Why the Apollo Moon Landings were Hoaxed

[Ginnie]

turbonium, perhaps you could state your case on this thread, from beginning to end.

If I may suggest though, for the first issue:

At what mission did NASA start faking it?
Mercury? Gemini? Apollo 1? Apollo 11?
Were satellite missions faked?

I've always wanted to know the answer to this question.

I would appreciate if we can remain polite and respectful at all times, and not comment on things said in other threads or other forums if not pertinent to this thread.
No name calling, please.
And I ask that whenever possible, questions are answered or explored before moving on. Sometimes, I realize a stalemate will be reached, and some questions will remain unanswered.

I'm starting this thread to start a dialogue, not a brawl. And I hope to learn some things myself.

[Ginnie]

hmm, no responses...
I guess the rules are too stringent.

[Ginnie]

...still nuthin' ?
I guess they weren't faked then.

[BertL]

Well, I suppose a Flat Earth Believer (or whatever you want to call those people) would say everything was faked. Not much of a reponse, but it's something.

[gillianren]

I, for one, would want something a heck of a lot more specific than that before I'd accept a Moon hoax explanation. As I've said, no matter what question I ask the pro-Apollo crowd, they always have an answer, even if it takes a little while to dig it out of reference books. But the answer is there! "They just did it somehow" is not an answer.

[frenat]

It's harder to backpedal later if you pin yourself down to a specific position now.

[turbonium]

Apr 11, 2008 14:03:36 GMT -4 Ginnie said:

turbonium, perhaps you could state your case on this thread, from beginning to end.

If I may suggest though, for the first issue:

At what mission did NASA start faking it?
Mercury? Gemini? Apollo 1? Apollo 11?
Were satellite missions faked?

I've always wanted to know the answer to this question.

I would appreciate if we can remain polite and respectful at all times, and not comment on things said in other threads or other forums if not pertinent to this thread.
No name calling, please.
And I ask that whenever possible, questions are answered or explored before moving on. Sometimes, I realize a stalemate will be reached, and some questions will remain unanswered.

I'm starting this thread to start a dialogue, not a brawl. And I hope to learn some things myself.

As I'm still reviewing past issues, I'd like to breifly respond to this.

Imo, the hoax began with Apollo 8. The mission was changed from LEO to manned lunar orbit in just a few months. The change in plans was strongly opposed by NASA's head honcho. He gave in, but resigned from NASA soon after - and before the glory he would have basked in from the Apollo 11 mission.

I'm convinced that it had to be faked from the Apollo 8 mission forward, because we weren't capable of manned flight beyond LEO, let alone send men all the way to the Moon and back.

I'll get back to the old issues I've yet to address, asap....

[Jason Thompson]

Apr 17, 2008 4:08:02 GMT -4 turbonium said:

I'm convinced that it had to be faked from the Apollo 8 mission forward, because we weren't capable of manned flight beyond LEO, let alone send men all the way to the Moon and back.

OK, so if that's the case, what was all the work up to and including Apollo 7 in aid of?

[Data Cable]

Apr 17, 2008 4:08:02 GMT -4 turbonium said:

I'm convinced that it had to be faked from the Apollo 8 mission forward, because we weren't capable of manned flight beyond LEO, let alone send men all the way to the Moon and back.

"[W]eren't capable of" meaning simply "it hadn't been done it before," or do you actually have evidence of the technical inability to send men to lunar orbit?

[JayUtah]

What do you consider the boundary of "low Earth orbit" to be? And what allegedly prevented U.S. manned spacecraft from exceeding that boundary?

[JayUtah]

Describe what evidence connects James Webb's initial reluctance to make Apollo 8 a lunar orbit mission with his resignation from the NASA. Is it simply a coincidence of time, or is there evidence of quid pro quo? Are there other, more credible and evident, reasons why Webb had to leave the agency at that time?

