Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Belief in Apollo hoax conspiracy could grow


UM-Bot

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

I made my first post on page 6. So if you want to look back and find out what this is all about, that is where to start.

It would be absurd to claim all the Apollo missions were faked. Neither myself nor anyone I know has made that claim.

Ok, got my working boots on for this one.

1) I read the post and it still doesn't pass the smell test from my perspective. I can't just take the word from one individual and have it totally skew my opinion. I've seen arguments on both sides of the discussion and faking the landings makes no sense. It makes no sense from the standpoint that other countries have been sending craft to the moon and have seen the equipment left behind from the Apollo missions. Additionally, if the Soviets had one shred of evidence of this to help discredit the U.S., don't you think they would have jumped on it? Too many variables to make this conspiracy's equation 'work". Keep the receipt, I'm not buying it.

2) I never stated directly that you specifically were making the claim. It was a broad question for the consumption of all forum members. I apologize if you perceived that from my post.

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have seen a lot of hoax theories and some were better than others but this tortured bit of irrationality is probably one of the worst I have read.  It starts off with a supposedly rational,scientifically trained man who never doubted the Apollo landings having suddenly done a 180° shift on that view based on the "convincing" story of a single individual, he has never met before, spinning a tall tale without ever showing a single piece of evidence. (It's coming, stand by for the great revelations of July 20th, 2019 :rolleyes:).  Anybody buying this story line?  Nah, didn't think so. 

For the record, I'd like to know the mechanics of how a "CIA satellite in earth orbit" spoofs a space craft traveling to and then orbiting the Moon and then LANDING on the Moon?  Why this bit of silliness was included in this yarn is beyond me but it can;t be done, especially not back in "69. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

For the record, I'd like to know the mechanics of how a "CIA satellite in earth orbit" spoofs a space craft traveling to and then orbiting the Moon and then LANDING on the Moon?  Why this bit of silliness was included in this yarn is beyond me but it can;t be done, especially not back in "69. 

A number of us tried a different tack with this one. Some of us who are in Australia know a number of the Australian 'space trackers', the people who worked the missions (Mercury right through to Skylab & ASTP) at Honeysuckle Creek (HSK) and Parkes (PKS). Since these were people who had first hand knowledge and technical skills, we'd ask them about how the system worked, technical questions regarding hoax claims, etc.

IIRC, it was Peter B who engaged John Saxon and asked: if you wanted to fake the signals from the Moon, how could you go about it? John and his fellow trackers looked at the problem but were unable to come up with a way to do it; each scenario had areas where the facade wouldn't stand up to scrutiny.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Obviousman said:

A number of us tried a different tack with this one. Some of us who are in Australia know a number of the Australian 'space trackers', the people who worked the missions (Mercury right through to Skylab & ASTP) at Honeysuckle Creek (HSK) and Parkes (PKS). Since these were people who had first hand knowledge and technical skills, we'd ask them about how the system worked, technical questions regarding hoax claims, etc.

IIRC, it was Peter B who engaged John Saxon and asked: if you wanted to fake the signals from the Moon, how could you go about it? John and his fellow trackers looked at the problem but were unable to come up with a way to do it; each scenario had areas where the facade wouldn't stand up to scrutiny.

I read all that and you guys were spot on.  There is no possible way to accomplish this ridiculous accusation and Derek knows it.  So, four questions:

1.  Why make the trip to the Moon unnecessary, orbiting the Moon was obviously achievable at the time but Derek decides to keep the whole mission in earth orbit.  Why?  His ridiculous hoax, at the beginning, didn't require it so how did he evolve it into this obvious trap?

2.  Derek says he is giving the book away so what is his motivation?  Ignominious fame amongst the "flat-earther" crowd?   We should all watch Amazon, or his blog. (I won't bother, sorry) to see how charitable Derek is.

3. John whatever is obviously fictional so what happens on July 20th?  Even if he is some crank Derek fell for there will be no big discovery on July 20th.  just like the last 20k "big releases" so why would Derek fall for it?  Answer, he didn't, so $. 

