Belief in Apollo hoax conspiracy could grow

[bknight]

53 minutes ago, bknight said:

How many is this relatively small number of people an order of magnitude will suffice. Nixon was convinces by his staff to continue the program.  The program was reduced by Congress cutting the budget of NASA.  Besides after the first mission was successful "obliterate the legacy of his deceased arch enemy JFK" was a moot point.

I will post this again waiting for your answer.

[bknight]

38 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

It was a complicated trick to pull off, that is for sure. I do describe how it was done in my book. That said, I understand if you don't want to read it.

Anyway, I said I was going to bow out for a while.

Edit: No need for a geosynchronous orbit. Transmissions were relayed from Earth orbit via CIA satellites - the very same satellites built by Hughes Aircraft!

Edit: Which rocket launch are you referring to? The only rocket launched during each Apollo mission was the Saturn V.

How were the astronauts removed from the command capsule and then put back in prior to landing in the Pacific?  I bring to you attention that the observers on the Hornet saw the reentry of the capsule and the disintegration of the CSM, as in was still night when this occurred?

[Derek Willis]

32 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

It must have bee significant for them to spend extra money on a fully autonomous landing and take-of system. 

I have never seen anything suggesting Nixon wanted to cancel Apollo prior to the first man landing on the Moon, he'd have gotten pummeled in the poles, especially since Apollo 11 was only 6 moths from launching the day he was inaugurated.  I'm sorry, but this entire autonomous Apollo lander is absurd and pure fantasy on your part but this is what happens when a hoax claim is challenged:

- First, as we drill down into the mundane details the hoaxer is forced to come up with an explanation which generates more questions..

- The explanations for these new questions generate more mundane details which must be explained and on and on it goes.

- The weakness here is each explanation gets progressively more absurd until we arrive at the tipping point and the entire hoax becomes comically absurd and we have arrived at that point here with this autonomous lander hogwash.   If you aren't embarrassed you should be.

Who said anything about anyone spending extra money on a fully autonomous landing system? Such a system already existed and which could be modified - the one developed for the Surveyor landers. And who built the Surveyors? Oh, that's right, Hughes Aircraft - the company John Kelly worked for.

And who said anything about Nixon expressing in public his views about wanting to cancel Apollo and hence obliterate JFK's legacy? I didn't say that. His public position wasn't stated until January 1970, when he indicated he wanted to cut down on the number of missions.

If the method of drilling down also includes wrongfully claiming I said things, then a better method may be needed. 

[Myles]

1 hour ago, Derek Willis said:

The plan, I was told, was that after a genuine manned landing was achieved, the people within NASA and elsewhere who were involved in the "faking" of the early missions were going to come clean. I would imagine if the unmanned LM had crashed, then they would have been forced to explain what was going on. As it happened, the Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 LMs didn't crash, so the problem never occurred. And for some reason I am not aware of, because of what happened with Apollo 13 the plan to come clean about the "faked" missions was never carried out.

Edit: If Felt had a powerful reason for waiting over thirty years before admitting he was Deep Throat, then I see no problem in John Kelly having a similar reason.

This doesn't make sense in many ways.  Landing an unmanned craft on the moon and also taking off from the moon was not something that would have been thought of as 90%+ odds of success.  So the plan, if it failed, was to come clean and admit NASA was trying to fool everyone with this elaborate hoax?    Nothing would have shut them down quicker.    I can't buy that logic at all.  

Edited May 16, 2019 by Myles

[Derek Willis]

11 minutes ago, bknight said:

How were the astronauts removed from the command capsule and then put back in prior to landing in the Pacific?  I bring to you attention that the observers on the Hornet saw the reentry of the capsule and the disintegration of the CSM, as in was still night when this occurred?

Why would the astronauts be removed from the Command Module and then put back inside? You seem to be inventing a narrative and claiming it is mine.

[Derek Willis]

18 minutes ago, bknight said:

I will post this again waiting for your answer.

You can read what I was told in the online edition of my book next month.

