|
Post by graham2001 on May 26, 2007 1:04:37 GMT -4
Apollo 17’s payload (CSM+LM) was 47 metric tons. We can therefore manage a lunar payload of only 40 tons launching into a polar parking orbit. The smallest Apollo payloads were the early J-missions at around 44 metric tons. An Apollo lunar landing can’t be achieved with a payload of only 40 tons, thus the Vandenberg scenario appears to be impossible. Unless you are willing to posit a two launch scenario, where the first launch puts an unmanned LM in lunar orbit and the second launch sends the CSM up to rendezvous. However the hoaxer does not appear to have thought that far.
|
|
|
Post by graham2001 on May 23, 2007 23:02:31 GMT -4
(EDIT) D'oh! Nevermind on that last part; I misread surface range for safety range. The 1,400 to 1,500 n.mi. number is how far Apollo was downrange of the launch pad at orbit insertion. An eastward Saturn V launch from Vandenberg would therefore be burning its engines until somewhere over Louisiana. Which would make it visible/audible over just how much of the US? So much for a secret launch. Later: I'm adding a link to a map of the lunar farside (4.8mb) over at the Lunar & Planetary institute, looking at it makes it quite clear that the faker may have the names of the craters (more or less) right but thery were totally off in terms of location and relative directions from each other. I've made a 'quickie' map showing the (best fit) flight path of the LM as derived from the video in the OP (Black line) as opposed to a straight line approach (Yellow line). Click: Here(1.6mb file)
|
|
|
Post by graham2001 on May 22, 2007 11:19:37 GMT -4
Bob pointed this out on page 1; an Apollo mission could never launch out of Vandenberg. Apollo must launch eastward to insert into the proper parking orbit. Vandenberg handles only southward launches for injection into polar orbits. An eastward launch from Vandenberg means over-flying populated areas, thus such launches are prohibited. Vandenberg would never have any involvement in an Apollo mission. But it's still worth restating, as it's the scenario the faker is trying to push ahead of their alleged 'big revelations' in September... As far as I can figure out from the videos themselves and the comments made by the faker on YouTube, this is what they are trying to peddle on the credulous: During Apollo 15/17 an 'anomaly' was spotted on the lunar surface near the crater Izsak, this was determined to be an alien spacecraft and while publicly canceling Apollo 18-20 the USAF prepared a launchpad at Vandenberg AFB capable of handing a Saturn V rocket.
Eventually on the 16th of August 1976 everything was ready and Apollo 20 lifted off from Vandenberg on its secret mission with a crew consisting of two Bell Inc employees (William Rutledge & Leona Snyder) & Cosmonaut Alexi Leonov .
Upon arrival they discovered an abandoned Alien spacecraft (billions of years old) and an alien city. They recovered artifacts from both and returned to Earth, where all this was covered in thick veil of secrecy...
Now of course the truth must be revealed to the world...Vandenberg was chosen because it's the place where all the Air Force related launches take place and of course if the faker is ignorant of US geography/launch trajectories then it's simplicity to claim that the launch was over the sea or other uninhabited region.
|
|
|
Post by graham2001 on May 21, 2007 21:29:01 GMT -4
Three of them begin with a picture of both the 1960's NASA logo and that of the USAF Space Command logo, presumably the faker intends to claim that the 'secret mission' was one carried out by the USAF. If they're claiming that any Apollo mission flew was sponsored by the USAF Space Command, it should be noted that entity was created in 1982. I'm guessing that he's just claiming that the mission was run by the USAF rather than NASA. The description in the 'Apollo 20' launch shot claims that it launched from Vandenberg and was presumably run from there. (http://tinyurl.com/ypl22f) It might also explain why he shows the rocket in flight, as: a) Vandenberg was never fitted out to launch Saturn V rockets. b) The terrain is totally different
|
|
|
Post by graham2001 on May 21, 2007 11:51:06 GMT -4
From a low (60nm) lunar orbit, it seems like the CSM was moving awfully slowly as it passed over the "ship". Either that, or the CSM was in a very high orbit, and the photog was using a very powerful telephoto lens. If this was the case, the scribed numbers on the windows would not be visible. From my read of the transcript, it would appear that the faker intends this footage to be seen as being taken from the LEM during touchdown. I thought it might be worthwhile to search on the crater name and got the following threads from various conspiracy sites, if anyone wonders why this sort of thing has to be taken seriously read on: 1. GLP2. ATM3. Alt.Conspiracy4. APOLLO 20 ALIEN SHIP CONTROVERSYThis last is a site which links to this thread in its opening paragraph... Also here are wikipedia entries for three of the craters mentioned in the 'flyby' film Delporte Litke, in the video its referred to as 'Lutke(sic)'. Izsak referred to as 'Izak(sic)' and 'Iszak(sic)' in the fakers other vids.
|
|
|
Post by graham2001 on May 21, 2007 11:32:32 GMT -4
I've downloaded the rest of the Apollo 20 Hoax files, I've quickly looked at the rest of them and they are all silent, with the exception of the launch footage. Three of them begin with a picture of both the 1960's NASA logo and that of the USAF Space Command logo, presumably the faker intends to claim that the 'secret mission' was one carried out by the USAF. However if that is the case why is there a Russian on board . Two are of them are essentially the same footage which purports to be footage from the rovers camera. In both cases it is the same footage of a photographed lunar background with a cut out 'alien city' on it. The 'header' that precedes the footage in both cases is this: Which raises the question of why the faker didn't create a fake header for the film in the OP since he seems to have done it for his other fake footage. The third item purports to be 'Mission Planning' photos of the 'Alien Spacecraft' on the lunar surface near a crater called Iszak D (is there such a feature?). I'll come back to this after I've had a chance to properly go over this material.
