|
Post by PeterB on Mar 21, 2010 22:41:17 GMT -4
G'day Hagbard, and welcome to Apollohoax. However questions over the Apollo missions, and indeed much of the rest of the space programme, continue to circulate in my own mind. That's fine. Commendable even. The main test, though, is what you do with the answers we give you. In which case you have to explain how this other data was retrieved. Yes, well you have a problem here. The Moon rocks brought back by the Apollo astronauts contained features which are impossible to fake on the Earth. The data obtained from these rocks has revolutionised our understanding of the Moon, and formed the basis of a new theory for the Moon's origin. In which case you have to explain how the three tracking stations on Earth (in the USA, Australia and Spain) were able to keep in continuous contact with the spacecraft for 8 hours at a time. If you look at communications while the Apollo spacecraft were in Earth orbit, it was for a few minutes here and there - a very different regime. How do you recreate on Earth half an hour of continuous television footage of people in a low gravity environment walking hundreds of metres? Using a Vomit Comet aircraft we can fake the gravity, but not the duration or extent of the coverage. In a TV studio we could recreate the duration and possibly get away with the distances, but not the gravity. Only on the Moon could we manage all three. No. The Apollo rocks show too many differences from Earth rocks. No Earth rock shows signs of having formed in a waterless, low gravity vacuum, and there's no way to alter an Earth rock to show those signs. In which case you have to explain the photos of these rocks which include astronauts. If these photos were taken on the Earth, how were the rocks not contaminated by the process? Scientists did take note of contamination, and the only types they could find were either from the LM rocket exhaust or the rock boxes themselves. What aspects of the field does Clavius miss? Which movies do you think are the best at recreating a low gravity vacuum over extended distances for extended periods of time, without cuts? As carpediem said, I'm impressed that you consider it possible the Apollo moon footage was faked on the Moon. Do you have any evidence for the existence of this technology? I agree. I look forward to what propulsion technologies we may develop in the future. Oh. Any evidence for this?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Mar 21, 2010 23:42:40 GMT -4
The words are mine. I am Ben Emlyn-Jones AKA Hagbard Celine. OK. So what is it you want to talk about? I don’t see anything in your opening post that is a real conversation starter. There are a few questions in but they seem to be rhetorical. Is there something in particular you want us to comment on? And if we do comment, are you willing to openly discuss those issues?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 22, 2010 0:47:20 GMT -4
If Alius is the best the Hoaxsters have (and it probably it actually) they are in a very sorry way (they are).
By the way Hagbard, both Jay and SVector are well respected members here, though the former posts more frequently than the later.
|
|
|
Post by svector on Mar 22, 2010 2:28:51 GMT -4
I echo your thoughts about the style of presentation of SVector's films. I remember telling him at the time that he should have laid off the personal attacks and just dealt with the evidence The video he's referencing is Lunar Legacy. I think the strongest term I used in that production was "fanatical" when referring to Apollo conspiracy theorists. Do you disagree with my characterization of hoaxers as typically being fanatical in their beliefs? I believe the label accurately depicts the majority of Apollo conspiracy types, and does not rise to the level of a personal attack. They may not like the term, but it is accurate. .
|
|
|
Post by carpediem on Mar 22, 2010 5:10:36 GMT -4
Svector, I'm wondering who got your YouTube account suspended and are you coming back?
|
|
|
Post by svector on Mar 22, 2010 5:18:01 GMT -4
Svector, I'm wondering who got your YouTube account suspended and are you coming back? Ironically it had nothing to do with the moon hoax videos. I made an instructional video explaining a Criss Angel magic trick which had millions of views. Apparently his production company complained to YT that it violated fair use, and so their solution was to take everything down. I'm not bothered though. I don't really pay much attention to Youtube any more.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Mar 22, 2010 6:33:07 GMT -4
Svector, a lot of people are angry that your YT videos got taken down. If you're not interested in putting them back up yourself, would you be willing to give them to someone else to put back up?
|
|
|
Post by chew on Mar 22, 2010 7:39:57 GMT -4
If Alius is the best the Hoaxsters have (and it probably it actually) they are in a very sorry way (they are). D'oh! Ya beat me to it!
