Belief in Apollo hoax conspiracy could grow

[Obviousman]

58 minutes ago, Aaron2016 said:

The Cold war ended in 1991.  I remember the 1980's very well.  All talk and no action.  My step-mother is Russian and took none of it seriously.  Just like today and North Korea's alleged threats, or Iran's alleged threats, or CNN's constant slurring of Trump and how he is Putin's puppet.  The world is run on false propaganda.  Has been for ages.  The Cold War was saturated in fake news on both sides - hence the term the fake war.  Just like the current War on Terror.  If the goal was to take the oil fields in Iraq and secure a strategic presence in Afghanistan and use false propaganda to rally the public into a noble cause (looking for WMD and Bin Laden) then that too could be considered a fake war, or at least a war with a fake agenda.

 

Mods, can we please have this split off into another thread? They are now claiming the Cold War was faked, which deserves it's own thread and not contaminating the Apollo thread.

Thank you.

[GlitterRose]

 

[Peter B]

10 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

The reference you cite relates to the second part of the "double event" proposed by Metzger. He suggested the Surveyor was firstly covered in dust when the LM flew past in a curving path. Then as the LM landed, the surfaces of the Surveyor directly facing the LM were "sandblasted" clean.

Perhaps you can explain this. The photographs of the Surveyor show the surfaces facing away from the LM are covered in dust. Some of these surfaces were never in line of sight of the LM as it flew past. So how were they covered in dust? All the film taken from the LM as it landed shows dust racing away radially from the engine plume at a very low angle. For the faces not in line of sight of the LM to become covered, the dust must have travelled backwards.   

Not that I doubt you, but for my own satisfaction I'd like to check this further.

[Peter B]

7 hours ago, Aaron2016 said:

Haven't argued with anyone at all.  The topic is about those who believe the Apollo missions were a hoax.  Since no examples were put forward I decided to create a point system which shows a general idea what the deniers possibly think.  e.g.  Here is another one.  They possibly don't believe we went to the moon because they think the moon is made of gas.  Simple.  I don't believe or endorse it, so the members who repeatedly ridicule me for posting what the deniers think has absolutely no effect on my personal beliefs whatever.

Why don't the members here list 10 examples of what the deniers believe (common sense really) and instead of everyone sarcastically ridiculing the person who just suggested the points, we instead ridicule the actual points that relate to the topic.

 

So if you say you "don't believe or endorse" Apollo Hoax beliefs, why do you constantly reject explanations for why Apollo Hoax beliefs are wrong?

Sorry, but this is no different from someone inciting a mob and then disclaiming responsibility when the mob does what you say.

[Peter B]

7 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

The speculation about scripts and whistleblowers was editorial input made by the publishers of my articles. My interest is with the inconsistencies within the Apollo Surface Journal, and with the failure of any of the NASA sponsored hypotheses to definitively explain how the dust got onto the Surveyor. And, in the case of my other article, on how Gene Cernan managed to bring sections of the Apollo 17 rover fenders back to Earth without his co-astronaut Jack Schmitt knowing anything about it. Where do you hide fenders inside an Apollo capsule? 

And also, as I explained in my first post, I am passing on information provided to me by a former employee of the Hughes Aircraft Company - which, in case anyone doesn't know, built the Surveyor probes.

My aim of posting was to see if anyone can convincingly explain the inconsistencies and anomalies. So far, that hasn't been done.

 

Speculation about scripts and whistleblowers: Then, with the greatest of respect, could you please outline exactly how much of that article you wrote yourself?

For example, the article mentions the idea of using ground-up lunar meteorites to sand blast spare Surveyor parts which never went to the Moon as an explanation for what a faked Apollo 12 couldn't have brought back. But the article still fails to explain where Apollo 12's 34+ kilograms of lunar samples came from.

