Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Historical context. These events are happening at the same time on July 16, 1969.
Werner Von Braun watches the A11 launch with a network TV broadcast.
Nixon is in the White House watching the 11 launch on TV with Frank Borman.

Thats some serious load of information you just provided SJ, great stuff!

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Look at the shades of Buzz.
Whats causing the reflection on his shades?
What lights were in the LM to produce it?

Wow, yet another smoking gun. Let's do some very simple research and see if we can figure this one out. The crew entered the LM from the CSM three times during the mission, but only twice in shirtsleeves (or "constant wear garments") :

So DJ, what exactly is causing the reflections on the shades?
Where is that light source coming from?
And, are you suggesting that the moon was so bright that it would light the inside of the cabin to the point o causing a noticeable shine on the head of Buzz?

Originally posted by syrinx high priest

Originally posted by FoosM

So are you saying you didnt watch JW's series on the subject, and his response to this video you posted?

I thought you'd never ask

have a listen to the apollo 11 landing for yourself !

nail in the coffin proof, case closed

edit on 2-10-2011 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)

I guess I have to repeat myself again, because you dont seem to understand what Im asking.
So are you saying you didnt watch JW's series on the subject, and his response to the video you posted?

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
hey hoaxers, anyone have any explanations for the selene pictures ? were they done in a hollywood basement too ?

Whats a hollywood basement?
And, regarding Selene, did it show the LM, the rover, and all the other stuff Apollo left behind supposedly on the moon? Im not sure why you are bringing it up. Or the relevance of Selene. Please explain.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

So let me get this straight.
The video images first went to a satellite before it went to a tracking station.
Is that what I just read there?

There you go again, using a single secondary source to make an historical argument. Do you think it might just be possible that a proofreader accidentally added the "and?" Maybe it originally said "satellite tracking stations."

Do you have information contrary to this?

Remember what I posted long before:

The network in its early years was not as robust as it is now. A failure of the Atlantic satellite in the spring of 1969

Why would that be an issue for Apollo 11?

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by FoosM

Why would that be an issue for Apollo 11?

Because the big antenna receiving the signals from the lander was in Australia, not Houston Texas, remember?

The network in its early years was not as robust as it is now. A failure of the Atlantic satellite in the spring of 1969[when?] threatened to stop the Apollo 11 mission; a replacement satellite went into a bad orbit and could not be recovered in time; NASA had to resort to using undersea cable telephone circuits to bring Apollo's communications to NASA during the mission.[2] Fortunately, during the Apollo 11 moonwalk, the moon was over the Pacific Ocean, and so other antennas were used, as well as INTELSAT III, which was in geostationary orbit of the Pacific.[3]

Your own source.

There, you answered your own question. The TV signal was received at earthstations all around the globe, then transmitted by satellite to JSC. The newspaper article was correct after all, if only partially informative.

reply to post by FoosM

Whats a hollywood basement?

It's more spacious than a "Hollywood Closet."

And, regarding Selene, did it show the LM, the rover, and all the other stuff Apollo left behind supposedly on the moon? Im not sure why you are bringing it up. Or the relevance of Selene. Please explain.

It verified the topography and independently recorded the landing halo:

reply to post by FoosM

I guess I have to repeat myself again, because you dont seem to understand what Im asking.
So are you saying you didnt watch JW's series on the subject, and his response to the video you posted?

Why don't you post a link to it instead of repeating yourself? Or does he not actually have one?

reply to post by FoosM

So DJ, what exactly is causing the reflections on the shades?
Where is that light source coming from?
And, are you suggesting that the moon was so bright that it would light the inside of the cabin to the point o causing a noticeable shine on the head of Buzz?

Gee, let's see:

As you can see, this took place on REV 4, that is on the fourth orbit of the Moon. So, I'm going to take a wild guess and say that the big bright shiny thing outside the window is the Moon! Sure is bright from up there... so bright they had to wear shades. I wonder why they couldn't see any stars?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yes, that's exactly what I said. Clearly, they were in broad daylight over the Moon. If you still don't understand why and how light reflects off of things, that's not my problem.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Historical context. These events are happening at the same time on July 16, 1969.
Werner Von Braun watches the A11 launch with a network TV broadcast.
Nixon is in the White House watching the 11 launch on TV with Frank Borman.

Another smoking gun: the man who designed the rocket was present at its launch, and the President of the United States interrupted his busy wiretapping schedule to watch his country's greatest achievement on TV. You win! I believe they really went to the Moon now! Oh wait; you were trying to prove the opposite, weren't you?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Up to this point NASA was making lots and lots of films. NASA surely knows how to make films in 1969. This is a fact. But why would Collins make an absurd request like this?

Did he have foreknowledge that the NASA intended to hide the telemetry tapes, the same telemetry tapes in the now-famous mixup between the NRC/National Record Center and Goddard? Accession #69A4099.

What does film have to do with anything? Perhaps Collins knew that NASA routinely tapes over used tapes. It is a silly request, since I'm pretty sure the networks were going to hang on to their own tapes in order to make documentaries later.

