ApolloHoax.net

Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: Gazpar on June 23, 2015, 02:17:49 AM

Title: Some doubts.
Post by: Gazpar on June 23, 2015, 02:17:49 AM
Hi guys, I believe the landing happened but I have some doubts and I need someone to explain it.

Does this evidence prove the hoax?

Missing lunar rocks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_and_missing_moon_rocks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_and_missing_moon_rocks)

Missing telemetry data
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes)

Radiation of Van Allen Belts
http://fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2020/app-f.htm (http://fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2020/app-f.htm)
Quote
To put the space weather radiation hazard to human life in perspective, at geostationary orbit, with only 0.1 gm/cm2 of aluminum shielding thickness, the predicted radiation dose (REM) for one year continuous exposure, with minimum-moderate solar activity, is estimated to be about 3,000,000; using 5.0 gm/cm2 of aluminum shielding, the REM for one year continuous exposure would be reduced to about 550. (Note: REM = dose (RAD) x Relative Biological Effectiveness (RBE) of particular ionizing radiation.) Although drastically reduced by shielding, 550 REM for a sample population would cause radiation sickness and about 50 percent deaths. Astronauts protected with only a spacesuit during normal-length extra-vehicular activity at geostationary altitude could receive about 0.43 REM per day under minimum to moderate solar activity conditions, which is sufficient to damage the eyes and other vital organs. Under high solar activity, and most importantly during large solar flare occurrences, daily REM values could be a thousand-fold higher and probably lethal. In comparison, an earth-bound person would have an estimated total yearly radiation dosage in the range of 0.17 to 2.6 REM; the daily dosage would be approximately 4.7 x 10-4 to 7.1 x 10-3 REM (2 to 3 orders of magnitude less than the astronauts daily dosage in our example).
What does this means?

Scothlite
(http://staging.realitysandwich.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/img13.png)
What is that?
Is from some guy named Jay Weidner, is he trustworthy?

Is it possible that USA could have bribed Russia with grain shipments to keep the conspiracy?

Thanks in advance for your replies.
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: Valis on June 23, 2015, 03:00:38 AM
Hi guys, I believe the landing happened but I have some doubts and I need someone to explain it.

Does this evidence prove the hoax?

Missing lunar rocks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_and_missing_moon_rocks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_and_missing_moon_rocks)
What evidence of a hoax is this? There's some 400 kg of lunar rocks and soil samples, extensively documented. Why would some rocks that were given as gifts and subsequently went missing imply a hoax?
Quote
Missing telemetry data
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes)
What about all the data that hasn't been misplaced or overwritten? Are you aware that we have lot of the Apollo 11 missing data in different format (lower quality video, for example)?
Quote
Radiation of Van Allen Belts
Van Allen Belts have been widely discussed here, so I'm sure a brief search would easily get you the details. In short, the Apollo flights tried to avoid the belts, and went through a region of lower particle flux to minimize the radiation exposure.
Quote
What is that?
Lunar Roving Vehicle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Roving_Vehicle
Quote
Is from some guy named Jay Weidner, is he trustworthy?
See for example http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=89.0
Quote
Is it possible that USA could have bribed Russia with grain shipments to keep the conspiracy?
Did they bribe all the others who did independent confirmation of the flights too?
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: Zakalwe on June 23, 2015, 03:09:12 AM

Is from some guy named Jay Weidner, is he trustworthy?


He's another crackpot that thinks that Kubrick filmed the moon landings (I wonder does he even realise that Kubrick half his life in the UK and that most of his epic movies were shot in the UK)

Have a look here:
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=89.0
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: Count Zero on June 23, 2015, 07:08:47 AM
Hi guys, I believe the landing happened but I have some doubts and I need someone to explain it.

Does this evidence prove the hoax?

Missing lunar rocks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_and_missing_moon_rocks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_and_missing_moon_rocks)

Feel free to peruse the Lunar Sample Compendium:  Link (http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/lsc/index.cfm)

If you are a scientist, you may request lunar samples for study here:  Link (http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/sampreq/requests.cfm)

Quote
Missing telemetry data
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes)

Last year my family took our first trip ever to Green Bay, Wisconsin for my brother-in-law's wedding.  It was a lovely trip, and I took hundreds of pictures - all of which I subsequently deleted from my camera's memory chip.  An idiotic mistake?  No, because I'd transferred all of the images to two other computers and other data backup media.

Similarly, all of the data on the Apollo 11 telemetry tape was transcribed and the embedded slow-scan video signal was converted to conventional video tape.  Nothing was really lost-lost.  In the last decade we realized that modern computers could do a better conversion of the video, but we didn't know that 30 years ago.  None of the footage has been lost.

