It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

[New] Soviets Unable to Blow Whistle on Apollo Hoax?

page: 1
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 07:28 AM
link   
Many individuals who believe that Apollo did indeed go to the moon will often say the Soviets would have blown the whistle if the Apollo missions had been a hoax. But due to the Soviet's dependence on our telescopes to track their own lunar probes, this may not have been a wise thing for them to do as they would lose access to our technology; which they required for their own lunar missions. During that period of time, the Soviets could not even receive the television signals from Apollo, let alone track their own probes all the way to the moon unassisted.

The Soviets actually had to rely on our telescopes to track their own lunar probes right up until 1976. The telescopes that the communists were dependent on were the Lovell Telescope and the one at Jodrell Bank.


Have a look at this newspaper clipping and you'll see it implies about Soviet capabilities ("As usual...."):


(*Note: The first images to come from the lunar surface were sent from a Soviet lunar probe to an English telescope.
The Russians simply did not have the capability to receive them and as a result, the Communists were the last ones to see the pictures they took with their probe.
)


It was Australia and only Australia who were receiving television signals from the moon - The Soviets could not do that either...

(Note: the Honeysuckle facility in Australia that received the signals is owned by NASA...)

*Also, HAM Radio operators could not have tracked the Apollo missions. Neither could the Russians - this is because of the frequency that Apollo transmitted on:


-The Russians could not track Apollo or even their own probes without our help, and neither could the HAMS. Some individuals would have you believe that our HAMS did what the Soviet Union could not and tracked the Apollo missions.


Could Apollo have been hoaxed using simulation data? Yup

...And I am not the only one who thinks that this is a possibility:




Frank Byrne, former Head of the Radio Frequency and Telemetry Receiving Center at the Kennedy Space center says that the telemetry and TV data could have could have been simulated using prerecorded tapes from the Apollo Simulation Project (ASP).

It is likely that only a few people were be aware that the transmissions were false, the rest would be fooled by the sophisticated technology used to create the hoax - Such as that available to the Apollo Simulation Program:




ASP is an acronym for "Apollo Simulation Project", which was created in 1961 and operated by the DIA (Defense

Intelligence Agency) to "help" NASA with their technical problems by establishing a totally simulated moon mission.



ASP was a total secrecy project along the same lines as the Manhattan Project of World War II. The Manhattan Project ultimately employed some 300,000 people and hardly a word was leaked out.The ASP base was constructed on land controlled by the (then) Atomic Energy Commission and surrounded by other military bases. Scattered throughout these arid Moon-like properties near Mercury, Nevada are super-secret site after secret site. Top level management was provided by CIA spooks. Interface personnel were hired as needed and paid top dollar and then released as necessary (with the required "never tell" NASA warnings backed by the muscle of the CIA).
-pg 54, 61 Kaysing 'We Never Went to The Moon'



And then there is MASCONCULL:



"Also installed at the "Cuss" base was the true master control center of which the so-called Mission Control and the Spacecraft Center at Houston were merely satellites or slaves.

The master control of Cuss (MASCONCULL) collected all data, programmed it into a computer which then coordinated the
entire moon landing simulation. Since all releases were by well-edited tape, there was no chance of a blooper. Again, the total control of news by the American corporate state set an effective precedent for the totally controlled output of MASCONCULL. From prelaunch countdown to the final descent to the ocean, all sound and video transmissions
emanated from the flawless and mechanistic heart of a specially modified IBM 370-C computer.
"

-pg 63, Kaysing 'We Never Went to The Moon'



Any radio signals coming from the moon could have been as a result of a retransmitter relaying 'simulation' data from the Earth to the moon and back again; and it could only be received at NASA's own Honeysuckle station. How
convenient that no one else could receive these signals ...


The Reflector often touted as proof of the Apollo landing could have been placed via unmanned probe - the Russians placed theirs on the moon this way and deployed many other instruments using unmanned missions.


So there you have it. The Russians had every reason not to blow the whistle on Apollo - it would not have befitted them at all and besides; they had no way to prove we didn't go and they relied on our telescopes to track their missions and receive data.


It appears as if the actual relationship between the Soviets and the West was much different than that which was presented for the public's consumption.


