Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:20 pm

.


Cross-posting a few posts from the 'Who Parked the Moon' thread to here:


Belligerent Savant » Wed May 01, 2019 12:00 pm wrote:.

For those with spare time to plunge into a rabbit hole, see below breadcrumbs -- caveat lector*, as should be standard with any source material:

*I may not subscribe to all content written within these sources, but there are bits of noteworthy info to be gleaned, regardless.


The controversy over Grissom's death is so hot that one ubiquitous media "skeptic" (and tireless defender of government orthodoxy) went so far as to shut down debate on the Apollo 1 murder theories on his message board.

One "Apollo hoax" conspiracy site boils the basic narrative amongst Grissom partisans to its essence.

In January 1967, Virgil 'Gus' Grissom, an American astronaut, held an unauthorized press conference in which he told reporters that the United States was "at least a decade away" from even contemplating a lunar mission. He was severely rebuked for giving that interview without permission.
Following this reprimand, Gus Grissom later came out of a water tank reduced gravity simulation of the supposed lunar landing module, and attached a lemon to a coat-hanger, which he then hung in front of a NASA emblem to indicate to the cameras, without speaking, what he and his fellow crew members, Roger Chaffee and Edward White, thought of the Apollo programme. Clearly Mr. Grissom did not fit NASA's requirement of an easily-controlled, brain-dead military man.
A few days after this, on 27 January 1967, Grissom, Chaffee and White were murdered, via a horrific pressurized oxygen fire, while locked in the capsule at the top of a Saturn V rocket.

But it's not just conspiracy theorists who believe Grissom was murdered for his whistle-blowing, it's also the Grissom family.

"My father’s death was no accident. He was murdered,” Grissom, a commercial pilot, told Star.

Grissom said he recently was granted access to the charred capsule and discovered a "fabricated” metal plate located behind a control panel switch. The switch controlled the capsules’ electrical power source from an outside source to the ship’s batteries. Grissom argues that the placement of the metal plate was an act of sabotage...

...Grissom’s widow, Betty, now 71, told Star she agrees with her son’s claim that her husband had been murdered. "I believe Scott has found the key piece of evidence to prove NASA knew all along what really happened but covered up to protect funding for the race to the moon.”

Grissom's death capped a tense period when the astronaut had been the target of death threats:

The Grissom family had reason to doubt the official NASA ruling from the beginning. Even before Apollo I, Grissom had received death threats which his family believed emanated from within the space program.

The threats were serious enough that he was put under Secret Service protection and had been moved from his home to a secure safehouse. According to his wife, Grissom had warned her that "if there is ever a serious accident in the space program, it’s likely to be me.”



https://secretsun.blogspot.com/2009/01/ ... artyr.html


Betty Grissom, left widowed with two sons, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the Apollo program's prime contractor, North American Rockwell. She won a $350,000 settlement in 1972 that would be worth nearly $3 million today if adjusted for inflation, said Ronald D. Krist, the Houston attorney who handled that case.


https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles ... issom-dies



THE FIRE
At 6:31:03 P.M., one of the astronauts smelled smoke and yelled fire. The capsule had suddenly turned into a Calorimeter Bomb. They tried their best to open the hatch. Without panic the triple hatch that sealed them in usually took about nine minutes to open. They didn't have nine minutes. In fact, they barely had ninety seconds before their suits burned through and the deadly poisonous gasses released from the plastics silenced them forever.

The capsule's internal pressure soared from the great quantity of hot gasses created by the quasi-explosive burning of all the combustible material. This short term fire was so intense that it melted a silver soldered joint on the oxygen feed pipe pouring even more oxygen into the conflagration.

At 6:31:17, fourteen seconds from the first smell of smoke, the pressure reached 29 pounds and the capsule ruptured, effectively releasing the heat and damping the fire. But it was too late. They were already dead.

Let me put in some additional questions here. If this was not murder and just an example of extreme stupidity in governmental slow motion why did government agents in rapid action, raid Grissom's home before anyone knew about the fire? Why did they remove all his personal papers and his diary? Why didn't they bring his diary, or any other paper with the word "Apollo" on it back, when they returned some of his personal papers to his widow? And if it really took 29 psi to blow the cabin why didn't they use regular air at higher pressure?

Also was it really the vicissitudes of life that the outward opening hatch was coincidentally changed that very morning to one that opened inward? An inward opening hatch meant that any inside pressure, acting outward, would prevent it from being opened—even if someone was standing by, which they weren't.

It was also boiled up from the outside and lacked explosive bolts. 20

THE AFTERMATH
NASA should have known better. And they did! You have read earlier of the men injured in flash explosive fires in their own tests. NASA had even commissioned a report by Dr. Emanuel M. Roth which was published in 1964. Dr. Roth cited difficulties with 100 percent oxygen atmospheres even under low pressures. Any competent engineer should have known the dangers of oxygen at 16.7 or 20.2 psi.