4.  Derek is pushing a book, which is based on obvious BS, and has shown zero evidence to date and most of his "assumptions" are laughably impossible yet he endlessly pushes his zero evidence and ridiculous book.   This is clearly against the rules so why is it allowed?

Edited by Merc14
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Trelane said:

Ok, got my working boots on for this one.

1) I read the post and it still doesn't pass the smell test from my perspective. I can't just take the word from one individual and have it totally skew my opinion. I've seen arguments on both sides of the discussion and faking the landings makes no sense. It makes no sense from the standpoint that other countries have been sending craft to the moon and have seen the equipment left behind from the Apollo missions. Additionally, if the Soviets had one shred of evidence of this to help discredit the U.S., don't you think they would have jumped on it? Too many variables to make this conspiracy's equation 'work". Keep the receipt, I'm not buying it.

2) I never stated directly that you specifically were making the claim. It was a broad question for the consumption of all forum members. I apologize if you perceived that from my post.

I was making the statement that it would be absurd to believe all the Moon landings were faked.

The problem with this thread is that people are making comments without having read all my posts. Those comments are then added to by other people who haven't read all my posts either. I am not referring to you, because you clearly stated that you were late to the party.

So, for instance, some people keep banging on about the CIA satellites in Earth orbit not being able to mimic or spoof signals coming from the Moon. If those people had read my posts they would have understood what the satellites were doing. Throughout the "faked" missions the Apollo CSM remained in a relatively high orbit around the Earth. Communications with the CSM were relayed to and from the Earth using the satellites. The satellites had nothing to do with mimicking transmissions from the Moon. I don't get how people can't understand that, or why they insist on repeating something I didn't say.

As I have also clearly pointed out, Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 were "sample-return" missions. Basically, during each mission a modified LM was sent to the Moon by the third-stage of the Saturn V used to place the CSM into Earth orbit. The LM entered lunar orbit, then landed, collected samples, and the ascent-stage - including a re-entry capsule - returned to Earth. These missions closely resembled the Luna sample-return missions mounted by the Soviets at the same time as Apollo. I will again provide the link to the Wiki page on the Luna missions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_15

The reason why Apollo 11 and 12 were unmanned was because of the high risk of their failure, and hence the deaths of the astronauts. As it turned out, both sample-return missions were successful. If you want to know the details then please trawl through my posts. So as you can now see, the LM went to the Moon and back. The craft itself acted as a relay for the telemetry and voice data of the CSM which remained in Earth orbit. To pull this off, the signals had to complete a double round trip to the Moon and back. The point is, the dishes of the deep space tracking network were picking up signals during the journey to the Moon, at the Moon, and then the journey home. They were not picking up signals from the satellites.

Earlier in the thread someone pointed out that Larry Baysinger of Kentucky had picked up signals from the transmitters inside Armstrong's and Aldrin's backpacks when they were on the Moon. I suggested that what he picked up was a signal from one of the CIA satellites. Baysinger said he heard the voice signals five to ten seconds before they were transmitted on T.V. I made my suggestion because the "double" round trip to the Moon and back takes over five seconds.

The descent-stages of the LMs remained on the Moon, which is why they can be seen in photographs taken more recently.

I made my original posting to see if UM members could solve some of the "anomalies" shown to me by John Kelly. Again, you will have to trawl through the posts for the details. One of the anomalies is why the Apollo 12 astronauts took half an hour to realize the Surveyor 3 lander they were investigating was covered in dust rather than, as they said, had been discolored due to the paint baking in the Sun. The UM members who responded claim to have resolved the anomaly, but if you look back you will see they didn't actually do that. I was then directed to the experts at ApolloHoax who were apparently going to prove that the dust could have been blown onto the Surveyor by the LM as it flew past. Specifically, there was going to be an analysis of the engine plume. However, I heard nothing more. 