Also, the article returns to the old canard that the "photographs of the lunar surface beneath each of the LMs show no indications at all of any blast craters..." and then claims there's no evidence of any disturbance whatsoever beneath the Apollo 11 LM. The reality is otherwise (even if it isn't...er...blastingly obvious).

Were you responsible for these parts of the article? Do you believe these statements are true?

Aim of posting: Then may I cordially invite you to the Apollohoax forum? It's attended by a number of people who work in the aerospace field and have direct experience of Apollo-era hardware. I suspect you'll get your explanations there.

[Peter B]

5 hours ago, Aaron2016 said:

The Cold war ended in 1991.  I remember the 1980's very well.  All talk and no action.  My step-mother is Russian and took none of it seriously.  Just like today and North Korea's alleged threats, or Iran's alleged threats, or CNN's constant slurring of Trump and how he is Putin's puppet.  The world is run on false propaganda.  Has been for ages.  The Cold War was saturated in fake news on both sides - hence the term the fake war.  Just like the current War on Terror.  If the goal was to take the oil fields in Iraq and secure a strategic presence in Afghanistan and use false propaganda to rally the public into a noble cause (looking for WMD and Bin Laden) then that too could be considered a fake war, or at least a war with a fake agenda.

 

All talk and no action? So the Berlin Blockade, the construction of the Berlin Wall, the shooting of attempted defectors, the 1956 invasion of Hungary, the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia, the construction of thousands of nuclear missiles, the Soviet shooting down of KAL007, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Vietnam War, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Iran-Contra Affair, the constant support of opposing sides in proxy wars in Angola, Ethiopia, the Middle East, India-Pakistan and dozens of other countries around the world doesn't count as action? Out of interest, what would you call action?

[TigerBright19]

4 hours ago, Peter B said:

All talk and no action? So the Berlin Blockade, the construction of the Berlin Wall, the shooting of attempted defectors, the 1956 invasion of Hungary, the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia, the construction of thousands of nuclear missiles, the Soviet shooting down of KAL007, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Vietnam War, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Iran-Contra Affair, the constant support of opposing sides in proxy wars in Angola, Ethiopia, the Middle East, India-Pakistan and dozens of other countries around the world doesn't count as action? Out of interest, what would you call action?

I am talking about the wide variety of false information and the spread of rumor during most wars which is used and is still being used today to manipulate the public e.g. CNNs obsession with Trump and Russia which no doubt has made many viewers distrust Russia to the point of Cold war hysteria.  I was comparing the mental state of the citizens back in America who lived through the Apollo missions and how they hold an emotional connection to that time and can-do attitude which is liable to cloud their judgement, and I said the citizens of Russia and America were both being fed fake news for quite some time which naturallly would cast doubt on some people's minds.  Good news was blown up and bad news was suppressed to keep the public united and support their governments just like both world wars.  e.g.  Doubters could believe the attempt to land had failed, and plan B was put into action.  I was not debating the skirmishes during the Cold war that both sides conducted to gain a strategic and economic advantage, just the media reports which were used to inform the public and gain the governments trust.

 

 

[Derek Willis]

7 hours ago, Peter B said:

Speculation about scripts and whistleblowers: Then, with the greatest of respect, could you please outline exactly how much of that article you wrote yourself?

For example, the article mentions the idea of using ground-up lunar meteorites to sand blast spare Surveyor parts which never went to the Moon as an explanation for what a faked Apollo 12 couldn't have brought back. But the article still fails to explain where Apollo 12's 34+ kilograms of lunar samples came from.

Also, the article returns to the old canard that the "photographs of the lunar surface beneath each of the LMs show no indications at all of any blast craters..." and then claims there's no evidence of any disturbance whatsoever beneath the Apollo 11 LM. The reality is otherwise (even if it isn't...er...blastingly obvious).

Were you responsible for these parts of the article? Do you believe these statements are true?

Aim of posting: Then may I cordially invite you to the Apollohoax forum? It's attended by a number of people who work in the aerospace field and have direct experience of Apollo-era hardware. I suspect you'll get your explanations there.

