Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation

[onebigmonkey]

Oh Lord this is all so tediously familiar 

I can prove Apollo 11 made a TV broadcast with a hand held camera half way to the moon. Can our new friend prove they didn't?

Nope, thought not.

[mako88sb]

Even today, they are still trying to work out how to protect those delicate instruments before they can venture beyond LEO again. It’s a shame they destroyed the plans for the Apollo hardware as surely an extra layer of tinfoil would do the trick.

The plans for the Apollo program were never destroyed. Just the usual nonsense found on YT videos that doesn't stand up to much scrutiny:
http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/004949.html

Plus two books with 3D renderings derived from the actual technical drawings of Grumman and North American Aviation:
https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/9848307
https://www.abebooks.com/9781894959148/Virtual-Pictorial-Essay-Engineering-Construction-1894959140/plp

As for the VAB's, the question that's always asked of hoax believers like you is what kind of radiation is found there that supposedly makes them impassable? None of you have yet to come up with anything remotely resembling real-world understanding of how radiation in the VAB's works and how it can be dealt with. The science and engineering behind all this has been available to the world for the past 45+ years. No radiation expert from any country in the world for the past 45+ years has brought forward any evidence that any of the info provided to them is fraudulent. That includes countries that have not been on the best political terms with the USA. You don't think the USSR would have loved to find something that proves their Cold War enemy was doing something shady in regards to a space mission? They clearly went all out to achieve many firsts in space exploration and were not too happy to see the USA overtake them.

As for those delicate instruments, the big problem in regards to what they are designing Orion for compared to the Apollo program is the difference in mission parameters. Apollo missions only lasted a maximum of 2 weeks whereas Orion is being developed for missions that could last years. While the Apollo missions were fairly close to Earth which allowed the mainframe computers to be data linked to the CM/SM, Orions missions could be much further away so they will need to bring as much computing power as possible since data linking will take too much time between the spacecraft and Earth which could be a serious issue in certain situations. Plus today's electronics are not as robust against the detrimental effects of radiation as the rope-core based computer systems used during the Apollo missions were. Also, for the first time ever, a glass cockpit will be used to help reduce weight:
https://www.designnews.com/aerospace/exclusive-closer-look-nasas-orion-glass-cockpit/98585537531841

The problem with hoax believers is they assume things like this. That the old technology can just be dusted off and re-used again without taking into account just how much more technically capable the newest generation spacecraft must be since it's being developed for a completely different mission profile. Yes, it can be used to go to the moon but it could also go to Mars so the testing criteria are much more important and extensive than anything that's been done before with regards to manned space missions.

[onebigmonkey]

I always think it's hilarious that these idiots think we have NASA pyjamas we love them so much.

As a non-American, I couldn't a flying one about NASA or any other institution. Science and space exploration, on the other hand, is very very interesting.

[Jason Thompson]

but all your arguments are coming from your god, NASA, who I’m sure you would give up your life for, in your desperate attempts to uphold this massive fraud.

So any arguments against your comments must be fake because they come from NASA? With that massive handwave you render any debate pointless, so why exactly are you here? It certainly is not to debate or learn.

We are discussing a possible hoax here, in other words, we are debating as to whether or not we are being lied to, so unless you can prove that NASA and all the other space agencies around the world are not lying to us, then you have nothing.

Really not how reasoned debate works. You don't get to accuse someone of lying then demand they prove they are not. You make the accusation, it is your burden to prove it.

Third party evidence just doesn’t cut it anymore, as they have all jumped on the bandwagon,

Two handwaves later and you have comprehensively discounted all evidence that says you are wrong as being faked because it either comes from NASA itself or from some other third party that is supporting NASA for reasons of its own. Again I must ask, what exactly is your purpose in coming here?

This is where common sense rather than blind faith comes into it,

Neither common sense nor blind faith have anything to do with it. Again, you handwave it to these two possibilities because it allows you to discount anything concrete and render it about free thought and propaganda, which you feel competent to discuss, rather than physics and engineering which you are clearly not.

You need to get this absurd thought out of your heads that a government wouldn’t tell such a massive lie,

I do not have this thought that they wouldn't, but that they couldn't tell such a massive lie because if they did the evidence would be there for us to see clearly. And whatever you see in the evidence, it is not proof of faking it.

