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
 Share

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Now that's funny!  Thanks, this thread has become ridiculous "A11 and A12 were faked because...dust.   The Soviets must have been in on it because they tracked the thing the whole way to the surface

@Derek:  I have a question, Derek, that I'd like answered if you can.  How did NASA fake Neil and Buzz transmitting from the same point on the surface of the Moon for 21 hours and 36 minutes?   Please don't tell me they were in on it, I "played" with them all through the 80's and they would've loved to prove the US faked it.

This is one of my personal favorite proofs, even though it is rarely brought up.  A long time ago I spent a number of very memorable hours getting a personalised guided tour of the Parkes deep space radio telescope, and got to know one of the folks involved in the Apollo 11 landing and first EVA.  This was commemorated in film by the excellent (if a little exaggerated!) movie "The Dish" - if anyone with an interest in Apollo hasn't seen this, do so!  Every time I travel across that part of Oz, I pop in just to have another quick look - it is an awesome place to visit.

Anyway, it was amazing to look at the equipment that was used, and also to see how they aimed the dish to track that tiny, weak signal from the moon.  (The bit in 'The Dish' about them 'losing' the moon due to a power failure and then just using eyeballing to point it  ..  not entirely true, by the way...).  The point is - if you know absolutely anything about radio transmission, it is pretty easy to see that there is simply no way to fake that sort of weak narrowband (and incredibly narrow-width) signal.

And that is just one of innumerable evidential proofs that are simply undeniable... (well, they are undeniable unless there's a buck to be made, or you don't care enough to actually do *real* research and/or just love to spread bull-manure...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

This is one of my personal favorite proofs, even though it is rarely brought up.  A long time ago I spent a number of very memorable hours getting a personalised guided tour of the Parkes deep space radio telescope, and got to know one of the folks involved in the Apollo 11 landing and first EVA.  This was commemorated in film by the excellent (if a little exaggerated!) movie "The Dish" - if anyone with an interest in Apollo hasn't seen this, do so!  Every time I travel across that part of Oz, I pop in just to have another quick look - it is an awesome place to visit.

Anyway, it was amazing to look at the equipment that was used, and also to see how they aimed the dish to track that tiny, weak signal from the moon.  (The bit in 'The Dish' about them 'losing' the moon due to a power failure and then just using eyeballing to point it  ..  not entirely true, by the way...).  The point is - if you know absolutely anything about radio transmission, it is pretty easy to see that there is simply no way to fake that sort of weak narrowband (and incredibly narrow-width) signal.

And that is just one of innumerable evidential proofs that are simply undeniable... (well, they are undeniable unless there's a buck to be made, or you don't care enough to actually do *real* research and/or just love to spread bull-manure...)

Great movie,  have seen it at least three times and I am sure the Russians were doing the same thing as often as their geographic constraints allowed. 

Did you get a chance to see Apollo 11 BTW, you'd have liked it I am sure but incredibly limited release and special, personal, place in my heart.

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

1 minute ago, Merc14 said:

Great movie and have seen it at least three times and I am sure the Russians were doing the same thing as much as their geographic constraints allowed.  Did you get a chance to see Apollo 11 BTW, you'd have liked it I am sure but incredibly limited release and special, personal, place in my heart.

Apollo 11 (The Movie) is on my list - I may just havta wait for the Bluray and watch it then.  The release date here is likely July!  Sheesh, I could be dead by then! (j/k) :D

Special place in my heart too, as Apollo was not only the pinnacle of technical achievement up to that date (and probably still #1 today..), but it included at least 2 of the finest pieces of engineering *ever*, namely the amazing Saturn V (the Russians could not get a booster of that power to work without shaking itself to pieces, and I salute WVB and his team for their extraordinary design), and of course the beautifully ugly LM - an absolute triumph of functional design, completely ignoring aesthetics or any hint of what a spacecraft *should* look like... 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Apollo 11 (The Movie) is on my list - I may just havta wait for the Bluray and watch it then.  The release date here is likely July!  Sheesh, I could be dead by then! (j/k) :D

Special place in my heart too, as Apollo was not only the pinnacle of technical achievement up to that date (and probably still #1 today..), but it included at least 2 of the finest pieces of engineering *ever*, namely the amazing Saturn V (the Russians could not get a booster of that power to work without shaking itself to pieces, and I salute WVB and his team for their extraordinary design), and of course the beautifully ugly LM - an absolute triumph of functional design, completely ignoring aesthetics or any hint of what a spacecraft *should* look like... 

Took the family to the Kennedy Space Center a couple years ago and they have a full Saturn V lying on its side in a beautiful facility chock full of side rooms that would take geeks like us to prowl through.   Truly a pilgrimage for any space geek.

