Faking the moon landings

[onebigmonkey]

You have made no effort to account for meteorological fingerprints in Apollo images other than jerk your knee, and have made no effort at all to prove that the satellite record does not match the Apollo imagery.

No one is disputing the claim that the images from Apollo match the alleged satellite images. What is in dispute is the claim that the matching images prove the authenticity of the Apollo moon missions.

No sane person can provide a rational explanation for them. Images of Earth were broadcast on live TV, and published in the following day's newspapers, and were done before the ESSA images in particular were collected. ESSA, and NIMBUS, images cover sections of the Earth in black and white and require 12 hours to gather an entire hemisphere's worth of data.

Unless you can prove beyond any doubt that the anomalies in those alleged transmissions,

Listen very carefully, I will say this only once: there are no anomalies in Apollo TV transmissions. Claims suggesting things are not as they should be are based on ignorance, stupidity, and usually a wilful distortion of events and facts.

which I and others say point to fakery, are in fact as they should be, then all that painstaking research of yours was for nothing. Even the evidence of rotation that you yourself put forward, shows it to be fake. Every time you present evidence, you dig yourself a deeper hole.

Garbage. Evidence of the Earth's rotation in live TV broadcast (and in assemblies of still images) is somehow not proof that the broadcasts show Earth rotating?

I remember you stating that some of the satellite images came from non NASA sources, but the closest one I could find was the ESSA-9 satellite. The ESSA satellites were reportedly launched by NASA, who also allegedly had a hand in their development.

None of the satellites were managed directly by NASA. There were far more than ESSA-9, you have clearly not read what I've written. The clue's in the number "9". Broadcasts from them could be intercepted by anyone with the right equipment.

Can you even prove those satellites were up there?

Now you're just being a dick. Can you prove they aren't? Several of the satellites I cite are still in orbit and can be tracked. ATS-3 was a multi-purpose satellite that was used for a variety of purposes in the scientific community and even relayed TV signals. There are numerous amateur enthusiasts out there who like to download the images. I've done that myself in the late 1980s.

We started using balloons to track weather conditions back in the 1930’s, and we currently release around 650,000 weather balloons every year from nearly 900 locations around the world, two a day from each location, which give us accurate real time weather models, and is still the prime source for weather prediction, along with weather radar, the development of which was started soon after WWII, so why the need for satellites? If I want to know about climate change, I may consider asking a satellite, if I can find one.

The existence of horses is not proof that cars don't exist.

You are obviously extremely proud of yourself for digging up this evidence, but are you really so conceited that you think you’ve discovered something that the people at NASA had overlooked, when in reality, that evidence, along with any other contrived evidence they could muster up, would be leaked into the media as soon as they got wind of those poor aircraft pilots being grilled and humiliated by Sibrel? How could any employer sit back and watch the appalling treatment these national heroes were subjected to and not lift a finger in their defence? 

I am not proud of myself, I am proud of the work I've done. I stand by every word of it. Prove it wrong.

As for Sibrel, the astronauts were perfectly capable of defending themselves (and they were private citizens by the time that fraud caught up with them) just ask Sibrel's nose. Are you really so conceited that you think you have discovered a mass conspiracy when, in reality, evidence proving such a thing would have been leaked to the media?

NASA don’t officially answer to the hoax claims, but there’s been countless interviews with NASA employees, including those celebrity astronauts, from Neil Armstrong & Co to our present day protagonists, such as Chris Hadfield, Donald Pettit and the likes, but not one of them have ever brought up this evidence, which you seem to think, irrefutably proves they achieved this extraordinary feat. Could it simply be that they’d rather not draw any further attention to this embarrassing footage?

Could it be that they think that the hoax claims are just so dumb that it's not worth the effort? Many astronauts have responded to the claims - see the front page of my site. Maybe they think that wasting words on morons is just pointless and there's no sense in trying to educate idiots? Maybe you need to ask them what their rationale is instead of using subtle ad hominems to try and bolster your rather feeble argument.

I state it on my site: They never bothered looking at the weather satellite record because it didn't occur to them. It's only relatively recently occurred co climate scientists to start looking back at the records. Why would it occur to them? Why would the people who went to the moon bother to spend so much time and effort proving that they went when they know they actually went and only empty headed blowhards wanting to carve a reputation for themselves say otherwise? You thnk that because Neil Armstrong didn't come out and say "Hey, look at these satellite pictures, they prove I did it!" that somehow proves he never went?

All I see in your post is a desperate attempt to try and discredit what I've put forward without actually providing anything at all to support that stance. It's all "they could have..." with nothing at all to prove that they did. What I've done is examine a whole host of evidence (the weather satellite stuff is just a small part of it) from the Apollo record. There is not one single anomaly or inconsistency in any of it. Prove otherwise.