*Here is are a couple of videos by the acclaimed Apollo researcher J. White which explain this strange relationship in greater detail along with providing information about how the telescopes were used and how certain aspects of the mission could have been hoaxed:













[edit on 30-7-2009 by Exuberant1]




posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Great. So you say that Soviet Union, that sent unmanned missions to moon and man to space, was so far behind USA technologically that could not notice US hoaxing moon landing.
But if US was so much technologically ahead of USSR ,there would be nor real need to hoax anyone, now would it? USSR after all did send man to space and sattelites/rovers to Moon so logically more technologicaly advanced side can do more. Catch 22?



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Good lord.

Man went to the moon, there was no hoax.

It is not a matter for debate on the intricacies of the arguments people have put forward. They clearly meant well when doing so but have given these morons who believe it didnt happen more credibility than their banal rhetoric warrants.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   
I'm a little confused at your premise.

1. You say that Russia also had a moon program and moon probes. So you concede the point that there was a space race and that the moon was a part of it, and that other countries were pursuing this technology to go to the moon.

2. You say that Russian had to use our, more advanced, satellites and telescopes to track their own probes, and you say that they were dependent on our technology to further their own exploration.

So the premise seems to be that we were winning the space race, the moon probes and subsequent landing were the goal, many countries were pursuing it, and the USA had the most advanced technology at the time.

BUT, you do a 180 and say it was all simulated???

If it was simulated, then we couldn't have shared our technology. We couldn't have assisted the Russians.

3. You say the Russians couldn't blow the whistle because they might lose our assistance, but if it was all simulated, then they didn't need our assistance. If it didn't happen, then we couldn't help them anyway?!?

Even if it were simulated, they could never have known or been able to blow the whistle if they didn't have equal or superior tracking capabilities. They would have never known either way??

Admittedly, I think the moon hoax is a silly subject anyway, but this piece, although thoroughly laid out, seems to contradict itself and provide no clear argument to support the hoax claim.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
You see, during that period, the Russians could not even receive the television signals from Apollo let alone track their own probes all the way to the moon.

As was previously stated; the Soviets had to rely on our telescopes to track their own lunar probes right up until 1976; the telescope that they were utterly dependent on were the Lovell Telescope and the one at Jodrell Bank.

If that were true, your newspaper article doesn't prove it. All it proves is that the public first got confirmation from Jordell Bank. It doesn't say anything about the Soviets receiving the signals detected by Jordell.


It was Australia and only Australia who were receiving television signals from the moon....The Soviets could not do that either...


First of all, television signals were not the only thing coming from the moon. Second of all, smaller radio telescopes could have detected the presence of signals, but not necessarily decoded them at the necessary speed, you need to study how radio astronomy works sometime. Thirdly, Honeysuckle and Parkes (the latter was not owned by NASA, thanks for deceptively omitting that critical bit of info...) were not the only radio telescopes in the world that could receive the Apollo television transmissions, but they were the only ones in the southern hemisphere capable of doing so, and would have line of sight to the moon during the first moon walk. Goldstone in California also received Apollo 11 TV signals for a few minutes when Armstrong was still on the ladder:
echoesofapollo.com...
history.nasa.gov...
Madrid's tracking station in Spain was also capable of receiving television signals, but Australia had the best line of sight to the moon for the moon walk.
None of this includes which Soviet facilities were capable because we weren't relying on the Soviets for help; that would have completely defeated the point of beating them to the moon. That said, they definately had their own deep space tracking network, they were not reliant on us:
adsabs.harvard.edu...


*Also, HAM Radio operators could not have tracked the Apollo missions. Neither could the Russians - this is because of the frequency that Apollo transmitted on:

Wrong, amateurs DID track the apollo flights by radio. Indeed, some of them went to great lengths to get microwave receiving capability. Here are some of the recordings one amateur made during Apollo 17 (I particularly like this guy's work because he came to my hometown in Florida to track the launch):
www.svengrahn.pp.se...
www.svengrahn.pp.se...


Some individuals would have you believe that our HAMS did what the Soviet Union could not and tracked the Apollo missions.


Are you calling average amateurs liars? They tracked it, whether or not you'll admit it.

[edit on 30-7-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   
hmmm interesting indeed !!!

Makes sense really with Australia bieng the home of the worlds largest tracing / communications facility at Pine Gap.....