I wrote the entire article. Before I took a serious interest in the possibility some or all of the Apollo missions were faked I wasn't aware of the so-called "whistleblower" hypothesis. This suggests people within NASA and their contractors may have deliberately "sabotaged" aspects in order to leave clues that the missions were faked. Please note, I refer to this as an hypothesis, and make no claims that is what happened. However, if some of the Apollo missions were faked, then the whistleblower hypothesis can't be dismissed. So on that basis I was happy enough to include this, though as I stated earlier, my main interest is in the anomalies and inconsistencies within NASA's record, particularly the Apollo Surface Journals.

The situation is similar with the "scripts". If the missions were faked, then the astronauts would most likely have followed some sort of script whilst acting-out their activities supposedly on the Moon. This was not an aspect I had thought about before writing the articles, but if the missions were faked - and that possibility is what my articles are about - then I saw no problem in making reference to the scripts.

With regards to the ground-up meteorite, John Kelly told me that was done by technicians at Hughes Aircraft at the behest of NASA as part of the process of faking the Apollo 12 mission. (You might want to consider why the components were analyzed by Hughes Aircraft rather than by scientists at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory who managed the Surveyor 3 mission on behalf of NASA). Where did I write about the meteorite being ground down by whistleblowers? I did mention the bacteria found within the components may have been planted by whistleblowers, because quite frankly that is one of the most nonsensical aspects of the Apollo 12 mission.

I did mention the lack of blast craters under the LMs. Are you saying there were blast craters under the LMs? With regards specifically to the photograph of the surface beneath Apollo 11 which I included in the article, there are what look like striation marks. In front of the pad there is a "triangle" of striation marks. But surely the apex of this triangle is facing the wrong way if particles were being blown radially away from the engine? And how was a particle blown at right angles to form the base of the triangle? I don't know what the striations are, but their directions seem inconsistent with being blasted radially by the engine. Perhaps you can explain how the engine caused them, and whilst you are at it, can you explain how dust travelled backwards to cover the parts of the Surveyor 3 not in line of sight of the Apollo 12 LM?

 

Edited May 5, 2019 by Derek Willis

[Derek Willis]

21 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

The "fact" is it was covered in dust, so fine, it was not at first recognized as such. The mechanism by which it was deposited is known. Since we are presented with this fait accompli and have determined how, the only thing needing explanation is your absurd fascination with making this some grand mystery.

If you look at the image I provided showing one of the Surveyor 3 component boxes you will see the dust is clearly visible. Consequently, your "fact" is no such thing.

[bknight]

On 5/3/2019 at 9:01 AM, Derek Willis said:

[I am old enough to have been around during Project Apollo and I have never doubted the reality of the missions to land men on the Moon. However, I now find myself in what I can only describe as a paradox.

In recent months I have been talking with a man from the Chicago area who worked for the Hughes Aircraft Company in California during the 1960's and 70's. I have been able to confirm this from company records. I am not going to give his real name, so instead I will call him "John Kelly". During our conversations John claimed Apollo 8, 10, 11, 12 and 17 were faked. He described how Apollo 13 was the first real attempt to land men on the Moon, but the mission went wrong when the oxygen tank exploded inside the Service Module. Consequently, Apollo 14 was the first mission to land men on the Moon. If that is true, then Alan Shepard - who was America's first man in space - was the first man on the Moon. According to John, Apollo 15 and 16 were also genuine, but for some reason not properly explained, Apollo 17 was faked.

I recently wrote two articles based on what John described to me. These articles were published on the aulis.com website. The articles describe two of the many anomalies that appear to exist within the official NASA record of the Apollo missions. The first relates to the dust on the Surveyor 3 probe examined during the Apollo 12 mission, and the second relates to the fenders on the Apollo 17 rover.

