Watching the detectives...

[onebigmonkey]

Jarrah has. at least, weighed in with a correction for their decibel levels (even if he can't spell decibel), but he seems blissfully unaware that there was a required sound limit in the CM of around 75 decibels, what with them wanting to be able to speak to the crew and all:

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20160000818/downloads/20160000818.pdf

and that the crew complained more about the noise from spacecraft systems than engines.

They also seemed to have forgotten that a big hope for them is assuming the crew stayed in LEO. Much of that engine noise is directed ast getting them to orbit. Your move detectives.

And how could I miss Scott Henderson's comment on Apollo 17's launch where he claims, and this is a direct quote:

"you can see the sound waves going up and it's vibrating the air that it makes it turn to light. Okay? It actually vibrates the molecules in the air and it becomes light."

Citation most definitely required there Scott.

[Obviousman]

And how could I miss Scott Henderson's comment on Apollo 17's launch where he claims, and this is a direct quote:

"you can see the sound waves going up and it's vibrating the air that it makes it turn to light. Okay? It actually vibrates the molecules in the air and it becomes light."

Citation most definitely required there Scott.

Where is the Nobel prize for this man?

[onebigmonkey]

In their latest vomitus, another rambling and barely coherent "if I ran the zoo" session, Scott Henderson states categorically that nothing landed on the lunar surface in the 1960s. Nothing. Not one thing. Everything was done with simulations and telescopes.

Which makes it all the more remarkable that modern probes image that hardware on the surface, and provides detailed imagery showing features no-one knew existed before they started, you know, landing things on the surface.

They pronounce themselves baffled at all the failed modern landings, using them as some sort of proof that the unmanned Surveyor (and the Soviet ones too) couldn't have happened). They skip over the ones that have actually landed successfully, but their fans are too dumb to notice that.

They question why the ALSEPs were turned off, given that they apparently would work forever and cost nothing to run - obviously all the facilities on the ground are free to run, are staffed by volunteers and everyone analyses the data for fun not a salary, right?

They complain that the TV cameras weren't left on forever, pointd at Earth, because that would have a point, and those batteries in the LRV that they also claim weren't up to the job anyway now suddenly last for decades. They whine that "it makes no sense" (nothing ever does to them) to immediately turn the cameras off the second they get in the LM and that you could use them to film after the EVAs and the take off, all the while showing footage taken after the EVAs and the launch back to Earth. They even, bizarrely, claim that missions had 3 TV cameras - one stood up, on on the side of the LM, and one on teh rover. Dear sweet Lord above fellas are you so dumb you don't know it was just one camera they moved around? Are you that thick?

[onebigmonkey]

And they're back with yet another half hour of 'if Ir and the zoo' fallacies and argumentum ab ignorantia.

Williams spends a good few minutes whining that he can't find a diagram with a label for the PLSS water tank. He spent A WHOLE 15 MINUTES looking and couldn't find one. It took me 2 minutes to find one with 'feedwater reservoir' clearly identified. Over to you Bob.

Their next whine is that there are diagrams showing astronauts standing on a box to use the LM optical alignment telescope. Why oh why, they argue, did they waste money putting in a box for them to stand on that could be moved out of the way or perhaps serve some other purpose, when they could massively over-engineer a periscope type arrangement that would add weight, complexity and design costs to the structure? Gee detectives, which solution do you think makes more sense?

There's more, but I hadn't had breakfast when I started watching it so felt nauseous.

[onebigmonkey]

A tiny amount of googling and actual effort shows that the 'box' they're so concerned about is actually a PLSS. It's just one of the storage spots.

"Why would they stand on something so important they might die, it makes no sense to me..." in 3..2..1..

[onebigmonkey]

HIlariously, no sooner than they pronounce htemselves baffled as to what the myusterious box that the diagram shows could be, they then go on to show images taken inside the LM showing...wait for it...a PLSS in exactly that position.

They then decide that the PLSS has a long groove down the centre of it and it's supported by a block of wood, and the groove is there to provide ventilation.

What they think is a block of wood is actually a mounting plate that can be returned to a floor recess, and for which there is a convenient place at either end of the PLSS.

Apparently Scott thinks there's also a piece of wood on the rover seat. There is indeed something there to support the PLSS, but it's not wood, you blithering idiots.

After this they get puzzled by a sticker with a radiation symbol on it, but fail to read the wording that alerts people to radiactive material on switches (they helped them to glow in the dark).

Finally, they show themselves absolutely incapable of distinguishing between the real thing and a test up of the LM for training.

They are phenomally dumb in every area you can imagine, and their entire schtick is to strawman some garbage into existence and proclaim that it makes no sense. If they weren't conning money out of people (yes, there's a paypal link) it would be hilarious.

