31
General Discussion / Re: The Trump Presidency
« Last post by LionKing on January 03, 2026, 05:26:42 PM »It seems he is intending to seem crazy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory
Recent Posts
32
The Hoax Theory / Re: Watching the detectives...
« Last post by onebigmonkey on January 03, 2026, 05:42:19 AM »Meanwhile, Dean Talboys is at a loss as to how the LRRR was set up, because they couldn't bend down properly. "Don't tell me they used a spirit level", he says. One of his responders is mystified that there are no photographs or videos of them doing it.
Sorry Dean, but they used a spirit level. It was spring loaded to unpack itself by pulling a release cable, and preset for the correct angle. A levelling leg could be manipulated using the universal tool until a bubble spirit level was in the right place, and a gnomon alllowed it bto be oriented correctly using the abngle of the sun at deployment.
ALl documented in this https://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/ephemera/Partners/ALSEP.pdf (page 81 et seq.), and covered here
complete with training footage.
Photos AS11-40-5942 to 5945 show Aldrin carrying, then putting down, the LRRR. AS14-67-9385 shows the bubble spirit level. https://apollojournals.org/alsj/a15/a15v.1252825.mpg shows Dave Scott finishing off the LRRR set up.
There's a lot of nonsense talked about the reflector and how you can bounce signals off the moon and how the unmanned ones work just fine.
The problem with signal bounce is that the width of the signal as it arrives means there's doubt over the distance because the moon is a curved surface, and the wide signal is affected by that curvature. If you have a reflector and you know exactly where it is, you can be more precise about signal travel time and therefore distance.
Sure, unmanned ones work, if you can find them - one of the Russian ones was lost for years. The fact is that we have documented evidence of three Apollo LRRRs being installed at specific locations, adn a signal is returned from those specific locations. Sorry Dean.
Sorry Dean, but they used a spirit level. It was spring loaded to unpack itself by pulling a release cable, and preset for the correct angle. A levelling leg could be manipulated using the universal tool until a bubble spirit level was in the right place, and a gnomon alllowed it bto be oriented correctly using the abngle of the sun at deployment.
ALl documented in this https://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/ephemera/Partners/ALSEP.pdf (page 81 et seq.), and covered here
complete with training footage.
Photos AS11-40-5942 to 5945 show Aldrin carrying, then putting down, the LRRR. AS14-67-9385 shows the bubble spirit level. https://apollojournals.org/alsj/a15/a15v.1252825.mpg shows Dave Scott finishing off the LRRR set up.
There's a lot of nonsense talked about the reflector and how you can bounce signals off the moon and how the unmanned ones work just fine.
The problem with signal bounce is that the width of the signal as it arrives means there's doubt over the distance because the moon is a curved surface, and the wide signal is affected by that curvature. If you have a reflector and you know exactly where it is, you can be more precise about signal travel time and therefore distance.
Sure, unmanned ones work, if you can find them - one of the Russian ones was lost for years. The fact is that we have documented evidence of three Apollo LRRRs being installed at specific locations, adn a signal is returned from those specific locations. Sorry Dean.
33
The Reality of Apollo / Re: Book Review/New Book!!
« Last post by TimberWolfAu on January 03, 2026, 04:19:19 AM »I honestly don't know if I can keep going.
Almost halfway, but now, apparently, NASA hid turtles in the photos........ I kid you not.
So many massive leaps made from single photos, that are destroyed by other photos taken from different angles.
For what's supposed to be the result of years of research, and apparently 20 years of experience in the space industry, I thought it would have more than personal incredulity and "the shadows look weird".
Almost halfway, but now, apparently, NASA hid turtles in the photos........ I kid you not.
So many massive leaps made from single photos, that are destroyed by other photos taken from different angles.
For what's supposed to be the result of years of research, and apparently 20 years of experience in the space industry, I thought it would have more than personal incredulity and "the shadows look weird".
34
The Hoax Theory / Re: Watching the detectives...
« Last post by onebigmonkey on January 03, 2026, 02:41:08 AM »I did heaps of debunking work regarding Jack White's absurd claims about 20 years ago. If you ever want work regarding specific claims (e.g. When at Surveyor the image of the Apollo 12 crew does not show the LM in the distance, etc), let me know which claim and I'll dig up my old images / posts.
CHeers
What I would be intersted in is if Jack White's 'research' exists outside the largely meme based format on aulis, ie where he lays out his processes, sources, that kind of thing. What's exhibited at aulis are effectively his conclusions, not how he arrived at them.
35
The Hoax Theory / Re: Watching the detectives...
