Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by zvezdar

So go on, explain the mechanics of hoaxing the broadcast, given that the signal was clearly received from the moon.

You'll never get an answer. But I would say that, as asked earlier in the thread, this is the best evidence that we actually went. There would be no way to fake the telemetry transmissions without the astronauts actually being on the spacecraft.

The answer is so obvious, I am amazed no one has yet supplied it. An unmanned craft with pre-recorded broadcasts. But since NASA controlled the feed, and broadcast to the general public, even that wasn't necessary.

Pretty simple stuff. I'm sure even the most loyal Apollogist should be able to GET IT...

Originally posted by Un4g1v3n1


The answer is so obvious, I am amazed no one has yet supplied it. An unmanned craft with pre-recorded broadcasts. But since NASA controlled the feed, and broadcast to the general public, even that wasn't necessary.

Pretty simple stuff. I'm sure even the most loyal Apollogist should be able to GET IT...

This is the suggestion i already provided in my post. So if they went to the trouble of landing the LM on the moon to fake the broadcast, why wouldnt they have stuck a couple of humans in it and landed for real?

NASA did not control the feed, as i already stated it was received by parties that were not NASA controlled or operated. The pictures broadcast in Australia did not go to NASA prior to broadcast.

Got anything else?

Originally posted by Un4g1v3n1


Watch Jarrah Whites Moonfaker: Flagging the Dead Horses for a complete debunk of your tracking excuses. Dead horses mate!

Why dont you present it here, with supporting evidence? I'm happy to do the same, in fact i've already presented a fair bit on how the mission was tracked and the broadcasts received.

Originally posted by Un4g1v3n1
The answer is so obvious, I am amazed no one has yet supplied it. An unmanned craft with pre-recorded broadcasts.

Yeah, thats never been suggested before... (note: heavy sarcasm)

There's one problem with that. If the audio is pre-recorded, than how were the astronauts able to talk about current events of that time like, on going scores in sports games and other news? The conversations were clearly interactive between MCC and the astronauts.

The pre-recorded audio idea just doesn't work.

And like zvezdar mentioned. If you can send an unmanned craft to the Moon, what would stop them from sending a manned one?

yea.. and plz post your sources AS AWELL ..if it's a copy and paste.. well SOURCE it! If it's coming from your mind.. SOURCE where you got the info.. other wise..

yea..other wise.. your just spew'n garbarge ..

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by nonamoose7
Apparently (i really don't know) the concentration of water molecules gets much more concentrated as you go out to poles, with there being millions of tons suspected at those poles (again i don't really know), which seems logical.

So again 3rd time, why didn't NASA with 6 landings and other missions not find the evidence of water ? and why wasn't it a priority over doing things like driving a buggy and playing golf ?


ps, please don't answer me with just a question, i could talk to my wife if i wanted that

Fair enough! And I guess this isn't something that easily pops up via Googling. You have to look a little deeper.

Here's the main reasons:

- It is mainly 'bonded' H2O, trapped in rocks/regolith either physically or chemically. The amounts, especially in non-polar regions are in fact VERY small per unit volume. It's only when you add it all up that it sounds impressive.

- Apollo was not geared up for properly 'vacuum sealing' and securing their specimens. To do so would have involved many technical difficulties and extra weight (ask any microbiologist about preventing contamination...). So it was always going to be very difficult to prove that any water in the returned samples was not 'contamination'. Finding water was not a serious mission objective, and would have only happened if there were large undeniable amounts returned..

- The water is mostly toward the poles, and Apollo missions landed more 'equatorially', for orbital mechanics reasons..

And yes, there were a few 'stunts', but NASA wasn't stupid (they did/do have PR experts, although sometimes it seems they are asleep). They could see that interest was waning after the first triumph, so they allowed the astronauts a little free rein to make things more interesting. And most of the stunts had some significant scientific content.

Originally posted by Komodo
yea.. and plz post your sources AS AWELL ..if it's a copy and paste.. well SOURCE it! If it's coming from your mind.. SOURCE where you got the info.. other wise..

yea..other wise.. your just spew'n garbarge ..

Komodo, TO PROVE YOU ARE SERIOUSLY INTERESTED, please tell me which one you would particularly like cites for. Explain why you disagree first, or..
YOU'RE JUST SPEWING GARBAGE.

