Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.

[Apollo 957]

I declare previous exchanges between Neil and myself in YouTube comment threads, under the IDs Apollo 957, Apollo 958 and Apollo Evidence, and since he's repeating what he posted over there, I shall do the same.

To go back to the proposition put forth by Neil that the ISS 'could be' an 'inflatable lighted prop', I posted the following, back-of-an-envelope estimate of the ISS's velocity over there, and Neil didn't respond  -

"The quoted speed of the ISS on wikipedia is 17,100 mph average.

I've watched it pass by, from horizon to horizon, pretty much, in the past, and it crosses the sky in around 5mins. The next pass in my area is scheduled to take around 5 mins too, according to in-the-sky.org, so I set to the task of calculating the speed for myself, from my own observations.

Radius of Earth at sea level = R1
Orbital height of ISS = R2
Radius of ISS orbit = R1 + R2

Imagine R1 and R2 drawn vertically through my observation point from the Earth's centre to ISS height. Let's approximate my sightline as a line drawn out as a tangent to the Earth's surface from my location, at a 90 degree angle to R1 and R2. This gives two sides of a right-angle triangle, with the hypotenuse formed by R1 and R2 extended up to the point where the ISS enters my view. A mirror image triangle in the other direction deals with where it leaves my sight.

We know some of the sizes and angles, and need to solve for the angle A at the Earth's centre.

Right-angle triangle calculator - http://www.csgnetwork.com/righttricalc.html

R1 = 4000 miles (side a)
R2 = 220 miles (therefore the hypotenuse, side c = 4000+220 = 4220)

Put these into the calculator, and this yields angle A (angle 3 on the calculator) = 19 degrees or so, therefore I see the ISS over an angle of 38 degrees total, 19 degrees approaching, with the same angle receding.

The circumference at the ISS height is 2piR, where R = R1+R2, and that works out at 26,500 miles. The portion of the circumference I've seen the ISS at is therefore 38/360 * 26500 = 2800 miles approx.

The ISS covers that in 5.5mins, so that's 2800/5.5 = 508 miles per minute, or over 30,000 mph.

Obviously I'm overstating, probably because the ISS doesn't actually pass directly over me - I see it mainly to the south and south-west, and probably because of my approximations.

HOWEVER - that's pretty darn fast for an inflatable, wouldn't you say? How do you think the folks get an inflatable to go that fast, considering a 747 cruises at below 1000 mph ..... ?

Show your work, Neil - if you can. Go out and look at it for yourself, and do your calcs"

[bknight]

For independent witnesses I recommend retired Army General Antonio Taguba, retired Navy Admiral William

I don't know about rocks.

It is becoming rather clear you don't know much about anything you present in this thread.

But I will say this. I was ten years old when the Apollo 8 Christmas mission took place. It was spectacular. The first ever photos were taken of the Earth from the orbit of the moon or so I thought. I wonder if you had to be alive then to understand how radical those photos were. In my memory, Apollo 8 was more exciting than Apollo 11. They were the first to get close. There had been nothing like it. But there had. NASA allegedly sent five lunar orbiters in 66 and 67 and they took photos of the Earth from moon orbit. Why didn't they release them to the public in 1966? Were they holding them so they could say the astronauts faking the Apollo 8 mission took them in 1968? {/quote]
The orbiter photos were released you just had to ask for them as the internet wasn't quite developed at that time.

The NASA lunar surveyor program allegedly sent seven landers to the moon between 1966 and 1968. Could they have been used to retrieve rocks robotically so it could be claimed later that astronauts gathered them?
Yes, it's pure speculation but if it's all a hoax, would they have gone to such a length to make the hoax convincing?
If it's a hoax, it wouldn't be surprising that black ops came into play at some time during the prelude to the alleged landings.
Even if it turns out that it was hoax, what a spectacular hoax! Legendary!

Ok, lets do a little math, there were five successful Surveyor landings weighing about 1000 lbs each at launch. Now for a return of 380 pounds of rocks, one needs much more than 6 x 1000 lbs of fuel to return them.  Really bad argument totally dismissed.