I'm thinking there is more going on out at the place than what were bieng told about....

I also heard that this place is possibly home to one of the largest possible alien bases on Earth. Goes to figure they would have the capability to be able to track moon missions.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Autowrench:
Come on, Exuberant1, surely you are aware that America and Russia are in this together, and have been for a long time now? The Space Station is a joint effort. Russia is not going to hurt the American space program, and NASA has them by the **** when it comes to spacial images.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 

You got your Jodrell Bank/Luna 10 story wrong. Jodrell Bank may have been -- as the newspaper said -- the first people in the "western world" to learn about Luna 10, but that's not because the signal was specifically sent to that telescope, but because Jodrell Bank intercepted the signal. The Soviets also still received the signals on their dishes. They just didn't tell the rest of the world about it until a little bit later.

The use of the phrase "...as usual not from a Moscow spokesman..." was not supposed to mean that the Soviets could NOT receive the signals, but because they were very secretive and didn't announce their space missions until they were sure they were successful. Sir Bernard and his team at Jodrell Bank were basically "spying" on the Soviets, not working with them.

And I'm not sure what you are implying about the Australian dish, but it's not true that Australia was the only one capable of receiving the Apollo 11 signals -- the Australian dish was chosen as the prime receiving location by NASA for Apollo 11, but other dishes also received the signal. NASA had 3 separate dishes receiving the signal from Apollo 11. I don't have any reason to believe that the Soviets could not receive the Apollo signals also.

Do you have any evidence that they could not receive radio signals in the late 1960s?


[edit on 7/30/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   
What I've always wondered is why the soviets never followed-up on a moon landing themselves.

It would have been huge for them to be able to get to the moon even if it was after the U.S. landing. Their overall space program was not that far behind. Why couldn't they make it there (or at least try) in say 1-3 years later.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by mjgoogs
 


The N-1 rocket that would have been required for them to make their moon landing attempt simply didn't work. It failed every time they tried to launch it. Their mistake was in trying to take a cheaper shortcut by using a huge array of 30 small engines for the first stage instead of 5 large engines. The plumbing was too complicated and the vibrations from that many engines caused problems as well.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


Ahh, I see. So, they were probably to deep in their existing tech to be able to make make the kind of design change required.

I still would think that in the many years that followed, they would have made a moon landing a priority and do whatever it takes to land there.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

Are you calling average amateurs liars? They tracked it, whether or not you'll admit it.



So you would have us believe that the mighty American HAM could do what the Soviet Union could not...

Indeed.


The HAMS which you allege tracked Apollo 17; Sven Grahn, Dick Flagg, and Wes Greenman - they have already been debunked. The audio they eventually 'produced' is questionable at best and there is not much of it. They have yet to prove that they really tracked Apollo 17.

(I'm quite surprised that you used this Apollo 17 example. It must be a sign of your desperation that you have begun citing examples which are so insubstantial as this one has been proven to be...
)

*Even if you can convince yourself that Apollo 17 was tracked by HAMs; That still leaves Apollo 11 though 16 with no independent HAM corroboration whatsoever.


The only moon landing footage that the world saw came from NASA's own Australian facilities. Even the Soviets had to rely on the Aussies (and NASA) to see the telecasts of the moon landing.




[edit on 31-7-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
So you would have us believe that the mighty American HAM could do what the Soviet Union could not...

Indeed.


No, the soviet union COULD do exactly what they did. Did you not read the rest of my post where I debunked the notion that they were without their own deep space tracking network?


The HAMS which you allege tracked Apollo 17; Sven Grahn, Dick Flagg, and Wes Greenman - they have already been debunked. The audio they eventually 'produced' is questionable at best and there is not much of it.

So you ARE calling them liars. Average people with no connection to any conspiracy. Got it, I think that's all anyone needs to know about this nonsense.

They have yet to prove that they really tracked Apollo 17.

They already proved it, it's up to you to prove that they didn't track it.


(I'm quite surprised that you used this Apollo 17 example. It must be a sign of your desperation that you have begun citing examples which are so insubstantial as this one has been proven to be...
)

It's a sign of desperation on your part that you've resorted to slandering average non-NASA people.