[onebigmonkey]

The defectives continue to troll lDave McKeegan's channel, and have made a comment on his latest video

which is an excellent analysis of parallax anbd other features of Apollo imagery showing that a studio setting was pretty much impossibler given the scale of the area.

Their comment is attached to this post.

The duplicity of their contribution is staggering. They have made many claims about the use of a studio, and attemtped to identify which building could have been used. If they count Sibrel as one of their number (and they do when it suits). his entire grift of late has been based on allegations that it was all done in an air base hangar.

They allude to the recreation of lunar orbiter photos at as site near Flagstaff. Sadly some of the respondents aren't aware of it but yes, they recreated a small portion of one of the potential landing sites for training purposes, using a Lunar Oribter image. See my page here for more on that.

http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/sights/a11/landingsa11.html

Their problem there is that this training site (which was never, as far as I can discover, visited by any of the Apollo 11 crew) is 7km from the actual landing site and bears no resemblance to either it or any of the other Apollo sites. The nearest they got to it was flying over it on the way down to the surface.

They seem to have latched on to the notion of optical printers, but no optical printer is going to reproduce details they didn't know about in advance, and would not work on live TV broadcasts or (I'm assuming) 16mm video. The parallax evident in the Apollo record that illustrates just how large an area in which they were operating would have to have been recreated, correctly, for every photograph and theywould need to be on the moon to do that.

Unless, of course, they're claiming that remote probes took cameras and film through the radioactive hell and harsh vacuum of space [sic], took photos remotely and returned them to Earth, where they could be interspersed by person or persons unknown at an undisclosed location with footage taken on Earth.

As with the Corona imagery, the more complex they make the chain of events required to fake the Apollo images the more unlikely it is that their claims stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

[onebigmonkey]

Well once again something a hoax loon says makes me do what I believe the hep cats these days call a 'deep dive' into optical printers.

Seems they were in common use in movies, and this site:

http://nzpetesmatteshot.blogspot.com/2015/10/optical-effects-magical-moments.html

has many examples of how they worked, and the end resuls, so yes, 16mm footage could have been produced using optical printing methods. However, before the defectives get all moist over that statement, they still need to explain how those elements comprising the Apollo 16mm footage were obtained, given that they contain precise details  not known in advance of the missions, they actual look genuine, rather than the very obvious studio effects in moveis from the time, as well as who did them, when and where. Can does not equal did.

Looking at that site led me to another page of it

http://nzpetesmatteshot.blogspot.com/2015/12/more-magical-moments-from-optical.html

and this image



from notes relating to the special effects in the space sequence if Mont Python's Life of Brian.

This sequence:

I immediately recognised the image on the website as an Apollo 17 one, used in this part of the sequence



and it's this https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21516586310/in/album-72157659085112111 - AS17-148-22749, shown here cropped and zoomed in



The first view of Earth in the sequence is obviously from Apollo 4 (https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/browse/AS04/01/650.jpg)
 


but the last one took some finding:



I knew I recognised it, and eventually tracked it down to Apollo 12 - AS12-50-7331 https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21676811596/in/album-72157656754109323/



That distinctive weather formation appeared in a live TV broadcast by Apollo 12, shown here with corroborating weather satellite evidence.



(see here for more http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/CATM2/A12/01/a12_day01.html )
 
So if the defectives want to explain how optical printers were used to produce a live TV broadcast showing verifiable views of Earth, they can, and should, knock themselves out.

See here for more examples of Apollo imagery used in the movies: http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/CATM2/ch5/5/discusq5.html

[onebigmonkey]

More stream of consciousness nonsense from the ADs this week, and amongst other things they turn their attention to the amateur interception of lunar conversations, which they have declared to be impossible, for, well, reasons. They didn't have the4 equipment they claim, the frquences weren't available to them!

It's a shame no-one told the amateur radio community at the time, because they were more than informed about how to intercept transmissions, and actually did. And no, we're not discussing Baysinger, but this:

https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-DX/QST/60s/QST-1972-06.pdf

where enthusiasts detail exactly what they intercepted for several missions, and how.

The ADs make a lot of noise about how it would have been impossible to detect S-Band, but Baysinger is quite clear that he didn't even bother trying to do that.

They also make the frankly ludicrous claim that one of the TETR satellites, far from being inoperable and no longer in use, was actually sent on to lunar orbit somehow, without anyone noticing that both outward and return signals, and the conversations in them were exactly the same.