Quote
Radiation of Van Allen Belts
http://fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2020/app-f.htm (http://fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2020/app-f.htm)
Quote
To put the space weather radiation hazard to human life in perspective, at geostationary orbit, with only 0.1 gm/cm2 of aluminum shielding thickness, the predicted radiation dose (REM) for one year continuous exposure, with minimum-moderate solar activity, is estimated to be about 3,000,000; using 5.0 gm/cm2 of aluminum shielding, the REM for one year continuous exposure would be reduced to about 550. (Note: REM = dose (RAD) x Relative Biological Effectiveness (RBE) of particular ionizing radiation.) Although drastically reduced by shielding, 550 REM for a sample population would cause radiation sickness and about 50 percent deaths. Astronauts protected with only a spacesuit during normal-length extra-vehicular activity at geostationary altitude could receive about 0.43 REM per day under minimum to moderate solar activity conditions, which is sufficient to damage the eyes and other vital organs. Under high solar activity, and most importantly during large solar flare occurrences, daily REM values could be a thousand-fold higher and probably lethal. In comparison, an earth-bound person would have an estimated total yearly radiation dosage in the range of 0.17 to 2.6 REM; the daily dosage would be approximately 4.7 x 10-4 to 7.1 x 10-3 REM (2 to 3 orders of magnitude less than the astronauts daily dosage in our example).
What does this means?

It means that it's a good thing that the Apollo missions avoided that part of the Van Allen Belt and were short enough to minimize the risk of getting caught by a solar flare (kind of like how you avoid getting your picnic rained on).

Here are a couple of videos illustrating the path Apollo 11 took to avoid the thickest part of the belts:  TLI Orbit (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4gSRy1tHls&feature=player_embedded), TLI Orbit Slice (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuH4rxda3Z4&feature=player_embedded)

Here is a report on the American experience with space radiation:  Link (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD7080RadProtect.pdf)

The Soviets also wanted to send men to the Moon.  They cancelled these plans for political reasons, but not before they flew their Zond spacecraft around the Moon several times unmanned.  Here is their report on the radiation environment:  Link (http://cds.cern.ch/record/864491/files/p484.pdf)  (Note in particular the last sentence on page 4).

The Japanese know a thing or two about radiation exposure.  Here is a recent paper they did on shielding astronauts for long-term lunar stays:  Link (http://journals.jps.jp/doi/pdf/10.1143/JPSJS.78SA.149)

Quote
Is it possible that USA could have bribed Russia with grain shipments to keep the conspiracy?

No.  We were fighting proxy wars with them around the world.  The opportunity to disgrace their enemy would have been too good to miss.  Besides, Anybody on Earth with the proper equipment could track the Apollo missions.  Here is one man's story:  Link (http://legacy.jefferson.kctcs.edu/observatory/apollo11/).

Hope this helps.  It's barely a snowflake on the tip of the iceberg of information freely available about Apollo.
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: Zakalwe on June 23, 2015, 07:16:17 AM

Last year my family took our first trip ever to Green Bay, Wisconsin for my brother-in-law's wedding.  It was a lovely trip, and I took hundreds of pictures - all of which I subsequently deleted from my camera's memory chip.  An idiotic mistake?  No, because I'd transferred all of the images to two other computers and other data backup media.


And even if the images WERE permanently lost, that would not mean that the trip didn't happen. In addition, there would be other evidence to support the trip- testimonies from family members, receipts from shops for items/services purchased, mobile phone location records, records of calls made, distances logged on the car odometer/tickets for rail/flights, check-in information and so-on.
If I then popped up and claimed "A-ha...the images for you trip were deleted, therefore your trip was clearly faked" then I am sure that you would look on me as an idiot. I could then confirm that status by further claiming that your act of deleting the images was a "false flag"  action or the action of a whistle-blower trying to tell the world that you were involved in a conspiracy.

Welcome to the world and crazy thought-processes of hoax-believers.....
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: Count Zero on June 23, 2015, 07:29:52 AM
Good point!
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: smartcooky on June 23, 2015, 07:49:56 AM
Here is one man's story:  Link (http://legacy.jefferson.kctcs.edu/observatory/apollo11/).

My Dad was a ham radio operator, and he tried to do this but was unable to detect anything other than the occasional short bursts of barely audible sounds that might have been voice.

There is one statement in this article that I don't believe they have right...

"Baysinger’s wife and daughter watched the Apollo 11 landing on TV while Baysinger and Rutherford listened via Baysinger’s equipment.  The signal on the home-built equipment came through approximately 5-10 seconds earlier than the signal on TV.  Baysinger figures NASA or the TV network [I assume it was probably CBS] put in a delay in case they needed to edit out anything embarrassing."

IMO their conclusion regarding the reason for the time delay it is wrong or at worst incomplete. The signal they were receiving with their equipment was line-of-sight in a direct line from the S-Band transmitters at "Tranquillity Base", but the TV signal they were getting would have been relayed via the DSN receivers to Houston and then back out on microwave communications lines or coaxial cables to the broadcasters and through several relays to where they were watching in Louisiana. I'm sure someone like KA9Q or Dwight would confirm that these "relay delays" can add up several seconds.
 
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: Echnaton on June 23, 2015, 07:59:26 AM
What is that?
Is from some guy named Jay Weidner, is he trustworthy?


Welcome to the forum.  By coming here you have taken the first step in seeing that trust is not the needed or desired main characteristic of knowledge.  Learning is.    The US space program, starting with the first satellite launch, forms a well documented chain of events that led up to the Apollo 11 landing.  This includes.