Taguba and Fallon are recommended due to their gravitas and exemplary integrity at a time when it's apparent that it's extremely rare. 

So you are saying that all the commanders that did not disagree with the Bush Administration are without integrity?
They are well educated and I'm confident they would be capable of quickly acquiring the requisite knowledge to understand what they needed to observe.  Besides, it's expected that one or more other independent witnesses with engineering backgrounds would be present.

Quit waving your hands in the air and start reading the material posted to you and figure out that the sublimator worked back in the late 60's and continue to work up to current space operations of the ISS.

[bknight]

Let's do the maths. The Apollo rocks total ~380 kilograms. With seven landers that would require each to return an average of about 55 kilograms of material. Now, the Surveyor spacecraft were launched using Atlas rockets. Perhaps you might like to calculate whether an Atlas rocket could launch a spacecraft large enough to itself launch 55 kilograms of material off the surface of the Moon in a container which could itself survive re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere.

For comparison, we know the Soviets brought back ~400 grams of material on three sample return missions. In other words, enough to fill a can of soup - in three missions. And you're suggesting NASA could return nearly a thousand times the mass on seven spacecraft. NASA might be good, but I don't think they're that good.

The entire Surveyor spacecraft had a launch mass of about 1000 kg, which was near the limit of what the Atlas-Centaur launch vehicle could deliver to the moon.  It's mathematically impossible to land on the moon and return to Earth 55 kg of samples with a craft that small.

The Soviet landers that returned about 100 grams of material each had a launch mass of 5600 kg.  They were also launched on Proton rockets, which are 5 times more massive than the Atlas-Centaur.

I thought you would reply to the comment about the rocks, and I agree with the proposition of lack of fuel to launch the rocks.  Have you computed the fuel necessary for the return of the rocks plus some modest containers?

[raven]

Here's a question, Neil Baker. Let's suppose that the water sublimation cooling system would have been unworkable.
What's stopping the engineers of the world's manned space flight flying countries from, oh, coming up with another solution?

[darren r]

HOWEVER - that's pretty darn fast for an inflatable, wouldn't you say? How do you think the folks get an inflatable to go that fast, considering a 747 cruises at below 1000 mph ..... ?

Of course it can go that fast - you just have to let the air out! 

[bknight]

HOWEVER - that's pretty darn fast for an inflatable, wouldn't you say? How do you think the folks get an inflatable to go that fast, considering a 747 cruises at below 1000 mph ..... ?

Of course it can go that fast - you just have to let the air out! 

And have it travel in  an environment that has no air.

[Apollo 957]

Anyone got any suggestion why my estimate of ISS speed was so overstated? Have I missed some obvious assumption, or is it merely because I've assumed it to pass directly over, when it's some 50 degrees south and west of me?

[12oh2alarm]

Anyone got any suggestion why my estimate of ISS speed was so overstated? Have I missed some obvious assumption, or is it merely because I've assumed it to pass directly over, when it's some 50 degrees south and west of me?

I'd investigate the accuracy of the 5.5 minutes figure. How did you measure that? What relative error is in that measurement?
I've never timed a satellite traveling horizon to horizon, but would think there are a few factors that might get in the way (systematic errors, as a physicist would call them). Atmospheric diffraction is especially large near the horizon. Also, both points on the horizon should be near sea level. If there are hills and mountains, other errors are introduced.

[Apollo 957]

Anyone got any suggestion why my estimate of ISS speed was so overstated? Have I missed some obvious assumption, or is it merely because I've assumed it to pass directly over, when it's some 50 degrees south and west of me?

I'd investigate the accuracy of the 5.5 minutes figure. How did you measure that? What relative error is in that measurement?
I've never timed a satellite traveling horizon to horizon, but would think there are a few factors that might get in the way (systematic errors, as a physicist would call them). Atmospheric diffraction is especially large near the horizon. Also, both points on the horizon should be near sea level. If there are hills and mountains, other errors are introduced.