[Count Zero]

Apr 17, 2008 4:08:02 GMT -4 turbonium said:

Imo, the hoax began with Apollo 8. The mission was changed from LEO to manned lunar orbit in just a few months. The change in plans was strongly opposed by NASA's head honcho.

Factually incorrect. James Webb was briefed on the idea on August 15, 1968 and approved it just two days later (August 17). His only reservation was that the announcement (and final "go") should follow a successful Apollo 7 mission.

Apr 17, 2008 4:08:02 GMT -4 turbonium said:

He gave in, but resigned from NASA soon after

He retired on his 62nd birthday, which is not unusual. Webb served longer than any other NASA administrator before or since (save one - Dan Goldin). Apollo was a very difficult project, and Webb was constantly fighting with congress. He felt that the Apollo 1 fire was a stain on NASA's reputation, and sheparded the organization up to the point where manned Apollo was ready to fly. At that point there was no longer a serious chance of congress cancelling Apollo before the landings. His job was done.

Apr 17, 2008 4:08:02 GMT -4 turbonium said:

- and before the glory he would have basked in from the Apollo 11 mission.

Ever hear of Thomas O. Paine? Most people haven't. He was the NASA administrator when Apollo 11 landed. His tenure lasted less than two years. People remember Webb because he fought (and won) the hard battles. Paine was a good man, but a mere footnote on the overall program.

Apr 17, 2008 4:08:02 GMT -4 turbonium said:

I'm convinced that it had to be faked from the Apollo 8 mission forward, because we weren't capable of manned flight beyond LEO, let alone send men all the way to the Moon and back.

What was the problem? To fly Apollo 8, you needed the following:

- A spacecraft that could support 3 men for two weeks. Apollo 7 demonstrated this.

- The spacecraft had to withstand the radiation measured by more than 40 probes prior to the flight. Apollo 4 & 6 demonstrated this.

- The spacecraft had to have a reliable engine to navigate and get home. Apollo 4, 6 & 7 demonstrated this.

- We had to be able to navigate between the Earth and the Moon. Pioneer, Ranger, Surveyor and Lunar Orbiter demonstrated this.

- We needed an upper stage that could propel the spacecraft from Earth orbit to the Moon (Delta-V of 2 miles-per-second). The S-IVB could do this.

- We needed a rocket to put the spacecraft & upper stage into Earth Orbit. The Saturn V had demonstrated this.

By December 1968, all of these things were in place. You are wrong, turbonium. we had the capability. We went.

[sts60]

turbonium, thanks for the specific answers so far. Now we can get down to details.

Imo, the hoax began with Apollo 8. The mission was changed from LEO to manned lunar orbit in just a few months.

Taken together, these sentences seem to imply that something changed during the mission planning for Apollo 8 - something that made hoaxing the missions necessary. Is this what you think? If so, what do you think changed, and what is your evidence for it? If not, why did the hoax begin then, and why was the mission changed?

The change in plans was strongly opposed by NASA's head honcho. He gave in, but resigned from NASA soon after - and before the glory he would have basked in from the Apollo 11 mission.

This implies that you think Webb had knowledge of something "fishy". What evidence do you have for that? There also seems to be a disconnect between Count Zero's description of his involvement (briefing to approval in two days) and your characterizations ("strongly opposed", "gave in"). How do you resolve this discrepancy?

I'm convinced that it had to be faked from the Apollo 8 mission forward, because we weren't capable of manned flight beyond LEO, let alone send men all the way to the Moon and back.

What exactly prevented this? What specific discoveries, and when, brought this to light?

I'll guess, since you've brought up radiation before, it had something to do with that. Given that the cislunar radiation environment had already been explored by multiple unmanned probes before then, what new discoveries changed things so dramatically?

And, finally, why would any of that promote a change in the Apollo 8 planning to a lunar orbit plan? (I think I know why, given your scenario, but I'll wait to see if I've guessed correctly.)