UM members then started demanding I produce evidence to prove some of the Apollo landings were "faked". I never said I was going to do that. I said that I had seen documents in the possession of John Kelly, and that he is going to make these available to the media on July 20th. I also said that I have written a book, which describes what John Kelly has told me about how the missions were faked. An edition of this will be freely available on the internet. Of course, I am accused of "pushing" the book to make money.

As a final point, yet again I see a reference to "my blog". I don't have a blog. Last December, some months after I published my first article, a blog appeared which is claimed to be authored by Derek Willis. The blog includes articles on the New World Order and the UFOs over Los Angeles. This blog has nothing to do with me. As I have said, it may be a coincidence. Or - like some of the antics on this thread - it may be an attempt to discredit me. Frankly, if that is the best that can be done, then it is all rather silly. Since I began questioning the official version of NASA, far more strange - even sinister - things have happened. I guess that is par for the course. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

So, for instance, some people keep banging on about the CIA satellites in Earth orbit not being able to mimic or spoof signals coming from the Moon. If those people had read my posts they would have understood what the satellites were doing. Throughout the "faked" missions the Apollo CSM remained in a relatively high orbit around the Earth. Communications with the CSM were relayed to and from the Earth using the satellites. The satellites had nothing to do with mimicking transmissions from the Moon. I don't get how people can't understand that, or why they insist on repeating something I didn't say.

That would be me and if you had done your research you'd know the Soviets as did the US tracked he signal to the Moon and back.  What you are offering as an explanation is patently absurd and frankly impossible to do from earth orbit, my only question is why even inject it into your fable, it is entirely unnecessary?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

That would be me and if you had done your research you'd know the Soviets as did the US tracked he signal to the Moon and back.  What you are offering as an explanation is patently absurd and frankly impossible to do from earth orbit, my only question is why even inject it into your fable, it is entirely unnecessary?

It would be you and the other people who either didn't read my earlier posts or didn't follow what I was saying.

During all the missions what was being tracked to the Moon and back - by the Soviets as well as the US - was a radio source. That radio source was the transmitter on board the CSM, providing voice and telemetry data.

Provided a radio source was travelling to and from the Moon and was transmitting the relevant data, how could it be possible to distinguish between a CSM and some other craft?

Whilst at the Moon during the genuine missions there were two radio sources - the CSM and the LM. During the "faked" missions, when the LM descended to collect the samples and then ascended again, a second radio source was left in lunar orbit to mimic the CSM.  

And I say again, the transmissions were being received by the dishes that formed the deep space tracking network, down on Earth. The satellites in Earth orbit played no role in that aspect of "faking" the missions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

It would be you and the other people who either didn't read my earlier posts or didn't follow what I was saying.

During all the missions what was being tracked to the Moon and back - by the Soviets as well as the US - was a radio source. That radio source was the transmitter on board the CSM, providing voice and telemetry data.

Provided a radio source was travelling to and from the Moon and was transmitting the relevant data, how could it be possible to distinguish between a CSM and some other craft?

Whilst at the Moon during the genuine missions there were two radio sources - the CSM and the LM. During the "faked" missions, when the LM descended to collect the samples and then ascended again, a second radio source was left in lunar orbit to mimic the CSM.  

And I say again, the transmissions were being received by the dishes that formed the deep space tracking network, down on Earth. The satellites in Earth orbit played no role in that aspect of "faking" the missions.

 

So the astronauts in earth orbit would transmit to the CIA satellite which would then relay the signals to the CSM which would in turn, transmit the signals back to earth?   LMAO.  One question, how did the CIA satellite account for the time it takes the signal to transmit to CSM and back to earth?  Also, how did this satellite receive signals from the EO craft when they weren't in a compatible position? 

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Merc14 said:

 how did this satellite receive signals from the EO craft when they weren't in a compatible position? 

They used Mt.Hood's reversed engineered alien technology signal bouncer-amplifiers. ^_^

.....don't try to  find them though. They are guarded by dangerous Bigfoot robots. :yes:

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Derek WillisI wonder what they would have done if the LM failed. With the crew in LEO when telemetry from the LM stops, what do they do with the crew who are supposedly dead or stranded in space ?