« Last post by Obviousman on January 02, 2026, 05:30:10 PM »I did heaps of debunking work regarding Jack White's absurd claims about 20 years ago. If you ever want work regarding specific claims (e.g. When at Surveyor the image of the Apollo 12 crew does not show the LM in the distance, etc), let me know which claim and I'll dig up my old images / posts.
36
The Hoax Theory / Re: Watching the detectives...
« Last post by onebigmonkey on January 02, 2026, 03:44:55 AM »Same ****, different year.
Over on facebook, Rasa has posted this image comparison of AS12-46-6807.
He gives no indication of the source for either of the images he's used.
His claim is that the lens artefact was added by evil NASA for [insert some bizarre reason here]
Well, there's a few things wrong here. First of all, the NASA webpage never "disappeared". It may have changed address, as it has done several times over the years, but it's always been there. If we assume he's talking about the ALSJ, then that isn't true, because the wayback machine has many impressions of it in the period he claims it was absent. There has never been a period since those images first appeared online that they haven't been freely available. If you pick any one of those impressions during the alleged wilderness years, you'll find the version on the right, complete with lens effect.
You can even go to very early versions of the site and find a very poor scan of that image with the effect still visible:
You can see it in other photos too, like the one that made the cover of Life magazine
and here's his example photo, along with another one, in the preliminary science report:
https://archive.org/details/NASA_NTRS_Archive_19700025955/page/n31/mode/2up
But the main thing with Rasa's dumb comparison is that if you adjust the levels of the one he thinks is the untouched unblemished original you get this:
Oh look, the remnants of the lens effect that someone has tried to remove. Far from the one on the left being an untarnished original, it's one that's been altered to try and remove it.
Straydog02 has been regurgitating similar photoshopping claims for Apollo 17 photos of Earth (he's just re-posting Jack White's nonsense from Aulis). I've dealt with those, along with all his other Apollo 17 Earth claims on a new page especially for him. I look forward to finding out what his favourite AI packages tell him to think about it.
https://onebigmonkey.com/itburns/barking/barking.html
Over on facebook, Rasa has posted this image comparison of AS12-46-6807.
He gives no indication of the source for either of the images he's used.
His claim is that the lens artefact was added by evil NASA for [insert some bizarre reason here]
Well, there's a few things wrong here. First of all, the NASA webpage never "disappeared". It may have changed address, as it has done several times over the years, but it's always been there. If we assume he's talking about the ALSJ, then that isn't true, because the wayback machine has many impressions of it in the period he claims it was absent. There has never been a period since those images first appeared online that they haven't been freely available. If you pick any one of those impressions during the alleged wilderness years, you'll find the version on the right, complete with lens effect.
You can even go to very early versions of the site and find a very poor scan of that image with the effect still visible:
You can see it in other photos too, like the one that made the cover of Life magazine
and here's his example photo, along with another one, in the preliminary science report:
https://archive.org/details/NASA_NTRS_Archive_19700025955/page/n31/mode/2up
But the main thing with Rasa's dumb comparison is that if you adjust the levels of the one he thinks is the untouched unblemished original you get this:
Oh look, the remnants of the lens effect that someone has tried to remove. Far from the one on the left being an untarnished original, it's one that's been altered to try and remove it.
Straydog02 has been regurgitating similar photoshopping claims for Apollo 17 photos of Earth (he's just re-posting Jack White's nonsense from Aulis). I've dealt with those, along with all his other Apollo 17 Earth claims on a new page especially for him. I look forward to finding out what his favourite AI packages tell him to think about it.
https://onebigmonkey.com/itburns/barking/barking.html
37
The Reality of Apollo / Re: Radiation VAB Data - Where?
« Last post by TimberWolfAu on January 01, 2026, 10:22:38 PM »Heh, I swear, Mr White must check this forum more than I do.
So, mere hours after I started this thread, who pops up in the 'Rasa's' FB group (I'm still a member of the group, just serving my customary December/January suspension. Seriously, going back through my history, it seems like I always get suspended from 'Rasa's' groups in either December or January. I must admit, I admire the commitment to whomever is doing that) complaining that he can't access the AE8/AP8 page? None other than Mr White himself.
Naturally, one of the first options for why it doesn't work is because it's a "cover up", nothing to do with systems/models become obsolete as newer and better systems/models come about, and so are disused or no longer maintained.
A quick reading of his post, one could make the link that Mr White is implying that he uses this model a lot, and it has only just stopped working. In reality, it hasn't been working for several months at least, since my sign in email for the AE9/AP9 page is from August 2025 (I downloaded but haven't figured out how to use it yet, it wasn't high on my priorities list), and I'd noted it wasn't working a lot earlier than August.