This is why I cannot believe that this was "standard operating procedure," or that Grissom and his crew knew that about it. NASA not only ignored their own tests on pure low pressure oxygen but upped the ante by increasing the pressure above atmospheric.

Kennan and Harvey had this to say,

"Most U.S. scientists could not believe their ears when they learned that fact. Oxygen at such pressure comes in the category of an 'oxygen bomb.'" 21

A Board of Inquiry termed "The Apollo 204 Review Board" was quickly convened to investigate the fatal fire by appointing astronaut Frank Borman as the chairman. In effect, NASA sent the fox into the chicken house to investigate mysterious disappearances of the occupants.

The board's final report was about what you might expect when an in-house investigation investigates itself:

"One key to the caution which reveals itself on every page of the Board's report is that it was written by government employees. Thompson himself was director of the space agency's Langley Research center, and no fewer than six of the eight Board members were NASA officials." 22

The pressure of 16.7 psi is quoted from Journey to Tranquility where the authors wrote that they learned the pressure of the pure oxygen in the capsule was 2 psi over atmospheric. Collins reported it as nearly 16 psi. It seems strange that NASA told two insiders, Borman and Collins, plus the authors of Tranquility three different capsule pressures? Apparently NASA, like the rest of us find it almost impossible to keep all the little white lies straight. And if it's a group lie we get the results shown in this book.

Borman writes that,

"We brought in every learned mind we could enlist—including a chemistry expert from Cornell..." 23

Didn't this expert know that oxygen has a deep and forceful desire to breed little oxides by passionately mating with hydrocarbons and carbohydrates? Didn't this "so-called" expert tell them that?

Borman, played dumb when he was called before Congress. In testifying under oath he said,

"None of us were fully aware of the hazard that existed when you combine a pure-oxygen atmosphere with the extensive distribution of combustible materials and a likely source of ignition... and so this test... was not classified as hazardous."24

And if Borman was as unaware of all the dangerous fires that erupted during NASA's own safety tests over the years why did he later write about 20.2 psi oxygen in this manner,

"That is an extremely dangerous environment, the equivalent of sitting on a live bomb, waiting for someone to light the fuse. " 25

Aldrin in his 1989 book, Men From Earth written twenty-two years after the cremation has this to say,

"As every high school chemistry student learns, when a smoldering match is put into a beaker of oxygen, it blazes into a spectacular flame." 26

He (Aldrin) continues by telling us how there was a multitude of switches and miles of electrical wiring all of which were easy to short and could act as a match.

"But the risk was considered acceptable because, in space, the astronauts could instantly depressurize their cabin..." 27

Hey Buzz, didn't you claim that the reason your EVA [extravehicular activity] on the Moon was late in starting because it took so long to vent the last of the oxygen from the LEM?

Borman, who held a Masters in engineering and taught thermodynamics at West Point claims nobody was aware of the danger! After all these years Aldrin now claims he knew. Obviously, either Borman is lying or Aldrin didn't have the guts to open his mouth.

When Deke Slayton was asked about the pressure test he reportedly blurted out,

"Man, we've just been lucky. We've used the same test on everything we've done with the Mercury and the Gemini up to this point, and we've just been lucky as hell." 28

Why do I doubt that? I suspect that everything about the pressurization test is a lie. I think that it was a one time only occurrence specially configured to suit the job at hand.

Borman contended that Ed White and his wife Pat were friends of his and that he listened to the audio tapes of the fire over and over again.

Then he states,

"The only comfort derived from listening to the tapes was the knowledge that the agony hadn't lasted long; that death had come from noxious fumes before the flames reached them." 29

Borman's acumen might be judged by the fact that Eastern Airlines played submarine when he was at the helm as CEO. Nobody dies in 14 seconds from noxious fumes. Ed White died inhaling super heated oxygen which set fire to his lungs, throat and skin the same way that technician's hand burned in the test years before. The chances are that they survived for minutes and were conscious for a good part of that time. However, death was definite after the first breath.



https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/cien ... ions26.htm







stickdog99 » Sat May 11, 2019 1:30 am wrote:
BenDhyan » 11 May 2019 00:44 wrote:
stickdog99 » Sat May 11, 2019 8:02 am wrote:Here is an image of the Moon taken 53 years ago by the Lunar Orbiter 2.

Image

Link: http://images.spaceref.com/news/LOIRP/2 ... _2.lrg.jpg

http://www.moonviews.com/2012/05/iconic ... eased.html

The amount of detail that the new image reveals is clear. Not only is the resolution much higher, but the dynamic range is greater so as to allow gradations in surface texture, shadows, etc. to be much more clearly pronounced.

LOL at the data transmitted from the Lunar Orbiters having so much better resolution than the data from the 2009 LRO mission. Maybe we could get some octagenerians from Kodak to get us those pictures of the Apollo landing site that NASA promised the LRO would provide?