Considering the guidance system on the fake LM was supposedly based on the Surveyor's, with its 30 % failure rate, this was a very likely scenario. What if the LM failed while the CM was still in orbit ? Then the CM pilot would be allowed to return, but his crewmates could never be seen again.

I guess they just crossed their finger and hoped they didn't have to incarcerate/kill the LM crew and convince the CM pilot to never tell what happened to his collegues.

Or perhaps someone didn't think this scenario through when he made it up ?  

 

Edited by Noteverythingisaconspiracy
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

@Derek WillisI wonder what they would have done if the LM failed. With the crew in LEO when telemetry from the LM stops, what do they do with the crew who are supposedly dead or stranded in space ?

Considering the guidance system on the fake LM was supposedly based on the Surveyor's, with its 30 % failure rate, this was a very likely scenario. What if the LM failed while the CM was still in orbit ? Then the CM pilot would be allowed to return, but his crewmates could never be seen again.

I guess they just crossed their finger and hoped they didn't have to incarcerate/kill the LM crew and convince the CM pilot to never tell what happened to his collegues.

Or perhaps someone didn't think this scenario through when he made it up ?  

 

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I answered the same question about fifteen pages back.

If the LM had crashed, the plan was to come clean. It would have been less embarrassing to admit what was going on than to pretend the astronauts had been killed.

This thread seems to be getting repetitive in that all I am being asked now is the same questions I was asked earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2019 at 4:38 PM, Derek Willis said:

I applied to join ApolloHoax. They said they were considering my application. For some reason they haven't got back to me.

It seems your account was approved on 16 May 19; have you tried logging in?

Edited by Obviousman
Correction to date
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I answered the same question about fifteen pages back.

If the LM had crashed, the plan was to come clean. It would have been less embarrassing to admit what was going on than to pretend the astronauts had been killed.

This thread seems to be getting repetitive in that all I am being asked now is the same questions I was asked earlier.

How do you know that is what they would have done ? I would have thought that the contigency plans for this would have been kept a very well guarded secret, yet somehow you know exactly what they planned to do ?

It the same thing that so often happens in conspiracy theories like this: "It was all kept top secret and only a few top level insiders were ever told the truth about it.... Now let me tell you all about it ". :innocent: I allways love the irony about it. 

Edit: I assume the answer is in your book right ?

Edited by Noteverythingisaconspiracy
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

How do you know that is what they would have done ? I would have thought that the contigency plans for this would have been kept a very well guarded secret, yet somehow you know exactly what they planned to do ?

It the same thing that so often happens in conspiracy theories like this: "It was all kept top secret and only a few top level insiders were ever told the truth about it.... Now let me tell you all about it ". :innocent: I allways love the irony about it. 

Edit: I assume the answer is in your book right ?

This is becoming tedious.

Don't you think I would have asked John Kelly the same obvious question you have asked? A question so obvious it was already asked by another UM member many pages ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Obviousman said:

It seems your account was approved on 16 May 19; have you tried logging in?

I received an email soon after I applied. I was told my application was being considered and that I would be sent another email. I did try logging in some time back, but it didn't work. I will check my emails again and see what is going on.

If I have been considered fit to join then I would hope I can keep people focused on what I was originally interested in. That is, how so much dust was deposited on the Surveyor, and how the astronauts took half an hour to realize they were looking at dust rather than discolored paint. Also, perhaps the members will look at the points I made about Apollo 17. That is, how Gene Cernan managed to bring the Rover fenders home without anyone apparently knowing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

This is becoming tedious.

Don't you think I would have asked John Kelly the same obvious question you have asked? A question so obvious it was already asked by another UM member many pages ago.

It can't be that tedious, afterall you said you would leave several days ago, yet here you still are......

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

It can't be that tedious, afterall you said you would leave several days ago, yet here you still are......