I picked the timing from in-the-sky.org for my location. I didn't time it myself, but 5.5mins seems fairly accurate from watching experience. Fairly close to sea level at observation point, but land rises both at the point where it enters my view and where it departs.

Thanks!

[Luke Pemberton]

Anyone got any suggestion why my estimate of ISS speed was so overstated? Have I missed some obvious assumption, or is it merely because I've assumed it to pass directly over, when it's some 50 degrees south and west of me?

Welcome to the board. The important aspect of the calculation is that you are aware of the errors and have now set Neil the task of disproving that there is something in the sky that is moving with parameters that suggest an object in LEO. That in itself is a test of the veracity of his competence, which has some merit.

It also begs an important question: Engineers can design a system to put an object into LEO, yet they cannot manage to design a system to cool an astronaut. How can that be when putting an object into LEO is far more technically challenging?

I'm still trying to work out Neil's claims and the mind it takes to conjure up such a fantastical argument to discredit an entire industry over what is essentially a widget of a subsystem.

Without labouring the point by repeating what has gone before, he demands video evidence of the PLSS sublimator working in vacuum while simultaneously questioning whether a photo was taken in a vacuum. We have a set of moving goalposts!! What ever proof we offer he will simply deny it and put in place another set of criteria we need to meet. The reason for this is a 9-11 obsession which has resulted in a criminal prosecution for violent behaviour. His own words, if he can prove the moon landings were hoaxed, which I'm guessing he thinks is a simpler nut to crack, it provides a platform whereby others will take his 9-11 claims seriously. Such is his obsession with 9-11, he is determined to hold onto proving Apollo was hoaxed as that is a means to his 9-11 end.

As Jay and others have pointed out, his argument seems to be based on straightforward denial of any evidence and that he is sole arbitrator of what meets proof. He's rather set NASA the tasks of Hercules.

[Kiwi]

Anyone got any suggestion why my estimate of ISS speed was so overstated? Have I missed some obvious assumption, or is it merely because I've assumed it to pass directly over, when it's some 50 degrees south and west of me?

Welcome to ApolloHoax, Apollo 957. I think your reply No. 315 might be way above Neil Baker's ability to comprehend it.  In fact I wonder whether he has ever looked up the predictions for visible passes of the ISS for his area and watched it pass over.

I have watched it many times, and often post the details in advance on a New Zealand message board when it makes a good pass for most of the country and there is widespread clear weather. It's always enjoyable to hear people all over New Zealand exclaiming about it, and that the kids waved to the astronauts.

One thing I often try while watching the ISS, is counting off one second and then getting my brain to accept that it travelled over 7 km in that second.  Something in my head always says, "Nah!  Impossible!" I blame my earth-based existence in an atmosphere for that.

On the night of 29-30 December 2007 I watched the ISS make five consecutive passes, which is apparently a fairly rare sight that few people have seen. Here in New Zealand our air is apparently much clearer than in the northern hemisphere, and I have often seen it with the naked eye when it is 5 or 6 degrees above the horizon.

Back to your question, maths was my worst ever subject at school in the 1950s and 60s, but I think its distance put you wrong.  You really need to use a pass that's as close to overhead as possible, 80° elevation or better.

Below are the figures for its closest pass for me on 10 July 2015, when it reached 85° elevation. The sky was light in the northwest, but had it been darker and the ISS visible when at 10° elevation, it would have been visible for about 6 minutes 25 seconds. I'll include my entire post about it. The figures at the bottom are from the Heavens-Above website and modified a little for laypeople, and other details come from the ground track map and an atlas.
http://www.heavens-above.com/

International Space Station tonight 10 July 2015

The ISS crosses central New Zealand tonight, northwest to southeast and offshore from Taranaki and Wanganui, then directly above the southern Manawatu and Wairarapa.

Easily visible (if skies are clear) from between lines from Auckland to East Cape and Hokitika to Christchurch, and low in the sky from further away.

