Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation

[onebigmonkey]

Finally the gish gallop has picked up a little speed...

[onebigmonkey]

No science is needed to realise it would be suicide to try and land on the moon, in a cardboard box that was never landed anywhere, let alone the moon.

Not a cardboard box.

No science is needed to spot blue sky and clouds through a window, when Apollo 11 was supposedly half way to the moon.

Didn't happen. The claim is false.

It doesn’t take a psychiatrist to find it odd, how calm they sound when their lives are at risk, as apposed to how terrified they look and sound, while being interviewed.

How you would react and how people trained to land on the moon would react are not the same thing.

There is no scientific explanation as to why there is no noticeable disturbance under the Landers from their thruster. Anyone who says otherwise are either lying or brainwashed.

Anyone who claims there wasn't noticeable disturbance is either lying or ignorant of the subject matter.

Science can’t explain why no country has sent people beyond the safety of Earth orbit since Apollo.

Science doesn't need to explain budget constraints.

I don’t need science to wonder why an astronaut who supposedly walked on the moon, would not know about the radiation belts, the lying little sod.

But you do need to understand dishonest editing and that Bean knows more about the VAB than you ever will.

[Bryanpoprobson]

No science is needed to realise it would be suicide to try and land on the moon, in a cardboard box that was never landed anywhere, let alone the moon.

How do you propose to test land a vehicle designed for use in space and a 1/6G (airless) environment?

No science is needed to spot blue sky and clouds through a window, when Apollo 11 was supposedly half way to the moon.

I suggest you do some research, this question has been answered time and time again.

It doesn’t take a psychiatrist to find it odd, how calm they sound when their lives are at risk, as apposed to how terrified they look and sound, while being interviewed.

They were doing their job and they were all (with at least one exception) top grade test pilots used to taking risks, interviews was not something any of them were familiar with.

There is no scientific explanation as to why there is no noticeable disturbance under the Landers from their thruster. Anyone who says otherwise are either lying or brainwashed.

Again lack of research, there is plenty of evidence of disturbed regolith under the lander's, plus research the throttleability of the Lunar Modules engines and the effect of a vacuum on the thrust.

Science can’t explain why no country has sent people beyond the safety of Earth orbit since Apollo.

A mission to go where exactly? Actually the Russians tried to emulate (or even beat the Americans) with a lunar landing, unfortunately their N1 rocket failed.

I don’t need science to wonder why an astronaut who supposedly walked on the moon, would not know about the radiation belts, the lying little sod.

Can you prove that Sibrel did not edit this interview? He has been guilty of it before.

[Obviousman]

Like modern applications that are directly linked to Apollo?

https://www.computerworld.com/article/2525898/app-development/nasa-s-apollo-technology-has-changed-history.html

So you think electronics would not be as advanced, if not for Apollo?

Strawman. That is just one of the many examples of modern experts confirming that Apollo-related technology was capable of carrying out the functions they were designed to do.

[nomuse]

For someone who thinks for himself, he's damn familiar with the top twenty, low-rent, bingo-card worthy hoax claims.


(Okay, I say, "familiar," but that's because he's heard of them and can trot out a near-enough copy for other people to recognize. He shows no sign of being "familiar" in the sense of understanding them well and being able to expand and expound.)

[smartcooky]

It doesn’t take a psychiatrist to find it odd, how calm they sound when their lives are at risk

You think professionally trained airmen cannot be calm under extreme pressure and threat of mortal danger? Try listening to the cockpit recording Chesley Sullenberger, Captain of US Airways 1549 as he attempts something no-one has ever managed to do successfully before... land a jet airliner (suffering a double engine failure) and full of passengers, on a river.

THAT is the very definition of calm under pressure.

[molesworth]

“I also found the flashlight trick amusing, it’s a pity they never spun one of those food bags in mid “air”, although it wouldn’t be as easy without the aid of CGI.”

“Exactly what was the state of the art in CGI in 1969?”

It was non-existent, why do you ask?

You people are really annoying me now, I feel like I am talking to children here, can’t you digest a simple sentence without getting it totally wrong? The words “without the aid of CGI.” Should have gave you a clue, but because the initials “CGI” are in uppercase, that is all you noticed, and you went straight to your keyboard to ask your ridiculous question.