I am still here because people keep asking me questions. Unfortunately they are now the same questions asked by other people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

I received an email soon after I applied. I was told my application was being considered and that I would be sent another email. I did try logging in some time back, but it didn't work. I will check my emails again and see what is going on.

If I have been considered fit to join then I would hope I can keep people focused on what I was originally interested in. That is, how so much dust was deposited on the Surveyor, and how the astronauts took half an hour to realize they were looking at dust rather than discolored paint. Also, perhaps the members will look at the points I made about Apollo 17. That is, how Gene Cernan managed to bring the Rover fenders home without anyone apparently knowing. 

Is this the account you created?

http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=2319

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Obviousman said:

It seems your account was approved on 16 May 19; have you tried logging in?

Yeah I applied 3 or 4 days ago...Username Phil...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

I am still here because people keep asking me questions. Unfortunately they are now the same questions asked by other people.

The reason why we ask you the same questions is because we never get any actual answers. It a mix of: Read my book, John Kelly told me, people lies and this is how they could have done it. You have presented nothing that can be verified by anyone.

If you were the one asking the questions I'm sure you would never accept this as satisfying answers. As an engineer do you often say "This will work because an anonymous person told me so" ?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Alien Origins said:

Yeah I applied 3 or 4 days ago...Username Phil...

I just applied. It will be under a different name though as this is one letter too long. :P

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Obviousman said:

I applied on May 11 and immediately received an email saying my application was being considered. The email said that I would receive another email and would then be able to log in. As far as I can see I have not received the second email. I will contact them and see what is going on.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

The reason why we ask you the same questions is because we never get any actual answers. It a mix of: Read my book, John Kelly told me, people lies and this is how they could have done it. You have presented nothing that can be verified by anyone.

If you were the one asking the questions I'm sure you would never accept this as satisfying answers. As an engineer do you often say "This will work because an anonymous person told me so" ?

The reason why you asked me the same question was because you didn't know I had already been asked that question, and had provided the answer. Like I said, it really was a rather obvious question.

I have explained the situation regarding the evidence John Kelly has, and when he will be making it available to the media. I have also explained the situation regarding my book. I am not going to budge on that, so if people want to stop asking questions then that is fine by me.

John Kelly isn't an anonymous person. I know his real name, but agreed not to share it.

I asked him every question I could think of. I even tried to trick him by asking him to confirm technical details I had made up. Not once did I catch him out.

A while back bkinght seemed to provide an opportunity that may have revealed a flaw in what I have been told. I am referring to the memos sent by Werner von Braun to James Webb just prior to the launch of Apollo 7. Bknight said he had seen all the memos sent by the men to each other during August and September of 1968. If I could have seen them I might have been able to spot an error regarding the names Webb used when referring to his children. Unfortunately, the link seems to have disappeared from bknight's browser.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

...Since I began questioning the official version of NASA, far more strange - even sinister - things have happened. I guess that is par for the course. 

In my case 18 days ago an ATM ate my ATM card and my bank still hasn't replaced it; and a week ago my modem failed, pretty much preventing all Internet use. Should I be paranoid about how these things happened since I started posting to this thread? Or is the more reasonable conclusion that these are things that just happen?

(And yes, that's one reason why I haven't been posting much in this thread lately.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2019 at 6:16 PM, Derek Willis said:

No, I am still asking questions. I mentioned in a previous reply to you that I don't always remember to include my caveat: "If what John Kelly is telling me is true".

As I have also said, what went on wasn't a "conspiracy" with the meaning that you attach to it. NASA's objective was to land men on the Moon - which they did. If they had to take a different route than the one officially declared, then I see no problem in that. Just as I see no problem in some of the tactics required to win the Second World War.

Yet, as I pointed out somewhere up-thread, if NASA faked a bunch of Apollo missions, then a group of senior NASA officials lied to Congress both in testimony to committees and in the use of government funds for purposes other than what they'd been appropriated for. I'm pretty sure both activities constitute criminal conspiracy, but IIRC I asked if any lawyers could confirm that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.