*Even if you can convince yourself that Apollo 17 was tracked by HAMs; That still leaves Apollo 11 though 16 with no independent HAM corroboration whatsoever.

Apollo 17 couldn't have happened without the other missions, save for 13. They built upon each other's success. You can't just fly into taurus littrow without ever having practiced landing in safer locations.


The only moon landing footage that the world saw came from NASA's own Australian facilities.

Since I already debunked that falsehood above, you're now lying about it.

Even the Soviets had to rely on the Aussies (and NASA) to see the telecasts of the moon landing.

Also wrong. Thank you though, for accusing Sven of lying, now everyone can see you for who you really are. Here's an article describing the Soviet's use of the 32m Simferopol dish to track Apollo.
www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru...
Translated:


We "saw",
As Americans
Sat down on the Moon...
E.Molotov specially
For " News of astronautics "

Whether clause(article) of the participant of events of 30-years prescription of E.P.Molotova offered(suggested) to readers throws light on unknown pages of " lunar race " and finally closes a ridiculous question " there Were Americans on the Moon? "

Has passed more than 30 years since as the most expensive race between Soviet Union and the United States of America for superiority(championship) in landing the person to the Moon has been developed(unwrapped). Who has won this race of prestige - it is known. Many events have taken place for this time...

Process of competition was repeatedly described both American, and the Russian party(side). It is represented to us interesting to tell about one of it(him) of earlier not shined(covered) episodes.

Programs of preparation of landing of the person on the Moon in the USSR (flight УР-500 - Л-1, landing(planting) Н-1 - Л-3) and in the USA ("Apollo") were conducted in parallel, and superiority(championship) had powerful political value. The Soviet management(manual) paid the big attention to a state of affairs with realization of the lunar program both in Soviet Union, and in America. For the objective control over performance of the American program the secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU D.F.Ustinov supervising the defensive industry of the country, at the end of 1967 has entrusted main designer РНИИ КП (at that time SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE - 885) M.S.Rjazanskomu to develop a special control radio engineering complex with which help it would be possible to accept signals from the American spacecrafts of the program "Apollo", making flight of the Moon and landing(planting) to its(her) surface.

M.S.Rjazansky at that time was responsible for creation of onboard and ground radio engineering control facilities by spacecrafts of the Soviet lunar program. Under his(its) management(manual) for management Soviet пилотируемыми and automatic spacecrafts for research of the Moon the Ground complex of management including two control centres by flight, six ground and three ship items(points) of the management, equipped with corresponding stations of tracking and located on territory of Soviet Union and in the certain points of World ocean has been created. However these means could not be used for reception of the information from the ships "Apollo" as they worked in the other frequency range with the signals having other structure. Therefore it was necessary to create the special control complex, capable to provide reception of the data from "Apollos". It was supposed to accept from the American spacecrafts not only telephone (voice) and telemetering, but also the television information.

Has been solved to include in a control complex aerial TNA-400 with diameter of a mirror 32 m which was placed in Crimea, near to Simferopol (fig. 1). She(it) was used as the reception aerial of a radio engineering complex "Saturn - МС" providing management by the Soviet automatic space vehicles for research of the Moon later: "Moon rovers", devices for delivery of a lunar ground to the Earth, and also lunar satellites.

For work in structure of a control complex aerial TNA-400 has been equipped малошумящим with the reception device working in a range of 13 sm (range S in which transmitters of lunar modules of the program "Apollo" worked). Besides in structure of a complex have come: the demodulator of a group signal transmitted on bearing(carrying) frequency and the signals transmitted on поднесущих frequencies, the equipment of allocation of the voice, telemetering and television information, and also the equipment of display and management of a complex (fig. 2).

The control complex created in short terms РНИИ КП in cooperation with the several industrial enterprises, was ready to reception of signals from spacecrafts of the program "Apollo" in November, 1968.

To trace the ships at their flight on orbits around of the Moon and at landing(planting) to its(her) surface, it was necessary to have the ballistic data of these orbits for calculation целеуказаний to the aerial. However such data were not published by Americans. Therefore the data on orbits of flight were calculated by ballistics on the basis of time of start and arrival to the Moon of the ships "Apollo" which informed by the American radio. On these data paid off целеуказания for prompting the aerial which were specified on signals accepted by a control complex from the lunar ships.