A few months ago I started a thread on the Surveyor 3 dust to see what feedback there was from UM members. I am providing links to the articles because I would like to hear views from people either side of the Apollo "hoax" debate. I should point out that I didn't receive any payment for writing the articles, and nor will I be receiving any payments if people view the articles. I hope this satisfies anyone who may suggest this is some sort of click bait money making scam.

I can't explain the anomalies within the articles, or the other anomalies described to me by John Kelly. I am not at all happy with having to write how these anomalies can only be explained if the missions were faked. So perhaps someone can look at the articles and find plausible alternative explanations.

https://www.aulis.com/surveyo

https://www.aulis.com/rover_fenders.htm

There are no anomalies in the Apollo record just will full ignorance.  Part of the that ignorance is due in part to a lack of research.

I'll not go to any article in aulis as they are part of a grand hoax that they can not prove, just like you anomalies they can't or don't want to explain.

So you can't explain the anomalies, so immediately you publish a paper.  Lets see if I can't explain it them it must be a hoax?

If you were unhappy that you wrote the article, then why did you write it in the first place?  Further if you are unhappy, then request that they pull it from their stupid list of articles?

[bknight]

On 5/2/2019 at 10:15 AM, Aaron2016 said:

Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins presented a Moon rock to the Dutch prime minister.  (Drum roll)  It turned out to be fake.  The report said people were "able to tell at a glance that the rock was unlikely to be from the moon."  Yet the famous astronauts who presented the rock had no idea they were presenting a fake.  Something odd there.

 

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html

 

 

Regardless of what the Daily Telegram published, if one does a bit of research, which they didn't, you will find that the Apollo 11 astronauts gave out NO

Moon Rocks during their goodwill tour.

[bknight]

On 5/3/2019 at 10:43 PM, Derek Willis said:

The photographs show the Surveyor to be obviously covered in dust. However, and despite Mission Control asking Conrad and Bean to investigate the dust, the astronauts are initially certain the discoloring was caused by the paint having been baked in the Sun for two and a half years. Whilst removing some of the components from the Surveyor they are still certain the discoloring is caused by the Sun. Then, however, the astronauts suddenly realize the Surveyor is covered in dust. I find it odd the astronauts could be so wrong, and then suddenly change their minds.  

No they discovered it was covered in dust while removing components, check out ALSJ for images/descriptions of Pete rubbing his hand across the mirror, removing dust that covered.  BTW some of the dust maybe all of it  was on the mirror prior to A 12 landing.  Do some research and you'll find that scientists were unhappy with the blurred images output by S3, caused by dust accumulating on the mirror when it "landed" three times, actually bounced twice.  This is the reason that the parts not in a direct line were dust covered.  But again you jump to hoax without a lot of thought or research.

[Derek Willis]

22 minutes ago, bknight said:

There are no anomalies in the Apollo record just will full ignorance.  Part of the that ignorance is due in part to a lack of research.

I'll not go to any article in aulis as they are part of a grand hoax that they can not prove, just like you anomalies they can't or don't want to explain.

So you can't explain the anomalies, so immediately you publish a paper.  Lets see if I can't explain it them it must be a hoax?

If you were unhappy that you wrote the article, then why did you write it in the first place?  Further if you are unhappy, then request that they pull it from their stupid list of articles?

I am not unhappy I wrote the articles. My original intention was to refute John Kelly’s claims. So far I have been unable to explain the anomalies he described. As far as I can see, no one on UM has explained them. They can be explained if the missions were faked. That is what I am unhappy about.

[Derek Willis]

4 minutes ago, bknight said:

No they discovered it was covered in dust while removing components, check out ALSJ for images/descriptions of Pete rubbing his hand across the mirror, removing dust that covered.  BTW some of the dust maybe all of it  was on the mirror prior to A 12 landing.  Do some research and you'll find that scientists were unhappy with the blurred images output by S3, caused by dust accumulating on the mirror when it "landed" three times, actually bounced twice.  This is the reason that the parts not in a direct line were dust covered.  But again you jump to hoax without a lot of thought or research.