Please provide a list of post-NASA careers that you would not somehow find suspicious.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Getting closer to an A15 press conference...

Thank you for proving that you are actually trying to hunt these press conferences down for yourself. Have a star or two for your efforts!

By the way, you can download the enire "In The Mountains of the Moon" video here:

Part 1

Part 2

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Why would that be an issue for Apollo 11?

Because the big antenna receiving the signals from the lander was in Australia, not Houston Texas, remember?

I think you just contradicted yourself DJ.
If the signals were going directly to the Earthbound stations, then why was a non functioning satellite important enough to cancel a mission? Considering they had other options:

The NASCOM Communications Network was a very extensive, state of the art, communications network spanning the globe and linking all the tracking stations, the tracking ships, the ARIA aircraft, NASA centres to Goddard and then on to Houston. Satellite, undersea cable, leased telephone company broadband circuits and High Frequency radio circuits were all employed to connect the far flung MSFN facilties. In practice, the network performed amazingly well.

www.honeysucklecreek.net...

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Is that a conspiracy of silence?

So you admit the Aldrin didn't take any photos of Armstrong out of jealousy? That would only be possible if the mission weren't scripted; indeed, it would only be possible if the astronauts themselves were taking the photographs rather than a team of special effects people. After all, if it was done in a studio getting a good picture of the first American on the Moon, saluting the flag, would be their highest priority, wouldn't it? As for the "conspiracy of silence," you left out the most important point (and after the bit about the Gemini XI UFO, my favorite part of the interview):

But we were told, "Don't mention it." And nobody in the news media picked this up. I can't figure that out to save my life, why every picture you released was Buzz Aldrin, because Buzz was mad at Neil, didn't take his picture. Got hundreds of the other eleven guys walked on the Moon, none of number one. Even PAO [Public Affairs Office] for a while thought of, "Why don't we say this picture by the flag is Armstrong? How do you know? You can't see his face or anything."

I said, "Well, there's some nine-year-old kid out there who's a space groupie and he knows every aperture and wire and seam in a spacesuit. The day after you publish it, the New York Times is going to have a letter from a nine-year-old kid saying, 'No, you're wrong. That's Buzz Aldrin.'"

Your own source.

In other words, they would rather stay silent than lie. This doesn't sound like a hardened hoaxer to me. What's more, note how closely they were being scrutinized by the public. Yes, nine year olds were smart enough to spot something wrong if NASA tried to pull a fast one. You can imagine how detailed they would need to be to satisfy scientists and engineers. Only people who don't understand things like light and shadow seem to think there's "something wrong."

reply to post by FoosM

I think you just contradicted yourself DJ.
If the signals were going directly to the Earthbound stations, then why was a non functioning satellite important enough to cancel a mission? Considering they had other options:

Reading comprehension issues, I see. The signals from the spacecraft went directly to the earthstations; they were then transmitted to Mission Control by satellite or, if necessary, by cable, which had to be leased from one or more telephone companies. Remember, this was in the era before fiber optic cable. The old copper cables could degrade the signal. Naturally, they preferred to use their own satellites to relay the signals from the ground stations, so having a satellite malfunction would lead to a less than optimal network, perhaps justifying rescheduling (not cancelling) a mission. In the event, I believe cable was used for the Apollo 11 landing broadcast, which is, in part, why the recordings made on the Australian end are a bit better than the recordings made in the US.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

The reason why I was loaned to von Braun was I didn't have Q-clearance and he didn't need one. And did other things in Washington, and then got loaned back to what became NASA at that point on several projects,

Thank you for emphasizing that civilian space program did not require Q-clearance! In other words, it was never "Top Secret." They couldn't even get access to the really good "Top Secret" film the military were using! Why would they even want the "good stuff" if they were just shooting on a soundstage somewhere?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Connecting Richard Nixon, Ed Nixon, Farouk el Baz, Apollo photography, US Navy secret Kodak film stock, Dick Underwood, CIA, NASA and Von Braun.

Congratulations, you just proved that a group of career civil servants all worked for the government, and that some of them even knew each other because they all worked on the same projects. I still don't get your point about the film. Why would hoaxers want to get get the Navy's film if they weren't planning on using in space? You've read Underwood's interview, why are you quoting it so selectively?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

It's easy to get a top job with NASA when Richard Nixon's brother is doing the hiring at Bellcomm.

Historical point of interest: in March of 1967 Richard Nixon was not president. In fact, he was in what historians sometimes called his "wilderness years," when it seemed unlikely that he would ever have a future career in politics. I would have thought you knew that.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

I think you just contradicted yourself DJ.
If the signals were going directly to the Earthbound stations, then why was a non functioning satellite important enough to cancel a mission? Considering they had other options:

Reading comprehension issues, I see. The signals from the spacecraft went directly to the earthstations;

Oh, lets be clear, I know what NASA says how it works, I just dont believe them.
Remember, I dont think man landed on the moon.
What Im seeing is that without that satellite, NASA could not have pulled off the hoax the way they wanted to.
Thats why there were willing to cancel the launch.