Apollo 20 hoax footage

[Bob B.]

ginniegatrit said:

Bob B., you gotta admit these are small points though.

Yes. You asked for errors and inconsistencies, you didn't say they had to be big ones.

ginniegatrit said:

Wasn't the LM once known as LEM?

Initially, yes, but it was changed early in its development. Nobody around here refers to it the LEM because we all know better; I expect an even higher standard from a supposedly ex-astronaut.

[frenat]

phantomwolf said:

NASA didn't employ me, USAF did, I had worked on the study of foreign technology, RUSSIAN only, study about the N1 project, AJAX plane project and the Mig Foxbat 25.

I'm a little sceptical here since I can see no reason that the USAF would be interested in the Soviet N-1 (I might be wrong but I suspect a Cold War Warrior would speak of Soviet rather then Russian too) and the USAF didn't get their hands on a Foxbat until a month AFTER the so-called Apollo 20 was supposed to have been flown. Having said that, there is no proof either way on either of these as it's likely that there was a unit of the USAF trying to determine the Mig-25's characteristics in the late 60's and early 70's.

Wouldn't they have more often referred to it as the Mig 25 Foxbat and not the Mig Foxbat 25?

[Obviousman]

I call shenanigans.

ESPECIALLY as a military type, they would have said Foxbat, MiG-25, or MiG-25 Foxbat. NOT "Mig Foxbat 25".

[tedward]

I have not seen that interview before. Seems like some research has been done to get some provenance?

So far the film that has me thinking fake. The crater Tsiolkovskiy is on the far side along with Fermi. The comms mention it by name when they mention anything inbetween the beeps. How high do you need to be in orbit to see the feature mentioned and be in contact with earth? Anyone know anything about orbits, speeds etc and height to speak to the earth?

Change of aperture just over half way through and the camera is now hand held and zooming in on a relic on the surface. Some of the language seems odd.

eg "the ship is in bad condition is must be here......Billions of years"

Think there are a few like that and not enough chatter and not enough ground chatter if they have just reaquired from a back side orbit.

Apparently digital artifacts at the start of the video. Need to see the original to be sure.

That is for starters.

[sts60]

The official NASA photos are available on the website of the Lunar and Planetary Institute (LPI, in Houston), which is a “research institute that provides support services to NASA and the planetary science community”: the links to find the pictures (the AS15-P-9630 and the AS15-P-9625, from the the Apollo Image Atlas) are the following: www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS15-P-9625 www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS15-P-9630

Moreover, it is meaningful that the links were provided by William Rutledge (how did he know the details of those panoramic picture?).

Yeah! Wow! How could anyone but an insider with secret knowledge know what's on a public web site?

300 people were involved on the preparation, but more other witnesses in Vandenberg. It was launched from this AFB. More witnesses, yes, many people saw departures in the sky, cameras were forbidden all around the Vandenberg site, but today a lot of Space spotters film every launch of Delta rockets, from towns.

This is simply a lie. There was no capability to process, erect, and launch a Saturn V at Vandenberg. The effort to do so would have involved thousands of people who would have known what was up, and there are minor details like the fact that one would have to ship the massive S-1C first stage through the Panama Canal (in real Apollo missions, it was barged from the Michoud assembly facility in Louisiana to KSC).

Even sillier, though, is the notion that such a launch could be made from Vandenberg with no one figuring it out. Such a launch would have been visible to millions of people, and not only in California. Since it would have to launch eastward, it would have overflown the continental U.S.!

Also, the supposedly American "Rutledge" doesn't talk like an American:

On long duration flight the helium pressure was too high on the LEM, a security disk had to burst if pressure was going high, but motor was unusable after. So it was changed on Apollo 19 and 20, but not tested in Space before. It was ok, but… in the paper. However, we got no problem with it. It was a long mission, 7 days scheduled on the Moon, every ray of light was used till ascent.

What's not gibberish there is simply wrong, and it sounds nothing like an American speaking.

The whole thing is a cheesy fabrication. The only question is who is whether the web site owner made up the story himself or if he swallowed someone else's fabrication.

And, finally... Nothing new under the conspiracist sun.

[sts60]

Note: the link above wraps around to the start of this thread.

[tedward]

sts60 said:

Note: the link above wraps around to the start of this thread.

Opps. Wrist slapped, must read threads through first. Apologies.

[Bob B.]

sts60 said:

What's not gibberish there is simply wrong, and it sounds nothing like an American speaking.

The whole thing is a cheesy fabrication. The only question is who is whether the web site owner made up the story himself or if he swallowed someone else's fabrication.

I agree. Everything about the interview just sounds like a complete fabrication even if I have a hard time pointing out specifics. I also agree to that the guy doesn't sound like an American, and I don't find the excuse that he hasn't spoken English since 1990 as creditable. For instance, he used the word 'millard’, which is chiefly a British. I've never heard any American use that word; we would say 'billion'.

[Jason]

You can lose your American accident if you spend enough time overseas. I lost my Utah accent when I lived in Holland for a couple of years, though I picked it up again fairly quickly when I came back.

[Bob B.]

I'm not talking about accent. The guy is supposedly an American-born citizen who has spoken American-English for the first 60 years of his life. He then moves to Rwanda and has spoken Kinyarwanda and French since 1990. Now for the first time in years he begins writing in English and he suddenly starts using British expressions. Where the heck did that come from? He wouldn't pick up British expressions by speaking French. There are several little things like that in the interview that looks very suspect.

[tedward]

re millard

I had to look it up. It is not a term I have ever heard before. Its usually a thousand million or just billion.

[Jason Thompson]

A milliard is a British term, now largely abandoned, meaning 1,000,000,000. It is from the long scale numerical convention, in which each increasing -illion is one million times greater than the preceeding. So 1 billion would be 1 million million, 1 trillion would be 1 million billion, and so on. It may sound odd to Americans, brought up on the short scale system, but there is a logic to it, namely the prefix represents the power to which 1 million is raised. 1 billion: bi- = 2, so 1 billion = 1,000,000^2. 1 trillion: tri- = 3, therefore 1 trillion = 1,000,000^3, and so on through quadrillion, quintillion, etc.

The -ard suffix was used to represent the number that is 1,000 times greater than the preceeding -illion. So 1 milliard = 1 thousand million, 1 billiard = 1 thousand billion and so on.

In the short scale system, -illions replace the -illiards, so 1 billion short scale = 1 milliard long scale = 1 thousand million. Obviously, since there is multiplication involved, the terms rapidly diverge. 1 quintillion is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 in long scale, but only 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 in short scale, a factor of 1 million million difference.

The short scale is now used universally, apart from some hangers-on here who stick to the long scale. In mass media and business use it is exclusively short scale numbers in use now.

Patrick Moore noted this confusion and generally steers away from using 'billion' in his books, preferring instead to use the unambiguous 'thousand million'.

[Data Cable]

sts60 said:

...one would have to ship the massive S-1C first stage through the Panama Canal

Not necessarily... it could have gone around the tip of South America... or between the various islands of northern Canada and through Bering Strait... or even the really long way 'round. (Hey, if we're gonna be ludicrous, why not go for broke? )

[echnaton]

As long as we are discussing counterfactuals here...

But there are so many other problems in hiding a Saturn Five launch from Vandenberg, why not just send it the shortest and safest way on a panamax ship. It would be the easiest. Just cover it with a tarp or something so ship spotters won't notice the cargo is a S-V booster. On the other hand maybe they just set up a tarp at Vandenberg and assembled the whole thing on the spot without anyone noticing.

[sts60]

Sure, in their inflatable Vehicle Assembly Building.