Perhaps if you gave more than one-liner responses, and made an effort to properly track discussions, it wouldn't be as confusing.

However, I seem to recall that you were the one who made the claim that the footage en-route, and on the Moon, was filmed on a large non-vacuum sound stage, and that all the effects of vacuum and low gravity were added as effects later.  Perhaps you meant old-school effects and not CGI (although, as noted, it's hard to know what you mean sometimes) but that again begs the question of exactly how these effects were produced, given that even the most realistic movies of the time couldn't get anywhere close to the reality of space flight or the lunar surface.

“I don't think Cambo actually understands the meaning of the word "extort"

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

“Only the ones that were in on it.”

I was answering the second part of your question, not the first part. Again, this inability you have to digest information is annoying. Or maybe you think you are being clever, twisting people’s words?

I'm not twisting anyone's words.  Your response of “Only the ones that were in on it.” implies that you believe there are people living the high life on their ill-gotten gains from Apollo (and other programmes).  If you're sure these people exist, why has nobody tracked them down to expose the hoax?  And despite your belief that there would be very few people aware of the hoax, it's been pointed out many times that your ideas just don't work, and there would be, at a minimum, tens of thousands of people who could expose it.

And that's without going into the question of where the money to pay these people comes from, and why no politicians, in any country involved, have blown the lid and cut off the funding.  Given political rivalries, and the struggle that NASA (and science in general) has to get funding, it would be both a political coup and an easy win economically...

[Jason Thompson]

I may be capable of proving to myself that at least the Rover could possibly fold up inside the Landers trunk and then unfold into a functional moon buggy.

Well there was live TV of the rover being unpacked. Your argument from incredulity cuts no ice in reasoned debate. Can you look at the blueprints for a Hawker Harrier and convince yourself it could fly backwards and sideways just from those?

No science is needed to realise it would be suicide to try and land on the moon, in a cardboard box that was never landed anywhere, let alone the moon.

Why is it HBs are entirely incapable of arguing without resorting to absurd misrepresentation? The LM was nothing like a cardboard box, and landing on the Moon had been done years before Apollo. The only difference is putting men in the LM. The physics of landing a rocket-powered vehicle on the Moon were well known and tested by the time of Apollo 11.

There is no scientific explanation as to why there is no noticeable disturbance under the Landers from their thruster. Anyone who says otherwise are either lying or brainwashed.

Why do you feel the need to pre-emptively dismiss anyone who disagrees with you? It doesn't speak to the strength of your arguments that you are so unwilling to engage in debate you handwave away any contrary view before it is even presented. I can only assume you know full well you lack the necessary skill to provide a sound debate on the subject so you attack your opposition.

Science can’t explain why no country has sent people beyond the safety of Earth orbit since Apollo.

Because it's not a scientific problem but a financial and political one.

[smartcooky]

Well there was live TV of the rover being unpacked. Your argument from incredulity cuts no ice in reasoned debate. Can you look at the blueprints for a Hawker Harrier and convince yourself it could fly backwards and sideways just from those?

Indeed.

I have seen Harriers land vertically both on grass and  in the desert on loose soil/sand. The thrust of the Harrier's RR Mk 103 Pegasus engine is 23,800 lbf; over twice that of the Lunar Module's Descent engine (10,125 lbf) which was only ever operate between 10% and 60% anyway. I never once saw a crater under a landed Harrier!

[Bryanpoprobson]

Indeed.

I have seen Harriers land vertically both on grass and  in the desert on loose soil/sand. The thrust of the Harrier's RR Mk 103 Pegasus engine is 23,800 lbf; over twice that of the Lunar Module's Descent engine (10,125 lbf) which was only ever operate between 10% and 60% anyway. I never once saw a crater under a landed Harrier!

Not withstanding the additional fact that the Harriers Exhaust would be confined to a fairly narrow column in the Earths atmosphere, whereas the Lunar Module is operating in a vacuum and the exhaust will be more diffuse. An effect that can be seen during a rocket launch, as the rocket gets higher the exhaust is seen to spread out as the atmospheric pressure reduces.