You've got all the source material you need. I provide links to all of it. Prove that anything I have written is incorrect.

[gillianren]

And again, my Ren faire boss, who doesn't even have a junior high education, can point out satellites as they cross the night sky.  Are they paying him, too?

[JayUtah]

Our last two contributors have demonstrated something I've seen commonly in conspiracy theorists:  an exaggerated opinion of the objective strength of their argument and the nobility of their causes.  As a matter of fact, NASA hired Jim Oberg to write a response to the conspiracy theories.  When it was announced, a cry rose up from the American taxpayers saying they didn't want their money spent on such unnecessary nonsense.  We don't have to speculate about the reasons why NASA pays no attention to conspiracy theories.  NASA are not the ones who need to rehabilitate their reputations.

Similarly I've seen people try to take conspiracy theories to court, and their critics for imagined slights and slurs.  They get snapped back to reality fairly quickly when the court doesn't buy for a moment that they're conscientious researchers and authors just looking to hold history accountable to fact.  There are many ways to attract attention.  But some of them are the intellectual equivalent of waddling down the street with one's pants around one's ankles.  Sure, you'll get attention.  But when you demand equitable relief from the mockery you will undoubtedly receive, the court will firmly remind you of the essential nature of your behavior.  The law surrounding equity ensures that you get what you are entitled to, but not necessary what you want or ask for.

[onebigmonkey]

I think it's returning to cambo's statement above:

No one is disputing the claim that the images from Apollo match the alleged satellite images.

There is no "alleged" here - there is no disputing that the satellites existed. Their images were reproduced in the mass media and scientific journals on a regular basis. I own complete contemporary volumes of the images - these aren't just some internet construct, they actually exist. By looking at the entire satellite record you can also see the weather systems in them developing over time - they aren't just a record of the weather during the Apollo missions, they are a record of the weather full stop. That record just happens to encompass the Apollo period. They did not exist as a source of evidence for Apollo, they existed to provide weather data to the scientific community.

By conceding that the images from Apollo are matched by the satellite cambo is admitting an important point: Apollo images of Earth can only have been taken during the timeline of the missions. They were not concocted in advance, they were not done later. They can only have been done at the time. Furthermore, they could only have been done from the location history records them as having been taken: in space or on the moon.

To argue otherwise is to suggest several impossible scenarios. Firstly, a technology that didn't exist to generate real time, convincing images of Earth that not only accurately reproduced the weather on a given day but accurately predicted it ready for live TV broadcasts. In order to generate that you would need an army of technicians in on the fake. Secondly, yet another army of technicians involved in reproducing photo realistic images of Earth that showed the weather in painstaking detail. Thirdly, yet more technicians doing the same work on 16mm film.

The technology, and the timespan needed, just did not exist to do what is required in cambo's imaginarium for the images of Earth taken by Apollo to have been faked. You would be hard pressed to do it now. Add into the mix a global audience of meteorologists with access to the weather satellite images (and that included the Russians, with whom the US had a data sharing agreement as far as meteorology is concerned and who also had their own satellites in operation) and faking those images becomes (as far as I am concerned) impossible.

Cambo's other point about weather balloons shows further ignorance concerning how weather forecasting was (and is) done. During Apollo, satellite meteorology was in its infancy; the images were used as an add-on to the science and the main work was done by ground observations and atmospheric sensing by balloons, radar and a bunch of other more terrestrial equipment. Even today a hefty chunk of weather forecasting is still done using data gathered within easy reach of the ground.

So yes, not only do those Apollo images of Earth match the satellite record, that satellite record proves that they are genuine.

[bknight]

Our last two contributors have demonstrated something I've seen commonly in conspiracy theorists:  an exaggerated opinion of the objective strength of their argument and the nobility of their causes.  As a matter of fact, NASA hired Jim Oberg to write a response to the conspiracy theories.  When it was announced, a cry rose up from the American taxpayers saying they didn't want their money spent on such unnecessary nonsense.  We don't have to speculate about the reasons why NASA pays no attention to conspiracy theories.  NASA are not the ones who need to rehabilitate their reputations.

Similarly I've seen people try to take conspiracy theories to court, and their critics for imagined slights and slurs.  They get snapped back to reality fairly quickly when the court doesn't buy for a moment that they're conscientious researchers and authors just looking to hold history accountable to fact.  There are many ways to attract attention.  But some of them are the intellectual equivalent of waddling down the street with one's pants around one's ankles.  Sure, you'll get attention.  But when you demand equitable relief from the mockery you will undoubtedly receive, the court will firmly remind you of the essential nature of your behavior.  The law surrounding equity ensures that you get what you are entitled to, but not necessary what you want or ask for.

