didn't have the4 equipment they claim, the frquences weren't available to them!
It's a shame no-one told the amateur radio community at the time, because they were more than informed about how to intercept transmissions, and actually did. And no, we're not discussing Baysinger, but this:
https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-DX/QST/60s/QST-1972-06.pdf
where enthusiasts detail exactly what they intercepted for several missions, and how.
The ADs make a lot of noise about how it would have been impossible to detect S-Band, but Baysinger is quite clear that he didn't even bother trying to do that.
They also make the frankly ludicrous claim that one of the TETR satellites, far from being inoperable and no longer in use, was actually sent on to lunar orbit somehow, without anyone noticing that both outward and return signals, and the conversations in them were exactly the same.
-
And of course they either know about this and are ignoring it, or don't know about it when their claimed expertise means they should.
http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/Apollo17/APOLLO17.htm
-
And of course they either know about this and are ignoring it, or don't know about it when their claimed expertise means they should.
http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/Apollo17/APOLLO17.htm
Stupid is as stupid does, I debated with other HB on YTube and discussed A 11 with similar listening with crude antennas. Comments such as how I can prove that this listening occurred or other hand waving. To the hard core HB nothing shows the error of their ways, just ignoring/handwaving away any evidence that they are wrong. Yet they completely ignore the facts and evidence that completely refutes the stupid ideas that hold dear.
-
Following a comment by the nlunder on their latest video, where he claims it was all done by remote craft and only in lunar orbit and that somehow this means something I did some more digging.
I came across this site:
https://www.ok2kkw.com/next/pa0ssb/pa0ssb_eng.htm
describing the work of a Dutch amateur - there are even links to photos of newspaper articles at the time so as with the QST article it's not something fabricated after teh fact:
“On 11 Dec at 0630, Jan clearly heard a signal from the command module (CSM) orbiting the Moon at a strength of 10 dB above the noise. After 10 minutes, the signal was gone due to shadowing on the Moon's surface. The signal returned after an appropriate time. After the astronauts landed on the surface of the Moon, they placed a beacon operating in the 13 cm band on its surface. Jan then used this beacon for a long time for accurate alignment of the dish’s aiming. Jan was the only amateur to listen to Apollo signals from EU. He recorded the astronauts' conversations with the control center.”
I also found this page discussing Jan's work,
https://mail.amsat.org/archives/pipermail/amsat-bb/2006-December/002091.html
where they state that:
“I know of at least one Dutch radio amateur, Jan Ottens PA0SSB who used his EME dish (one of the first in PA land to do EME back in those days) to receive the ALSEP packages. He still keeps audio tapes of these which I listened to a while ago... quite a thrill. He also used the dish to listen to the command module S-band transmissions, but he could only hear the subcarrier which they used, not enough gain/low NF to demodulate, but from the modulation you could clearly tell that an astronaut was talking. And, you could clearly distinguish the Doppler shift and hear the carrier drop out suddenly when it would go on the "flipside" of the moon.”
EME is "Earth-Moon-Earth", which a lot of amateurs used to bounce radio signals from the moon.
Another contributor, who worked at Goldstone at the time fo Apollo says:
https://mail.amsat.org/archives/pipermail/amsat-bb/2006-December/002089.html
“My boss set up a ten foot comm dish in his front yard and using a diode mixer with a signal generator as LO, detected the 2-GHz carrier of the orbiter as it circled the Moon. It was fascinating to hear the signal and the Doppler shift as it orbited and lost signal for about 20-min as the orbiter went behind the Moon. That was too small and poor a receiver to recover modulation, so we did not hear any voice.”
So on the one hand you have idiots like Rasa (who seems to have been kicked out of his own facebook group!), claiming that there's no way amateurs could have access to S-band or use Doppler to track things, and then you have the actual amateurs and enthusiasts who were doing just that. Those same amateurs are not just intercepting signals from a moving object in lunar orbit, but from equipment set up on the lunar surface by astronauts during the mission, where they are recorded doing so on live TV, and where that live TV shows surface details that have been verified independently since.
-
This chap's entire PhD
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19750023913/downloads/19750023913.pdf
was based on intercepting ALSEP signals.