Apollo 11 was made from "lost" 70mm film NASA contracted to record "everything" and it is awe inspiring to say the least.  You, as a photographer, would eat it up.  Best of all, there isn't one second of intro or hosting, it is all period audio dubbed in.  Worth the Blu Ray premium, I guarantee.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Merc14 said:

Question to the thread, did any of you get the opportunity the see Apollo 11 this spring?  If so, what did you think?

I havn't seen it yet but I plan to.  From what I heard it is awesome.

Edited by bknight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Merc14 said:

Took the family to the Kennedy Space Center a couple years ago and they have a full Saturn V lying on its side in a beautiful facility chock full of side rooms that would take geeks like us to prowl through.   Truly a pilgrimage for any space geek.

Apollo 11 was made from "lost" 70mm film NASA contracted to record "everything" and it is awe inspiring to say the least.  You, as a photographer, would eat it up.  Best of all, there isn't one second of intro or hosting, it is all period audio dubbed in.  Worth the Blu Ray premium, I guarantee.

I haven't been there since they moved it into that building.  Sitting out side took its tool on the booster with all the air pollution in Houston.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Merc14 said:

The Soviets must have been in on it because they tracked the thing the whole way to the surface.

@Derek:  I have a question, Derek, that I'd like answered if you can.  How did NASA fake Neil and Buzz transmitting from the same point on the surface of the Moon for 21 hours and 36 minutes?   Please don't tell me they were in on it, I "played" with them all through the 80's and they would've loved to prove the US faked it.

In my posts I have dropped enough hints regarding how the relevant Apollo missions were "faked". Personally, I found it more beneficial to work this out from what John Kelly told me and showed me, rather than him flatly saying "this is what happened". Once the penny dropped, it suddenly became obvious how, for instance, in the case of Apollo 11 the transmissions were received from the same point on the Moon for over 21 hours, and that the Soviets had tracked the entire mission. As far as I know, the Soviets weren't in on anything related to Apollo. Convincing the Soviets the relevant missions were real was as important as convincing everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, bknight said:

You make personal differences a issue, but taken in totality differences in observations by two people or by one's own recollection should not be chiseled in stone.  Eye witness accounts change/modify with time, simple fact of nature.

I find your method of debate fascinating. First you say with certainty that no dust was on any of the LM footpads. Then when I draw your attention to the dust on Aldrin's suit you have to wriggle a bit. Then with certainty you say the dust didn't get on his suit from the ladder. Then when I post Aldrin's own account of how the dust got onto his suit you get round that by implying he is a befuddled old man. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, bknight said:

Let discuss the AGNC "John" told you it wasn't up to snuff or words to that effect prior to A13, I ask you to provided information that was indeed correct.  I haven't seen anything concerning the AGNC, although my search did not revel any substantive change to hardware and maybe a command or two add after A11 to prevent 1202 alarms, but nothing substantial to the software.  Those "dummies" at MIT sure did a good job programming a guidance program.  Remember that guidance was the only task that the AGNC was programmed.

What kind of information are you wanting? I don't have any circuit diagrams of the guidance computer or documents listing the code, if that is what you are after. What John Kelly has are copies of internal memos between the contractors and people within NASA describing the problems.

Edit: By the way, I applied to join ApolloHoax last Saturday. I am still waiting to be approved. How long does it take?

Edited by Derek Willis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Derek Willis said:

In my posts I have dropped enough hints regarding how the relevant Apollo missions were "faked". Personally, I found it more beneficial to work this out from what John Kelly told me and showed me, rather than him flatly saying "this is what happened". Once the penny dropped, it suddenly became obvious how, for instance, in the case of Apollo 11 the transmissions were received from the same point on the Moon for over 21 hours, and that the Soviets had tracked the entire mission. As far as I know, the Soviets weren't in on anything related to Apollo. Convincing the Soviets the relevant missions were real was as important as convincing everyone else.

Then explain to us dummies how it was done.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Obviousman said:

Then explain to us dummies how it was done.

Here's what I will do. I will condense and paraphrase what John Kelly told me over the course of a number of conversations.

Kelly said: "Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin never walked on the Moon. However, the Soviets tracked the Apollo 11 mission all the way to the lunar surface and back. And, almost fifty pounds of genuine lunar samples were acquired."

It took a while, but a dummy like me worked out how this was done. Surely the Apollo experts on UM can work it out! I was going to say it isn't rocket science, but that is exactly what it is! I will give a free copy of my book to whoever comes up with the answer first. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

I find your method of debate fascinating. First you say with certainty that no dust was on any of the LM footpads. Then when I draw your attention to the dust on Aldrin's suit you have to wriggle a bit. Then with certainty you say the dust didn't get on his suit from the ladder. Then when I post Aldrin's own account of how the dust got onto his suit you get round that by implying he is a befuddled old man. 