Two points, the cameras on the LO were dual and forward looking, unlike LRO that looked down, and secondly the image of the inside of Copernicus Crater you have shown has been touched up. LOIRP stands for Lunar Orbiter Image Recovery Project "By adding modern computer interfaces and data handling techniques, the LOIRP was able to scan and record the data in ways that simply could not have been accomplished in the 1960s. As a result the images that were obtained had a much higher resolution and dynamic range than had been seen to date. Indeed, in many cases, these images often rival or exceed images taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter which is currently surveying the Moon.
Today an iconic image from the initial exploration of the Moon is being re-released showing detail that could not have been seen using technology available at the time the photo was taken. This image features a dramatic view inside the majestic crater Copernicus – a view that left millions in awe when it was first released.
"

http://www.moonviews.com/2012/05/iconic_lunar_orbiter_image_of_copernicus_re-released.html



The raw data is better than LRO's. Far, far better. When you say "touched up", what you mean is that the LOIRP processed the raw returned data with modern computer algorithms that use far more memory and disk than existed in the 1960s.



Belligerent Savant » Sat May 25, 2019 10:59 pm wrote:.

Saturn V Rockets launched into space does not = men landing on the moon, needless to say.


With regards to transmissions 'from the moon':


[...]

Only the NASA Manned Space Flight Network can attest to having tracked these vehicles all the way to the moon and back. This Network comprised of Goldstone Tracking Station in California, the Madrid Deep Space Communications Complex, and various facilities in Australia; most notably Parkes Observatory, Honeysuckle Creek and Tidbinbilla. In the case of Parkes, it was (and still is) owned by the Australian government but was under control of and under contract to NASA during the time of the Apollo missions. It was NASA’s very own Robert Taylor who controlled the release of any data from Parkes during the Apollo 11 mission and his team were responsible for the reception, recording and transfer of audio, video and telemetry at Parkes. And on the subsequent flights technicians and engineers from NASA’s Tidbinbilla complex were heavily involved at Parkes. It’s essentially a fox guarding the hen house scenario.



http://www.moonfaker.com/faqs.html

I've only come across this 'Jarrah White' individual [the source of the above link/quote] today; haven't done my due diligence on him yet, so the usual caveat lector applies. Apparently he's a defender of the charlatan Musk, so while he may have done his part to expose the Apollo landings as [alleged] hoaxes, some claim he's since been 'compromised' to validate the current/future missions as genuine.

More research for another time, perhaps.

I'm including additional content from his FAQ page below, as it addresses a number of the topics already raised in this thread:

[the FAQ link has multiple embedded links/additional source material]


Q: So was the MSFN [Manned Space Flight Network] part of the conspiracy?

A: Maybe. Maybe not. For awhile Jarrah was convinced that they were, but has since reconsidered and remains undecided. Because of the way telecommunications were handled, it’s hard to say for sure.

The MSFN simply relayed the signals it received over the landlines to the technicians at the Mission Control Center in Houston. These technicians didn’t need to know or care where the data came from. So since it was purely NASA’s MSFN who were allegedly tracking Apollo all the way to the moon and back, regardless of whether the crews were actually in LEO or on the ground; all they would need do is relay pre-recorded tapes or LEO signals or both over the landlines, claim it was from the moon, and the MCC controllers would’ve called it a day.

This was little different to the pre-flight simulations. The MCC controllers were trained for actual space missions by being fed simulated data over the landlines. Flight Director Eugene Kranz, in the documentary Failure Is Not an Option, was quoted to saying that the simulations were so realistic that no controller could distinguish the training from the real mission. (see time codes 4:40-4:54)

On the other hand, the MSFN could easily have been in the dark too. Honeysuckle Creek for example had developed their own simulation system for specifically training the operators. The computers were even capable of simulating the Doppler shift! These simulators were also designed to be indistinguishable from the real thing. But while it could be argued that a similar simulation could have been used, it ultimately was not required to fool the MSFN.

As explained below, the Soviet Union had successfully faked telecommunications by transmitting the voices of cosmonauts to the unmanned Zond 5, which in turn relayed them back to earth. At the time the Americans and Jodrell Bank thought the spacecraft was manned. There was nothing stopping the Americans from also flying an unmanned spacecraft to the moon and using it to relay data. So if the MSFN operators were not involved in the conspiracy, they were probably receiving telecommunications from an unmanned craft.

In summary: because the MSFN facilities were either NASA owned or NASA contracted, it is not an outside possibility that they were involved in the hoax; but on the other hand, they could just as easily have been left in the dark and NASA could have pulled a Zond 5 on them.

Jarrah has personally asked various radio operators how they know Apollo telecommunications were not just another Zond 5 stunt, and so far none of them have given him a direct answer. And considering the Zond 5 hoax has been officially revealed, Jarrah is amazed that anyone would cite telecommunications as evidence for Apollo, let alone consider it their best evidence!

Q: How were the videos and still pictures faked?

A: They were filmed either in a studio or on location in the Nevada desert. When it came down to filming the moonwalk scenes, lunar gravity was simulated by suspending the astronauts on wires to reduce their weight. And to complete the look, the videos of the astronauts on wires were played back in slow motion.