Explorer 1  (https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Explorer_1) which detected the Van Allen Belts
The Mercury program (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Mercury)
The Gemini program (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gemini)
The Surveyor program (https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Surveyor_program)


If you learn about these it is easy to seen the chain of invention, exploration and discovery that lead to the Apollo program.  Further reading on the Apollo program  (https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Apollo_program) from its start in the mid sixties show that the landings were not a isolated phenomenon, as hoax proponents would lead one to believe.  But were in fact the culmination of more than a decade of work by hundreds of thousands of people.  There is no need to trust somebody on a web page, explore and discover for yourself.
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: Gazpar on June 23, 2015, 12:00:49 PM
Soo much thanks guys, I really needed this explanations.
But I have one final doubt:
Could the soviets know it was faked but they could not tell it to the world because they are isolated from the rest or because they were losing and nobody wanted to hear them about the landings?
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: Allan F on June 23, 2015, 12:26:28 PM
IF they had evidence, IF that evidence was verifiable, the world would have listened. BUT zero evidence against the Apollo moon landings have today been verifiable. And the evidence FOR the Apollo moon landings has been verified - and is continuously being verified.
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: gillianren on June 23, 2015, 12:56:51 PM
Could the soviets know it was faked but they could not tell it to the world because they are isolated from the rest or because they were losing and nobody wanted to hear them about the landings?

Can you try looking into the history of the era and tell me what makes you think this was possible or that it's the best explanation for how they actually responded?  Because what it looks like what you're doing right now is just kind of throwing out a bunch of things without really thinking about them.  After all, if the Moon landings were faked, the Soviets weren't losing.  They'd sent craft, albeit unmanned, to the Moon themselves, and it got overshadowed by the manned craft of Apollo.  Sure, they were nowhere near a manned mission, but the world at large didn't know that. 
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: gwiz on June 23, 2015, 01:00:03 PM
The Soviets knew it was real because they were tracking the Apollo missions themselves.
http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/mag/2005/1045/24532/

My first post to the old Apollo-Hoax forum was a heads-up when this report came out in 2005.
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: nomuse on June 23, 2015, 01:09:38 PM
Not to join the dogpile, but missing rocks and video just throw into stronger relief that there are rocks and video. Unlike the Watergate tapes, the gaps in these are not conveniently placed right where you would most expect a smoking gun. For that, you'd have to have, well, no geology samples, and maybe a quarter of the video record.

On Weidner:

1) One of his arguments for the necessity of backdrops is simply wrong. If he doesn't know what a hyperfocal distance is, he had no business passing himself off as an expert in camera technology.

2) One of his "tells" for use of Scotchlite is, well, refuted by the actual use of it by the filmmaker he cites. This discovery is so far unique to me which is why I'm being roundabout in describing it, but if anyone were to actually read up on the use of front projection in "2001" they'd realize that Weidner did not do his research.
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: nomuse on June 23, 2015, 01:22:35 PM
I just have to add; every time a hoaxie like Weidner claims he sees evidence of typical cinematography tricks, they demonstrate only that they have a deluded sense of competence in their understanding of the film world as well.

One of the ones I really like about Weidner is that he claims the sharp demarcation between what he thinks is foreground, and what is deep background, is a straight line, and therefor direct evidence of the bottom edge of a front projection screen.

Here's the problems with that;

1) Many of the photographs and not a little video have "actors" moving far into the midground. Take the "house rock" stroll. Simple geometry shows the purported front projection screen would be vast, vaster than most green screens (these days, they just screen around the actors and use a garbage matt to take care of the rest of the frame). And very much larger than any recorded use of front projection.

2) No-one leaves the edge of the backdrop exposed like that. Not Hollywood, not the theater, not even BBC doing black-and-white episodes of Doctor Who. They break up that too-obvious line.

3) It isn't even a straight line anyhow.


Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: Echnaton on June 23, 2015, 01:27:33 PM
Could the soviets know it was faked but they could not tell it to the world because they are isolated from the rest or because they were losing and nobody wanted to hear them about the landings?

Speculating on what a very large number of people might or could have done 50 years ago is not a very productive.  The Soviet Union was much like NASA, a collective of diverse interests under one umbrella organization. Albeit with a number of notable differences too.  As totalitarian as the USSR was, there is no one "Soviet" answer to cover any particular question.  Learning comes from examining the historical record not speculating from hypothetical motivations.  So when someone starts doing that, it is wise to withhold acceptance on the truth of what they say.
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: Halcyon Dayz, FCD on June 23, 2015, 01:54:51 PM
Is it possible that USA could have bribed Russia with grain shipments to keep the conspiracy?
That would be like handing over a very sharp knife aimed straight at your own jugular to your worst enemy.
IOW either suicidal or extremely stupid.

Also, the USSR was enjoying record harvests during the Apollo years: LINK (http://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?country=su&commodity=wheat&graph=production).
How could they even have known they would need to buy grain (having to pay in gold and hard currency) on the world market in the future.

Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: Abaddon on June 23, 2015, 01:59:02 PM
Soo much thanks guys, I really needed this explanations.
But I have one final doubt:
Could the soviets know it was faked but they could not tell it to the world because they are isolated from the rest or because they were losing and nobody wanted to hear them about the landings?
Alexei Leonov, Soviet Cosmonaut and first man to walk in space calls hoax believers ignorant. (only 1:35)

Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 23, 2015, 02:01:36 PM
Could the soviets know it was faked but they could not tell it to the world because they are isolated from the rest or because they were losing and nobody wanted to hear them about the landings?