I'm sure they'll repeat the claim that they were placed there by robots, but I'm willing to be they won't supply a logically consistent, evidentially sourced timeline as to how that was accomplished.
-
So on the one hand you have idiots like Rasa (who seems to have been kicked out of his own facebook group!)
Alas, this is not the case.
His FB account was deleted; he claims by Facebook, I reckon he did it himself to generate some attention again, since Najak is taking it all. He posts under the user Apollo Moon Hoax (although it's not his account).
The current claim is that the Apollo space craft couldn't radiate heat away in space, it would only slow the heating of the ship. Gotta wonder how he thinks the cooling of the ISS and Tiangong stations work ??? And this is the person who claims he's getting his "2nd" PhD, in quantum mechanics.
"no, there was no "passive cooling"... there was "passive thermal reflection" but that wouldn't cool the ship, that would only allow the ship to get hotter at a slightly lower rate"
"the ship wasn't radiating any heat away... in order for it to radiate heat away, it would have to be glowing hot"
-
He's made claims about FB deleting his accounts before. The original account of his that he claimed "they" got rid of ('逍遥子') is still there (but obviously not in use). Bob Williams may well be the same one behind the AD youtube channel. I have a dummy profile to browse but got bored of them. My main profile has all the main players blocked so I don't actually see much on there. I mainly check what the window lickers are saying because inevitably they will say something that prompts a line of research that actually provides more support for them missions than the hoax :D
I'm shocked that a pretend physicists doesn't understand how radiated heat works. Shocked I tell you.
-
I'm shocked that a pretend physicists doesn't understand how radiated heat works. Shocked I tell you.
That one's had me equally scratching my head and banging it on the desk.
-
Another day, another stream of consciousness vomitus from the ADs.
They're still twittering on about Corona satellites and obviously haven't found the site where you can source much more than the ones available the NRO site.
There's probably much to unpick in the nonsense they're yapping about the PLSS (though there is the obvious one where they suggest that moving into the shade will be an instant temperature drop inside the suit), but the main gem is where it is claimed that you have to launch from Vandenburg to get into polar orbit, and from Florida to get into an equatorial one.
The only reason you don't launch into equatorial orbit from Vandenburg is because (as SpaceX demonstrates on a regular basis) rockets explode, and it's not nice for people to have rocket parts land on them.
Many polar orbiting satellites have launched from Florida, you idiots.
-
...Many polar orbiting satellites have launched from Florida, you idiots.
And the (crewed) Fram2 mission back in April this year...
-
moving into the shade will be an instant temperature drop
Forget just the suit, it seems where ever you look there are HB's going on about the temperature of objects changing from 250°F to -250°F and how could the equipment work. I never took any physics in school beyond the mandatory, basic science classes we had to have, but even I understood that it takes time for objects to gain/lose heat, it's not instantaneous (well, outside extreme situations anyway).
and it's not nice for people to have rocket parts land on them.
Pffft, doesn't seem to worry CNSA.
-
Forget just the suit, it seems where ever you look there are HB's going on about the temperature of objects changing from 250°F to -250°F and how could the equipment work. I never took any physics in school beyond the mandatory, basic science classes we had to have, but even I understood that it takes time for objects to gain/lose heat, it's not instantaneous (well, outside extreme situations anyway
Unless it's the CSM, obviously, which can't ever cool down ever ;D ;)
-
The latest half hour stream of consciousness appeal to incredulity is out, and there are several things to note.
They have found a document dump, and within it is a marvellous collection of apollo memos and logs that go all the way through construction and testing. They are amazed that the apollo simulations and testings were able to produce precise timelines, and marvel that small adjustments are made as a result of this process. It's almost as if they wanted to get it right. They note with a conspiratorial wink that the documents are allmostly from 2009, roughly when they started their "deteective work". They even spot that there are documents uploaded recently, and this can only be because NASA are uplaoding new documents edited to remove the things they have "discovered".
