ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: Everett on October 03, 2013, 07:06:14 PM
-
Well, first things first, his old sites are apparently down, but he has a new site. Some highlights:
Most of it has been around for years. He still is claiming that the real rovers used pneumatic tires (wrong), they would have exploded on the moon (wrong), and that all the pictures online were changed by NASA, and he still has a copy of a picture with a rover with rubber tires on the moon (put up or shut up).
He claims that the huge gantry at Langley was used to fake the landings. As has been covered here before, the claims about staff at Langley being 'sworn to secrecy' are wrong, and the gantry is next to a public highway. One of the pictures on his own website shows said highway clearly in the background. He also helpfully provides a period color picture that shows the gantry is painted in bright red and white stripes. ::)
He then claims that the simulated lunar landscape below was used to fake the landings. He provides a quote that even out of context doesn't support his argument, The thing is, his own pictures show it as looking completely fake, and nothing like any of the real footage. He also has the plaster of paris mockup of the moon which, well, doesn't actually look exactly like the moon. There are noticeable differences in the pictures he provides to show they look identical.
On the plus side, he's actually changed some arguments after being corrected. It's now the Apollo 1 fire, not the Apollo 7 fire. He now knows that the 'conical space capsule' is the command module, and dropped the part about the heat shield being in the way. (he still claims the parachutes were in the way)
On his NASA Facts page, it seems he's actually discovered something. He bases a large part of the page on a chart showing that Apollo 12 took half as long to get to the moon as the other missions. It shows total duration as being 143 hours, which, since it's the same as Apollo 13 directly below it, I suspect was just a misprint in his source. It's not encouraging that he says the data in the chart came from two different sources. He then spends the rest of the page discovering that apparently, some NASA webpage actually listed dates that are off by a few days, and not consistent, for photos taken on Apollo 16. I can't check the page myself, government shutdown and all.
Not only that, but he's actually managed to discover that Johnston would have had to been the one who planned the fake landings, not Nixon. (Progress, I guess.)
His FACTS page has a few howlers as well, as does the rest of the site. He claims that spacecraft travel between planets 'by a series of ever increasing orbits' (correct for ion engines, wrong for everything else), and that's way it takes 66 hours for the shuttle to reach the ISS (funny).
He says that the Saturn V only puts 3% of it's mass in earth orbit, as if that means something, then moves on as if he'd made a point. That's how rockets work, and by math shows closer to 4%, including the roughly half-fuled S-IVB. He actually tires to claim as evidence his observation that a plastic model kit of a Saturn V doesn't have the word 'moon' on the box. ::)
Oh looky, he says that with no wind on the moon, what blew the dust off the top of the rocks, since there was no dust on them? (There wasn't any wind to blow them on the rocks in the first place. The answer's staring you in the face, Colby.)
Otherwise, let's see:
Uses Uri Geller as an authority? Check.
Fails to understand thermodynamics? Check.
Computer chips not invented, and comparing to a lunar landing game? Check.
Not understanding the difference between short term and long term missions when it comes to radiation? Check.
Classified files due to be declassified in 2026? Check.
NASA still can't get a rocket to take off and land vertically? Check.
Still claims the J-mission LM was unchanged? Check.
LEM? Not check. Yay, he figured out there's no E in it!
This one's interesting, he says not a single picture taken on the lunar surface has a picture of the earth in it. That's odd, there have been a few of them linked to from this very forum I recall seeing.
Bizarre political story occupying a full page, involving the CIA, about why the moon landing were hoaxed to prove the were? Check. Also, hippie drugs were a CIA plot.
Mars rovers are faked for the same motive as the moon landings (see above)? Check. (and why would they have to fake them anyway? He says that Apollo was faked because of radiation, but that wouldn't apply to unmanned probes.)
Complains that Apollo mission didn't take new astronauts along for transferring experience, then in the very next paragraph complains that they sent astronauts to the moon who had never been in space before? Check.
No class? Check.
He says anyone who believes in the moon landing must be "essentially green." What does that even mean?
He also mocks the optimism of those who believed that Apollo was the beginning of sustained, increasing exploration and colonization of space. That one was painful to read.
Link, for anyone who's interested.
http://nasascam.atspace.co.uk/
-
He got rid of the conical space capsule bit? That was pure gold.