...or the more plausible narrative. It was real and the Soviets accepted the events reported by NASA as they had tracked the Apollo craft themselves. I was rather beaten to this reply by Allan F and gwiz (as usual). However, I'd say that if it was hoaxed and the USSR knew, then they would have called foul straight away.
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: BertieSlack on June 23, 2015, 04:58:06 PM
Is it possible that USA could have bribed Russia with grain shipments to keep the conspiracy?


The Soviet Union began importing American grain in 1972 - three years after they lost the Space Race. These weren't bribes - the Soviets had to pay for the grain. The USSR had to deplete their foreign currency reserves to make these trades, thus weakening their international position. The trades were advantageous for the Nixon administration in another way as well - they solved the problem of over-supply in the U.S domestic market and kept prices steady for American farmers in an election year (it's part of U.S election strategy 101 - don't tick off the farm lobby). So the grain shipments were good domestically & internationally for Nixon and bad internationally for the Soviets. This is hardly the USSR asking for hush money or Nixon having a gun held to his head, is it?

It's a myth that Soviet citizens were starving at that time, and that the grain shipments prevented famine. They had enough food. But they wanted to expand their domestic meat industry. By importing grain, they could free up foodstuffs for animal feed. The Soviet Union had been increasing grain imports from various sources since the early 1960s. Soviet citizens wanted more than borscht every day.

But let's say hypothetically that the U.S was bribing the USSR to stay quiet in the 1970s. By the 1980s, after the U.S imposed a trade embargo in 1979 after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the boycott of the Moscow Olympics in 1980, and dear old Ronnie Reagan ramping up Cold War tensions with his Star Wars program and 'evil empire' rhetoric and improvements in Soviet domestic grain production - surely the Soviets could've called them out then?

The Soviets sent their congratulations in 1969, despite the pain of propaganda defeat. They had the means and motive to expose any hoax. When the Soviet file archive was opened in 1989 after the fall of communism, there was nothing in there that suggested they had any doubts about the authenticity of Apollo. They could have sent their own unmanned lander to Tranquillity Base the next week if they'd wanted to (and NASA knew that too, so why risk a hoax that could be instantly busted?) But the Soviets were more interested in claiming (falsely) that they hadn't lost the race to the moon because they'd never been in the race and had been concentrating all along on orbiting space stations. Their files showed otherwise.
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: ka9q on June 23, 2015, 05:38:29 PM
The US space program, starting with the first satellite launch, forms a well documented chain of events that led up to the Apollo 11 landing.  This includes.

Explorer 1  (https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Explorer_1) which detected the Van Allen Belts
The Mercury program (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Mercury)
The Gemini program (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gemini)
The Surveyor program (https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Surveyor_program)
And The Lunar Orbiter program (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Orbiter)
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 23, 2015, 06:27:33 PM
Thank you BertieSlack, I enjoyed reading your analysis of the grain to the Soviets. I thought it was clear, concise and compelling. I learned something new today... again!
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: darren r on June 23, 2015, 06:59:19 PM
Thank you BertieSlack, I enjoyed reading your analysis of the grain to the Soviets. I thought it was clear, concise and compelling. I learned something new today... again!

Totally agree. Four years after Apollo 11 and they had to pay for it - doesn't sound much like a bribe to me!
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: Gazpar on June 23, 2015, 08:28:17 PM
What do you think about aulis? is it legit? It has lots of content about the photos anomalies
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: nomuse on June 23, 2015, 08:34:59 PM
What do you think about aulis? is it legit? It has lots of content about the photos anomalies

Aulis is a lot of fun. Even idiots like me can figure out where Jack went wrong -- usually with a little geometry. One of my favorite "challenges" from Aulis was a pair of pictures showing three elements (as I recall, flag, LM, and high antenna). From a distance, so they basically form a line. In one picture, the flag is the inside element. In another, the outside element. The challenge; is this geometrically possible, or is Jack correct that someone re-arranged the "set pieces" in the middle of shooting?

Others require different degrees of creative problem-solving. Tracing shadows towards a light source, for instance. Comparing field of views. Doing a quick overlay and comparison to see if two backgrounds are actually "identical," or if there is indeed a perspective shift between them.
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: grmcdorman on June 23, 2015, 08:45:45 PM
To expand on nomuse's response, Aulis is not valid. As implied by the response, it's full of errors, logical fallacies, and just plain hogwash. JayUtah's site dissects some of the more egregious claims.
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: Gazpar on June 23, 2015, 09:25:03 PM
To expand on nomuse's response, Aulis is not valid. As implied by the response, it's full of errors, logical fallacies, and just plain hogwash. JayUtah's site dissects some of the more egregious claims.
I dont understand why hoaxers relay so much on that site. All they sources come from there
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: JayUtah on June 23, 2015, 09:52:52 PM
I dont understand why hoaxers relay so much on that site. All they sources come from there.

At first glance it seems reasonably scientific and dispassionate.  But to those skilled in the relevant fields, it's quite a pack of lies.  The authors are not at all reliable researchers and have no relevant qualifications.  David Percy is a credentialled photographer, but he has no qualifications in the analysis of photographs.  Mary Bennett is simply a self-proclaimed psychic.
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: JayUtah on June 23, 2015, 10:17:33 PM
Does this evidence prove the hoax?