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Mar 22, 2010 8:07:38 GMT -4
The Apollo craft took off from the NASA Cape Canaveral space centre in Florida, but did not go to the moon and merely remained in low Earth orbit. Correction: Cape Kennedy during the Apollo missions. With the naked eye we can easily see satellites that are much smaller than Apollo CSMs and in much higher earth orbits, and they were seen as they orbited earth, but I have never heard of anyone seeing them when they were reported to be beyond earth orbit. Have you? How do you explain the photograph in National Geographic, May 1969, pages 610 and 611, taken by a tracking camera in Spain, of the Apollo 8 craft at a height of 26,000 miles and a 600-mile wide cloud created by dumped unused liquid oxygen? Twenty-six thousand miles is a long way beyond the low earth orbit you claim it stayed in. How about the photos of the Taruntius lunar craters on page page 616, obviously taken from low lunar orbit? How about the spectacularly fiery return to earth of the spacecraft which was described on page 624 by the skipper of Pan American Boeing 707 flight 812 above the Pacific Ocean on 27 December 1968? How about the photo of the service module burning up over the Pacific on page 625? Were National Geographic staff just a pack of mugs who knew nothing about space travel and had no means of checking information? PeterB has already touched on this in his post (No. 15, above), but are you aware that for all the Mercury and Gemini missions, and at least some (if not all) of the Apollo missions, there was only partial radio coverage of our planet for the spacecraft when they were in earth orbit? There were not enough satellites to provide full coverage, so there were radio blackouts while the spacecraft were out of contact over the larger oceans. You can no doubt check this out in the Apollo Flight Journals and in detailed descriptions of the orbiting Mercury and the Gemini flights. So how do you explain the prolonged contact with the spacecraft when they were stated to be on the way to or from the moon? Also, do you have any knowledge of how the spacecraft were tracked and the incredible accuracy of the methods used? They chiefly made use of doppler shift in the signals. Jodrell Bank in the UK could track spacecraft in orbit around the moon, accurately describing the orbits of Luna 15, as described in my local paper: [/b] NZPA-Reuter Moscow, July 20[/center] The Soviet Union announced tonight that its Luna-XV is in a new orbit bringing it within 10 miles of the moon's surface. The Soviet news agency, Tass, reported that the latest correction of the near-moon orbit was the second so far. Luna-XV was now swinging around the moon at minimum distance of 10 miles and a maximum of 68 miles, it said. The space station, launched eight days ago, is now orbiting the moon once every one hour and 54 minutes, Tass said. The announcement, as usual, was brief and vague about Soviet aims, saying only: "The automatic station Luna-XV continues scientific exploration in the near-moon outer space." All systems and scientific equipment were functioning normally. The change of orbit came only a few hours before the American Apollo-XI astronauts were due to touch down on the lunar surface. Russia has assured the United States that there is no risk of Luna-XV causing any interference to the Apollo mission. "Strange" Meanwhile space scientist Sir Bernard Lovell at Jodrell Bank, England, said it was strange that the Russians had carried out their latest manoeuvre only a short time before the Apollo landing. "We still do not know if it's going to land or is exploring near-moon space including a close reconnaissance of the United States' landing site." He said the orbital change brought it closer to that of the Apollo craft but the two spacecraft were widely separated in time in their orbits. Asked whether the Luna-XV posed any danger to Apollo, Sir Bernard said: "The chances of any interference are quite negligible." Professor John Davies, a member of the team, was asked by reporters if it would be possible for Luna-XV to fly in formation with Apollo-XI. He said the Russian vehicle would have to make more orbital corrections to do this. He said that Luna-XV could not be left on its new orbit all night because it would hit magnetic pockets around the moon. It would either have to land or pull out of orbit soon, he said.[/quote] How do you explain Jodrell Bank apparently not knowing, or not telling, that Apollo 11 never left earth orbit?
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Mar 22, 2010 9:06:02 GMT -4
So how do you explain the prolonged contact with the spacecraft when they were stated to be on the way to or from the moon? Not just prolonged contact, but prolonged video contact. Only a subset of Apollo ground stations were equipped to receive video, yet they each did so, sometimes for hours at a time. This would have been physically impossible were Apollo still in low earth orbit as each "pass" would have been no more than about 10 minutes long.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Mar 22, 2010 9:20:46 GMT -4
Also, do you have any knowledge of how the spacecraft were tracked and the incredible accuracy of the methods used? They chiefly made use of doppler shift in the signals. Doppler was the primary method. In its "2-way" or closed loop mode, it could measure relative velocity with extraordinary accuracy, literally down to millimeters per second. It was good enough to tell, with just a few minutes of tracking, whether a burn performed on the far side of the moon was satisfactory or if an emergency burn were needed to avoid crashing onto the moon. They could also directly measure distance with a method called "PN ranging". ("PN" means "pseudo-noise".) In this mode, the spacecraft is configured to "turn around" or retransmit a pseudo-random digital sequence sent up from the ground at a rate just under 1 megabit/sec. The sequence repeated in time, but not until the signal covered the round trip from ground to spacecraft and back again. By measuring the delay between the transmitted and received signals the distance to the spacecraft could be calculated very accurately. The technique is very similar to that currently used by GPS and by the CDMA digital cellular systems. In fact, these systems are arguably technological spinoffs from Apollo. Ranging did not have to be performed continuously. It could be turned on just long enough to get a measurement and then turned off, and then the continuous Doppler measurements could take over.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Mar 22, 2010 13:28:59 GMT -4
How do you explain the photograph in National Geographic, May 1969, pages 610 and 611, taken by a tracking camera in Spain, of the Apollo 8 craft at a height of 26,000 miles and a 600-mile wide cloud created by dumped unused liquid oxygen? Twenty-six thousand miles is a long way beyond the low earth orbit you claim it stayed in. Plenty more such evidence of long range observations by astronomers, amateur and professional, in this link: www.astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html
|
|
|
Post by HeadLikeARock (was postbaguk) on Mar 22, 2010 20:08:53 GMT -4
I echo your thoughts about the style of presentation of SVector's films. I remember telling him at the time that he should have laid off the personal attacks and just dealt with the evidence The video he's referencing is Lunar Legacy. I think the strongest term I used in that production was "fanatical" when referring to Apollo conspiracy theorists. Do you disagree with my characterization of hoaxers as typically being fanatical in their beliefs? I believe the label accurately depicts the majority of Apollo conspiracy types, and does not rise to the level of a personal attack. They may not like the term, but it is accurate. . Your video was out there in the public domain. I merely expressed my opinion at the time, as I have every right to do. You, of course, have every right to ignore my opinion, and equally have the right to present your videos in whatever style you chose.