[bknight]

1 minute ago, Derek Willis said:

Why would the astronauts be removed from the Command Module and then put back inside? You seem to be inventing a narrative and claiming it is mine.

My apologies you didn't indicate that they weren't in the CSM.

[Derek Willis]

2 minutes ago, Myles said:

This doesn't make sense in many ways.  Landing an unmanned craft on the moon and also taking off from the moon was not something that would have been thought of as 90%+ odds of success.  So the plan, if it failed, was to come clean and admit NSA was trying to fool everyone with this elaborate hoax?    Nothing would have shut them down quicker.    I can't buy that logic at all.  

I didn't say the odds were 90% + I didn't say anything about the odds.

[Derek Willis]

1 minute ago, bknight said:

My apologies you didn't indicate that they weren't in the CSM.

I really find this fascinating. I am sure you did make an error with this. However, the number of people who claim I said this, that, and the other is alarming!

[bknight]

Just now, Derek Willis said:

I really find this fascinating. I am sure you did make an error with this. However, the number of people who claim I said this, that, and the other is alarming!

I admit it free and openly, I was overzealous.  However there remains serval questions unanswered, except with "John" will explain all, a rather poor answer almost no answer.

1. Provide plans for this modified LM, all the LM documentation is available, public records for public project must be revealed.

2. Provide plans for the automated devices to capture 80 lbs. of material, remembering the Soviets recovered 300 g in three missions.  Include in this request the devices to recover the parts of the Surveyor.  Oh wait, I know you are going to say the investigation was done by Hughes and "John" knows it to be falsified 

3. Provide details of a Lunar geosynchronous orbiting satellite(s) including the launching of these vehicles.

4. Provide details of landing A11 down range and avoiding craters real time not 2.5 second delay.

5. Provide details of changes in AGNC to allow to enable it to work effectively after A12.

6. Provide details of how/why this relatively small number of people in the know have not come forward to publish their part in the grand hoax, they are in their 70'-80s now close to the end of their life, just like me.

7. Provide an order of magnitude of how small this number of people is in your estimation.

8. Provide you work record in reference to large engineering/manufacturing projects, a new request.

 

[Merc14]

16 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

Who said anything about anyone spending extra money on a fully autonomous landing system? Such a system already existed and which could be modified - the one developed for the Surveyor landers. And who built the Surveyors? Oh, that's right, Hughes Aircraft - the company John Kelly worked for.

Oh please!  If it was so easy to shoehorn Surveyors system in there then why not use it to get men to the surface?  Why did Apollo need an entirely new computer system?

Quote

And who said anything about Nixon expressing in public his views about wanting to cancel Apollo and hence obliterate JFK's legacy? I didn't say that. His public position wasn't stated until January 1970, when he indicated he wanted to cut down on the number of missions.

You said "but secondly because Richard Nixon was wanting an excuse to cancel Apollo and hence obliterate the legacy of his deceased arch enemy JFK. If another disaster like Apollo 1 occurred, he would have had that excuse."

This was in relation to NASA making the autonomous lander for A-11 so hey must have known Nixon was thinking this (he wasn't) and were so terrified that in 6 months they created the autonomous lander  computer and decided to wait until A-13 to actually land men on the Moon. 

Quote

If the method of drilling down also includes wrongfully claiming I said things, then a better method may be needed. 

LOL. sure Derek, sure.   

Let's see if I have this scenario correct.  January 20th, 1969 Nixon is inaugurated and NASA, knowing he hates JFK so much he will end Apollo if anyone is killed, replace the landing computer with the Surveyor computer and tell the Astronauts and a small group of people that they are going to fake the actual Moon landing while relaying al the signals from the Moon through CIA satellites which will spoof the lander on the Moon.  The Soviets and Pine Gap and all the rest were clueless about it all and swallowed it hook line and sinker and John Kelly, who has had proof for a long time now, is going to break the story of the century on A-11's 50th anniversary.

Is that where we are now?  

 

[+Desertrat56]

43 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

You can read what I was told in the online edition of my book next month.

