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 -
UM-Bot

Belief in Apollo hoax conspiracy could grow

830 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Trelane
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 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Merc14

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 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviousman
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 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
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 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Derek Willis
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.