Ironically, the Mythbusters recently tried to debunk this by filming Adam Savage running around in a replica spacesuit. They filmed him both with and without wire suspension. But the only slow motion footage shown was of when he was not suspended by a wire. If one takes his wire jump footage, slows it down to 67% and then plays it alongside the original Apollo 16 footage, the two are a near-perfect synchronization.

White told this to Savage during the Q&A session at Tam8 in Las Vegas 2010, to which Savage replied that their TV show [Mythbusters] was “entertainment, not science”, that he shouldn’t be cited as the definitive defacto place for scientific analysis of the moon landings, and that “We might be wrong!”

Q: How could so many people have kept quiet about the hoax?

A: Secrets of such magnitude have taken place. The Soviet N-1 program alone involved hundreds of thousands of scientists and engineers; yet the designing, developing, and launch of the N-1 rocket remained a well-kept secret for forty years until the USSR collapsed in 1991.

Bottom line, if Russia could keep a secret that involved thousands of people for so long, so could NASA. And anyway, not everyone at NASA would have needed to be in on the conspiracy. For example, as stated above, the technicians at Houston Mission Control Center would be unable to distinguish the difference between simulations and the real missions. Hence there is no need for them to ‘keep quiet’ about anything.

Likewise for the remainder of NASA staff and contractors located on the ground. Once the rockets were out of sight they had no way of knowing whether the CSM continued to the Moon, came down shortly afterwards, or just stayed in earth orbit. Everyone just assumed it happened the way it was reported and they had no reason to suspect otherwise. Ultimately there were only three eyewitnesses for each mission, not thousands.

Q: Why did the Russians remain silent?

A: Jarrah can see three reasons.

Firstly, if you really want to know what Russia thought of manned lunar exploration, just ask Jodrell Bank’s Sir Bernard Lovell. In May of 1963, the President of the Soviet Academy of Sciences Mstislav Keldysh instructed him to inform NASA’s deputy administrator Hugh Dryden that Russian had to postpone manned moon flights indefinitely, because they could see no way to protect their cosmonauts from the insurmountable dangers posed by solar flare radiation. Well into 1966, around the time Russia put Lunik 10 in lunar orbit, Sir Bernard remained in contact with the Soviets asking when they intended to send a human to the moon.
In 1999, Sir Bernard was quoted by the BBC along these lines: “I had frequently asked my Soviet contacts when they intended to send a human being to the moon and their response was always ‘when we can be absolutely certain of getting him back alive’. And they did not believe the Americans would do this and in fact it’s pretty clear that the Americans did take considerable risk.”


Well into December 1968, Alexei Leonov and his comrades pleaded the politburo to let them pilot Zond 7 around the moon, as the Zonds 5 & 6 had already flown around the moon and returned to earth in September and November of that year – the former of which was successfully recovered. But their pleas were rejected despite having proven their capabilities with Zond 5.

Jarrah believes that Russia may likely have planned to fake their manned moon flights too. Aboard Zond 5 was an audio cassette player which played back the voices of cosmonauts Pavel Popevich and Vitali Sevastyanov. At the time many thought Russia had sent the first men around the moon, but upon return of the capsule it was revealed that it was only a tape recording. NASA, who at the time weren’t officially planning a ‘manned’ moon mission until April or May 1969, responded to the tape recorder stunt by changing Apollo 8’s flight plan from a high earth orbit flight to a lunar orbit flight in December 1968.

Russia had the opportunity to claim victory over the Americans, but they let it slip through their fingers. But even if they were to cry foul on the Americans, it would only jeopardize their own program. If the USSR was to come out and say that Apollo was faked due to lethal radiation, the Americans would just as easily cry foul if the Soviets proceeded to fake their own for the same reason.

The second reason for their silence would be because of free trade deals. Since the Kennedy administration, the United States government and its allies had been selling tons of American wheat to the Soviets. It’s no different to modern times: the US cuts multi-billion dollar trade deals with the Chinese and in turn China gets kicked off America’s list of human rights violators, likewise Russia gets tons of wheat in return for silence.

Thirdly, nowadays the Russian and American space programs are partners in crime. In the early 70s the US and Soviets agreed to work cooperatively in the exploration of space. This international cooperation became a reality in 1975 with the Apollo Soyuz Test Project, the first joint mission. Many other missions followed and Russia essentially became the United States’ best ally. In the 1990s, with the Buran program cancelled, the Russians had no shuttle to get to their Mir space station, only Soyuz. And the US had no equivalent to Mir. The solution was the Shuttle-Mir program, in which US shuttles carried astronauts and cosmonauts to and from the Russian Mir space station. Now the US and Russia have collaborated towards the construction of the International Space Station, involving not only them but also every other space nation – except for the US’s best trade partner, the Chinese.

The Russians were also kind enough to give American astronauts a ride to space aboard the Soyuz during the time the shuttle was grounded. And with the termination of the shuttle program, the US will now be reliant on Russia’s Soyuz to get to the ISS. It’s essentially a one-world space government, one big happy family. No one will blow the whistle on anybody.