This is their treasure trove:
https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Documents
but if they went up a folder, it would lead them to the actual site: the Virtual AGC project, which is nothing to do with NASA. There's even a change log on the site telling you when new documents have been added, and where they came from. They even poke fun at the moon hoax crowd on one of their links. Documents get revised chaps, deal with it. No-one has been altering those pdfs after the missions to cover themselves after your garbage has aired.
(Just to note I've had no issue accessing that site on my phone, but my computer keeps giving a 503 error - it is there!).
Later on they delve into the amount of fuel on the LM. Scott Henderson opines that the fuel is lighter than water, and so they can't possibly have more in the tank than the volume of it:
talking about the lander sitting there with those very small fuel tanks, if you add it up, a US gallon of water is 10lb. And of course, any fuel floats on top of water. Anything made from oil product is lighter than water. So, it has to weigh less. And if it's a gas made from that type of material as well, even if you compress it to a liquid, it's still going to be lighter than water. And if you take and fill those tanks up with water and they're about 1 cubic meter each, that means you only have 8,000 lb of fuel sitting there if it weighed as much as water, but it's lighter than water. And of course, the documents say that they had 19.1 something like that. Sometimes it's 19, 12,000 lb. Other documents said 18,500 or whatever. Well, you can't put that into 4 cubic meters. Even if you filled those fuel tanks, even if you took the entire quadrant, which is 1.12 cubic meters with concrete, you're only at 14,000 lb. Concrete's 22 lb per US gallon. All of these materials that they have there that they're putting in are much less weight even when they're compressed to a liquid. And there are documents out there saying that they were getting 15 and 16 pounds for the oxidizer. That's impossible.
That's right, a less dense material can't possibly weigh more, even when it's compressed INTO A MORE DENSE ONE.
And finally, they dispute the existence of a vacuum glove box at the lunar receiving laboratory, saying it couldn't have worked. They demand NASA show them the vacuum box, if it existed. All the while showing footage from NASA with the actual boxes in place. They use Ralph Rene's "demonstration" as proof of this, as his rubber glove in a vacuum explanded. It expanded because it was full of air, instead of a hand. If they had simply searched for "vacuum glove box" on the internet, they'd have found several companies selling this impossible product.
-
They really are the gift that keeps on giving..... now where's that bloody receipt?
They even spot that there are documents uploaded recently, and this can only be because NASA are uplaoding new documents edited to remove the things they have "discovered".
Wow, it's almost as if private citizens don't have government funding at their disposal and have to take their time in loading things, replacing with better copies, updating sites, living actual lives that might get in the way. Nope, it must be because the 'defectives' were asking questions so they had to create new items and upload them.
Thanks for the link. I'd seen that one before but apparently didn't save it, rectified that now.
The amount of detail they went into faking it, you'd think it would have been easier to just do it for real. ;)
-
moving into the shade will be an instant temperature drop
Forget just the suit, it seems where ever you look there are HB's going on about the temperature of objects changing from 250°F to -250°F and how could the equipment work. I never took any physics in school beyond the mandatory, basic science classes we had to have, but even I understood that it takes time for objects to gain/lose heat, it's not instantaneous (well, outside extreme situations anyway).
Yeah, thermodynamics doesn't work like that.
Next time they make that kind of claim, ask them how long it takes for a pot of water to go from room temperature to boiling (a difference of, what, 140º-ish F) when on top of a gas flame at full roar (around 2000º F). Then ask them how long it takes that pot of boiling water to turn to ice after sticking it in a freezer at 0º F.
"B..b..but that's different," they'll wail, missing the point completely.
-
This document, for those interested (which obviously isn't the ADs)
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19760023161/downloads/19760023161.pdf
describes in detail the development, operation and design of the vacuum glove assembly.
It's been pointed out to them in comments, but they seem more interested in finding out "who sent" the person who provided the information.
-
I love the levels of details that can still be found, if you're willing to put in some effort to locate them, which, to be fair, sometimes doesn't require much effort at all.
Just scanning the arm and glove assembly (pg 19), it's amazing that people took the "garden glove" demonstration seriously. The work that went into making a 15psi resistant assembly, it looks like a beefed up version of the EVA pressure suits (seriously, "Lunar Outfitters", by Bill Ayrey, is a good read).