In the years since Apollo, NASA have slowly added things to the story to cover for the hoax claims, for instance, why there should be no stars and why objects are brightly lit in shadows and how radiation is now relatively harmless and how they went quickly through the edges of the belts.

None of those things have been added to the story after the event. They're in actual documents from the time. There are no stars in any photos of brightly sunlit objects taken in space from any space program before or since Apollo, and all for the same reason that any halfway competent photographer would understand.

The previous lunar unmanned flights were not done with Apollo hardware, therefor I stand by my assertion that the first Apollo manned lunar mission was untested. Different hardware, different scenario.

Why should the hardware make a difference to the physics of using a rocket engine to send a spacecraft to the Moon? What made Apollo so different?

They had rockets to spare at the end of the alleged Apollo missions, so for what possible reason did they not do an unmanned mission with a monkey (not a turtle) on board.

For what possible reason would such a flight be made?

That would have made the story slightly more believable

NASA is under no obligation to make the story what you think it should be.

How long is it taking them to work out how to do it again with today’s technology?

They're not trying to do it again. If they wanted another two-week lunar mission they could no doubt do such a thing. The planned missions are months or years long. Whole different problems arise in those cases.

There is one set of evidence that would be irrefutable proof that these incredible achievements were at least possible, and that’s the plans on how to build the Saturn V rocket, the Lunar Lander and even the Lunar Rover. To say these plans are hidden away on microfilm is just insane,

No, that would be standard practice to reduce storage space.

as releasing them for scrutiny by todays scientists and engineers in the field would surely nip this supposedly ridiculous hoax theory in the bud once and for all.

Except that has been done and they agree it was possible, but you have already discounted all of their views as meaningless and 'bandwagon jumping'.

I can see I’m dealing with some knowledgeable people here, but I’m afraid to say your knowledge is almost certainly false knowledge and you have all spent a large part of your lives learning science fiction, thinking it’s science fact.

Do you think we just read some books and got told a few things by our teachers in school and accepted it blindly? People on this board have taken that learning and applied it to real problems and found it works, so it certainly isn't science fiction.

But all you have done so far is to try and debunk my arguments, which is fair, but how about throwing me some solid proof?

ANd where, given your comments at the beginning of this that dismissed anything from NASA or a third party, is this solid proof to come from, and what would you consider solid proof in the first place?

The closest I have come, if I remember correctly is the data from Jodrell Bank concerning Apollo 11’s approach to the moon couldn’t be faked for whatever reason, but then I wondered why they never tracked it on the journey to and from the moon.

Irrelevant, and as expected finding ways to dismiss it. If the tracking of the landing was done, then why they didn't track it all the way is beside the point.

Wouldn’t it be amazing if one of you could convert a hardened HB?

It would, but not for the reasons you imagine...

[molesworth]

Just picking one point out of your wall of long-debunked claims and tinfoil-hattery about worldwide conspiracies :

...

 they have all jumped on the bandwagon, realising what a great way it is to extort trillions in taxes.

And where, pray tell, has all this "extorted" tax money gone?  How many NASA employees have holiday homes in the Bahamas, and drive Ferraris?

The money spent on Apollo can easily be traced.  What do you think the cost of employing 400,000 people (as I recall the estimate) is?  What do you think it costs to design, develop, test, and then launch the spacecraft and launch system?

If you actually build the hardware, employ the people, and do this openly under intense public scrutiny, how exactly is it "extortion"?

[Obviousman]

"The X Files" was not a documentary. 

GOLD!

[Obviousman]

Well I can see I’ve rattled a few cages here, but all your arguments are coming from your god, NASA, who I’m sure you would give up your life for, in your desperate attempts to uphold this massive fraud. We are discussing a possible hoax here, in other words, we are debating as to whether or not we are being lied to, so unless you can prove that NASA and all the other space agencies around the world are not lying to us, then you have nothing. Yes, I know I’m giving you an impossible task, but that’s the way I see it, as this fraud is global. Third party evidence just doesn’t cut it anymore, as they have all jumped on the bandwagon, realising what a great way it is to extort trillions in taxes.