Be ready for a full debate on the topic, so come with more than half your weapons for the next battle of wits..

Claim #6. The sixth significant claim in the Moonfaker series (IMO) regards Apollo 13 climate control system. Moonfaker Exhibit C Part 2 (starting at 3:27) is as follows:


The claim refers to an accident that happened on the Apollo 13 mission. At the time of the accident the spacecraft consisted of two stages joined together. Aquarius was the name of the Lunar Module (LM aka LEM) while Odyssey was the name of the Command Module (CM). The LM was a much darker object while the CM was a very shiny one, suggesting that in the sun the CM should be expected heat up at a much slower rate than the LM while in the sun if they are both receiving sunlight. Of course the crafts can be positioned so that one is in the shadow of the other which could change which craft is heated more. (see craft geometry at www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov...)

See illustrations of the craft at this point at: www.pbase.com... (model version)
Similar LMs to the Apollo 13 LM (ones that were never used) can be seen in museums such as pictured: www.theconquestofspace.com... or www.theconquestofspace.com...

The Apollo 13 accident described by NASA from www.hq.nasa.gov...:

Oxygen tank No. 2 blew up, causing No. 1 tank also to fail. We came to the slow conclusion that our normal supply of electricity, light, and water was lost, and we were about 200,000 miles from Earth. We did not even have power to gimbal the engine so we could begin an immediate return to Earth.

The Moonfaker video cites "Apollo, The Race to the Moon", by Murray & Cox, as saying:

The LEM [Lunar Landing Module] was powered down to approximately 600 watts per hour, and the astronauts, wearing thin clothing designed for 70 degrees, began to get cold as the temperature dropped below 60 degrees and kept going down.

The LEM could not stand a power drain of magnitude required by air conditioning or electric heaters."

The Moonfaker video states that the Apollo 13 craft was in the sun at the time of the explosion. They state that the temperature inside the craft must therefore dramatically increase with the climate control system broken. NASA makes it clear the cabin was reported to become cold. This difference between what must have happened and what claimed to happen are explained by Moonfaker by claiming that most of moon mission was a hoax.

The first question is, even if the spacecraft were in the sun would it have actually gotten dramatically hotter? There are two reasons to believe it would.
1. Moonfaker Exhibit C Part 3 cites an Astronauts Gone Wild (2004) interview, which asked astronaut Alan Bean this interview question:

Interviwer: If the LEM didn't have climate control, would it (and [assuming] it had air in it), would it be hot or cold without the climate control?
Alan Bean: If you just took a lunar module and... well lets take the climate control and it fails, alright. What happens then [if] you got air sitting there and its 70 degrees? If the lunar module is setting in the sun, which it always is, then slowly but surely that temperature inside is going to go up to 250F. Now you ain't gonna make it, because you're gonna cook long before that.

2. science.ksc.nasa.gov... says the following:

Data from Apollo 11 (which had not sent its LM ascent stage crashing into the Moon as in subsequent missions) showed that its mechanisms could survive seven or eight hours in space without water cooling

Before I go on I should correct Alan Bean who states the LM is always sitting in the sun. While that is true for most of the mission such as while it is on the surface of the moon, it is not necessarily true when the craft in transit to or from the moon.

The next question is, at the time(s) the craft became cold, was it in the sun? I took a look at the Apollo 13 NASA transcript which mentions the sun many times and therefore gives a good(but not great) indication of when the craft was in the sun. The following lists most of the *shortened* quotes indicating when the sun was out. Transcript from www.hq.nasa.gov...:

Abbreviations used as described in the transcript:
CDR: Commander James A. (Jim) Lovell, Jr.
CC : Capsule communicator (CAP COMM) (John watts Young ref nasa.dataincubator.org... )
CMP: Command module pilot John L. Swigert, Jr.

03d 12h 28m 25s LMP: ...the Sun is right behind me...
03d 13h 51m 28s CDR: It's cold back there in the command module.

The close proximity of these statements suggests the sun was shining on the craft at the time the first complaint of coldness was made. About that time the LM was reportedly not particularly cold.