If you took the trouble to read my article you will see I describe how Al Bean realised the structure was covered in dust when he saw the battery box had been partially wiped when they had rubbed into it. I also explain how the difficult landing couldn’t have been the source of the dust. You are the one who needs to do some research.

[TigerBright19]

25 minutes ago, bknight said:

Regardless of what the Daily Telegram published, if one does a bit of research, which they didn't, you will find that the Apollo 11 astronauts gave out NO

Moon Rocks during their goodwill tour.

Doubters don't care about in-depth research.  They see a headline which validates their suspicions and shout "I told you it was all fake".  Nothing more is needed to persuade them.  Just like the loonies who think the Titanic was sunk on purpose to claim the insurance.  They just read an article headline or hear a misquote from some celebrity or politician they admire and immediately they are hooked into believing all kinds of crazy theories. e.g.  Missile hitting the Pentagon, or Lizard people controlling the government.  The point I have been making since page 1 is that we should list down exactly what the doubters believe, otherwise all kinds of ideas will be floating about for years which will cast doubt on those who are on the fence (myself) because the vast majority have little interest in studying the Apollo missions and can be easily persuaded to believe anything that reaches a mainstream platform which is why the doubters will continue to grow in number - hence the heading of this topic ' Belief in Apollo hoax conspiracy could grow'.

 

[bknight]

17 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

The speculation about scripts and whistleblowers was editorial input made by the publishers of my articles. My interest is with the inconsistencies within the Apollo Surface Journal, and with the failure of any of the NASA sponsored hypotheses to definitively explain how the dust got onto the Surveyor. And, in the case of my other article, on how Gene Cernan managed to bring sections of the Apollo 17 rover fenders back to Earth without his co-astronaut Jack Schmitt knowing anything about it. Where do you hide fenders inside an Apollo capsule? 

And also, as I explained in my first post, I am passing on information provided to me by a former employee of the Hughes Aircraft Company - which, in case anyone doesn't know, built the Surveyor probes.

My aim of posting was to see if anyone can convincingly explain the inconsistencies and anomalies. So far, that hasn't been done.

 

How do you prove that Harrison "knew" nothing about it? 

[bknight]

11 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

If you took the trouble to read my article you will see I describe how Al Bean realised the structure was covered in dust when he saw the battery box had been partially wiped when they had rubbed into it. I also explain how the difficult landing couldn’t have been the source of the dust. You are the one who needs to do some research.

I have that is why I added the blurred images of S3 and that the craft touched down three times creating a dust cloud it passed through.  No anomaly just poor research/understanding.

[Derek Willis]

23 minutes ago, bknight said:

I have that is why I added the blurred images of S3 and that the craft touched down three times creating a dust cloud it passed through.  No anomaly just poor research/understanding.

 

29 minutes ago, bknight said:

How do you prove that Harrison "knew" nothing about it? 

When Cernan and Schmitt were helping compile the Surface Journal they were looking at the last photo of the rover on the Moon. Schmitt asked Cernan: “Where is the fender?” Cernan replied: “I brought it home.” So how come Cernan brought the fender home without Schmitt knowing?

If you really have read my articles you would have known that...

Edited May 5, 2019 by Derek Willis

[BorizBadinov]

@Aaron2016

You do know that the deaths of those astronauts happened on the ground inside a test simulation and not because of a failure of any rocket system? It was an electrical fire which was amplified by an excessively oxygen rich environment. 

Edited May 5, 2019 by BorizBadinov
Forgot tag

[Derek Willis]

17 minutes ago, bknight said:

I have that is why I added the blurred images of S3 and that the craft touched down three times creating a dust cloud it passed through.  No anomaly just poor research/understanding.

The Surveyor engines didn’t produce enough thrust to disturb any dust. That is why the image of the Surveyor 1 landing pad is entirely free of dust. Like I say, you need to do some research.