This is where common sense rather than blind faith comes into it, because the difference between you and me is, I have the ability to think for myself, where as your minds are not your own, as you have been indoctrinated from an early age and sadly, you will all go to your graves, not knowing what it’s like to have a free mind. You need to get this absurd thought out of your heads that a government wouldn’t tell such a massive lie, because until you do, you will never see what the rest of us know.

In the years since Apollo, NASA have slowly added things to the story to cover for the hoax claims, for instance, why there should be no stars and why objects are brightly lit in shadows and how radiation is now relatively harmless and how they went quickly through the edges of the belts. While on radiation, I probably misquoted that statement in the newspaper, as it was probably more along the lines of “well we knew there were risks, but we decided to go anyway”

So back to Apollo 8, yes, Apollo 4 did allegedly test re-entry, so I’ll begrudgingly give you that one, as the info comes from NASA. The previous lunar unmanned flights were not done with Apollo hardware, therefor I stand by my assertion that the first Apollo manned lunar mission was untested. Different hardware, different scenario.

They had rockets to spare at the end of the alleged Apollo missions, so for what possible reason did they not do an unmanned mission with a monkey (not a turtle) on board. That would have made the story slightly more believable and the probable reason they never included such an obvious mission is that the Kennedy deadline was looming and they just didn’t have the time. And what time of year did this suicide mission take place? Yep, they allegedly sent those poor astronauts up there when their families would have needed them most and they could always open their presents when they got back, NOT!

Let’s face it, it was all a big faked publicity stunt to instil as sense of pride into those incredibly gullible Americans, and once they realised they’d fooled the public so easily, the coast was clear for their next giant leap.

Peter B, you seriously think six years is a long time from scratch? How long is it taking them to work out how to do it again with today’s technology? I am certain that the reason they keep cancelling the project is not because of money, but because they know they still can’t do it, and in another fifty years’ time and twenty cancelled projects later, you will still believe they done it a century ago.

“surely you can't mean that nothing should be tried by humans until it's been previously tried by humans?”
Of course not, monkey then humans.

“Soviets congratulated the USA on their successes”
And why wouldn’t they? Don’t tell me, you’re one of those who thinks the Cold War was real, right?

Your excuses for why no other country has even considered flying round the moon and back are pretty lame to be honest. I’m pretty sure the Cold War was just a stunt and therefor there was no space race, and if the US could afford to fly to the moon and back nine times, it would be ridiculous to assume that no other country would do it once, just to say “yeh, we can do it”

You expect me to spend time trawling through old newspaper archives in an attempt to prove what I read was correct? Either you believe me or you don’t, so if it makes you happy I’ll retract that part of my statement, although it is true 

Do I have an explanation for all the evidence? You mean the photographic and video evidence? That evidence does not prove anything either way, and if you think it does, then you are totally deluded. There is one set of evidence that would be irrefutable proof that these incredible achievements were at least possible, and that’s the plans on how to build the Saturn V rocket, the Lunar Lander and even the Lunar Rover. To say these plans are hidden away on microfilm is just insane, as releasing them for scrutiny by todays scientists and engineers in the field would surely nip this supposedly ridiculous hoax theory in the bud once and for all.

I can see I’m dealing with some knowledgeable people here, but I’m afraid to say your knowledge is almost certainly false knowledge and you have all spent a large part of your lives learning science fiction, thinking it’s science fact.

Although I’m of the opinion that you are all deluded, I’m really glad I came here, as the sheer volume of responses to my posts, shows that although you think I’m a complete dick, you still have the time to respond in detail, in an effort to try and enlighten me and I am extremely grateful for that. But all you have done so far is to try and debunk my arguments, which is fair, but how about throwing me some solid proof?

Believe it or not, I am willing to consider any solid proof you may think you have, and if I don’t think it’s proof, I will explain why. The closest I have come, if I remember correctly is the data from Jodrell Bank concerning Apollo 11’s approach to the moon couldn’t be faked for whatever reason, but then I wondered why they never tracked it on the journey to and from the moon. Then I found out that the only tracking facilities claiming to have done this, were ran by NASA at the time. Even Russia only locked on to their radio frequencies after they allegedly reached the moon. Has anyone got anything else? Wouldn’t it be amazing if one of you could convert a hardened HB? 