Of course not, which is to say "prove the hoax" would entail actually discovering a hoax, not merely inferring or supposing a hoax because some other evidence didn't add up.  That part of the argument is basic logic and reasoning.  Lack of evidence for one thing does not automatically prove some other affirmative claim.

Quote
Missing lunar rocks
Like any valuable curated item, lunar samples attract loss and theft as well as fraudulent claims of ownership or sale.  Most of the samples in question are quite small.  The total mass of retrieved lunar samples is around 400 kg.  I'm not sure how stories of loss, theft, recovery, or third-party fraud constitute proof in any way that the missions were hoaxed.  Could you flesh out that line of reasoning?

Quote
Missing telemetry data
This argument presumes that NASA should have curated the tapes in the certain way the conspiracy theorists impose.  That imposition is based on erroneous notions such as the telemetry tapes being the "original" records of the mission, especially of the television coverage.  The process of converting the embedded television signal to a standard signal, such that it could be playable by ordinary video equipment, was accomplished "on the fly" during the mission by highly specialized, custom-built equipment.  The telemetry tapes were retained temporarily only against the possibility that such an on-the-fly conversion would have failed.  Reading the tapes themselves requires large, finicky equipment, only one example of which has survived.  While the telemetry tapes are the original recordings, they are not the primary source of data, nor an especially useful source.  Only in very recent years have new techniques arisen to glean more from them than the original plan called for.

They are also very large.  Each tape is the size of a trash-can lid and records only 15 minutes worth of telemetry.  They are very expensive and very bulky to store.  And in the early 1970s they were also quite rare.  Memorex, the company that supplied the original tapes, used whale oil in the binder.  With the advent of the Endangered Species Act, they were called upon to find a more environmentally responsible method.  They were not able to do it in time, and NASA was forced to re-use Apollo tapes for ongoing missions.  They did not explicitly use the Apollo 11 tapes, but the tapes were not labeled in a way that made it easy for technicians to identify them in time.

In short, the claim that NASA somehow intentionally destroyed the original records of Apollo 11 is ludicrous.  The telemetry tapes themselves were useful only so that data could be extracted from them later, which was done.  The data they contained is safe.  The telemetry recordings themselves are a red herring.

Quote
What does this means?
It means if you spent a year in space outside the Van Allen belts, you could be expected to absorb a certain amount of normal space radiation, in addition to possibly enduring one of half a dozen or so major solar events that occur.  However, for a short two-week mission the normal level of radiation is suitably attenuated by the spacecraft, which provides around 7 g cm-2 of shielding.  No major solar events occurred during any of the Apollo missions.  The information on that page is true, but it is not applicable to Apollo.

Quote
Is from some guy named Jay Weidner, is he trustworthy?

No.

Quote
Is it possible that USA could have bribed Russia with grain shipments to keep the conspiracy?

Only if you accept the most tenuous of quid pro quo claims, and believe that international blackmail lasts forever.
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: sts60 on June 24, 2015, 12:18:40 AM
Hi, Gazpar.  Welcome to the board.

Hi guys, I believe the landing happened...
Which one?  Do you mean the Apollo manned lunar landings?  There were six of them.  There were also three manned circumlunar missions (two planned, one aborted landing mission). 

Does this evidence prove the hoax?
No.  The first few don't support a hoax claim at all.  The last one is just some random person making up stuff, which is basically the story for everything else on that web site.
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: raven on June 24, 2015, 12:46:33 AM
Another problem with the grain claim is that, even if it would work, why didn't they squeal when the US did the opposite and imposed an embargo of grain under Carter? As for the isolation theory, the USSR was a freaking superpower. This wasn't  some stain on a map of a country. As isolated as they kept its citizens, it still held huge influence as a world power. If the Soviet Union said the US faked the moon landings and backed it up with facts, the world would listen.
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: Halcyon Dayz, FCD on June 24, 2015, 01:10:15 AM
I'd like to point out that the hoax believers were completely unaware that the backup tapes even existed, until NASA announced some were missing, at which point the tapes suddenly became the "Smoking Gun."

Conveniently providing themselves with an excuse to ignore all the other evidence.
The vast, vast amount of other evidence, including 3rd party evidence.
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: ka9q on June 24, 2015, 01:27:33 AM
I'd like to point out that the hoax believers were completely unaware that the backup tapes even existed, until NASA announced some were missing, at which point the tapes suddenly became the "Smoking Gun."
This has become a recurring pattern: demand some piece of evidence they think doesn't exist, as though it and it alone would convince them of the reality of the Apollo program.

So the real fun comes when they demand something like this, and then you produce it for them and watch the furious backpedaling and goalpost-moving.
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: BertieSlack on June 24, 2015, 03:32:20 AM
Thank you BertieSlack, I enjoyed reading your analysis of the grain to the Soviets. I thought it was clear, concise and compelling. I learned something new today... again!