Such approach to calculation целеуказаний has allowed to accept reliably enough signals from "Apollos". The problem(task) of search of signals was facilitated by that the diagram of an orientation of the aerial covered practically half of disk of the Moon.

Tracking was conducted behind spacecrafts of expeditions(dispatches) "Apollo - 8", "Apollo - 10", "Apollo - 11" and "Apollo - 12" from December, 1968 till November, 1969.
From all these ships telephone conversations of astronauts with the Earth and the telemetering information on a condition of onboard systems were accepted with high quality. The accepted television signal had poor quality because of an insufficient level of an energy potential of a radioline on the basis of the 32-meter aerial.

It is necessary to note, that the American network of tracking and management provided practically round-the-clock communication(connection) with spacecrafts "Apollo" while the Soviet control complex could accept signals only in that part of the visibility range which on time coincided with a visibility range of the Madrid station of tracking.

Lunar expedition(dispatch) under F.Bormana's management(manual) on a spacecraft "Apollo - 8" in December, 1968 has carried out the first пилотируемый flight to the Moon, has made 10 coils around of it(her) and, having come back to the Earth with the second space speed, has made soft landing(planting) at ocean.

This flight has formed the basis for a stop of works on the first stage of Soviet program Л-1 though all technics(technical equipment) and crews to пилотируемому to flight of the Moon by then were ready.

Flight of crew "Apollo - 11" with an output(exit) on a surface of the Moon on July, 20, 1969. N.Armstronga and E.Oldrina has finally stopped competition on landing the person to the Moon.

On fig. 3 photos of spectra of the signals accepted by control station from spacecrafts "Apollo", made with the screen of the videocontrol device are submitted.

On fig. 4 the image of rising of the Earth above the lunar horizon, accepted on a telechannel from one of the ships "Apollo" is shown.

As is known, after that Soviet Union has directed the efforts to research of the Moon by automatic space vehicles therefore impressing results have been received.

In summary we shall note, that data on creation and functioning of the Soviet special control radio engineering complex were not published earlier.


[edit on 31-7-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   
How could Russia land on the Moon without communications.
Only the pictures needed help and most likely got paid plenty for them.
Cha ching for Russia.

Typical for Illuminati run America to horn in on moon photo business
with fakery.

Kick out the fakers.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Just a question for you E1...

Why do you want so much for man to have not gone to the Moon? You seem to be so motivated to try and prove this. For arguments sake, if it turned out to be true that we didn't go, how would this make you feel?

Happy? Vindicated?

IRM



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   
The USSR had a vastly more most advanced orbital tracking network than the US had in the 1960 and 1970s. While it wasn't adequate for tracking things out of orbit (e.g. on their way to the moon), it certainly would have been able to tell when things in orbit left orbit.

And that's exactly what they saw during each Apollo mission. Launch, orbital track, out of orbit (en route to the moon) back in orbit (back form the moon), lost tracking due to reentry.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   
I find it quite convenient that the HAMS which allegedly tracked the Apollo 17 mission only chose to do so after it became clear that Apollo 17 would be the last of the program...

...Convenient for the HAMS; especially if they wanted to claim having tracked an Apollo flight without fear of ever having to replicate their efforts under future scrutiny - this final Apollo mission would provide the perfect circumstances under which such an inscrutable claim could me made.

This appears to be the case with the HAMS who made the inscrutable claim of having tracked the Apollo 17 mission (Conveniently, these HAMS say they tracked no other missions; just the last Mission)


*In fact, no other HAMS but the ones who said they tracked Apollo 17 have been willing to claim that they had tracked any of the other Apollo missions to the moon. And anyone who did make such a claim would be expected to repeat their tracking technique on later Apollo missions. Only for the last mission, could the claim be made without the claimant having to replicate their efforts. The conditions would simply not be present again.

Sadly, it appears that some were all too ready to take advantage of this unique situation and make the claim that they tracked the Apollo 17 mission and since it was the last Moonshot; the claimants knew they would never have to replicate their efforts, nor would anyone else be able to disprove their methods....

How convenient.



*And remember: Even if one can accept that Apollo 17 really was tracked by HAMs; That still leaves Apollo 11 though 16 with no independent HAM corroboration whatsoever.






[edit on 1-8-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
I find it quite convenient that the HAMS which allegedly tracked the Apollo 17 mission only chose to do so after it became clear that Apollo 17 would be the last of the program...

Please, keep it up. The more you claim that the HAM operators are lying, the more ridiculous you make your whole theory look. It saddens me that some people will refuse to accept ANY evidence of Apollo, even when it comes from independent people, but at least it exposes how wrong the theory is.


*And remember: Even if one can accept that Apollo 17 really was tracked by HAMs; That still leaves Apollo 11 though 16 with no independent HAM corroboration whatsoever.

Again, if Apollo 17 was real, they were all real. You can't just land in Taurus littrow valley without having tested the LM in earth orbit, then in lunar orbit, then finally doing a series of landings with increasing precision to make sure you don't slam into one of the mountains that surrounded the site.

I notice how you specify "HAM corroboration" as if you are intentionally ignoring amateur photographic tracking of Apollo. Hardly surprising, but it happened.
www.astr.ua.edu...
www.astr.ua.edu...

Come back when you can prove that's not Ron Evan's voice in the radio recording.



[edit on 1-8-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by Exuberant1
So you would have us believe that the mighty American HAM could do what the Soviet Union could not...

Indeed.


No, the soviet union COULD do exactly what they did.

Pure speculation not supported by facts, ironically the conspiracy type.


Originally posted by Exuberant1
Even the Soviets had to rely on the Aussies (and NASA) to see the telecasts of the moon landing.

Correct. Apollo 11 'moonwalk' show have been retransmitted to Ostankino TV studio for the privileged few [A. Leonov].


Originally posted by ngchunter
now everyone can see you for who you really are. Here's an article describing the Soviet's use of the 32m Simferopol dish to track Apollo.
www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru...
Translated:


We "saw",
As Americans
Sat down on the Moon...
E.Molotov specially
For " News of astronautics "

Whether clause(article) of the participant of events of 30-years prescription of E.P.Molotova offered(suggested) to readers throws light on unknown pages of " lunar race " and finally closes a ridiculous question " there Were Americans on the Moon? "

Debunked: manonmoon.ru...

E. Molotov exposed himself as a con and lier:



and other routinely repeated 'Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings' quickly lead to the jokers like:

www.astr.ua.edu...


[edit on 12.8.2010 by bokonon2010]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by bokonon2010
Pure speculation not supported by facts, ironically the conspiracy type.

Oh really? Prove it then. Prove that the soviet union could not monitor the Apollo missions and that HAMs couldn't either. You're implying that a number of people are lying here, it's time for you to prove that they are.


Debunked: manonmoon.ru...

I could get my wife to translate all that garbage, but I'm not going to waste her time. I tried google translate but it does such a poor job that it's unintelligble. From what I can tell, he seems to be fixated on the idea that the russians didn't track apollo's trans-lunar portions of flight, nor did they watch the TLI burn, but these are all things confirmed by amateurs you dismiss below without any valid evidence or proof to support such a dismissal.


E. Molotov exposed himself as a con and lier:

Can't view youtube videos at the moment, care to make the argument yourself?


and other routinely repeated 'Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings' quickly lead to the jokers like:

Excuse me? So amateurs who tracked it are "jokers?" Wow, that's an extraordinary claim. Prove it. Specifically, prove that Paul Maley is a liar:
www.eclipsetours.com...
Prove that Maurice Gavin is a liar:
home.freeuk.com...
And for that matter, prove that every other observation of Apollo 12 mentioned in that article is a lie.
Prove that Larry Baysinger is a liar:
legacy.jefferson.kctcs.edu...
These are not jokers, these are amateurs who independently verified the Apollo missions. For you to take it so lightly, apparently because the author of a website gathering these observations posted a picture of himself wearing a tux with his cat (a giant non-sequitur as a reason for dismissal), speaks of a dismissive bias that no level of evidence could ever overcome. I'm sure you'd be similarly dismissive of any evidence from amateurs of ANY probe or mission ever launched beyond low earth orbit, nevermind evidence generated by the space agencies themselves, so surely you must rule those out as unproven as well, right? I mean, anything else and you're being intellectually inconsistent and dishonest.

[edit on 12-8-2010 by ngchunter]



new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join