-
Wasn't his old site on Geocities? If so, it may be recoverable - there are websites that mirror Geocities. For the sake of nostalgia, I guess. :)
-
Gee, he doesn't seem to have the page any more comparing Apollo 17 landscapes of the Taurus-Littrow valley from different locations, pointing out the identical features, proving that it was all just a static backdrop... except that those features are shifted around a bit from one shot to the next... y'know, like they might be in a real 3-D landscape... what with parallax and all.
-
BINGO!!
(http://i858.photobucket.com/albums/ab145/Everett1944/ApolloHoaxnetBingo2_zps2d630604.jpg) (http://s858.photobucket.com/user/Everett1944/media/ApolloHoaxnetBingo2_zps2d630604.jpg.html)
Wow, that took a lot more cards then I expected. The 'C rock,' 'just asking questions,' and 'in my opinion' were killers. And that was using almost the whole website. Did we scare off all the HB's from this forum? None of them ever show up any more, that's no fun at all.
-
Has anyone ever claimed they could 'see the flag through my telescope'?
-
Has anyone ever claimed they could 'see the flag through my telescope'?
I actually have seen some apparent Apollo Nutters claim at least that large telescopes should be able to see it.
-
Has anyone ever claimed they could 'see the flag through my telescope'?
I actually have seen some apparent Apollo Nutters claim at least that large telescopes should be able to see it.
R = 11.6 / D (subject to the limitations of Nyquist's Theorem)
This means that a telescope the size of Hubble has a resolution of about 0.1 of an arc-second. At the distance of the moon, that is about the size of a football stadium (not just the field, the whole stadium)
To resolve the flag, even as a just a dot, the resolution would need to be about 200 times better, or about 0.0005 of an arc second. The mirror would need to be about 2.3km in diameter.
-
Oh, I certainly know this. I am just saying I have seen the claim made by people who apparently agree with the Apollo record.
-
Has anyone ever claimed they could 'see the flag through my telescope'?
I actually have seen some apparent Apollo Nutters claim at least that large telescopes should be able to see it.
R = 11.6 / D (subject to the limitations of Nyquist's Theorem)
This means that a telescope the size of Hubble has a resolution of about 0.1 of an arc-second. At the distance of the moon, that is about the size of a football stadium (not just the field, the whole stadium)
To resolve the flag, even as a just a dot, the resolution would need to be about 200 times better, or about 0.0005 of an arc second. The mirror would need to be about 2.3km in diameter.
I think you mean the Raleigh criterion. Nyquist is about sampling rate IIRC.
-
Wow, that took a lot more cards then I expected. The 'C rock,' 'just asking questions,' and 'in my opinion' were killers. And that was using almost the whole website. Did we scare off all the HB's from this forum? None of them ever show up any more, that's no fun at all.
Is that your work? Very nice. If you're taking suggestions, though, I'd replace the LEM/LM one with the C rock. I think giving people gruff over terminology is a bit feeble. If we comb through posts by the other side of the argument, I'm sure we'll find typos, statements that some thing "weighs" X kilograms, references to President "Johnston", and the like. Do these things discredit them? Also, "if I ran the zoo" arguments about how a hoax would have been done seem to be commonplace, so I don't know that I'd go with that one.
-
All the conspiracy websites refer to the LM as the LEM. It's a dead-giveaway where they got their information.
The idea of the bingo card is to cover the most-used arguments. The C-rock is on it.
-
All the conspiracy websites refer to the LM as the LEM. It's a dead-giveaway where they got their information.
I can't find it at the moment, but I seem to recall someone here (or maybe the old version of here) mentioning that one of the astronauts even used the term LEM.
The idea of the bingo card is to cover the most-used arguments. The C-rock is on it.
Are we looking at the same bingo card?
-
If I understand it correctly, the bingocard is generated from a pool of hoax-ideas, each time you click on it. So the bingocards are different - which makes sense, otherwise everybody would win at the same time.
-
I think you mean the Raleigh criterion. Nyquist is about sampling rate IIRC.
No I do mean Nyquist's Theorem as I was using Hubble as an example. It, like any other remote telescope these days, converts analog to digital for signal transmission. Due to factors involving interference patterns and the wavelength range of visible light, the smallest resolvable object is about twice the theoretical resolution.
http://searchcio-midmarket.techtarget.com/definition/Nyquist-Theorem
-
I think you mean the Raleigh criterion. Nyquist is about sampling rate IIRC.