Q: What is the most compelling evidence that the moon missions were faked?

A: Jarrah can nail it down to four pieces of evidence.

First, as demonstrated by James Van Allen’s own findings, the radiation belts that surround earth would have been lethal to astronauts. It began in 1952 when James Van Allen & his team at the University of Iowa began launching Geiger counters into space aboard rockoons. Although these did not have enough lift to get into orbit, these experiments were able to detect radiation levels higher than what Van Allen had expected. Later in the late 50s and early 60s, his Geiger counters were carried aloft by the Explorer satellites and Pioneer space probes. Each time the spacecrafts entered the radiation belts, the Geiger counters would become continuously busy. They encountered protons and electrons with fluxes of 40,000 particles per square centimetre per second and average energies ranging between 1-100 MeV.

Before Van Allen began shielding his Geiger counters with a millimetre of lead, the instruments detected radiation with a dose rate equivalent of 312.5rad/hr to 11,666rad/hr for the outer belt and inner belt respectively [Fig-2]12. These instruments quickly became jammed by the radiation. Even to this day, the belts are so severe that satellites must operate outside the belts: geostationary satellites operating beyond the end of the outer belt (but still within the protection of the magnetosphere) and GPS satellites operating in the gap between the two belts. Meanwhile low earth orbit satellites like the Hubble must shut down some of their instruments during South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) transit. Even after Van Allen shielded his Geiger counters with lead, the results were still equivalent to 10-100rad/hr. He concluded that effective shielding of astronauts was beyond engineering feasibility available at the time, that even a rapid transit through the belts would be hazardous, and that for these reasons the two belts must be classed as an uninhabitable region of space that all manned space flight must steer clear of.

Even if we discount the Van Allen belt, there are still other dangers to consider. The sun constantly bombards the earth-moon system with solar flares. Regardless of whether these flares deliver x-rays or protons, or are minor or major, both are a hazard to humans. A major flare delivers in excess of 100rad/hr, a minor flare can deliver 25rad/hr depending on how many centimetres of water shielding is used. The minor flares of May 10th and July 15th 1958 for example, would have required 31gm/cm2 of water just to bring their dose rates down to 25rad/hr [Fig-3]. The Apollo capsule, with its aluminium honeycomb hull and outer epoxy resin ablator, was rated at 3gm/cm2 on the walls and 8gm/cm2 on the aft heatshield. The thicker portion of the spacecraft walls would bring the dose rate of such flares down to around 1,000rem/hr. The records show that 1400 of these minor flares occurred over all nine moon flights (Tables 1 & 2). NOAA’s Comprehensive Flare Index for Major flares, also reveals that thirty of the major ones took place during the Apollo missions. By any definition, these astronauts should have been as dead as spam in a can.

The second smoking gun is the fact that the Apollo 10 telecasts were proven to have been pre-filmed and edited together. After every space mission, NASA releases a ground-to-air communications transcript covering everything the crew and capsule communicators (Capcoms) said during the flight. The company Spacecraft Films sells what they claim is complete and unedited television transmissions and 16mm reels from the Apollo missions. Jarrah purchased the Apollo 10 DVD set and compared the in-flight videos with the transcript. To his astonishment, Jarrah found numerous occasions in which the views of earth and even interior shots would cut from one angle to another and yet the audio would remain perfectly synchronized to the video with no signs of interruption when the video cut. So we know that the astronauts didn’t simply cut the camera and then begin rolling moments later.

The Apollo astronauts had only the one television camera hooked up to the S-band antenna, so these broadcasts should be one continuous shot with no edits – as per the false claims made by propagandists. Because these edits only take place during post production, not whilst the video is being recorded, it would not have been possible to cut and paste LIVE video. The only logical conclusion is that the views of earth were pre-filmed, edited together, and then sandwiched between the interior shots with the ground-to-air communications dubbing the video regardless of the edits. Transitions from these fake views of earth videos to interior scenes were pulled off by conveniently cutting the camera or blacking the scene from interior to exterior and vice versa, in one circumstance Eugene Cernan went as far as putting a piece of paper in front of the camera lens during this switch from exterior to interior!

By comparing the videos with the transcript, Jarrah also discovered that there were sections of video missing from the “complete” Spacecraft Films DVD set. Jarrah knows these missing pieces of video exist, because in the transcript the Capcom confirms that the MSFN was ‘receiving’ them. For reasons unknown, Spacecraft Films omitted minutes of footage from Apollo 10 and then sold their DVD set to the world as “complete & unedited.”

After Jarrah released his video covering this, ironically titled “Flagging The Gems”, Mark Gray of Spacecraft Films flagged it for copyright infringement and had the video pulled along with Jarrah’s entire Youtube account. Gray’s copyright claims are fraudulent and thus he is guilty of perjury, because NASA’s in flight telecasts are PUBLIC DOMAIN. They are not copyrighted.