04d 16h 10m 36s LMP: Jack said it was just before he went up. Right now, the Sun's over there,
04d 21h 51m 31s CC : Is - is anybody sleeping in the command module right now, Jim?
04d 21h 51m 39s CDR: Negative, Joe. It's just too cold in there.
05d 01h 57m 33s CC : ...you're cold enough already.
05d 03h 12m 07s LMP: what - did you all get a readout on what the cabin temp was up there?
05d 03h 12m 20s CC : Yes, we're getting 45 to 46 degrees.
05d 03h 46m 28s That was a short night.

These statements suggest that it was likely dark during at least part of the second string of temperature complaints.

05d 03h 46m 28s CC : That was a short night.
05d 05h 40m 34s CMP: Deke, it's about 51, I think, or 50 in the LM, and its about - I don't know - 45 or little bit less in the command module.
05d 12h 37m 40s CMP: It's just too cold to sleep.
05d 12h 52m 50s F : I know none of you are sleeping worth a damn because it's so cold
05d 12h 53m 46s CDR: It's about 11 to 12 minutes now, and the Sun is directly overhead, so it's shining on the engine bell of the service module and not getting down to the spacecraft at all.
05d 13h 23m 15s CC : That's affirm, Jim. You could maneuver to burn attitude, or you could maneuver to an attitude which should put the Sun in the windows to warm the place up.
05d 14h 23m 25s CDR: The Sun feels wonderful. It's shining in the rendezvous window.

These statements suggest that the sun was out at the time it was reported to be about 50F in the LM and 45 in the CM and confirm that while it was cold the sun was "directly overhead". They also supply a plausible explanation for that if it can be shown that the craft was pointed with the engine bell of the CM pointed almost exactly to the sun.

Generally speaking, the Apollo 13 craft was in the sun during times where the cabin(s) were reported to be cold. The explanation is that the craft was oriented in a way such that very little light could be absorbed into the craft. Without finding out exactly how the craft was oriented in relationship to the sun throughout the journey, no firm conclusions can be drawn. If it can be shown that the craft was oriented in a position to pick up plenty of sunlight during the times in question, that would in fact put into question whether the mission was a real one. If it can be shown the craft was oriented where the CM engine bell was directly pointed at the sun for these periods where the craft was cold, there isn't a significant inconsistency. The Moonfaker series author didn't do the research to find out how the craft was oriented, so he should not be so confident in his conclusion.

OK, so you're up for that debate. Righto.

Sadly for you, I DO answer questions. I expect you to do the same..

Originally posted by Un4g1v3n1
How can you say my 'stuff has been debunked elsewhere?

Simply by noting your posting history ELSEWHERE. Are you a different "Un4g1v3n1" to that I see at other forums? It's a relatively unusual name... I apologise if I've misjudged you.

Things is, hereabouts the idea is that instead of posting video links and "NYER NYER, Take THAT!!!!!" comments, you should EXPLAIN YOUR POINT, in your words. Apart from anything else, it's JUST DAM RUDE, especially for those who have limited bandwidth and come to the forum to DISCUSS, not watch loony tune productions..

Watch the two videos

NO. Explain your point or be ignored...

and please 'debunk' the clear, and obvious fact that the Apollonots themselves describe the launch as so turbulent

Ah, some TEXT. Hurrah!! Let's just clarify as we go... You are referring to *opinions* that you have come to, based on vague astronaut reminiscences (anyone noticed that if a denier is looking for boastful comments, they *always* go for Gene Cernan..? ). So, you don't for a moment consider that the different rockets had different characteristics - noise and 'turbulence' are two very different things for a start, didya know? And you don't consider that NASA, who have just a little experience with such matters, wouldn't design their helmet mikes to be relatively immune to noise...?

So what are the ACTUAL NUMBERS that support your claim? What tests have you performed? What EXACTLY is your point? That you don't THINK it sounded right? sheeesh...

It's all just more of that meaningless handwaving. Your biased opinions. And just as you would criticise me for posting such UNSUPPORTED RUBBISH, I criticise you.

NO ONE to date, has even come close to debunking that. Nice try with the unsupported claim however!!