[JayUtah]

His only reservation was that the announcement (and final "go") should follow a successful Apollo 7 mission.

And this falls in line with the technical analysis that had been undertaken prior to approaching Webb. According to the technical stakeholders, Apollo 8 could be a lunar orbit mission only if all the goals for Apollo 7 were met. If Apollo 7 had failed, then there would be too many technical unknowns for attempting a lunar orbit mission on Apollo 8. Webb's contribution to that rationale was simply the public-facing one: Apollo 8 wouldn't be announced as a lunar orbit mission until the outcome of Apollo 7 was known. In the worst case, Apollo 8 proceeds as planned with no political fallout. Otherwise, the worst case of an unsuccessful Apollo 7 would have been answered by a reversal of a previously announced upgrade: that can sound like failure.

In all my historical materials I cannot find any public statements from Webb wherein he announced to anyone his opposition (strong or mild) to Apollo 8 as a lunar orbit mission. His object seems to have been private, recorded and reported only by those who briefed him (e.g., Gen. Phillips).

Turbonium's claim is phrased in passive voice, leaving out the crucial detail of who is alleged to have changed the plans. This leaves the matter open to speculation that the Johnson administration or some other governmental power-that-was, higher than NASA, imposed the Apollo 8 goal upon them, and that Webb opposed it, lost, and resigned in disgust or was fired for his lack of subservience.

But in fact the decision to upgrade Apollo 8 to a lunar orbit mission came from within NASA, from the technical people. They were the ones who "ran the numbers," showed that it would be possible and reasonably safe (provided Apollo 7 worked), and then (and only then) took it to the boss for approval. Gen. Phillips reports that Webb responded with shock and negativity. But that's not necessarily inappropriate: Webb hadn't yet been presented with the detailed study showing that it would work. When the presentation was made, Webb agreed.

The historical record shows an initiative by the mission planners and the technical managers, presented to the administrator for approval. There is little to support the implication that Webb was overruled or sidestepped, or that his initial reluctance was either as strong or as well-supported as implied.

Apollo was a very difficult project, and Webb was constantly fighting with congress.

For that fight Webb had the support of Vice President and then President Lyndon Johnson. Johnson was very heavily in favor of NASA and Apollo, and Webb was Johnson's delegate in pushing that program. However, the buildup to Apollo 8 also included a presidential election in which Johnson's party lost to Richard M. Nixon and the Republicans. Nixon was not nearly as interested in Apollo, and certainly not very interested in the services of a man like Webb, who had been instrumental in making life difficult for anyone in Washington who opposed Apollo.

Webb had fought hard, and sometimes dirty. To Nixon he was a political liability. It is common for executive appointees to relinquish their posts (or offer to do so) when a new president is about to take office. Symbolically they transmit their resignations to the President-elect, who (if the appointee has done a good job, or is a carryover from a same-party predecessor) symbolically rejects them. To Webb's surprise Nixon not only accepted his change-of-helm resignation, but did so effective upon receipt.

Even had Apollos 7 and 8 been flown as originally planned and without incident, Nixon would likely still have fired Webb. The damage Webb had done to warrant his ouster had all been done long before Apollo 8. The only way Webb would have retained his post through Apollo 11 is if Hubert Humphrey had won the election and had the will to continue Johnson's space policy.

I see little in the record connecting Webb's departure to his behavior regarding Apollo 8.

[sts60]

So we're left with the Apollo 8 change, and Webb's resignation, having nothing to do with the alleged lack of "capab[ility] of manned flight beyond LEO". Which brings us back to the only real questions:

What exactly prevents manned flight beyond low Earth orbit? And when is this supposed to have been discovered? And what do you consider LEO to be - you consider the ISS to be in low Earth orbit, correct?

You can disregard my Apollo 8 and Webb questions from reply 12; unless you have hard and specific evidence that either the mission change or Webb's resignation had something to do with the alleged hoax, they are non-issues.