[onebigmonkey]

And of course they either know about this and are ignoring it, or don't know about it when their claimed expertise means they should.

http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/Apollo17/APOLLO17.htm

[bknight]

And of course they either know about this and are ignoring it, or don't know about it when their claimed expertise means they should.

http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/Apollo17/APOLLO17.htm

Stupid is as stupid does, I debated with other HB on YTube and discussed A 11 with similar listening with crude antennas.  Comments such as how I can prove that this listening occurred or other hand waving.  To the hard core HB nothing shows the error of their ways, just ignoring/handwaving away any evidence that they are wrong.  Yet they completely ignore the facts and evidence that completely refutes the stupid ideas that hold dear.

[onebigmonkey]

Following a comment by the nlunder on their latest video, where he claims it was all done by remote craft and only in lunar orbit and that somehow this means something I did some more digging.

I came across this site:

https://www.ok2kkw.com/next/pa0ssb/pa0ssb_eng.htm

describing the work of a Dutch amateur - there are even links to photos of newspaper articles at the time so as with the QST article it's not something fabricated after teh fact:

“On 11 Dec at 0630, Jan clearly heard a signal from the command module (CSM) orbiting the Moon at a strength of 10 dB above the noise. After 10 minutes, the signal was gone due to shadowing on the Moon's surface. The signal returned after an appropriate time. After the astronauts landed on the surface of the Moon, they placed a beacon operating in the 13 cm band on its surface. Jan then used this beacon for a long time for accurate alignment of the dish’s aiming. Jan was the only amateur to listen to Apollo signals from EU. He recorded the astronauts' conversations with the control center.”

I also found this page discussing Jan's work,

https://mail.amsat.org/archives/pipermail/amsat-bb/2006-December/002091.html

where they state that:

“I know of at least one Dutch radio amateur, Jan Ottens PA0SSB who used his EME dish (one of the first in PA land to do EME back in those days) to receive the ALSEP packages. He still keeps audio tapes of these which I listened to a while ago... quite a thrill. He also used the dish to listen to the command module S-band transmissions, but he could only hear the subcarrier which they used, not enough gain/low NF to demodulate, but from the modulation you could clearly tell that an astronaut was talking. And, you could clearly distinguish the Doppler shift and hear the carrier drop out suddenly when it would go on the "flipside" of the moon.”

EME is "Earth-Moon-Earth", which a lot of amateurs used to bounce radio signals from the moon.

Another contributor, who worked at Goldstone at the time fo Apollo says:

https://mail.amsat.org/archives/pipermail/amsat-bb/2006-December/002089.html

“My boss set up a ten foot comm dish in his front yard and using a diode mixer with a signal generator as LO, detected the 2-GHz carrier of the orbiter as it circled the Moon.  It was fascinating to hear the signal and the Doppler shift as it orbited and lost signal for about 20-min as the orbiter went behind the Moon.  That was too small and poor a receiver to recover modulation, so we did not hear any voice.”

So on the one hand you have idiots like Rasa (who seems to have been kicked out of his own facebook group!), claiming that there's no way amateurs could have access to S-band or use Doppler to track things, and then you have the actual amateurs and enthusiasts who were doing just that. Those same amateurs are not just intercepting signals from a moving object in lunar orbit, but from equipment set up on the lunar surface by astronauts during the mission, where they are recorded doing so on live TV, and where that live TV shows surface details that have been verified independently since.

[onebigmonkey]

This chap's entire PhD

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19750023913/downloads/19750023913.pdf

was based on intercepting ALSEP signals.

I'm sure they'll repeat the claim that they were placed there by robots, but I'm willing to be they won't supply a logically consistent, evidentially sourced timeline as to how that was accomplished.

[TimberWolfAu]

So on the one hand you have idiots like Rasa (who seems to have been kicked out of his own facebook group!)

Alas, this is not the case.

His FB account was deleted; he claims by Facebook, I reckon he did it himself to generate some attention again, since Najak is taking it all. He posts under the user Apollo Moon Hoax (although it's not his account).

The current claim is that the Apollo space craft couldn't radiate heat away in space, it would only slow the heating of the ship. Gotta wonder how he thinks the cooling of the ISS and Tiangong stations work  And this is the person who claims he's getting his "2nd" PhD, in quantum mechanics.

"no, there was no "passive cooling"... there was "passive thermal reflection" but that wouldn't cool the ship, that would only allow the ship to get hotter at a slightly lower rate"

"the ship wasn't radiating any heat away... in order for it to radiate heat away, it would have to be glowing hot"

[onebigmonkey]

He's made claims about FB deleting his accounts before. The original account of his that he claimed "they" got rid of ('逍遥子') is still there (but obviously not in use). Bob Williams may well be the same one behind the AD youtube channel. I have a dummy profile to browse but got bored of them. My main profile has all the main players blocked so I don't actually see much on there. I mainly check what the window lickers are saying because inevitably they will say something that prompts a line of research that actually provides more support for them missions than the hoax

I'm shocked that a pretend physicists doesn't understand how radiated heat works. Shocked I tell you.