The CT argument that the USSR was desperate for grain, that the U.S was the only place they could get it, and that they were prepared to pay the price of Apollo silence (starting three years AFTER Apollo 11) in exchange is simply not borne out by the facts. So the hoaxnuts then turn the goalposts around: it was actually the Americans who were desperate to send gifts to buy off the Soviets - 'gifts' that the Soviets didn't need and had to pay hard currency for, and which helped prevent the bottom falling out of the U.S domestic grain market. Typical hoaxnut Doublethink.
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: gwiz on June 24, 2015, 07:06:30 AM
What do you think about aulis? is it legit? It has lots of content about the photos anomalies
If you've got the time, there are a series of pieces on the Education Forum in which Evan Burton systematically examines the Aulis claims and shows the errors in every one.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showforum=262
Look down the list for the threads with "Jack White" in the title.
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: Kiwi on June 24, 2015, 08:59:56 AM
Could the soviets know it was faked but they could not tell it to the world because they are isolated from the rest or because they were losing and nobody wanted to hear them about the landings?

Look up your own newspapers of July 1969 and read what the Soviets said about Apollo 11. It can be exciting to read about news as it was originally written.

Here's what an Australian newspaper said:

Quote
The West Australian, Wednesday 23 July 1969, page 8
Congratulations from Kosygin
Moscow, Tuesday

Soviet Prime Minister Alexei Kosygin sent congratulations to the Apollo 11 astronauts and President Nixon yesterday through former vice-president Humphrey, who is visiting Moscow.

Mr Humphrey was called to Mr Kosygin's office in the Kremlin after the moon walk.

Mr Humphrey quoted Mr Kosygin as saying: "I want you to tell the President and the American people that the Soviet Union desires to work with the U.S. in the cause of peace."

Prompt reports

The Russian radio reported the landing of the astronauts within ten minutes of touch-down and announced the ascent from the moon even more promptly. Moscow television showed the moon walk yesterday.

A first screening was edited to blank out the American commentary and the voices of the astronauts. It ended just before the astronauts raised the U.S. flag on the moon's surface.

About two hours later, in another TV broadcast, the sound and the flag raising had been restored.

In Peking, the official newspapers, TV and radio totally ignored Apollo 11, but some Chinese people may have heard of the landing by courtesy of Radio Moscow. A half-hour Chinese-language news broadcast from Moscow gave 30 seconds to the landing.

In London, a man who almost arranged the death of Saturn rocket designer Wernher von Braun sent him a cable of congratulations - and relief.

Politician Duncan Sandys, who planned a raid designed to kill Nazi Germany's major rocket scientists at Peenemunde (one of them Dr von Braun), said: "I am thankful that your illustrious career was not cut short in the bombing raid at Peenemunde 26 years ago."

And a New Zealand newspaper:

Quote
Manawatu Evening Standard,  Friday 25 July 1969, page 1
Astronauts home — Perfect, but upside down, landing
NZPA  Aboard USS Hornet, July 24

Apollo-XI's astronauts, their footprints stamped forever in history, splashed (upside down) "in excellent condition" today to make good America's commitment to walk on the moon in the 1960s.

A beaming President Nixon was aboard the aircraft carrier USS Hornet in the Pacific, 1000 miles southwest of Honolulu, when the epic voyage of the three explorers came to its end.

Civilian Neil Armstrong, aged 38, Air Force Colonel Edwin Aldrin, aged 39, and Lieutenant-Colonel Michael Collins, aged 38, blazed back through the atmosphere and disappeared into the most severe medical quarantine in history.  They came back from a voyage of nearly a million miles in space.

The United States top space official, Dr Thomas Paine, administrator at NASA, predicted the Russians would be on the moon too, within 18 months, and urged his countrymen not to "turn inward" and sacrifice interplanetary exploration to internal problems.

Bedlam broke out in many American cities, large and small.  Car horns, city and ship sirens screamed and fireworks crackled in San Francisco, where the Mayor, Mr Joseph Alioto, had asked every noise-making device in the city to be turned on for five minutes.  Church bells rang in New England.

Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins splashed down a few miles from the Hornet just at dawn, and bobbed in the dark ocean for more than an hour while they put on quarantine garments.

AAP-Reuter reported that Mission Control in Houston, Texas, said the unofficial splashdown time was 195 hours, 18 minutes and 21 seconds after lift-off from Cape Kennedy.  This was a bare 45 seconds earlier than the original flight plan.

Black out

The spaceship seared into earth's atmosphere at over 24,000 miles an hour, and there were tense minutes of waiting for radio contact to be re-established after the re-entry blackout.

The flight controller, Mr Ron Evans, put in nine tight-voiced calls to the spacecraft before getting an answer.

Apollo-XI landed upside down in the sea, and there were long minutes while controllers waited for flotation bags to inflate and right the bell-shaped capsule, and so confirm that all was well aboard.

Then a recovery helicopter pilot radioed: "The crew is excellent and ready to take on swimmers."

Before they were taken aboard the helicopter which brought them to Hornet, the astronauts were sprayed and scrubbed with a fluid scientists believe will effectively take care of any moon organism — if such exist.  The spacecraft was also sprayed and scrubbed.

The astronauts already had been given biological isolation garments — head-to-foot suits designed to prevent contamination of the earth by possible moon germs.

A frogman then sprayed the outside of the spacecraft with germ-killing fluid.