OMG!!! He's gone to plaid!

[molesworth]

And picking another gem from an earlier email :

...

Your knowledge of science counts for nothing, as it’s NASA’s own brand of science, made up to try and make the story more believable. It’s even taught in schools, which is criminal.

So in one fell swoop you dismiss all of science.  The science we all rely on is nothing but "NASA science" (tm) and somehow only you have knowledge of "true science".

So how exactly do you think the computer you are using was designed and developed?  Your car?  Bridges?  Medicines?  Etc?  Etc?

Science works, whether you "believe" in it or not, and part of science is a self-checking, self-correcting method of analysis which perhaps you should learn about, and then apply to the question of the reality of the Apollo missions...

[smartcooky]

Well I can see I’ve rattled a few cages here

Oh, you haven't rattled any cages here Tim, but you have succeeded in doing one thing.... making yourself look like the stupid fool that you are.

[onebigmonkey]

Believe it or not, I am willing to consider any solid proof you may think you have

I've mentioned this twice but weirdly, you don't seem to want to take up the challenge, so let's provide you with a little detail.

Here is a press photograph taken of a TV broadcast:



It is dated.

It's not from the internet, it's my own personal, original copy. The image appeared on the front page of several newspapers the following day. It has also appeared in books produced at the time, along with still images taken at the same time.

The broadcast was made on the 16th of July 1969 using a hand held TV camera. That image shows Earth exactly as it should have appeared at the time of the broadcast in terms of the configuration of land masses and oceans on view and the perspective shown of it. The person holding the camera described the view and more importantly the weather patterns visible in it. One of the patterns they describe is:

"a pretty good circulation system a couple of hundred miles off the west coast of California"

That circulation pattern is the remnant of hurricane Bernice, which only existed in that specific formation on that day. Weather satellite imagery from two different satellites confirm every detail in the TV footage. Those satellite images were printed in the meteorological literature of the day, but were not available at the time of the TV broadcast.

So, here we have a hand held camera presenting a view of Earth only possible from cislunar space showing the exact configuration of Earth for the time of the broadcast and showing a unique time and date specific meteorological fingerprint.

I look forward to any reasonable explanation you might have that doesn't involve some ludicrous variation on "yeah well NASA faked the satellite imagery as well", because

a) It's a lazy cop out and everyone will see it for what it is
b) NASA weren't the only people operating meteorological satellites at the time, and
c) Anyone with the right equipment could intercept the weather satellite broadcasts to see the images for themselves.

NASA did not come up with any of that proof and you won't them using it as any kind of supporting evidence, because the investigation work was all mine.

You can do exactly the same kind of investigation into any image of Earth taken by Apollo, be that a still image, 16mm video or live TV broadcast. I say "you could", but somehow I doubt that you will. Every image matches up in every single detail.

Over to you.

[Peter B]

Well I can see I’ve rattled a few cages here...

Is that supposed to be evidence of anything? Cos if we didn't respond you'd no doubt claim that as significant too.

Sorry, but we hear statements like that all the time.

...but all your arguments are coming from your god, NASA, who I’m sure you would give up your life for, in your desperate attempts to uphold this massive fraud.

You mean that bloated, bureaucratic organisation which, thanks to its shoddy management procedures and self-deceptions, was largely responsible for the deaths of the Challenger and Columbia astronauts? No, I don't feel particularly inclined to treat NASA like a god.

We are discussing a possible hoax here, in other words, we are debating as to whether or not we are being lied to, so unless you can prove that NASA and all the other space agencies around the world are not lying to us, then you have nothing. Yes, I know I’m giving you an impossible task, but that’s the way I see it, as this fraud is global. Third party evidence just doesn’t cut it anymore, as they have all jumped on the bandwagon, realising what a great way it is to extort trillions in taxes.

Gee, it's so easy to make an argument when you arbitrarily rule that evidence contradicting you is inadmissible.

This is where common sense rather than blind faith comes into it, because the difference between you and me is, I have the ability to think for myself, where as your minds are not your own, as you have been indoctrinated from an early age and sadly, you will all go to your graves, not knowing what it’s like to have a free mind. You need to get this absurd thought out of your heads that a government wouldn’t tell such a massive lie, because until you do, you will never see what the rest of us know.