The third piece of evidence that the Apollo missions were faked is the fact that the moon rocks actually on the moon later turned out to be different to the ones the astronauts supposedly collected. See below.

Fourth, and probably the most visually identifiable, is the fact the framerate of the Apollo 11 telecast is not what NASA claimed it was. NASA claims that the only television camera that recorded the Apollo 11 EVA was a B&W non-interlaced Westinghouse camera that ran at 10fps. As this framerate is lower than both conventional television framerates of PAL (25fps, interlaced) or NTSC (30fps, interlaced), the video allegedly received by the DSN and MSFN needed to be converted to NTSC. NASA says that this was done by pointing an NTSC TV camera at a screen that displayed the 10fps feed. The unfiltered 10fps was recorded on 1inch reels, but only the 2inch reel containing the NTSC conversion have survived.

Nonetheless, it is important to note that at least 24fps (cinema) is sufficient to show fluent motion. Framerates lower than 24fps, especially as low as 10fps, will appear very jumpy. Because fourteen important frames of natural motion are missing. Additionally, in a 10fps to 30fps conversion, the motion on screen would update only once every three frames. Because the camera pointed to the screen would have recorded the same display three times.

Frame by frame analysis of the digital transfers of NASA’s 2inch reels however reveal this not to be the case. The motion of the astronauts’ movement is very smooth and not jumpy at all. And frames update not once every three frames, but four out of every five frames with the odd one out being an overlay of the frames before and after. This clearly indicates that the Apollo 11 EVA video playback speed was not 10fps but 24fps. Meaning the EVA was shot with a camera that reportedly was not in the Apollo 11 crews possession during the time they were supposedly on the moon.

User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5217
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

Postby Elvis » Sun Aug 11, 2019 4:45 am

Monk wrote:


Terrific video, thanks!

His analysis of the lighting is very persuasive, e.g. the inverse square of light fall-off (@4:00): not just a good idea—it's the law.

Belligerent Savant wrote:this guy claims there was no slow motion tech in 1969...
The final scene of Bonnie and Clyde was in slow motion, filmed in 1967. That's not the earliest example, of course.


He goes over that whole issue: Bonnie and Clyde was shot on film, slow-motion scenes could be over-cranked. I'm surprised he gave that much time to the film vs video question, since the film hypothesis is so silly (although, Kubrick 8) ). And he makes a sensible point about inventing new techologies just to record an uninterrupted 47-minute video of a hoaxed moonscape. And this is all because the illusion of a "slow motion" effect...

Belligerent Savant wrote: Because NASA's equipment was not compatible with TV technology of the day, the original transmissions had to be displayed on a monitor and re-shot by a TV camera for broadcast.


This, I think, is what explains the "slow motion" effect some people perceive in the Apollo 11 moon video. If the camera was shooting at 10 fps, the displayed motion will look choppy — not smooth like 30fps, since a single still-frame is on screen 3x longer, a noticable difference. It's a bit like old silent movies that, in modern terms, were undercranked in the camera (say 18fps), and later, 'modern' film projectors (24 fps) made them appear sped-up. The solution was to make a copy, printing every other frame twice. Thus reprinted, those old movies have (more or less) the right speed of action, but have that weird choppy motion effect.
.
Definitely would be interesting know details of the display/recapture process.
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7413
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

Postby identity » Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:04 pm

I was just reading Angus Stewart's Tangier – A Writer's Notebook, and thought some here might enjoy the following passage:

Apparently the Americans had landed two men on the moon. I was prepared to believe this. Meti was not. It was Meti's night to cook dinner. We had agreed on fish. Mackerel was the only fish regularly within his experience. I thought of childhood tales of their eating dead sailors, of Tangier's sewage effluents which the resident knows and the tourist doesn't, but of how as a post-war boy, with dried eggs and bananas and whale steaks, I'd virtually been reared on the stuff.

'Jolly delicious, Meti.' I mopped up oily gravy with bread.

'Cakes?' Meti mumbled, just big eyes above pounding mouthfuls.

'With tea on the terrace. I'll get it,' I said.

And so, sipping Lapsang and nibbling honey and almond stuffed pastry, we sat on the night terrace. Quite terrestrially a large owl flapped silently from the neighbouring building. A yellow mist was rolling in from the bay as it does sometimes with evening, filling the street canyons with wet cotton wool, muffling the traffic sounds, distorting the beam of vehicle headlights. Above, the Plough was sharp as in a planetarium, and the moon huge. I found myself staring at it with a vague concentration which deliberately invited notice.

'It's bad to look at that,' Meti said, stooping over the cakes.

'It's beautiful - bright. Look,' I said,

Met shrugged off a boring phenomenon, but with a casualness not wholly natural. He went indoors to fill his cup with condensed milk: the opaque brew then became in his understanding coffee. When he returned it was with a remaining mackerel, which three fingers picked to extinction with the concentrated fastidiousness of a cat. He wouldn't look at the moon.