Trailer

The astronauts were taken by the helicopter to an aluminium trailer on the deck of the Hornet, to be quarantined from the world for 18 days.

The astronauts stepped on the Hornet's deck and walked steadily, clad in their isolation suits, into the rear door of the trailer that will be kept sealed, for a two-day trip to Honolulu on the Hornet and then by air to the space centre near Houston.

A moment later one astronaut's face appeared at a window and a great cheer broke out on the hangar deck.

In mission control at Houston, weary controllers cheered themselves hoarse and the room bloomed with American flags.

Soviet praise

From Moscow, the Soviet President, Mr N. Podgorny, today congratulated President Nixon on "the successful completion of the outstanding flight of the spaceship Apollo-XI, the moon landing and the safe return to earth of the American cosmonauts."

The Soviet President's telegram said:  "Please convey our congratulations and best wishes to the courageous space pilots Neil Armstrong, Edwin Aldrin and Michael Collins."

Russian television viewers saw their first live transmission from the epic Apollo-XI flight, as the moon-walking astronauts landed on the Hornet.


I'm also intrigued about you saying "I believe the landing happened ..."

Did you really think there was only one?

And regarding the rock thefts, I think that confirms that the landings happened.  Why would anyone want to steal fakes?

At least your post got me wondering where New Zealand's Apollo 11 rock is now, and Google instantly gave me the link:
http://collections.tepapa.govt.nz/object/64368

Te Papa is our national museum.

Then there's the rock that the Apollo 17 guys dedicated to other countries not long before they stepped off the lunar surface.  I don't recall hearing what happened to that.

Gazpar, you've obviously spent time looking at hoax literature, but have you balanced that by looking at the other side?  Spent a few tens or hundreds of hours at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journals and the Apollo Flight Journals?
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/frame.html
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/

Read just the Mission Summaries at Apollo by the Numbers? Thought about all the highly-detailed information there and whether or not scientists could blow big holes in it if it wasn't reliable?
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/SP-4029.htm
Contents page:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_00g_Table_of_Contents.htm
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: Dr_Orpheus on June 24, 2015, 10:38:10 AM
This has become a recurring pattern: demand some piece of evidence they think doesn't exist, as though it and it alone would convince them of the reality of the Apollo program.

So the real fun comes when they demand something like this, and then you produce it for them and watch the furious backpedaling and goalpost-moving.

Near the end of his run at JREF, Patrick had repeated examples of this.  He had an especially amusing back-peddle claiming the non-existence of close up photos of astronauts exiting the capsule after splash down.  I think he finally amended the claim to the lack of close up videos of them leaving the capsule.  He insisted that was what he had meant all along and the earlier failed claim was a  white lie to trick us.
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: Gazpar on June 24, 2015, 11:11:25 AM
I believe all the fly-by's and landings happened.
Since I have read all the hoaxers claims(they are louder), I wanted to hear about the opposing side.
Of course, all the landings and flybys happened, the evidence is overwhelming.
Now that you all gave me something to read and spend my time, my doubts have now been cleared and I see now the faulty logic of HB's.
I just needed advice from professionals and Im glad I received them here.
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: Echnaton on June 24, 2015, 12:22:06 PM
Glad you stopped by, Gazpar.  Feel free to hang around too.
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: Abaddon on June 24, 2015, 12:54:39 PM
I believe all the fly-by's and landings happened.
Since I have read all the hoaxers claims(they are louder), I wanted to hear about the opposing side.
Of course, all the landings and flybys happened, the evidence is overwhelming.
Now that you all gave me something to read and spend my time, my doubts have now been cleared and I see now the faulty logic of HB's.
I just needed advice from professionals and Im glad I received them here.
Just remember that you will often happen upon HBs with what appears to be a watertight argument at first glance.

What you have here at your fingertips is an enormous pool of expertise; scientists, engineers, etc. some of whom have been, and indeed currently are, involved directly in space programs.

It is likely, should you continue to peruse deluded HB musings, that you will happen upon claims you cannot effectively refute. This here site has seen it all, done it all. I know for a fact that when I happen upon some random claim that I have not seen before, I search here first because I know it has most likely been dealt with here before. If it hasn't then I know that an answer will be forthcoming in short order.

Feel free to dip in whenever you happen on something you can't figure out. Nobody knows everything, but it's a fair bet that somebody here knows the answer you seek for any question.

As Echnaton said, feel free to hang around.
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: Gazpar on June 24, 2015, 01:01:38 PM
Im glad to be here and thank you for your responses
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: nomuse on June 24, 2015, 01:06:23 PM
Most of the fun in coming here is learning about bits and angles (of not just the Apollo Program, but aerospace, astronomy, optics, chemistry, who-knows-what) from the other posters here.

If the hoaxies perform a useful function it is that; shining a light into interesting places that one might not otherwise have looked, and bringing out interesting and informative people to talk about what they've found.
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 24, 2015, 01:51:57 PM
As for the isolation theory, the USSR was a freaking superpower. This wasn't  some stain on a map of a country.