Any other topics you would like us to assist you with, Mr White? It did break up the monotony of your crying over AI pictures on click-bait groups.
So, mere hours after I started this thread, who pops up in the 'Rasa's' FB group (I'm still a member of the group, just serving my customary December/January suspension. Seriously, going back through my history, it seems like I always get suspended from 'Rasa's' groups in either December or January. I must admit, I admire the commitment to whomever is doing that) complaining that he can't access the AE8/AP8 page? None other than Mr White himself.
Naturally, one of the first options for why it doesn't work is because it's a "cover up", nothing to do with systems/models become obsolete as newer and better systems/models come about, and so are disused or no longer maintained.
A quick reading of his post, one could make the link that Mr White is implying that he uses this model a lot, and it has only just stopped working. In reality, it hasn't been working for several months at least, since my sign in email for the AE9/AP9 page is from August 2025 (I downloaded but haven't figured out how to use it yet, it wasn't high on my priorities list), and I'd noted it wasn't working a lot earlier than August.
Any other topics you would like us to assist you with, Mr White? It did break up the monotony of your crying over AI pictures on click-bait groups.
38
The Reality of Apollo / Re: Book Review/New Book!!
« Last post by Peter B on January 01, 2026, 05:00:00 PM »Happy birthday to me, am I about to crack out the aluminium foil hat?
Yeah, IIRC I've seen some comments by this "author" on YT which have been pretty easy to debunk...
39
The Reality of Apollo / Radiation VAB Data - Where?
« Last post by TimberWolfAu on January 01, 2026, 11:02:41 AM »Quick question, if I want to 'play' with details regarding the radiation in the VAB, where would I find this information these days?
There was an AE8/AP8 site (I think this was it https://ccmc.gsfc.nasa.gov/modelweb/models/trap.php) but that doesn't appear to work, or at least doesn't give me any output (could be my browser option/settings).
I've seen reference to an AE9/AP9 and IRENE, I think that was it, but not sure on where to find these, or if they are actually readily available to the general public.
Ideas?
There was an AE8/AP8 site (I think this was it https://ccmc.gsfc.nasa.gov/modelweb/models/trap.php) but that doesn't appear to work, or at least doesn't give me any output (could be my browser option/settings).
I've seen reference to an AE9/AP9 and IRENE, I think that was it, but not sure on where to find these, or if they are actually readily available to the general public.
Ideas?
40
The Reality of Apollo / Re: Book Review/New Book!!
« Last post by TimberWolfAu on January 01, 2026, 10:57:42 AM »Heh, yeah, it's not a great read, the writing style feels like a 14 or 15 year old, and I don't think it's just the translation (which doesn't look like it was done professionally, given some of the word/phrase choices - addendum; from flicking through, looks like he did the translation himself, judging by a comment at the end).
I'd already seen his 'work' on Lunar Laser Ranging, bounced it of some people who actually perform LLR. They had a good laugh.
For anyone interested, there is a free extract of the book, 1st twelve pages and some of the appendix, at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383213710_Apollo_11_-_The_Real_Story
The history of rocketry is... accurate, although I find some of the choices and comparisons odd. I think I just got through the VAB/radiation section, about three pages, and after reading it twice, I'm still not sure what the conclusion is! There's references to alpha and beta particles, but also trapped gamma and x-rays, plus solar storms, thickness of the hull, path taken, a fictional account of a manned lunar mission from a German magazine, and even that, apparently, radiation stopped being a concern because NASA stopped mentioning it, but there is no actual conclusion, neither a 'radiation should have been a problem' or 'radiation didn't turn out to be a problem' to be found.
I've had a few back and forth's with the author in a Facbook group, and I was promised evidence and numbers, but so far, they are very lacking, to the point of almost non-existent.
I'd already seen his 'work' on Lunar Laser Ranging, bounced it of some people who actually perform LLR. They had a good laugh.
For anyone interested, there is a free extract of the book, 1st twelve pages and some of the appendix, at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383213710_Apollo_11_-_The_Real_Story
The history of rocketry is... accurate, although I find some of the choices and comparisons odd. I think I just got through the VAB/radiation section, about three pages, and after reading it twice, I'm still not sure what the conclusion is! There's references to alpha and beta particles, but also trapped gamma and x-rays, plus solar storms, thickness of the hull, path taken, a fictional account of a manned lunar mission from a German magazine, and even that, apparently, radiation stopped being a concern because NASA stopped mentioning it, but there is no actual conclusion, neither a 'radiation should have been a problem' or 'radiation didn't turn out to be a problem' to be found.
I've had a few back and forth's with the author in a Facbook group, and I was promised evidence and numbers, but so far, they are very lacking, to the point of almost non-existent.