|
|
|
Post by graham2001 on May 20, 2007 21:07:44 GMT -4
I'll give the person who made the vid this much, the text does not read like the Pepper transcript...Doesn't read like the real thing though, rather like something that someone thought should be the real thing. Exactly my point (Though you made it much clearer.), your transcript from Apollo 17 also makes it clear that the faker is trying to create the impression we are getting ' edited highlights' from a much larger record. I've listened to it a couple of times and I think I can hear voices but can't make out the words.
|
|
|
Post by graham2001 on May 20, 2007 13:44:21 GMT -4
I've completed a transcript of the captions that appear in the video linked to in the OP, times are taken from the start of the video, spelling is as in the original text, some letters were simply unreadable... I'll give the person who made the vid this much, the text does not read like the Pepper transcript...
|
|
|
Post by graham2001 on May 20, 2007 11:07:12 GMT -4
I haven't watched the (bogus) footage yet, so I'll reserve comment on that, but I noticed that someone has gone to the trouble of creating an Apollo 20 'patch' to head off the footage. Did NASA get as far as creating patches for 18/19/20? I noticed that also. I don't know, but I did notice what immediately followed it: a bluescreen datestamp showing day 198 of 1969 (July 17th, 1969) Why would an "Apollo 20" mission have a datestamp that coincides with the Apollo 11 mission? :-) It appears our intrepid hoax maker used bits and pieces of video from various sources here. The blue datestamp screen is the same one seen in Bart Sibrel's infamous, "A Funny Thing Happened" video. I've got no idea why if the person who made this could design an Apollo 20 patch to head off the footage, he couldn't have 'tweaked' an existing NASA header to reflect the 'reality' he was trying to create. In any case, I'm downloading the (14mb) file at the moment so I can watch it without having to be online. Once I've watched it I'll comment further... Later: I've downloaded the linked segment, I think I'll pull down the rest tomorrow from a net cafe... I'll try and do a transcript of all the 'quotes' included in the various film segments. As for that Apollo 20 patch, the listed astronaut surnames are "Rutledge, Snyder & (Aleksei?) Leonov" so our faker is trying to claim this was a joint US/Soviet mission A quick check of the wikipedia list of fictional astronauts shows no match for the other two surnames though, same for Encyclopedia Astronautica... If someone has a copy of Alternate 3, it might be worth checking the names in that...
|
|
|
Post by graham2001 on May 19, 2007 12:30:49 GMT -4
I haven't watched the (bogus) footage yet, so I'll reserve comment on that, but I noticed that someone has gone to the trouble of creating an Apollo 20 'patch' to head off the footage.
Did NASA get as far as creating patches for 18/19/20?
|
|
|
Post by graham2001 on May 27, 2007 14:12:54 GMT -4
In 1968, Kubrick had already made it look like astronauts and pens were floating around in the weightlessness of space. And he did it all with only the smallest fraction of NASA's budget and resources. Actually as JayUtah has already pointed out he turned down a more realistic version of the lunar surface for something less accurate, but more dramatic. But whenever someone brings up Kubrick, I always think of what J. W. Campbell Jr wrote after watching Apollo 11. J. W. Campbell Jr, Analog, November 1969, p 6.
|
|
|
Post by graham2001 on Jun 13, 2007 22:51:42 GMT -4
I don't know if anyone has seen this site, but it's reasonably detailed history of the entire 1957-75 period from Sputnik to ASTP. www.vectorsite.net/tamrc.htmlBetter yet, it's all public domain material.
|
|
|
Post by graham2001 on May 24, 2007 21:03:31 GMT -4
On the subject of Apollo resources the My Space Museum page put together by a modeler is a nice compilation of Apollo images and information.
|
|
|
Post by graham2001 on May 30, 2007 8:48:26 GMT -4
Another thing to consider that it's not just US spacecraft that have flown by the moon. Soviet probes such as Zond & Luna all took photos of the moon. Zonds 7 & 8 took the Soviet version of NASAs 'earthrise' pictures, which surprise, surprise show no stars at all. There is also the matter of AsiaSat3, if it's impossible to get out of low Earth orbit, how was this commerical satellite able to fly past (2nd flyby diagram) the Moon twice in 1998. Edit:Added links to orbit diagrams that were missing from the linked set of articles on AsiaSat3 and to correct grammar.
|
|
|
Post by graham2001 on Dec 8, 2007 9:33:16 GMT -4
Not sure if this is the right place to put this, if it is not please move this post to the appropriate area. I was looking through the 'Space Review' website and spotted an article on space art. It seems that there is an exhibition on in Philadelphia. Imagine my horror when I read the following: Italics Mine. I would like to know what definition of Art justifies such an irresponsible act, the only thing I can compare this to would be for a Moon Hoax proponent slipping doctored Apollo photographs into the NASA Image Exchange. Does anyone know how to contact Associated Press and let them know about this?
|
|