Based on the discussion here, I would never buy your book.  If you originally posted in this thread to get people to read it you have said too much now.  Why would anyone want to read it.  You don't answer the questions because you don't have the answers.

[Derek Willis]

21 minutes ago, bknight said:

I admit it free and openly, I was overzealous.  However there remains serval questions unanswered, except with "John" will explain all, a rather poor answer almost no answer.

1. Provide plans for this modified LM, all the LM documentation is available, public records for public project must be revealed.

2. Provide plans for the automated devices to capture 80 lbs. of material, remembering the Soviets recovered 300 g in three missions.  Include in this request the devices to recover the parts of the Surveyor.  Oh wait, I know you are going to say the investigation was done by Hughes and "John" knows it to be falsified 

3. Provide details of a Lunar geosynchronous orbiting satellite(s) including the launching of these vehicles.

4. Provide details of landing A11 down range and avoiding craters real time not 2.5 second delay.

5. Provide details of changes in AGNC to allow to enable it to work effectively after A12.

6. Provide details of how/why this relatively small number of people in the know have not come forward to publish their part in the grand hoax, they are in their 70'-80s now close to the end of their life, just like me.

7. Provide an order of magnitude of how small this number of people is in your estimation.

8. Provide you work record in reference to large engineering/manufacturing projects, a new request.

 

I'm not going to answer anything whilst you persist in making things up. Who mentioned anything about "Lunar geosynchronous orbiting satellites"? What do you mean by that? Are you referring to satellites put in orbit around the Moon with periods equal to the rotational period of the Moon, i.e. about 27 days? 

[Derek Willis]

5 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Based on the discussion here, I would never buy your book.  If you originally posted in this thread to get people to read it you have said too much now.  Why would anyone want to read it.  You don't answer the questions because you don't have the answers.

It's not easy answering questions about things people have made up on my behalf!

[+Desertrat56]

@Derek Willis I am not going to quote you because I don't know where it started, but how did the Apollo 11 hoax come about when the capsule being picked up by the navy was televised.  Do you know how many people would have had to be in on that in order to sham an astronaut pickup from the ocean by the navy??? They had to have a ship big enough to hold the capsule and enough equipment and men to get it on the ship.

 

[Derek Willis]

38 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Oh please!  If it was so easy to shoehorn Surveyors system in there then why not use it to get men to the surface?  Why did Apollo need an entirely new computer system?

You said "but secondly because Richard Nixon was wanting an excuse to cancel Apollo and hence obliterate the legacy of his deceased arch enemy JFK. If another disaster like Apollo 1 occurred, he would have had that excuse."

This was in relation to NASA making the autonomous lander for A-11 so hey must have known Nixon was thinking this (he wasn't) and were so terrified that in 6 months they created the autonomous lander  computer and decided to wait until A-13 to actually land men on the Moon. 

LOL. sure Derek, sure.   

Let's see if I have this scenario correct.  January 20th, 1969 Nixon is inaugurated and NASA, knowing he hates JFK so much he will end Apollo if anyone is killed, replace the landing computer with the Surveyor computer and tell the Astronauts and a small group of people that they are going to fake the actual Moon landing while relaying al the signals from the Moon through CIA satellites which will spoof the lander on the Moon.  The Soviets and Pine Gap and all the rest were clueless about it all and swallowed it hook line and sinker and John Kelly, who has had proof for a long time now, is going to break the story of the century on A-11's 50th anniversary.

Is that where we are now?  

 

Because two of the seven Surveyors launched failed to reach the surface in one piece. Risking an unmanned LM was one thing, but risking the lives of men was another.

Glad to hear you were privy to the thoughts of Richard Nixon half a century ago.

That's a reasonably fair assessment of the situation, except everyone seems to be claiming I said there were relay satellites at the Moon. 

Edited May 16, 2019 by Derek Willis

[bknight]

8 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

I'm not going to answer anything whilst you persist in making things up. Who mentioned anything about "Lunar geosynchronous orbiting satellites"? What do you mean by that? Are you referring to satellites put in orbit around the Moon with periods equal to the rotational period of the Moon, i.e. about 27 days? 