-
If anyone wants to see other detectives in action, but doesn't mind having their blood pressure raised, straydog2's "channel" is a goldmine. Straydog2 is their gatekeeper, and channel is in inverted commas because it's one video (one of Jarrah's), which he uses as a vehicle for posting all his fine top level detective work.
Most of that of late is him demonstrating the fine art of asking AI leading questions to get the answer you want, but amongst all that there are some gems.
A particular favourite is him claiming China's Chang'e-5 landing near apollo 15 but has very different findings. I mean, sure, it looks near on the photo he linked, maybe 2 inches, but in reality it's a good 1000km.
He also claims, in quick succession, that China only published one image of Apollo sites (Apollo 16) but really they didn't and it's just a blurred LRO image and actually they haven't published any. He manages to ask AI leading questions to prove both those things.
Anyone who's looked at my site knows that you can download their images and with patient work can tease out details of Apollo 12 upwards.
More to come from that when my statins are working properly.
-
The latest video (not the livestream) is just embarrassing. They look at a picture of the moon and compare it with amateur astronomer images. They're taken under different lighting conditions and are of different resolution, but that doesn't stop them claiming that NASA is adding and/or taking away (delete as applicable) details for, well, who knows. Theu show remnant craters filled with maria material and claim that they're full of dust, so therefore all the Apollo equioment should be covered in dust and invisble.
How Jarrah fails to join in and go "fellas, you're making dicks of yourself and by extension me" I do not know.
Anyway, the main purpose of this post is to completely discredit the absolute falsehoods claimed by straydog2 about China's imaging of Apollo.
In a series of responses he makes several ciaims, mostly after interrogating AI with leading questions and then paraphrasing its results to make it sound like it's the AI answer when in fact it's his.
Here's a few direct quotes:
"[China] did not release any images that clearly show Apollo hardware."
This at least is correct - the Chang'e-2 resolution is not capable of doing htat, no-one ever claimed it did.
"The Chang'e 2 image is an EXACT MATCH for the NASA LRO image because it is a very blurry COPY of that image...the Chinese have the technology to image the entire Moon in high definition and have already done so, with the exception of the Apollo sites.. So instead of publishing high resolution images showing no Apollo debris at the Apollo sites, they have sent a different kind of message, by not publishing any images at all, with the exception of that one blurry image that they obviously did not take"
"What they did was to take the Apollo 16 LRO image, copy it exactly, make it very blurry and then publish it as a way of exposing the Apollo fraud without actually saying it was a fraud."
"The Chinese not only didn't take that photo but didn't publish it either.. Instead, NASA mislabeled their own blurry A16 LRO image in an silly attempt to make it look like the Chang'e 2 had confirmed one of their alleged landing sites!"
So, to be clear, the dog is claiming China have never published any images of Apollo sites, NASA doctored one of their own images and pretended it was from China.
It's prefectly possible to go to the CNSA's webGIS application and download the large scale tiles, on which you can find the evdience of human activity at Apollo sites. Note I'm saying evidence of human activity., not hardware. That evidence is darkened ground around the lunar modules, with occasional hints of trails to sites around them.
Those tiles are compiled from the probe's CCD instrument, and I decided to set about finding those original tiles. Each Chang'e-2 oribt moved on about 1 degree from the previous one, and produced a pair of images from the forward and rear facing camera. The resulting images are roughly 50km wide and 200km long. Each forward and rear facing image has a 'SCI' and 'GEO' files. The GEO file contains detailed meta data, while the SCI file is the image itself. You can open the SCI file in photoshop by first opening it in notepad (or anyother software capable of reading the file header) to get the image dimensions. Those dimensions are always 6151 pixels wide and around 55000-60000 pixels high. Each SCI file is around 350Mb
You can download them here:
https://moon.bao.ac.cn/ce5web/searchOrder_dataSearchData.search
It's a bit of a faff, finding the relevant orbits is a pain, but eventually I tracked down the files for each Apollo site.
Apollo 11:
CE2_BMYK_CCD-B07_SCI_N_20101120165451_20101120185249_0532_A
The time of the image is the long sequence of numbers, and the last 4 numbers identifies the orbit.