In my short time at this game I have noticed this type of behavior along with I know something no one else knows.

[Obviousman]

We started using balloons to track weather conditions back in the 1930’s, and we currently release around 650,000 weather balloons every year from nearly 900 locations around the world, two a day from each location, which give us accurate real time weather models, and is still the prime source for weather prediction, along with weather radar, the development of which was started soon after WWII, so why the need for satellites? If I want to know about climate change, I may consider asking a satellite, if I can find one.

Really? How well does a radiosonde go in a cyclone? In times of conflict, do you still get weather observations over denied territory? In places like Australia there are vast areas that have no weather observation stations - not even an AWIS - yet knowing what goes on there is vital to understanding when a weather system will start to affect a populated area.

Nice try but as has been repeatedly shown, you know diddly-squat about the things you are positing.

[smartcooky]

We started using balloons to track weather conditions back in the 1930’s, and we currently release around 650,000 weather balloons every year from nearly 900 locations around the world, two a day from each location, which give us accurate real time weather models, and is still the prime source for weather prediction, along with weather radar, the development of which was started soon after WWII, so why the need for satellites? If I want to know about climate change, I may consider asking a satellite, if I can find one.

Really? How well does a radiosonde go in a cyclone? In times of conflict, do you still get weather observations over denied territory? In places like Australia there are vast areas that have no weather observation stations - not even an AWIS - yet knowing what goes on there is vital to understanding when a weather system will start to affect a populated area.

...and how do weather balloons help to predict and keep track of tropical storms that turn into hurricanes that come onto the east coast of the USA from the Atlantic, and tropical cyclones that start in the Pacific and move into Southeast Asia?

... how do we obtain satellite photos to track these kinds of storms without, err, satellites?

The denial of the existence of satellites has to be one of the most stupid world views of all, a close second behind flat earth nuttery. We can predict when a satellite will appear from your location, and then go outside and watch it!

...as has been repeatedly shown, you know diddly-squat about the things you are positing.

Indeed this!

PS: I wonder where cambo thinks his satellite TV signal comes from; or if he doesn't have satellite TV, his neighbours satellite TV, and all the other people where he lives with all their satellite dishes pointing up into the sky.... all... in... the.... same.... direction!!!

[Von_Smith]

We started using balloons to track weather conditions back in the 1930’s, and we currently release around 650,000 weather balloons every year from nearly 900 locations around the world, two a day from each location, which give us accurate real time weather models, and is still the prime source for weather prediction, along with weather radar, the development of which was started soon after WWII, so why the need for satellites? If I want to know about climate change, I may consider asking a satellite, if I can find one.

Really? How well does a radiosonde go in a cyclone? In times of conflict, do you still get weather observations over denied territory? In places like Australia there are vast areas that have no weather observation stations - not even an AWIS - yet knowing what goes on there is vital to understanding when a weather system will start to affect a populated area.

...and how do weather balloons help to predict and keep track of tropical storms that turn into hurricanes that come onto the east coast of the USA from the Atlantic, and tropical cyclones that start in the Pacific and move into Southeast Asia?

... how do we obtain satellite photos to track these kinds of storms without, err, satellites?

The denial of the existence of satellites has to be one of the most stupid world views of all, a close second behind flat earth nuttery. We can predict when a satellite will appear from your location, and then go outside and watch it!

...as has been repeatedly shown, you know diddly-squat about the things you are positing.

Indeed this!

PS: I wonder where cambo thinks his satellite TV signal comes from; or if he doesn't have satellite TV, his neighbours satellite TV, and all the other people where he lives with all their satellite dishes pointing up into the sky.... all... in... the.... same.... direction!!!

I once had somebody suggest that satellite tv wasn't real; that they secretly tapped into cable infrastructure or something.  I asked him why it was, then, that my signal always got worse when there was snow in my dish, and then instantly got better the moment I decided to go out and clean it.

To *that* he mumbled something about some secret technology in the dish that sensed snow or weather, and degraded the signal appropriately.  I then asked him why, if the dish concealed such secret technology, did direcTV not care what I did with the thing when I canceled service? They didn't even want it back when I asked them how to return it.  He didn't have an answer to that one.

[JayUtah]

To *that* he mumbled something about some secret technology in the dish that sensed snow or weather, and degraded the signal appropriately.