[Abaddon]

I couldn’t possibly answer that question until I saw them. I know what the plans are for and what these contraptions are meant to do, so who knows, I may be capable of proving to myself that at least the Rover could possibly fold up inside the Landers trunk and then unfold into a functional moon buggy.

Lander had no "trunk". The rover was packed externally as you would well know if you were capable of operating google.

[bknight]

I couldn’t possibly answer that question until I saw them. I know what the plans are for and what these contraptions are meant to do, so who knows, I may be capable of proving to myself that at least the Rover could possibly fold up inside the Landers trunk and then unfold into a functional moon buggy.

Lander had no "trunk". The rover was packed externally as you would well know if you were capable of operating google.

The assembly and the excellent video, supplied this time by AtomicDog  of the deployment should convince anyone with a bit of spatial  recognition.

[AtomicDog]

I couldn’t possibly answer that question until I saw them. I know what the plans are for and what these contraptions are meant to do, so who knows, I may be capable of proving to myself that at least the Rover could possibly fold up inside the Landers trunk and then unfold into a functional moon buggy.

Lander had no "trunk". The rover was packed externally as you would well know if you were capable of operating google.

The assembly and the excellent video, supplied this time by AtomicDog  of the deployment should convince anyone with a bit of spatial  recognition.

Thanks. For anyone who hasn't seen the excellent Moon Machines series, here's the segment on the LRV:

What a fantastic piece of engineering.

[AtomicDog]

Also, note the people being interviewed who worked on various aspects of Apollo. You think that they were living high on their NASA bribe MONEY!? Think their CIA handlers were standing out of camera shot, making ominous "don't spill the beans" gestures to the interviewees?

Conversely, if they were innocent dupe engineers, thinking that they were making real equipment designed to operate on the moon; they would...make real equipment designed to operate on the moon.

[jfb]

[

“I also found the flashlight trick amusing, it’s a pity they never spun one of those food bags in mid “air”, although it wouldn’t be as easy without the aid of CGI.”

“Exactly what was the state of the art in CGI in 1969?”

It was non-existent, why do you ask?

At first blush, it sounded like you were claiming the flashlight footage was created with CGI - however, on a second read, I realize that's not what you meant.  Your argument has not been the easiest to follow.

I'm frankly surprised you didn't immediately hone in on the movie Apollo 13, which used a Vomit Comet to film some of the weightlessness scenes (like when they first take their helmets off, or where Haise (Paxton) is goofing around in the LM).  Those scenes were expensive to film (plane time isn't cheap), and they could only film for 30 seconds to a minute before they had to pull out of the dive.  But that's a very convincing way to fake weightlessness¹, at least for short takes. 

“this allows him to see right through all that annoying science to the obvious hoax that lies beyond”

No science is needed to realise it would be suicide to try and land on the moon, in a cardboard box that was never landed anywhere, let alone the moon.

The LM was far from being a cardboard box.  Yes, it was thin and lightweight, but it was strong enough for its mission.  Grumman performed all kinds of tests, including drop tests, to verify its integrity (one such test was a minor plot point in the "Spider" episode of From the Earth to the Moon).

No science is needed to spot blue sky and clouds through a window, when Apollo 11 was supposedly half way to the moon.

Er?

It doesn’t take a psychiatrist to find it odd, how calm they sound when their lives are at risk, as apposed to how terrified they look and sound, while being interviewed.

These were combat veterans and test pilots, not public speakers.  I get nervous in front of crowds too.

There is no scientific explanation as to why there is no noticeable disturbance under the Landers from their thruster. Anyone who says otherwise are either lying or brainwashed.

Anyone who claims that there is "no noticeable disturbance" isn't looking at the pictures closely enough. 

Science can’t explain why no country has sent people beyond the safety of Earth orbit since Apollo.

Nothing to do with science, everything to do with $$$$$. The Apollo program cost something like US$25bn in 1973 dollars.  Manned spaceflight is expensive, BEO manned spaceflight is stupid expensive, even when we do it right.  Having said that, China's on pace to send people to the moon sometime in the 2020s. 

^{1.  Freefall isn't the same thing as weightlessness - they're still accelerating 9.8 m/s^2 towards the Earth's surface, but the plane is accelerating at the same rate, so there's no net force on the actors or the props, so everything acts like it's weightless.}