The sky might be too light to see the ISS when it's low in the NW, but if so, it should be visible higher up and in darker sky around 5:51:00 to 5:52:30,

5:52:50 pm onward, passes along and above the Taranaki Bight, just offshore from Opunake, Hawera, Patea, Waverly, Wanganui and Ratana.

5:53:14 passes above and between Himatangi and Foxton on the Manawatu coast.

5:53:27 crosses the Wairarapa coast near Castlepoint.

5:56:15 pm – Enters Earth's shadow E of Clutha, SE of the Chatham Islands.

Figures for Manawatu
5:47:52 pm – Rises (not visible yet) – NW – 2,315 km distant
5:49:56 pm – Reaches altitude 10° (becoming visible) – NW – 1,463 km distant
5:53:12 pm – Maximum altitude 85° – SW – 415 km distant
5:56:15 pm – Enters Earth's shadow, altitude 12° – SE – 1,361 km distant

[gillianren]

So here's the thing, Neil.  When you are saying that Apollo was hoaxed, you are by definition calling everyone involved in it who would have had enough knowledge to know if it had been hoaxed a liar.  There's no way around that.  When Buzz Aldrin says he walked on the Moon, by your own standards, he must be lying.  When someone who works with sublimators tells you that they work in vacuum, by your own standards, they must be lying.  When geologists the world over report on the obvious factors in the rocks that show they cannot be from the Earth, by your own standards, they must either be lying or deluded--which means bad at their jobs.  And if they're bad enough at their jobs that they can't tell the difference between Moon rocks and Earth rocks, well, when they got their degrees, guess what?

[Bob B.]

Does anybody remember a couple weeks ago when I posted this is another thread:

One thing I’ve noticed about many hoax theorists is that they attack us, the defenders of Apollo, and they attack NASA as an organization, but they tend to hesitate personally attacking any of the high-profile individuals at NASA.  Of course by making the claims that they do, and by going after NASA, they are by extension attacking the astronauts and all the people who were part of Apollo.  When we point that fact out, the HB will often start backpedaling.  They’ll sometimes say something like the astronauts were forced into it, or they we just doing what their country asked of them, etc.  I guess some HBs just don’t have the guts to put a name and a face to the people they are calling criminals.  Instead they blame the namely and faceless “powers that be”.

Sound familiar?

[bknight]

Figures for Manawatu
5:47:52 pm – Rises (not visible yet) – NW – 2,315 km distant
5:49:56 pm – Reaches altitude 10° (becoming visible) – NW – 1,463 km distant
5:53:12 pm – Maximum altitude 85° – SW – 415 km distant
5:56:15 pm – Enters Earth's shadow, altitude 12° – SE – 1,361 km distant

I agree with those figures so we are left with (20/360)*26500=1458 miles.  1458 m/(5 min/60 min/hr) results in 17496 mph.  I believe the right triangle Apollo 957 is not as he stated.  Now all these figures are average and precise calculations would refine the answers down to less errors.

[mako88sb]

Still wondering why you continue to pursue this to such extreme unreasonable lengths when anybody can see that a test of this sort will never satisfy you despite what you say.

I think or at least used to think that it was the quick route to the much more important Independent 9-11 investigation.
I'm bewildered by the level of resistance from educated men. It's a simple thing.   A validation.
Although I understand the fear that NASA can't validate its claim.
And that's what would lead to 9-11 truth.
If it was revealed that the government lied big about NASA, people would be more agreeable to confronting the harder truth about 9-11.

And you're wrong. The test before independent witnesses would satisfy me. I'm sick of this subject and want it settled.

I don't believe for a second that a test would satisfy you. Anybody who reads this thread can see you have no intention of letting this subject go no matter how sick you supposedly are of it. Your ultimate goal is to get 9/11 investigated and you somehow got in your head that this is the way to make it happen. The test is never going to happen but if it did and proved you wrong, you would just go onto another multi-year campaign for the next smoking gun anomaly your mind would contrive about Apollo. So once again Neal. How much more of your life are you prepared to ruin for something that's never going to happen?