'Met,' I began, 'it's very strange, but up there tonight two men –'

'No!' said Met, with a violence that showed he'd heard the heresy in town.

I tried again.

This time Meti's 'No!' was fiercer. His mouth arrogantly full of food, he was not so playfully about to chuck the scalding tea-coffee, But I saw also he was frightened. Not the embarrassment of an aunt faced by impropriety, say; or the calculated scepticism of a science that was sure of itself, but a simple, naked fear. Meti was turned in on himself. There was nothing to say. He crouched over his plate eating mackerel fastidiously still, but with a concentration that could only be equated with a dangerous, all-excluding growl.

'It is strange,' I said again. And that was the end of man's violation of the moon.
We should never forget Galileo being put before the Inquisition.
It would be even worse if we allowed scientific orthodoxy to become the Inquisition.

Richard Smith, Editor in Chief of the British Medical Journal 1991-2004,
in a published letter to Nature
identity
 
Posts: 707
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 5:00 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

Postby MacCruiskeen » Mon Aug 19, 2019 1:41 pm

"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

Postby 82_28 » Mon Aug 19, 2019 6:28 pm

Fuck these guys.

Newt Gingrich trying to sell Trump on a cheap moon plan

Newt Gingrich and an eclectic band of NASA skeptics are trying to sell President Donald Trump on a reality show-style plan to jump-start the return of humans to the moon — at a fraction of the space agency’s estimated price tag.

The proposal, whose other proponents range from an Air Force lieutenant general to the former publicist for pop stars Michael Jackson and Prince, includes a $2 billion sweepstakes pitting billionaires Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and other space pioneers against each other to see who can establish and run the first lunar base, according to a summary of the plan shared with POLITICO.

That’s far less taxpayer money than NASA’s anticipated lunar plan, which relies on traditional space contractors, such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin, and is projected to cost $50 billion or more.

Backers of the novel approach have briefed administration officials serving on the National Space Council, several members of the group confirmed, though they declined to provide specifics of the internal conversations.

Trump has yet to weigh in on the idea, at least publicly. But the proposal, designed to offer a big incentive for private players who are already planning their own moon missions, comes as the president expresses skepticism that NASA can achieve his goal of returning American astronauts to the moon by 2024 without bold departures from the status quo.

Gingrich maintains that space entrepreneurs like Musk and Bezos can rise to the challenge. And some of the companies told POLITICO they are intrigued by the idea of such a competition.

“I think people would be shocked how fast they can move,” the former speaker said in an interview.

Advocates for the lower-cost backup plan insist NASA's current approach is not reliable enough to ensure America retains its lead against new space competitors like China, which they say is aggressively laying the groundwork to establish a sustained presence on the moon to tap into its vast amounts of resources, including energy and minerals.

“Right now, China is on a path to [have a moon settlement] in 20 years, and we are on a path to be there in 50 years,” Air Force Lt. Gen. Steven Kwast, a co-author of the plan, said in an interview. “We are not aggressive about it. We have the wrong strategy, the wrong ideas, the wrong doctrine. We are trapped in an industrial age model of thinking about space.”

White House spokesman Will Boyington declined to discuss any interactions involving the proposal. He deferred questions to NASA, which said it has not yet received such a proposal.

“At NASA we look forward to working with new partners as we focus on executing [Trump’s] Space Policy Directive 1, which instructs the agency to return American astronauts to the moon and pursue human exploration of Mars and the broader solar system," NASA spokeswoman Bettina Inclán told POLITICO via email. "NASA is implementing this plan through the Artemis program which will send the first woman and next man to the lunar surface by 2024.”

Trump set the 2024 deadline this year as part of an ambitious vision to create a permanent moon settlement that would serve as the staging ground for a journey to Mars.

But he has also questioned NASA’s ability to meet the timeline, and last month he implored Administrator Jim Bridenstine to consider alternatives from others in the space community who are wary of the current plan. That fits a pattern in which Trump has taken an abiding interest in lowering the costs of other aerospace programs, including the new Air Force One and the F-35 fighter jet.

NASA’s lunar plans rely on a rocket called the Space Launch System being developed by Boeing and the Orion space capsule being built by Lockheed Martin. Both projects have been dogged by delays and billions in cost overruns, imperiling NASA's moon plans, according to the Government Accountability Office. NASA is spending roughly $2 billion per year on the Space Launch System program alone.

The agency’s vision for a permanent human presence on the moon also includes an orbiting lunar space station, known as the Gateway, that some critics call unproven, unnecessary and overly expensive.

One skeptic of the space agency’s approach in recent years has been Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin, who put Bridenstine on the spot last month during an Oval Office commemoration of the July 1969 moon landing. Aldrin, the second man to walk on the lunar surface, expressed “great disappointment” in NASA's recent efforts to return to the moon.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/ ... on-1466853
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

Postby Sounder » Wed Jun 10, 2020 12:48 pm

Maybe they went, but definitely they also faked it.


Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

Postby DrEvil » Wed Jun 10, 2020 2:02 pm

^^The only thing they talked about faking was the pictures of the landing as a contingency in case of technical issues, not the landing itself.

Has anyone compared the moon landing to the moon scenes from 2001? If they're both filmed on the same set...
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3972
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

Postby Sounder » Thu Jun 11, 2020 10:40 am

^^The only thing they talked about faking was the pictures of the landing as a contingency in case of technical issues, not the landing itself.


Yes, it seems that NASA guy told Nixon that they could not provide 'film' from the moon so Nixon decided that the propaganda value was so great that a fake filming was needed.. And the advisors all agreed.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

Postby BenDhyan » Sun Jan 09, 2022 12:26 am

Now that looks like a lot of fun....

Ben D
User avatar
BenDhyan
 
Posts: 867
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:11 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

Postby DrEvil » Sun Jan 09, 2022 1:00 am

Hopefully they'll get a chance to faceplant on the Moon again soon. There's five different heavy lift rockets in the works. At least one of them should not RUD itself.

On a different note: the James Webb Telescope deployment went off without a hitch. 300+ moving parts that all had to work perfectly, with no hope of repairing it if something went wrong (it's a million miles away, way beyond the Moon). It even has a bit more fuel to spare than anticipated, due to the Ariane 5 rocket being so efficient, which will allow it to operate a little longer than planned.

Butts will remain somewhat clenched until it starts returning pictures (exoplanets!), but so far so good.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3972
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

Postby BenDhyan » Sun Jan 09, 2022 2:50 am

^ Yes, there will astronaut frolicking once more on the surface of the moon, just a few more years, happy days!

And the Webb will continue traveling through space for the next two weeks to reach its final orbit 1 million miles from Earth, not far from the moon, known as the second Lagrange point or L2. The spacecraft still has about 230,000 miles to go in its journey as of 6 hours ago. It’s expected to arrive before the end of January.
Ben D
User avatar
BenDhyan
 
Posts: 867
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:11 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

Postby Belligerent Savant » Mon Jan 10, 2022 12:49 am

.

So there are folks in here still subscribing to this narrative?

Despite revelations of the past 2 years (the ability of world govt leaders and bureaucrats to lie egregiously and commit myriad human rights violations, and the aggressive march towards broad systems collapse), nothing causes a bit of a 'pause and reflect' on the veracity of the space program (as presented to the masses) -- or at least, a measure of doubt that it can still succeed as planned, eh?

The march of progress, despite regress.

Then again, it's foolish (of me) to expect others to reflect or re-assess. Look around: 2 years since the onset of the covid campaign, we still readily observe fools wearing masks, lining up to test and/or inject yet another mRNA booster into their bodies.

Of course the space program is legit in such a world.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5217
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

Postby DrEvil » Mon Jan 10, 2022 1:41 am

This thing is a lie, ergo this other completely unrelated thing must also be a lie.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever to think the James Webb Telescope isn't real, or that the data from it is being faked, or is in some other way not what people think it is? If it's not what it seems, what do you think is going on?
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3972
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

Postby Belligerent Savant » Mon Aug 29, 2022 12:32 pm

@tomcostellonbc

@NASA says 8:33am launch unlikely. The longer they work to understand issues with #3 engine and crack on inner core tank flange, the less likely a launch is possible ... esp given expected weather.

6:47 AM · Aug 29, 2022·Twitter Web App

https://twitter.com/tomcostellonbc/stat ... bpuam-7EOA

@NASA

The launch of #Artemis I is no longer happening today as teams work through an issue with an engine bleed. Teams will continue to gather data, and we will keep you posted on the timing of the next launch attempt. https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/

8:44 AM · Aug 29, 2022·

https://twitter.com/NASA/status/1564232 ... 2_DtzOk0Ag

Here's the plan, at least as depicted in this graphic:

Image

by 2025, Artemis 3 mission would allow for the first crewed moon landing on the moon.

Good luck with that.

As an homage to the ongoing moon-related narratives, I submit for your consideration what may be the best 'moon landing hoax' video I've encountered to date, as it contains significant amounts of archival audio (from U.S. and Russian political leaders, etc.), news clippings, and official photos, videos, schematics & related formal documents, along with commentary direct from NASA/NASA reps.

I welcome any commentary after viewing this video in its entirety, as time allows:


https://youtu.be/KpuKu3F0BvY
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5217
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

Postby guruilla » Tue Sep 06, 2022 9:08 am

Conspicuous silence to this:

Belligerent Savant wrote:

I welcome any commentary after viewing this video in its entirety, as time allows:


https://youtu.be/KpuKu3F0BvY



Kubrick: "Any fool can see I didn't fake the moon landing!"

"Why's that, Stanley?"

"Because it looks too god-damn fake, that's why!"

IMHO, the mystery isn't how "they" could perpetuate such a hoax; the mystery is how it took so long for people to notice, or how anyone can still deny it.

I was only two, so that's my excuse.
It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.
User avatar
guruilla
 
Posts: 1460
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:13 am
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests