1969 First Moon Landing - FAKE

originally posted by: CaptainBeno
OK, First of all, I just want to point out this isn't a wind up post. It's just that something has been bugging me for a long time and I need to hear from those who know better?

So, the lander is making its way down to the surface of the moon. We have a live broadcast with live conversation.
Neil Armstrong steps on to the moon - we have a live broadcast with live conversation.

49 years ago.

Today we go to Mars and we don't get live landing broadcast, we only get delayed telemetry data?

Even my Mobile phone (modern tech working from satellites) still does not work in some areas?

WTF?

So, c'mon science types, please tell me how this was possible in 69? They had no super powered satellite broadcast on the lander or on the moon?

Basically, lots of chunky equipment, antennas, and a strong power source. Besides, the first Apollo landing was a huge PR op, they HAD to have a live TV broadcast.

space.stackexchange.com...

To ensure a direct transmission signal from the moon, NASA had to maintain stations in three continents – two in Australia (the Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station near Canberra and the Parkes Radio Observatory surrounded by sheep paddocks west of Sydney); one at the Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex in the Mojave Desert of California; and one at the Madrid Manned Flight Tracking Site in Spain........ the tracking stations with a direct line on the Apollo 's signal were the ones in Australia. The 200-foot-diameter radio dish at the Parkes facility managed to withstand freak 70 mph gusts of wind and successfully captured the footage, which was converted and relayed to Houston.

With missions to Mars, size and weight of the equipment is a lot more precious; every little piece has to be justified and serve a purpose (which, in terms of Mars missions, is more strictly scientific).

And as people already mentioned, Mars is very far away, making a direct broadcast more difficult.

It was only possible in 1969 because the general public did not have enough education on the subject of the technical issues with going to the moon and broadcasting from the moon.
So, since the general public and the majority of the world was in effect "ignorant", then this became possible.
It's a quantum physics type of thinking.

The more we know, the more difficult things become.

In the olden times, people could climb to the top of mountains and jump up and float into space.
Once we invented gravity, this became impossible because people were indoctrinated into the world of gravity and the part of their brain that allowed them to float into the sky was erased.

a reply to: EmmanuelGoldstein

lol, anyway increased technology complexity and health and safety made things much much much more difficult.

a reply to: Phage

Isn't mars 12 light minutes away?

The sun is 8.

I don't want to go with you to mars, unless it is at night.

God here we go again, yet another gish gallop of argument from ignorance.

Apollo was one of the most publicly visible and widely documented engineering and science projects undertaken. There isn't a spanner or screwdriver that doesn't have a technical paper about it somewhere. Not a single shred of credible evidence exists that accounts for a hoax in a coherent and sensible fashion - every single claim that puts forward is either based on ignorance, stupidity or both, and one claim often contradicts others.

The Apollo missions could not have been done in a studio - there is no studio big enough and there certainly isn't one big enough that could recreate a vacuum and 1/6 gravity. Photographs taken on the surface show surface details that were not known about prior to the missions but that have been confirmed by subsequent probes from many countries, not just the USA.

Probes from India, China and Japan all show evidence of human activity in exactly the same places as Apollo landed, and the 3D topographic data they collect allow you to recreate views taken by Apollo exactly.

Every image of Earth taken by Apollo, including those broadcast on live TV, contains a unique time and date signature of weather information that is confirmed by as many as 3 different satellites.

There was no instant communication with astronauts on the moon, no matter what is claimed by people, and radio ham enthusiasts were given details on how to intercept the transmissions from the lunar surface.

The list goes on and on. The hoax claim is a dead duck. It's false. A lie.

onebigmonkey.com...

Another observation about the lack of a live broadcast from Mars there is an issue that come to mind immediately: mass.

Any space mission is a trade off between what mission planners want and the fuel required to achieve that. There's also a consideration of balancing the science needs of the mission and providing pretty pictures. Science always wins there. Live high quality cameras are a waste of mass and bandwidth as far as deep space is concerned. The extra fuel and technology required to achieve it is not worth the cost financially or in fuel terms and there's only so much equipment you cna pack into a small payload.

TV was practical for Apollo because it achieved the need to show off the achievement (some of the astronauts were not even keen on that) and to help the ground see what was going on. A delay of a a couple of seconds in transmission is negligible compared with that from Mars.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
God here we go again, yet another gish gallop of argument from ignorance.

WHAT DID I DO NOW???

a reply to: EmmanuelGoldstein

In the olden times, people could climb to the top of mountains and jump up and float into space. Once we invented gravity, this became impossible because people were indoctrinated into the world of gravity and the part of their brain that allowed them to float into the sky was erased.

Are you sure about that?

a reply to: EmmanuelGoldstein

It was only possible in 1969 because the general public did not have enough education on the subject of the technical issues with going to the moon and broadcasting from the moon.

That is just rubbish. I watched it live on TV and every single aspect of the Moon landing was gone into in great detail, including how it was broadcast from the Moon. How patronising of you.

I take it that you were not around at the time? It was a huge thing then.

The general thing with people who call fake on these things seems to be "I don't understand how they could have done that so must be fake".

Very sad, really.

a reply to: CaptainBeno

Ummm the speed of light hasn't changed with technology since the60s. You're asking the wrong questions.

Jaden

originally posted by: CaptainBeno


So, the lander is making its way down to the surface of the moon. We have a live broadcast with live conversation.
Neil Armstrong steps on to the moon - we have a live broadcast with live conversation.

If you were listening to me on Earth having a conversation with a person on the Moon, you would hear me respond to the Moon person's words immediately after we hear that Moon person. Why would I delay?

The delay would come when I was waiting for them to respond to me, but we hear that delay in the NASA Apollo recordings.

So, c'mon science types, please tell me how this was possible in 69? They had no super powered satellite broadcast on the lander or on the moon?

They had broadcast equipment with them on the LM. I'm not sure why you think the LM's broadcast equipment would necessarily be inferior to the equipment on a satellite in Lunar orbit.

Seriously -- you seem OK with the idea that the equipment on satellite orbiting the Moon could have sent signals, but not OK with the idea that similar equipment on the LM could do it.


As for the Van Allen Belt comment made by the YouTuber, is he saying that all the data we ever got from space probes is all fake, because the data would not be able to make it through the Van Allan belts because (his words) the Van Allen Belts "would destroy any sort of signal"?

So if you want to believe what these youtubers are pushing, then I suppose you don't believe in any of the data we ever received from out deep space probes (The Voyager Probes; the Russians' Moon, Venus,and Mars probes; ESA's Mars Express, Venus Express, nad ExoMars; the Chinese Lunar probes; the Lunar probes from India and Japan, and all the rest.

originally posted by: gallop
a reply to: Phage

Isn't mars 12 light minutes away?

The sun is 8.

The light time/radio signal-time between Mars and Earth varies between 4 minutes and 24 minutes. 12 might be an average, but the actual light time will vary depending on the varying relative position the planets are to each other.

If anyone wants to see how public the information about Apollo's communication and TV broadcasts were, they can read these:

www.vofoundation.org...

www.vofoundation.org...

www.scribd.com...

www.scribd.com...

All from magazines available to the general public.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

do these youtube idiots ever give a coherent explaination of :

where does all the data from the alledged " fake space programs " come from ??

its all very well screaming thier delusion that the VAB " blocks " signals

but the conspiracy needed to even generate just the data - revieved from all the space programs - would be obsenely massive - never mind ensuring that it all concurs [ where required ]

and whats the point ????????????????????

radio astronomy pre-dates NASA - so they cannot use the NASA excuse

fun question for anyone believing this crap :

explain the sucess of " project diana " 1946

I used to lean toward the side that the landings were not as depicted but due to some recent research, to the great work done by OneBigMonkeyToo, I now agree that it did happen more-or-less as shown.

The thing to realize is that the method of using little nit-picky 'oddities' is not really a robust or reliable method of deconstructing something.

Basically, many real events have some nitpicky odd details. You could make a video of your girlfriend leaving the house and going to the parking lot and getting in the car and driving off and a group of people could hyper-scrutinize the video and "Prove" she 1) didn't leave the house, because of shadow disparity, 2) isn't your girlfriend by reading micro-expressions on her face when she talks about you, or 3) the whole video was created in a lab due to Frame-distortions.

BUT none the less she is your girl-friend, did leave the house and the video was recorded by your cell phone.

The Proof is basically pseudo-scientific analysis (it has to be given that in the hypothetical she did what you saw).

Now, I'm not saying there is no conspiracy ever on anything, just that this piece-by-piece micro-analysis method is fraught with problems and can lead to erroneous conclusions. DON'T TRUST YOURSELF TO USE THIS METHOD.

When you look at the heavy lifter blast off and think about the awesomeness of that activity it puts 1969+ space missions in context.

Hope this helps and thanks to the Big Monkey guy for all his great work

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
The old boys in Conneticutt said they made the space suits with no radiation protection.....so yea

And if you look up how the space men died.
you will find one OLD one who die from cancer.
So no radiation in space or no men in space?

originally posted by: Maverick7
I used to lean toward the side that the landings were not as depicted but due to some recent research, to the great work done by OneBigMonkeyToo, I now agree that it did happen more-or-less as shown.

The thing to realize is that the method of using little nit-picky 'oddities' is not really a robust or reliable method of deconstructing something.

Basically, many real events have some nitpicky odd details. You could make a video of your girlfriend leaving the house and going to the parking lot and getting in the car and driving off and a group of people could hyper-scrutinize the video and "Prove" she 1) didn't leave the house, because of shadow disparity, 2) isn't your girlfriend by reading micro-expressions on her face when she talks about you, or 3) the whole video was created in a lab due to Frame-distortions.

BUT none the less she is your girl-friend, did leave the house and the video was recorded by your cell phone.

The Proof is basically pseudo-scientific analysis (it has to be given that in the hypothetical she did what you saw).

Now, I'm not saying there is no conspiracy ever on anything, just that this piece-by-piece micro-analysis method is fraught with problems and can lead to erroneous conclusions. DON'T TRUST YOURSELF TO USE THIS METHOD.

When you look at the heavy lifter blast off and think about the awesomeness of that activity it puts 1969+ space missions in context.

Hope this helps and thanks to the Big Monkey guy for all his great work

You seem to think there's got to be images or footage of people on lunar 'stage sets' or something, in order to prove it was a hoax!!

Details give it away, most often, simply because any obvious flaw would be noticed, and removed before it came out in public.


Look at Kubrick's movie, "2001" - it was almost flawless, as well, but it had glitches that gave it away, too. They were also very minute flaws. No matter how small a glitch, it is still a glitch.


The 'small nitpicking' excuse doesn't wash.

a reply to: buddha

You should do some actual research. Multiple astronauts had health issues related to radiation exposure and several have died of cancers. Far more than just "one OLD man".

In the "2001" movie, one glitch was only in a couple of frames, where a wire was shown attached to an object, iirc, a glass.

That's all one needs to prove it was not 'floating' in space, albeit we knew it was a movie, anyway. So it was not relevant to point out.

But in Apollo's case, one such glitch is all you need to show they hoaxed it.

Apollo had many, many glitches.

a reply to: turbonium1

My Fren, it's not an excuse, it's a realization. You may wish to use this 'piecemeal hyper analysis' but after seeing 'real' evidentiary research I'm just not trusting this method. It hit me like a bolt out of the blue that it was just shoddy amateur 'analysis' almost begging the question.

I'm not trying to convince you to give up this micro-analysis method but trust me, it's bogus. And, in fact both "sides" use it and both are equally haphazard uses of it.

Go to the OBMT's side and look over his research. When I saw that, it turned it around for me. YMMV. HTH

"One glitch is all that is needed to prove..."

That's just it. I'm saying that it is not a trustworthy method. It's prone to things like pareidolia, and misinterpretation of data and viewer bias.

Please don't look at my comments as though I've been 'turned' by the 'hoaxers' I'm trying to explain it for your benefit and I'm not asking you to change your beliefs. At most I suggest you look at OBMT's website.