Tranquility base covers the smallest area, but had the least amount of activity, so other than identifying where the site is it's very difficult to say with certainty that there's anything to see there. I'm still downloading one of the image pairs while writing this, but I don't expect it to show anything.
Apollo 12:
CE2_BMYK_CCD-B08_SCI_N_20101124092425_20101124112222_0577_A
CE2_BMYK_CCD-F08_SCI_N_20101124092425_20101124112222_0577_A
This is the better of the two
(https://i.ibb.co/Hf6PJ0FB/Screenshot-2025-09-28-110348.jpg) (https://ibb.co/dwFphSWj)
where you can see activity around the LM and Surveyor 3.
Apollo 14:
CE2_BMYK_CCD-B08_SCI_N_20101123213629_20101123233428_0571_A
CE2_BMYK_CCD-F08_SCI_N_20101123213629_20101123233428_0571_A
Here's the better of the two:
(https://i.ibb.co/HTyLzp08/Screenshot-2025-09-28-110314.jpg) (https://ibb.co/RTKG041w)
Cone crater is top right, and there's a nice dark blob around the site of the LM towards the bottom left.
Apollo 15
CE2_BMYK_CCD-B06_SCI_N_20101122022037_20101122041835_0549_A
CE2_BMYK_CCD-F06_GEO_N_20101122022037_20101122041835_0549_A
CE2_BMYK_CCD-B06_SCI_N_20101122041836_20101122061634_0550_A
CE2_BMYK_CCD-F06_SCI_N_20101122041836_20101122061634_0550_A
Here's the Apollo site from each of them:
(https://i.ibb.co/FcPrzxH/wp6c4d7ea1-06.png) (https://imgbb.com/) (https://i.ibb.co/zW4YDsH8/wp5245171e-06.png) (https://imgbb.com/)
(https://i.ibb.co/dJ2czpSz/wpbd6f715d-06.png) (https://imgbb.com/) (https://i.ibb.co/ymmRX6sX/wpfd7d4b1e-06.png) (https://imgbb.com/)
Again, clear activity around the LM and suggestions of trails leading elsewhere.
Apollo 16
CE2_BMYK_CCD-B08_SCI_N_20101121083844_20101121103642_0540_A
CE2_BMYK_CCD-F08_SCI_N_20101121083844_20101121103642_0540_A
(https://i.ibb.co/bjs41hZC/Screenshot-2025-09-28-110523.jpg) (https://ibb.co/ZRBQdsPF)
Activity around the LM and LRV VIP spot!
Apollo 17
CE2_BMYK_CCD-B06_SCI_N_20101120030855_20101120050653_0525_A
CE2_BMYK_CCD-F06_SCI_N_20101120030855_20101120050653_0525_A
The rear facing camera looks to have had some sort of issue right at Taurus Littrow, but the forward one does show this:
(https://i.ibb.co/nqC7vXkz/Screenshot-2025-09-28-120725.jpg) (https://ibb.co/qL5NfH1k)
That little blob in the middle is where Challenger sits to this day.
So there you are Straydog2. As usual, someone's done all the work for you. China has published images of the Apollo landing sites, you can download them from their website and see for yourself. I've done some quite severe processing on those images to bring out the detail, but even without that the darkened ground around the LM on the multi-EVA sites can be made out once you know where to look.
The issue here is his expectation of how China should be doing it. It's a form of the "If I ran the zoo" fallacy. He thinks China should be making a big song and dance about it, and because they haven't that's somehow proof of his delusions. As with India's Chandrayaan series, they didn't go to the moon to prove Apollo happened. It's an irrelevance. Apollo sites are routinely referenced by Chinese academics in their research, and the location and properties of Apollo hardware were used to "ground truth" their observations: they know where and what they are, so they can check what their instruments are showing.
Asking leading questions of AI software is not going to give you the evidence you need, it's just lazy. It is no substitute for doing the hard work yourself. And sure, you can whine about not being able to see any actual hardware, but here's the thing doggy, you don't get to set the standard of acceptable proof. The fact is there's evidence of human activity right where it was always claimed to be. Prove me wrong.