No I do mean Nyquist's Theorem as I was using Hubble as an example. It, like any other remote telescope these days, converts analog to digital for signal transmission. Due to factors involving interference patterns and the wavelength range of visible light, the smallest resolvable object is about twice the theoretical resolution.
http://searchcio-midmarket.techtarget.com/definition/Nyquist-Theorem
Nyquist's theorem doesn't have anything directly to do with interference patterns or light wavelengths, or even the analog to digital conversion. As applied to imaging, it's all about the spatial frequencies of the sensor sites and light patterns on the sensor. You need samples at greater than double the highest signal frequency to reconstruct the original signal.
It's the Rayleigh criterion (which determines the limit of the spatial frequency of those light patterns) which is rooted in interference effects and dependent on wavelength, and that's where the diffraction limit comes from...provided you have an optical system that's actually diffraction limited.
I'm not sure if Hubble's optics are diffraction limited in the visible range or not. Corrective optics had to be installed, and the result may still be imperfect. Its given resolution in the visible range seems to be about half of what a diffraction-limited scope would be.
-
Also, "if I ran the zoo" arguments about how a hoax would have been done seem to be commonplace, so I don't know that I'd go with that one.
"If I ran the zoo" arguments are hoaxists claiming that things not having been done the way they (in their ignorance) think it should have been done is evidence that Apollo wasn't genuine.
It's truly atrocious reasoning, and very common.
-
All the conspiracy websites refer to the LM as the LEM. It's a dead-giveaway where they got their information.
I can't find it at the moment, but I seem to recall someone here (or maybe the old version of here) mentioning that one of the astronauts even used the term LEM.
I wouldn't doubt more than one did. The LEM designation was officially shortened in the early 60s to just "LM" but was still pronounced "lem". You can find official NASA documentation from the 70s that referred to it as the "LEM" or "Lunar Excursion Module". But none of that changes the fact that it is a universal constant that when hoax believers show up here they always, invariably refer to it as the "LEM".
The idea of the bingo card is to cover the most-used arguments. The C-rock is on it.
Are we looking at the same bingo card?
The card is randomly generated http://apollohoax.net/bingo/ Wouldn't be much fun if everybody played with the same card.
-
"If I ran the zoo" arguments are hoaxists claiming that things not having been done the way they (in their ignorance) think it should have been done is evidence that Apollo wasn't genuine.
It's truly atrocious reasoning, and very common.
One conspiracy theorist I encountered, irontoad123 of Planet Youtube, this basically was their whole argument. It basically amounted to them saying in various ways that Apollo was a waste of money or it wasn't done the way he did it, and therefore (somehow) must have been faked. Couple this with some simply atrocious physics errors even I caught, and, well, it was pretty bad.
-
If I understand it correctly, the bingocard is generated from a pool of hoax-ideas, each time you click on it. So the bingocards are different - which makes sense, otherwise everybody would win at the same time.
Ah, got it.
"If I ran the zoo" arguments are hoaxists claiming that things not having been done the way they (in their ignorance) think it should have been done is evidence that Apollo wasn't genuine.
I understand that, it's just that I see the same type of reasoning so often on the other side (it can't be a hoax, because if it were, they would have done it some other way) that I question the wisdom of calling the hoax people out on this particular style of argument.
-
I understand that, it's just that I see the same type of reasoning so often on the other side (it can't be a hoax, because if it were, they would have done it some other way) that I question the wisdom of calling the hoax people out on this particular style of argument.
I don't know. I see a big difference between the hoax believers' 'if i ran the zoo' and our 'it wouldn't be done that way' argument. Hoax believers argue that NASA should have done something because they think it would have been a good way to go. They should have taken more pictures of Earth. They should have taken more star pictures. They should have pointed the spacecraft at the moon so they could see where they were going. They should have done more to make the TV interesting. And so on.
On the other hand, certainly when I argue that it would have been done a certain way it's because the hoax believer suggestion actually makes no sense for the goal the HBs state (fool the world). Why would they fake a scene set in a vacuum with a breeze blowing across the set flapping a flag? If the LM looks so unconvincing (as many HBs suggest) why wouldn't NASA have made it more convincing to the layman if it was faked? The idea that the rover was somehow put in place with a crane instead of driven in on the wheels it has. And so on. It's not so much 'if I ran the zoo' as 'if you ran the zoo that way the animals would escape and eat the visitors'...
-
'if you ran the zoo that way the animals would escape and eat the visitors'...
That's my favourite way to play Zoo Tycoon.