This would be the ONLY way a satellite dish could have receiver continuous radio communication from Earth without tracking the orbital period of said relay satellite(s).  By inference in your rather poor attempt at describing how radio signals could be differentiated from relay satellites.   

[Derek Willis]

2 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

@Derek Willis I am not going to quote you because I don't know where it started, but how did the Apollo 11 hoax come about when the capsule being picked up by the navy was televised.  Do you know how many people would have had to be in on that in order to sham an astronaut pickup from the ocean by the navy??? They had to have a ship big enough to hold the capsule and enough equipment and men to get it on the ship.

 

The Apollo 11 capsule - containing Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins - splashed down as per what those of us who are old enough saw on television.

[Derek Willis]

Just now, bknight said:

This would be the ONLY way a satellite dish could have receiver continuous radio communication from Earth without tracking the orbital period of said relay satellite(s).  By inference in your rather poor attempt at describing how radio signals could be differentiated from relay satellites.   

The relay satellites weren't at the Moon. This is getting ridiculous. Like I said, you seem to be making up a narrative and claiming it is mine.

[+Desertrat56]

7 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

The Apollo 11 capsule - containing Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins - splashed down as per what those of us who are old enough saw on television.

So, how did the capsul get into orbit to splash down without going to the moon?  Did the astronauts just orbit earth for the time they were supposed to be going to the moon, landing, coming back?

[+Desertrat56]

7 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

The relay satellites weren't at the Moon. This is getting ridiculous. Like I said, you seem to be making up a narrative and claiming it is mine.

So state your narrative.

[bknight]

9 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

The relay satellites weren't at the Moon. This is getting ridiculous. Like I said, you seem to be making up a narrative and claiming it is mine.

Then where were these satellites and how does an antenna pointed at the Moon receive relay transmission from these satellites?  You're exactly correct in one thought this is getting ridiculous.  Your story becomes more convoluted with each iteration.

[Merc14]

9 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

Because two of the seven Surveyors launched failed to reach the surface in one piece. Risking an unmanned LM was one thing, but risking the lives of men was another.

Why in the hell would hey take a chance of getting caught?  If you are caught faking it then no matter what you do in the future it is tainted and ruined.  If the ship isn't ready and the Surveyor sytem isn't safe enough for men then you delay, you don't risk getting caught out lying to the world.  Sorry, this is pure BS and is laughably absurd.

Quote

Glad to hear you were privy to the thoughts of Richard Nixon half a century ago.

No more than you are Derek, your claim,prove he was thinking this prior to aA-11 or apologize and take it back.

Quote

That's a reasonably fair assessment of the situation, except everyone seems to be claiming I said there were relay satellites at the Moon.

It was an absurd scenario  and you were the one who used CIA satellites to spoof everyone.  Your satellites, you tell us how it worked.

 

 

[Merc14]

1 minute ago, bknight said:

Then where were these satellites and how does an antenna pointed at the Moon receive relay transmission from these satellites?  You're exactly correct in one thought this is getting ridiculous.  Your story becomes more convoluted with each iteration.

I can't believe this has gotten here and he doesn't realize how ridiculous it all is!  CIA satellites, autonomous lander using a Surveyor computer. LMAO 

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

1 hour ago, Derek Willis said:

Who said anything about anyone spending extra money on a fully autonomous landing system? Such a system already existed and which could be modified - the one developed for the Surveyor landers. And who built the Surveyors? Oh, that's right, Hughes Aircraft - the company John Kelly worked for.

The LM is very different from the Surveyor landers. It's a lot bigger, it have a different weight distribution, it have a different decent engine, the RCS rockets are different, the LM had a manual backup and two of the Surveyors failed to land safely.

Try to ask Arianespace if its a good idea to re-use a guidence system developed for another vehicle. I think they will tell you that its a bad idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_(spacecraft)#Launch_failure