|
Post by wadefrazier3 on Dec 27, 2007 23:23:49 GMT -4
Hi everybody: Every so often, I am either approached with moon hoax theories or I see somebody try to make the case that the moon landings were faked, and it invariably covers the same tired ground and begs for Jay and friends to weigh in. A year or so ago, one pal had the sense to ask me to assess a moon hoax essay that he was publishing for somebody else, and I kicked it into this forum. After Jay and friends critiqued the essay, they sensibly withdrew it, and it has not been seen in cyberspace since. In the past few days, Ted Twietmeyer has weighed in with his theory that some moon landing footage was faked, and he engages in image analysis to make his case. I have a rather strong hunch that his analyses will not hold up very well to third-party analysis, and this is right down your alley. Here are his analyses: www.rense.com/general79/rehar.htmwww.rense.com/general79/apol11.htmI may contact Rense to publish the analysis that results on this thread, depending on how it goes. As an aside, I regularly see my Apollo writings used as evidence that the moon landings were faked. It really blows me away that people can have such poor comprehension of my writings on the subject: www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#apolloparticularly when I put my conclusion right at the very beginning. Anyway, thanks in advance for your responses to Twietmeyer’s analysis. Happy New Year, and may 2008 be good to you, Wade Frazier
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Dec 27, 2007 23:53:18 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Dec 27, 2007 23:56:37 GMT -4
I'll give you what I can.
1. The youtube vid with the crashing set is fake. Analysing a fake video for signs of fakery is going to turn up results. The initial premise is wrong (that the video is genuine). Proof of that to come later.
2. "However, according to at least one NASA engineer who worked on the camera design that a slow scan to NTSC converter was not available for the real moonwalk." Sort of true. What they used at Honeysuckle was an NTSC video camera aimed at the screen where the SSTV picture was being shown. A lot of quality was lost, but it worked. You can see evidence of this method in pirate vids / DVDs around the world. They go to a movie, and film the movie using their hand-held camera. They convert that into a DVD...
|
|
|
Post by wadefrazier3 on Dec 28, 2007 0:02:15 GMT -4
Thanks for the replies. I will read the Bad Astronomy thread now.
Wade
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Dec 28, 2007 7:48:37 GMT -4
There was most certainly a scan converter availablefor the moonwalk. Westinghouse even had designed one long before the moonwalk on Apollo 11. RCA made the unit which was used on that mission. Philco submitted a proposal for a photo static converter in 1966, and the method used to convert sequential colour was PATENTED in 1966.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 28, 2007 9:25:21 GMT -4
Wade, welcome to the board.
The Landing Module was never tested in a “real” landing and takeoff situation until Armstrong and Aldrin supposedly landed on the moon and took off. When Armstrong tried flying a stripped down version of the LM on earth, he crashed it, nearly getting killed. The LM supposedly made six perfect landings and take offs from the moon.
The LLRVs/LLTVs were not a "stripped-down version of the LM". They were completely different vehicles designed to provide a feel for flying in 1/6 G environment, and were not any version of an LM. And they were flown successfully over two hundred times.
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Dec 28, 2007 10:21:00 GMT -4
Wade, welcome to the board. The Landing Module was never tested in a “real” landing and takeoff situation until Armstrong and Aldrin supposedly landed on the moon and took off. When Armstrong tried flying a stripped down version of the LM on earth, he crashed it, nearly getting killed. The LM supposedly made six perfect landings and take offs from the moon. The LLRVs/LLTVs were not a "stripped-down version of the LM". They were completely different vehicles designed to provide a feel for flying in 1/6 G environment, and were not any version of an LM. And they were flown successfully over two hundred times. The number is closer to 500 successful flights by the end of the Apollo Program in 1972, actually. As to the testing of the LM's, ironically I just put up a HUGE post on UM where the majority of the post is about that very subject: www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=113834&view=findpost&p=2061609Cz
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Dec 28, 2007 10:41:11 GMT -4
Thanks for posting about the scan converter. What I posted was the method used, but I didn't realise there were other methods available.
|
|
|
Post by wadefrazier3 on Dec 28, 2007 11:37:17 GMT -4
Hi all:
I can tweak the language on "stripped down" (although I see this as a very minor semantic issue). The first "live" test of the LM landing was on the moon, and the first time NASA tried maneuvering the LM above the moon, they had an incident where the pilot thought he was going to crash it, because he threw the wrong switch. Pretty hairy. I believe that simulating 1/6 gravity was only part of it. The vertical landing aspect was also rather unique.
I would like this thread to stay on Twietmeyer's analysis, if it could. Thanks for the feedback so far. As I suspected, his analysis is not holding up very well. I would like it if these kinds of public humiliations (because their analyses are deeply flawed) might engender some caution out there. To put up an analysis that has not been tested with any rigor, and then to announce” case closed” is not very prudent.
It is nice that there are informed people out there, willing to provide the facts and analysis to counter the moon hoax people as they keeping barking up the wrong tree. There are other, far more productive issues to explore than to keep flogging the “we never went to the moon” horse.