-
I understand that, it's just that I see the same type of reasoning so often on the other side (it can't be a hoax, because if it were, they would have done it some other way) that I question the wisdom of calling the hoax people out on this particular style of argument.
I don't know. I see a big difference between the hoax believers' 'if i ran the zoo' and our 'it wouldn't be done that way' argument. Hoax believers argue that NASA should have done something because they think it would have been a good way to go. They should have taken more pictures of Earth. They should have taken more star pictures. They should have pointed the spacecraft at the moon so they could see where they were going. They should have done more to make the TV interesting. And so on.
And don't forget Hunchbacked's memorable suggestion that they should have had a TV monitor on the LM so the Commander could see the landing site. Just ignore the fact that a CRT of that time would weigh, what, 8 kilos or so? A not inconsiderable mass when they were shaving metal off the structural parts to reduce weight.
-
And don't forget Hunchbacked's memorable suggestion that they should have had a TV monitor on the LM so the Commander could see the landing site.
The CSM actually did have a TV monitor, but that was a fast-scan camera with standard resolution, not the special slow-scan low resolution camera used on the LM. I dare say a window gives better resolution, color rendition and 3D projection than even a modern TV camera.
Just ignore the fact that a CRT of that time would weigh, what, 8 kilos or so?
I don't know the actual mass of the CSM's monitor but judging from its size I'd say a kilo or two.
-
(Re Nyquist vs Raleigh)
These phenomena are actually closely related examples of the Uncertainty Principle in action.
We just got back from several weeks in Germany. Over there they actually honor their scientists and scholars by naming streets after them. On a bus line in Munich, one of the stops was Werner Heisenberg Strasse. We may or may not have been there. :-)
-
And don't forget Hunchbacked's memorable suggestion that they should have had a TV monitor on the LM so the Commander could see the landing site.
The CSM actually did have a TV monitor, but that was a fast-scan camera with standard resolution, not the special slow-scan low resolution camera used on the LM. I dare say a window gives better resolution, color rendition and 3D projection than even a modern TV camera.
Just ignore the fact that a CRT of that time would weigh, what, 8 kilos or so?
I don't know the actual mass of the CSM's monitor but judging from its size I'd say a kilo or two.
Well, that's the thing - the monitor carried on the CM was pretty small; I would think it would have to be quite a bit bigger to be of any use in spotting a landing spot. And I agree a window was better; just another example of Hunchy's zoo-running-skills. YOU know how he is - everything about Apollo could have been done a better way... of course, if you call him on that, he retreats to his default "it was all a joke by engineers to show that it was faked" position.
-
of course, if you call him on that, he retreats to his default "it was all a joke by engineers to show that it was faked" position.
Yup, and he uses it routinely.
I find it especially amusing when he claims the NASA documentation says X, and I point out that it doesn't say X, it actually says Y. His usual response is that the NASA documentation is a joke and can't be trusted. I suppose that lets him claim it says whatever he wants as opposed to what it actually says.
-
Very early proposals for the landing craft did actually include TV cameras and monitors. From that fine book, "Live TV From the Moon" (p.18), "In a 1960 set of guidelines listed by Robert G. Chilton the suggestion was made that television may be desirable for the lunar missions. No further discussion was made of what such “desirability” would entail, although the existing notion of direct approach lunar landings would indicate this included assistance in landing the rocket in a vertical position. Earth Orbit Rendezvous would have required the crews on their backs and subsequently requiring the use of mirrors and/or television monitors to see the lunar surface upon settling the spacecraft on the moon."
-
(Re Nyquist vs Raleigh)
These phenomena are actually closely related examples of the Uncertainty Principle in action.
We just got back from several weeks in Germany. Over there they actually honor their scientists and scholars by naming streets after them. On a bus line in Munich, one of the stops was Werner Heisenberg Strasse. We may or may not have been there. :-)
Oh, it was there, all right. You just weren't quite certain as to it's location, and the very act of looking it up could move it.
You just wouldn't know if the hotel you booked, Schrödinger Hof, had been torn down or not until you got there...
-
Wasn't his old site on Geocities? If so, it may be recoverable - there are websites that mirror Geocities. For the sake of nostalgia, I guess. :)
I was right. If someone wants to make a comparison with the new site, here's a mirror image of the old site:
http://www.geocities.ws/nasascam/
And here's a datestamped copy in the Internet Archive:
http://web.archive.org/web/20091026205501/http://www.geocities.com/nasascam/