You mean, a lie like "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction", which unravelled in less than six months?

In the years since Apollo, NASA have slowly added things to the story to cover for the hoax claims, for instance, why there should be no stars and why objects are brightly lit in shadows and how radiation is now relatively harmless and how they went quickly through the edges of the belts. While on radiation, I probably misquoted that statement in the newspaper, as it was probably more along the lines of “well we knew there were risks, but we decided to go anyway”

Um, you do realise these things were worked out by photographers and astronomers decades before NASA existed, don't you? Or are photographers and astronomers in on this conspiracy too? Careful, at this rate the only people not in on the conspiracy will be you and...well, I'm not sure who else.

[SNIP]

They had rockets to spare at the end of the alleged Apollo missions, so for what possible reason did they not do an unmanned mission with a monkey (not a turtle) on board. That would have made the story slightly more believable and the probable reason they never included such an obvious mission is that the Kennedy deadline was looming and they just didn’t have the time. And what time of year did this suicide mission take place? Yep, they allegedly sent those poor astronauts up there when their families would have needed them most and they could always open their presents when they got back, NOT!

Because, as some bloke called Cambo put it:

I hate to have to point out something that is so obvious to all other people on this planet, but everything is about money.

Clever chap, that. Good insight.

[SNIP]

Peter B, you seriously think six years is a long time from scratch? How long is it taking them to work out how to do it again with today’s technology? I am certain that the reason they keep cancelling the project is not because of money, but because they know they still can’t do it, and in another fifty years’ time and twenty cancelled projects later, you will still believe they done it a century ago.

Out of interest, then, what do you think NASA has achieved? What about other space agencies? Are the Voyager spacecraft real? What about Viking or Sojourner or Curiosity? Magellan? Galileo? New Horizons? What about the International Space Station? What about communications satellites in geo-synch orbit? What about meteorology satellites? Ground sensing spacecraft? Did the Soviets ever send spacecraft to Venus? Was Mir real? Have the Chinese sent people into space? Has India sent a spacecraft to Mars? Do you believe anything about space exploration is real?

[SNIP]

“Soviets congratulated the USA on their successes”
And why wouldn’t they? Don’t tell me, you’re one of those who thinks the Cold War was real, right?

Oka-a-a-ay.

So who knew it was fake? The President? The Chiefs of Staff? Senior generals? At what military rank were soldiers and sailors and airmen informed that the Cold War was just a big fake? And nobody ever leaked that to the media? So what exactly was it that Daniel Ellsberg and Christopher Boyce leaked? Or are they part of the conspiracy too? Where did all the MONEY! come from to pay these people for their silence?

[SNIP]

You expect me to spend time trawling through old newspaper archives in an attempt to prove what I read was correct? Either you believe me or you don’t, so if it makes you happy I’ll retract that part of my statement, although it is true

Oh, settle petal! I'm perfectly willing to believe that there were quite a few newspaper articles talking about how dangerous Apollo 8 was. There were plenty of people in NASA who thought that Apollo 8 was dangerous. But as Raven said, it wasn't the first time a dangerous stunt was pulled for national prestige.

It's just that you grumbled: "I was in the habit of throwing away newspapers after I’d read them back then, how stupid is that?" And I offered you an alternative for you to use if you wanted it. You're welcome.

Do I have an explanation for all the evidence? You mean the photographic and video evidence? That evidence does not prove anything either way, and if you think it does, then you are totally deluded. There is one set of evidence that would be irrefutable proof that these incredible achievements were at least possible, and that’s the plans on how to build the Saturn V rocket, the Lunar Lander and even the Lunar Rover. To say these plans are hidden away on microfilm is just insane, as releasing them for scrutiny by todays scientists and engineers in the field would surely nip this supposedly ridiculous hoax theory in the bud once and for all.

Actually, I'd also plump for the scientific knowledge gained by scientists studying the data sent back from the Moon, and the ~380 kilograms of rocks brought back. Unless, of course, you're going to throw a bunch more scientific disciplines into the conspiracy...