Absolutely, they had a huge sphere of influence across Eastern Europe, most Governments in Eastern Europe were puppets of Moscow. Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, they were based across the world. It is quite arguable that the Korean War and Vietnam were heavily influenced by the Soviets and their provision of arms to Communist forces. Far from isolated.
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: gillianren on June 24, 2015, 02:39:34 PM
It has lots of content about the photos anomalies

This phrasing amuses me.  It does have lots of content.  So does TV Tropes.  The difference is that TV Tropes is generally reliable about what it's saying.
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: smartcooky on June 24, 2015, 04:12:57 PM
It is likely, should you continue to peruse deluded HB musings, that you will happen upon claims you cannot effectively refute. This here site has seen it all, done it all. I know for a fact that when I happen upon some random claim that I have not seen before, I search here first because I know it has most likely been dealt with here before. If it hasn't then I know that an answer will be forthcoming in short order.

And I'll give you an example of this....

The walls of the LM pressure cabin are only of micro-millimetric thickness. I once heard Jim Lovell (Commander Apollo 13) say that if you weren't careful you could easily put your boot through it and puncture it, and in space, that is immediately fatal for anyone inside because on the other side of that micro-thin wall is the vacuum of space. On Apollo 13, Haise and Lovell knew this and were familiar with this facet of the LM's construction, but Zweigert wasn't and they had to brief him. One time they had to warn him to be careful that he didn't kick the door out!!!

Now, I had an HB once claim (and I am sure that it is a common claim) that the LM walls should blow out like a balloon with the pressure differential. I didn't have the answer to refute his claim, as at the time, I could not see why he wasn't right.

* Cue an Apollohoax member who is an aerospace engineer or someone with the requisite engineering knowledge, who will now explain why this does not happen.......
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 24, 2015, 04:26:48 PM
Well firstly the LM pressure vessel had plenty of ribs and crossbeams to give it structural strength, and secondly even if the walls did bulge out you'd never see it from the outside because the outer panels are not the pressure vessel of the LM but thermal and micrometeoroid protection system that is essentially thin sheets of metal connected by rivets, tape and various other methods. TO see how thin and flimsy this layer was, look at the state of the back of the Apollo 16 LM after lunar liftoff.

Additionally, inside the LM are plenty of control panels and stowage lockers that make touching the actual pressure vessel skin not so easy as stretching your foot out and accidentally putting it through the wall. Even if you could, try puncturing a coke can without a sharp object. Similar thickness.

That all being said, the astronauts did note that the door appeared to bulge out when the LM was pressurised....
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: Zakalwe on June 24, 2015, 05:14:19 PM
That all being said, the astronauts did note that the door appeared to bulge out when the LM was pressurised....

Was it Aldrin that had to "peel" the hatch open before dumping the PLSSs and other garbage before ascent? IIRC, they pressurised, stripped off the PLSSs, prepared stuff for dumping, connected to the onboard atmospheric unit, de-pessurised and then dumped the garbage on the surface. They then re-pressurised ready for ascent. IIRC there was a small amount of pressure left and Aldrin (again I think that it was Aldrin) "peeled" back one corner to equalise. The door was flimsy enough to allow this.


Also, I seem to remember reading about a technician puncturing the floor on a LM (or it could have been a boilerplate) when he dropped a screwdriver when working on it.
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: grmcdorman on June 24, 2015, 05:50:42 PM
The other question is how thick should it be? The HB is engaging in a bit of 'begging the question' here, as the presupposition of the question is that a millimeter-thick skin is too thin.

It may also be something that one of the ISF (formerly JREF) forums calls an 'unevaluated equivocation fallacy' (or words to that effect): the supposition that A > B when one or neither values are known.
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: Count Zero on June 24, 2015, 07:08:58 PM
Here's a couple of pictures of the lunar module ascent stage crew cabin without the insulation and outer skin.  You can see the ribs supporting the skin of the cabin:

Front (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/misc/apmisc-LM-noID-10.jpg)
Side (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/misc/apmisc-LM-noID-11.jpg)
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: Peter B on June 26, 2015, 10:07:03 AM
That all being said, the astronauts did note that the door appeared to bulge out when the LM was pressurised....

Was it Aldrin that had to "peel" the hatch open before dumping the PLSSs and other garbage before ascent? IIRC, they pressurised, stripped off the PLSSs, prepared stuff for dumping, connected to the onboard atmospheric unit, de-pessurised and then dumped the garbage on the surface. They then re-pressurised ready for ascent. IIRC there was a small amount of pressure left and Aldrin (again I think that it was Aldrin) "peeled" back one corner to equalise. The door was flimsy enough to allow this.

It was Aldrin, but the peel happened prior to the moonwalk.

John Young on Apollo 10 was a bit concerned about the bulging hatch.

Quote
Also, I seem to remember reading about a technician puncturing the floor on a LM (or it could have been a boilerplate) when he dropped a screwdriver when working on it.

I think it was Murray and Cox in "Apollo - The Race to the Moon" who mentioned this incident.
Title: Re: Some doubts.
Post by: bknight on July 15, 2015, 10:19:22 AM
Hi guys, I believe the landing happened but I have some doubts and I need someone to explain it.

Is it possible that USA could have bribed Russia with grain shipments to keep the conspiracy?

Thanks in advance for your replies.
The first grain purchase agreement was signed in 1972 very near the end of the moon missions.

https://www.apstudynotes.org/us-history/topics/nixon-and-foreign-policy/