|
|
|
Post by svector on Mar 22, 2010 20:17:50 GMT -4
Your video was out there in the public domain. I merely expressed my opinion at the time, as I have every right to do. You, of course, have every right to ignore my opinion, and equally have the right to present your videos in whatever style you chose. That goes without saying, and you didn't answer my question. .
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 22, 2010 20:42:39 GMT -4
In loving memory of Bill Kaysing and Ralph Rene, two men who weren’t afraid to turn the thoughts of many into words.Did you meet either of those two men? In my view Sibrel is nothing but a cheap opportunist and self-publicist; his attitude is judgmental and his methods are highly unprofessional.I have yet to find a hoax author who is non-judgmental, who knows about reliable investigative methods much less uses them, or who acts in a professional manner. Further I have seen their backstage posturing myself. These two websites are probably the best examples of each: Pro: www.aulis.com/exposing_apollo1.htm Anti: www.clavius.org/ .Thank you. I'm the author of the latter, and I used to correspond with the author of the former until he got tired of my showing his errors and thereafter essentially withdrew from public comment. Since my web site first appeared in 1999 I have endeavored to answer my critics with honesty and politeness. In contrast the Aulis team has gone into hiding. The producer is a YouTube member called “Svector”, whom some claim is really Jay Windley, webmaster of the Clavius site and contributor to the recent National Geographic Channel’s hoax debunking TV show...I'm not Svector. Svector also quotes the statement denouncing the Fox TV pro-hoax production made by Dr James van Allen, discoverer of the radiation belts that surround the Earth which bear his name. What Svector doesn’t refer to is an earlier statement made by van Allen in which he says words along the lines of: “There exists around the Earth a region of intense radioactive particles against which astronauts will need to be protected”.And they were protected. The problem is that hoax believers quote general statements made by Van Allen many years ago before much was known about cislunar radiation, and then apply their own spin and interpretation to them -- much of it without any technical understanding. They have to hype up the notion that Van Allen's earlier statements were "really" intended to preclude manned exploration. Van Allen's later statements trump the hoax believers' strained and ignorant interpretations of his former ones because they require no interpretation: Van Allen literally points his finger at the hoax believers and says, "You're wrong." They are specific comments made about specific ideas. I also wonder why the cameraman, who was presumably Buzz Aldrin because Mike Collins and Neil Armstrong are visible and recognizable in the frame, decided to film the Earth from the far side of the compartment.He didn't. Both Sibrel and Percy edit out the portion where the camera is being moved, which is clearly depicted and whose accompanying radio traffic describes in detail what is being done. Both these authors claim the camera was "really" across the capsule when evidence clearly exists that this was not so, and that evidence lies closely in proximity to material they do elect to use. Please explain why both these authors chose to edit the film in such a misleading fashion to amplify the effect of impropriety. If the viewer believes the camera really was in the window, then both the template and the transparency theory go completely out the window -- pun intended. And yes, there is also video showing a clearly distant object as the Earth. Sibrel and Percy both had this video too, but choose not to use it. Yes, you say it could be some sort of a model outside of a mockup CM, but neither of your authors proposes that theory. They offer only variations on the theory that something was attached to the window and then videoed from across the capsule. Then the present only evidence that is compatible with that theory, carefully omitting anything their theory can't explain. You seem eager to defend David Percy. I have to date participated in three independent television productions that discuss his claims and material. I am factually aware that David Percy was contacted by each of these producers to appear on the program and defend his findings against criticism. Percy declined all those offers, and to date will not engage any of his critics in interactive questions.
|
|