What will you do when John Kelly announces he has to wait another 6 months to get the info?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

What will you do when John Kelly announces he has to wait another 6 months to get the info?

He already has the information. He's had it for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

I find your method of debate fascinating. First you say with certainty that no dust was on any of the LM footpads. Then when I draw your attention to the dust on Aldrin's suit you have to wriggle a bit. Then with certainty you say the dust didn't get on his suit from the ladder. Then when I post Aldrin's own account of how the dust got onto his suit you get round that by implying he is a befuddled old man. 

Excuse me I didn't imply anything about Buzz's mental condition, I linked a bit of ALSJ that indicates in real time where the "dirt" on the suit came from.  If you read my accounts better I said that there was a possibility that a thin coating of regolith may be on the pads too thin to be seen by the eye or camera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

What kind of information are you wanting? I don't have any circuit diagrams of the guidance computer or documents listing the code, if that is what you are after. What John Kelly has are copies of internal memos between the contractors and people within NASA describing the problems.

Edit: By the way, I applied to join ApolloHoax last Saturday. I am still waiting to be approved. How long does it take?

I looking for any documentation that there were any hardware changes from A8-A13.  

I'll drop a PM to LO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

Here's what I will do. I will condense and paraphrase what John Kelly told me over the course of a number of conversations.

Kelly said: "Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin never walked on the Moon. However, the Soviets tracked the Apollo 11 mission all the way to the lunar surface and back. And, almost fifty pounds of genuine lunar samples were acquired."

It took a while, but a dummy like me worked out how this was done. Surely the Apollo experts on UM can work it out! I was going to say it isn't rocket science, but that is exactly what it is! I will give a free copy of my book to whoever comes up with the answer first. 

This IS rich, A11 was tracked by the Soviets all the way to the Lunar surface and that 50 pounds of rocks/regolith were acquired, but Neil and Buzz did not walk on the surface?  What means were the rocks recovered?  What devices were used, where were they carried on the LM?

This should have been a big fascinating moment for you and one which you should have immediately interpreted as BS.  "John", if he reports his secret papers/reports will have NOTHING and you should have realized this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, bknight said:

Excuse me I didn't imply anything about Buzz's mental condition, I linked a bit of ALSJ that indicates in real time where the "dirt" on the suit came from.  If you read my accounts better I said that there was a possibility that a thin coating of regolith may be on the pads too thin to be seen by the eye or camera.

In # 493 you said eye witness accounts change/modify with time. However, in # 497 ChrLzs described Aldrin as being well known as a "'good' story teller...". I think ChrLzs' meaning is obvious. You "liked" ChrLzs' post, so I assumed you had agreed with what he had written.

In # 483 I asked you if you still agreed with your statement earlier on in the thread that the LM pads weren't covered in dust. In # 484 you said you did. You then edited the post to include something about an upward component. Then after I had described how Aldrin claimed there was dust on the ladder, in # 488 you revised your position and said there was a possibility of a layer of dust invisible to the eye and camera being on the footpads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, bknight said:

I looking for any documentation that there were any hardware changes from A8-A13.  

I'll drop a PM to LO.

I have no idea if there were any hardware changes from Apollo 8 to Apollo 13. Whether there were or weren't isn't relevant to why John Kelly says the computer wasn't up to the job before Apollo 13. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, bknight said:

This IS rich, A11 was tracked by the Soviets all the way to the Lunar surface and that 50 pounds of rocks/regolith were acquired, but Neil and Buzz did not walk on the surface?  What means were the rocks recovered?  What devices were used, where were they carried on the LM?

This should have been a big fascinating moment for you and one which you should have immediately interpreted as BS.  "John", if he reports his secret papers/reports will have NOTHING and you should have realized this.

Here is another clue. What were the Soviets attempting to do at exactly the same time as the Apollo 11 mission was flown?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

Here is another clue. What were the Soviets attempting to do at exactly the same time as the Apollo 11 mission was flown?

Here's another answer, they were attempting to land an unmanned lander that would recover a bit of regolith/dust and return it prior to A11's landing in the pacific.  And what is your point?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

I have no idea if there were any hardware changes from Apollo 8 to Apollo 13. Whether there were or weren't isn't relevant to why John Kelly says the computer wasn't up to the job before Apollo 13. 