Tree-sensing technology, too.  Many years ago, a friend of mine imposed on a fine spring Saturday to ask me to troubleshoot his satellite television, which had inexplicably started to fail after months of trouble-free performance.  Apparently my having something to do with the (re)design of the spacecraft he was aiming at somehow qualified me (nay, obligated me) to do this.  As it happened, he had acquired the service and hung the dish in the dead of winter.  Then as spring came, the tree between his dish and the spacecraft -- albeit significantly closer to the dish than to the spacecraft -- decided to sprout leaves that absorbed enough of the signal to render his DirecTV service unsuitably spotty.  Relocating the dish to have a clear view of the southern sky fixed the problem immediately.  So yeah, very sneaky of those DirecTV beggars to build a cheap dish that can still somehow magically sense intervening obstacles from a distance of several meters away.

[Trebor]

We started using balloons to track weather conditions back in the 1930’s, and we currently release around 650,000 weather balloons every year from nearly 900 locations around the world, two a day from each location, which give us accurate real time weather models, and is still the prime source for weather prediction, along with weather radar, the development of which was started soon after WWII, so why the need for satellites? If I want to know about climate change, I may consider asking a satellite, if I can find one.

Really? How well does a radiosonde go in a cyclone? In times of conflict, do you still get weather observations over denied territory? In places like Australia there are vast areas that have no weather observation stations - not even an AWIS - yet knowing what goes on there is vital to understanding when a weather system will start to affect a populated area.

...and how do weather balloons help to predict and keep track of tropical storms that turn into hurricanes that come onto the east coast of the USA from the Atlantic, and tropical cyclones that start in the Pacific and move into Southeast Asia?

... how do we obtain satellite photos to track these kinds of storms without, err, satellites?

The denial of the existence of satellites has to be one of the most stupid world views of all, a close second behind flat earth nuttery. We can predict when a satellite will appear from your location, and then go outside and watch it!
...

Or if you want to go the next level go outside and directly recieve the data from them.

[JayUtah]

Or if you want to go the next level go outside and directly recieve the data from them.

Some guys I know built their own rigs using software-defined radios to hack into the Echostars and get "free" Dish Network.  By "free" I mean they can actually decode and watch the unencrypted transport streams, but the only unencrypted streams on those birds are barker streams or test streams.  No actual entertainment content.  But it can be done.

[onebigmonkey]

Or if you want to go the next level go outside and directly recieve the data from them.

This is what I referred to in my initial reply to him. In the late 1980s I worked at an educational establishment in south Wales. They collected weather data and managed to get cash to install a whacking great satellite dish on the roof, along with a dedicated 486 desktop and a a few floppy disks of software. We had a timetable of NOAA and METEOSAT overpasses and we'd tune in, get the data stream and then convert it to an image.

It was huge fun, and people have been doing it since the first satellites were launched.

[jfb]

We started using balloons to track weather conditions back in the 1930’s, and we currently release around 650,000 weather balloons every year from nearly 900 locations around the world, two a day from each location, which give us accurate real time weather models, and is still the prime source for weather prediction, along with weather radar, the development of which was started soon after WWII, so why the need for satellites? If I want to know about climate change, I may consider asking a satellite, if I can find one.

Really? How well does a radiosonde go in a cyclone? In times of conflict, do you still get weather observations over denied territory? In places like Australia there are vast areas that have no weather observation stations - not even an AWIS - yet knowing what goes on there is vital to understanding when a weather system will start to affect a populated area.

...and how do weather balloons help to predict and keep track of tropical storms that turn into hurricanes that come onto the east coast of the USA from the Atlantic, and tropical cyclones that start in the Pacific and move into Southeast Asia?

... how do we obtain satellite photos to track these kinds of storms without, err, satellites?

The denial of the existence of satellites has to be one of the most stupid world views of all, a close second behind flat earth nuttery. We can predict when a satellite will appear from your location, and then go outside and watch it!

...as has been repeatedly shown, you know diddly-squat about the things you are positing.

Indeed this!

PS: I wonder where cambo thinks his satellite TV signal comes from; or if he doesn't have satellite TV, his neighbours satellite TV, and all the other people where he lives with all their satellite dishes pointing up into the sky.... all... in... the.... same.... direction!!!

I have often wondered why FE's don't enter a class action suit against DirecTV and Dish for fraud. 

Got in an argument in another forum where someone was claiming you could replace weather satellites with aircraft flying 24/7.  Little problems like the fleet size necessary to cover CONUS with no gaps, fuel, aircraft maintenance, spare parts, crew rotation, etc., weren't worth bothering about. 

[bknight]

You can't fix stupid and cambo is at the top of the list currently.

[raven]

Especially when it doesn't want to be fixed. Seriously, if other tech could do what satellites do, why would they fake them, when instead just profit off whatever that tech would be without the trouble and expense of creating the idea of artificial moons circling around the Earth.