And anyway, even if we showed you the plans for the hardware, what would that prove. You pretty much admit you don't have the knowledge to interpret it, so you'd probably wave it away as a fake. Sorry, but we've walked this path many times before.

I can see I’m dealing with some knowledgeable people here, but I’m afraid to say your knowledge is almost certainly false knowledge and you have all spent a large part of your lives learning science fiction, thinking it’s science fact.

Boy I'd love to see you prove that. I've already admitted I have no science education beyond high school, but plenty of people here work in the fields you're dissing, fields in which their knowledge has commercial and legal implications. I know whose knowledge I'd back.

Although I’m of the opinion that you are all deluded, I’m really glad I came here, as the sheer volume of responses to my posts, shows that although you think I’m a complete dick, you still have the time to respond in detail, in an effort to try and enlighten me and I am extremely grateful for that. But all you have done so far is to try and debunk my arguments, which is fair, but how about throwing me some solid proof?

No, I don't think you're a complete dick. I think you're opinionated and colossally uninformed.

Cold War a fake...seriously?

Believe it or not, I am willing to consider any solid proof you may think you have, and if I don’t think it’s proof, I will explain why. The closest I have come, if I remember correctly is the data from Jodrell Bank concerning Apollo 11’s approach to the moon couldn’t be faked for whatever reason, but then I wondered why they never tracked it on the journey to and from the moon. Then I found out that the only tracking facilities claiming to have done this, were ran by NASA at the time. Even Russia only locked on to their radio frequencies after they allegedly reached the moon. Has anyone got anything else? Wouldn’t it be amazing if one of you could convert a hardened HB?

Give me time to pull together some stuff about Moon rocks, and let's see where that leads.

[Obviousman]

Don’t tell me, you’re one of those who thinks the Cold War was real, right?

I'm guessing you say that because you have never served, in particular didn't serve during that period and actually see what happened.

[Jason Thompson]

Don’t tell me, you’re one of those who thinks the Cold War was real, right?

I'm guessing you say that because you have never served, in particular didn't serve during that period and actually see what happened.

I always wonder about the level of cynicism required to believe in the 'fake cold war' argument. It proposes a degree of co-operation and collusion that spans all political divides. It requires every incoming administration on either side to be informed of the truth, accept it, and carry it on. It requires the scam to be maintained across generations. It requires massive co-operation between superpowers to pretend to be arch-rivals while really working together somehow. It proposes a truly massive global co-operative effort ongoing for generation after generation, enduring whatever other events may occur around the world.

And yet, all this amazing global co-operation is just to keep the rest of the population subjugated somehow. It's supposedly impossible for such effort to go towards actually achieving something amazing. It's all turned inwards for nefarious purposes. What a massively depressing outlook on life these people must have.

[onebigmonkey]

Don’t tell me, you’re one of those who thinks the Cold War was real, right?

I'm guessing you say that because you have never served, in particular didn't serve during that period and actually see what happened.

It's almost as if he wasn't actually alive at the time as he claimed....

[Peter B]

Don’t tell me, you’re one of those who thinks the Cold War was real, right?

I'm guessing you say that because you have never served, in particular didn't serve during that period and actually see what happened.

I always wonder about the level of cynicism required to believe in the 'fake cold war' argument. It proposes a degree of co-operation and collusion that spans all political divides. It requires every incoming administration on either side to be informed of the truth, accept it, and carry it on. It requires the scam to be maintained across generations. It requires massive co-operation between superpowers to pretend to be arch-rivals while really working together somehow. It proposes a truly massive global co-operative effort ongoing for generation after generation, enduring whatever other events may occur around the world.

And yet, all this amazing global co-operation is just to keep the rest of the population subjugated somehow. It's supposedly impossible for such effort to go towards actually achieving something amazing. It's all turned inwards for nefarious purposes. What a massively depressing outlook on life these people must have.

Beyond that, look at the wars which the superpowers themselves got bogged down in - Vietnam for the USA and Afghanistan for the Soviets, just for two examples. Literally thousands of soldiers of one superpower were killed fighting against an enemy supplied by the other superpower. What exactly was the superpower co-operation that was happening here? Some sort of bizarre population control measure?