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)