IF it wasn't up to the job of guidance, then something had to change in the system hardware/software to enable it to perform that task, so yes it is very relevant to what he indicated to you.  Since you have no idea concerning any changes to the AGNC, then you don't know and you haven't taken the time to investigate this allegation.  But you have taken the time to investigate how long it took the A12 crew to identify that the S3 lander was covered in dust.  This part of the Apollo is inconsequential to the AGNC which was necessary for all missions especially the landings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/7/2019 at 12:42 AM, Derek Willis said:

I have never said anything was a "conspiracy", though people seem to insist on claiming I have.

 

5 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

In my posts I have dropped enough hints regarding how the relevant Apollo missions were "faked".

*cough*...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bknight said:

Here's another answer, they were attempting to land an unmanned lander that would recover a bit of regolith/dust and return it prior to A11's landing in the pacific.  And what is your point?

 

I can see you aren't going to make the connection, so I will have to tell you - Apollo 11 was an unmanned "sample return" mission. Why? Because it was considered too risky to send men to the Moon at that point. On July 20th 1969, America got lucky and the modified Eagle LM landed on the Sea of Tranquility. Unfortunately the similar, but smaller, mission mounted by the Soviets at exactly the same time didn't get lucky, and Luna 15 crashed onto the Sea of Crises.

Are you going to tell me NASA couldn't possibly have flown an unmanned sample return mission? No, you are not able to tell me that. But what you are going to tell me is that the Apollo 11 mission to the Moon wasn't unmanned.

Unfortunately, I can't give you or anyone else a free copy of Faking Apollo because no one seemed to pick up on my hints. But you will be able to read it for free when it goes up on a website next month.

I think at this point I will bow out for a while. I originally made a posting because I wanted to see if some of the anomalies described to me by John Kelly could be explained. I'm still waiting to hear about the angle of the LM engine plume ... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

I can see you aren't going to make the connection, so I will have to tell you - Apollo 11 was an unmanned "sample return" mission. Why? Because it was considered too risky to send men to the Moon at that point. On July 20th 1969, America got lucky and the modified Eagle LM landed on the Sea of Tranquility. Unfortunately the similar, but smaller, mission mounted by the Soviets at exactly the same time didn't get lucky, and Luna 15 crashed onto the Sea of Crises.

Are you going to tell me NASA couldn't possibly have flown an unmanned sample return mission? No, you are not able to tell me that. But what you are going to tell me is that the Apollo 11 mission to the Moon wasn't unmanned.

Unfortunately, I can't give you or anyone else a free copy of Faking Apollo because no one seemed to pick up on my hints. But you will be able to read it for free when it goes up on a website next month.

I think at this point I will bow out for a while. I originally made a posting because I wanted to see if some of the anomalies described to me by John Kelly could be explained. I'm still waiting to hear about the angle of the LM engine plume ... 

You didn't answer my thoughts concerning the sample return.  What devices were used?  Where were they carried by the LM.  Link documents to this downsized LM to prove its existence or manufacture.  No at the time NASA was incapable of retrieving samples with an unmanned probe.  The Soviets collected 301 g. in three missions compared to the 800+ lbs. returned by Apollo.  Now do you really believe this story "John" told you.

It is probably good for you to retire, since you haven't proved that any of the Apollo missions were faked, especially A12 covered ad nauseum in this thread, just "it seems odd to me(Derek)".

 

ETA:  I wouldn't want your book, if it has the same bit of information presented in this thread.

Edited by bknight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

He already has the information. He's had it for years.

Which begs the question "Then why hasn't he already released them?" 

49 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

I can see you aren't going to make the connection, so I will have to tell you - Apollo 11 was an unmanned "sample return" mission. Why? Because it was considered too risky to send men to the Moon at that point. On July 20th 1969, America got lucky and the modified Eagle LM landed on the Sea of Tranquility. Unfortunately the similar, but smaller, mission mounted by the Soviets at exactly the same time didn't get lucky, and Luna 15 crashed onto the Sea of Crises.

Are you going to tell me NASA couldn't possibly have flown an unmanned sample return mission? No, you are not able to tell me that. But what you are going to tell me is that the Apollo 11 mission to the Moon wasn't unmanned.

Unfortunately, I can't give you or anyone else a free copy of Faking Apollo because no one seemed to pick up on my hints. But you will be able to read it for free when it goes up on a website next month.

I think at this point I will bow out for a while. I originally made a posting because I wanted to see if some of the anomalies described to me by John Kelly could be explained. I'm still waiting to hear about the angle of the LM engine plume ... 

A11 didn't land where it was programmed to land so what mechanism changed its landing spot in real time?   Were Neil and Buzz making up the script as the unmanned craft changed telemetry real time?  Tou said they didn't land because the computer wasn't up to it yet it was good enough to land the craft all autonomusly, including a last second change to landing spot, how do you explain this conundrum?

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

  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.