Thanks again,
Wade
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Dec 28, 2007 12:28:02 GMT -4
Hi all: I can tweak the language on "stripped down" (although I see this as a very minor semantic issue). The first "live" test of the LM landing was on the moon, and the first time NASA tried maneuvering the LM above the moon, they had an incident where the pilot thought he was going to crash it, because he threw the wrong switch. Pretty hairy. I believe that simulating 1/6 gravity was only part of it. The vertical landing aspect was also rather unique. Saying that the LLRV's LLTV's were "stripped down" LM's is not a matter or semantics, its just wrong. Yes on Apollo 10, there was a problem with the AGS, but it is not technically correct to say they "flipped the wrong switch" as that implies a lack of competence on the part of Gene Cernan and Tom Stafford. What happened was that there was an omission on the LM Checklist. It did not give a position for the AGS Mode Control switch to be in. Prior to the staging maneuver, Stafford and Cernan had been tracking the CM "Charlie Brown" with the AGS radar in AUTOmatic mode. When the AGS Mode Control is set to "AUTO", the guidance system orients the LM in the direction of where it finds the CM to be. The other selection ATT HOLD (ATTitude HOLD) does not re-orient the vehicle. The step to change the switch position to ATT HOLD prior to Staging was omitted on the Checklist. It was this omission that caused the maneuvering anomaly to happen, not that the LMP or CDR simply "flipped the wrong switch". In my previous post in this thread I have included a link to another post of mine on Unexplained-Mysteries.com that deals in a bit more detail with this very subject. If you want your analysis of Ted's article to have some validity behind it, have a look at that post and some of the source material referenced there. As for the vertical landing being unique, the Hawker Harrier JumpJet has been in service with the RAF since 1966, with prototypes and variants flying since 1960, and the AV-8A Harrier/Harrier Mk.50 in service with the USMC since 1970. While the vehicles are very different, the basic principles involved in the vertical landing of these vehicles are very similar. Cz
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Dec 28, 2007 12:32:13 GMT -4
To put up an analysis that has not been tested with any rigor, and then to announce” case closed” is not very prudent. You're kinder than I am. I perfer "asinine" to "not very prudent".
|
|
|
Post by wadefrazier3 on Dec 28, 2007 12:46:22 GMT -4
Thanks. I will tweak language ("stripped down" is what it looked like, that "flying bedstead", and it was used to simulate flying the LM) and am aware of the Harrier craft, but do not believe that the astronauts trained in them during their Apollo days. VLTO was something novel, never done before or since by astronauts. "Flipped wrong switch" can be changed, but it adds up to the same thing: doing something incorrectly in the procedure that panicked the pilot. Not exactly an auspicious warm-up for landing on the moon. It was an insanely dangerous undertaking. My father once told me that John Glenn was asked in those days if he wanted to be the first man on the moon, and he replied that he would not mind being the first man SAFELY BACK from the moon. At the time of the missions, the estimates of the odds of a successful mission were around 50%.
I am not analyzing Ted’s article. I was hoping that the experts would.
Thx,
Wade
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Dec 28, 2007 13:09:27 GMT -4
At the time of the missions, the estimates of the odds of a successful mission were around 50%. I believe some of the astronauts, and perhaps others, have been quoted as saying they believed the odds were around 50%. However, detailed computer simulations and analyzes done at that time placed the odds at over 90%.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Dec 28, 2007 17:15:33 GMT -4
"When Ron Howard’s movie on Apollo 13 came out on 1994, instead of the Zarathustra music, they played other music. Why? For a movie that purported to tell the real story, why change the real music which was played?" The movie does tell the real story, but it has a disclaimer at the end saying that some details were changed. Nobody has ever claimed that this movie is a documentary. Gene Kranz oversees the launch in the movie, but in real life it was Flight Director Milton Windler who worked that shift. The movie just showed Kranz in that scene to introduce his character. "Jim Lovell was also on Apollo 8, and the crew later told Clarke that they were tempted to report sighting a large black monolith on the far side of the moon. Instead, they read from the book of Genesis and Lovell announced that there was a Santa Claus. Is that funny, or 'funny?'" I thought the Santa Claus thing was related to Lovell's Gemini 7 flight, where they rendezvoused with Gemini 6 and the Gemini 6 crew joked about seeing Santa Claus and played Jingle Bells on a smuggled harmonica and some bells. Maybe Lovell was remembering this. As far as Gus Grissom complaining about the Apollo 1 spacecraft, as far as I know, Wally Schirra (the backup commander) complained about it a lot too. He went on to fly on Apollo 7, returned safely, and lived to be 84.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Dec 28, 2007 18:47:33 GMT -4
I thought the Santa Claus thing was related to Lovell's Gemini 7 flight, where they rendezvoused with Gemini 6 and the Gemini 6 crew joked about seeing Santa Claus and played Jingle Bells on a smuggled harmonica and some bells. Maybe Lovell was remembering this. Yes, Wally Schirra and Tom Stafford did play a Santa Claus joke during their Gemini 6 flight. However, Jim Lovell also made a reference to Santa Claus during Apollo 8. After they had successfully completed the critical transearth injection burn on the far side of the moon, the spacecraft swung around from behind the moon and re-established radio contact with Earth. Lovell reported something like "be advised, there is a Santa Claus." Obviously the reference was to indicate that the crew has been gifted with a successful TEI burn.
|
|