[bknight]

12 minutes ago, Aaron2016 said:

Doubters don't care about in-depth research.  They see a headline which validates their suspicions and shout "I told you it was all fake".  Nothing more is needed to persuade them.[/quote]

I don't deny that they do no research, however you tell the audience that you have and can't explain it; therefore it must be fake.  No it wasn't fake but just a consistent lack of understanding/research.

  Just like the loonies who think the Titanic was sunk on purpose to claim the insurance.  They just read an article headline or hear a misquote from some celebrity or politician they admire and immediately they are hooked into believing all kinds of crazy theories. e.g.  Missile hitting the Pentagon, or Lizard people controlling the government.  The point I have been making since page 1 is that we should list down exactly what the doubters believe,

Why list what the stupidity of the general population believes, just look at YouTube and you will get an eyeful maybe more than you wish.

otherwise all kinds of ideas will be floating about for years which will cast doubt on those who are on the fence (myself) because the vast majority have little interest in studying the Apollo missions and can be easily persuaded to believe anything that reaches a mainstream platform which is why the doubters will continue to grow in number

This is speculation on your part, the numbers may grow and then they may not research has shown at least in CONUS that the % has remained fairly constant over the years at somewhere between 5-10 %, depending on what questions were asked.  

https://news.gallup.com/poll/3712/landing-man-moon-publics-view.aspx

https://www.statista.com/statistics/959480/belief-that-the-moon-landing-was-faked/

- hence the heading of this topic ' Belief in Apollo hoax conspiracy could grow'.[/quote]

It is interesting to me that you consider yourself "on the fence" because of what you write doesn't sound that way to me, but that IMO.  Again I'll remind you so you don't post again, I'm not clicking on any link to aulis, because all the articles are lies or misunderstandings and they do not have any place to discuss the papers.  Are they hiding something by this behavior?

 

 

[bknight]

 

11 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

The Surveyor engines didn’t produce enough thrust to disturb any dust. That is why the image of the Surveyor 1 landing pad is entirely free of dust. Like I say, you need to do some research.

Reread my post I did not indicate it was the engines, as a matter of fact if you will research, the engines cut off way too early causing the bouncing so no the engines did cause any dust dispersal in this case.  I haven't down any research on when the rest of them cut engines off, but your statement that the engine didn't produce enough thrust is totally incorrect as any engine exhaust will disturb the regolith, more power causes more disturbance, there will be disturbance.

[bknight]

21 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

 

When Cernan and Schmitt were helping compile the Surface Journal they were looking at the last photo of the rover on the Moon. Schmitt asked Cernan: “Where is the fender?” Cernan replied: “I brought it home.” So how come Cernan brought the fender home without Schmitt knowing?

If you really have read my articles you would have known that...

Have you not noticed something that has been moved or added to your home until someone told you?  I have.  If one does not look for something does not mean it isn't there.  Human nature not an anomaly.

[Derek Willis]

1 minute ago, bknight said:

 

Reread my post I did not indicate it was the engines, as a matter of fact if you will research, the engines cut off way too early causing the bouncing so no the engines did cause any dust dispersal in this case.  I haven't down any research on when the rest of them cut engines off, but your statement that the engine didn't produce enough thrust is totally incorrect as any engine exhaust will disturb the regolith, more power causes more disturbance, there will be disturbance.

You are completely wrong. Surveyor 3 “bounced” because the engines didn’t cut off when they were supposed to. That is why the craft lifted off again. After the second bounce, a signal was sent from mission control to cut off the engines.

[bknight]

1 hour ago, Derek Willis said:

I am not unhappy I wrote the articles. My original intention was to refute John Kelly’s claims. So far I have been unable to explain the anomalies he described. As far as I can see, no one on UM has explained them. They can be explained if the missions were faked. That is what I am unhappy about.

You wrote that you were not happy with writing the article, now you say you did not the that belief.  What s one to believe in what you write?