]

That's because there is NOTHING, absolutely ZILCH that could possibly be deBUNKed. Which is why, of course, you chose it - you are down to the unmeasurable stuff - essentially the worthless mutterings of someone who has lost the debate..

Seriously, that is your BEST SHOT? That their voices didn't sound strained enough? Do you have any idea how pitiful that sounds?

My stuff on YouTube, as you so tenderly put it, is not only verifiable

You have verified NOTHING. Where are the measurements? Where is anything that isn't just your uninformed opinion? Ever heard of decibels, dynamic range, S/N ratio, examining telemetry? How come none of those words were used by you?

Oh yeah, that would involve numbers, real research, and things that can be checked and tested - you definitely don't want to go near that sort of stuff.


May I take a wild bet that during those videos, there is NOT ONE supporting reference or citation backing up the claims in any way? I'll go $1000 on that one. Has someone actually watched them? Can you tell us if they refer to any credible supporting references that back up the 'claim'?

So I ask formally - Un4g1v3n1, can you tell us what are the sources that back up your claim? Citations, measurements, comparative tests?

I find your challenge laughable.

Laughter is the last resort of the defeated. You can't actually come up with a testable point (and don't want to anyway), so you laugh and run away from an ACTUAL debate on ACTUAL VERIFIABLE FACTS.

Sigh. I keep asking deniers to post their best shot, and look what happens...

Readers will also note that Un4g1v3n1 has used this diatribe to try to avoid the fact that he is NOT willing to debate the radiation issue (which *used* to be his favorite, but now he's lost interest?) in a point by point challenge.

For he knows what will happen...

[edit on 30-5-2010 by CHRLZ]

Wow, truthquest - nice work.

Just a couple of minor additions:

In a vacuum, the only significant way for something to get hot/cold is by radiative heating/cooling. And of course a brightly reflective surface will radiate heat outwards as well as absorb it, so the heating process will be slow. To quantify it, you really need to do the thermodynamic equations - I can probly dig them up if need be, but I think you have covered the topic well enough to realise that there is no real case for the deniers.

That also means that if the craft was pointed in any way other than directly at, or directly away from the Sun or if it was even slowly rotating, the equations get quite complex - one area is getting warmed, but then it moves over and is radiating the heat away into the black sky.. Then there is the effect of oblique angles reducing the energy per unit area...

It's not a simple question, but NASA had plenty of thermodynamics experts, and significant real experience with spacecraft outside earth's atmosphere..

I'm honestly not sure which way Apollo 13 was facing as she came home, but I'll have a look see if I get time.


But you also have to ask a very pertinent question, why on earth (or in space) would NASA choose to fake a near disaster? For artistic merit and heroics? Faking the successful missions would be impossible enough, but to then deliberately fake a near fatal error?

In regards to Apollo 13 and it getting cold inside. I was under the impression that the waste heat from the electronics kept the spacecraft warm on the inside and that the climate control helped by removing unwanted heat. So when they shut down the power, the electronics were no longer generating any waste heat, and thus it started to get cold inside. Regardless if the Sun was shining on it directly or not.

And from what I've read. With the CSM being rather shiny, it would reflect away a lot of the Suns energy and the exterior surfaces thermal equilibrium would have been on the cool side, and not hot.

Originally posted by jra
In regards to Apollo 13 and it getting cold inside. I was under the impression that the waste heat from the electronics kept the spacecraft warm on the inside and that the climate control helped by removing unwanted heat. So when they shut down the power, the electronics were no longer generating any waste heat, and thus it started to get cold inside. Regardless if the Sun was shining on it directly or not.

And from what I've read. With the CSM being rather shiny, it would reflect away a lot of the Suns energy and the exterior surfaces thermal equilibrium would have been on the cool side, and not hot.

Good point, and yes, I'd forgotten about that factor - it is quite significant. There is a lengthy and very comprehensive thread about this somewhere, even some thermodynamic calculations if I remember rightly - I don't think it's here, maybe Baut? I may go look for it tomorrow, but now - I'm going to sleep.

Originally posted by Un4g1v3n1

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by zvezdar

So go on, explain the mechanics of hoaxing the broadcast, given that the signal was clearly received from the moon.

You'll never get an answer. But I would say that, as asked earlier in the thread, this is the best evidence that we actually went. There would be no way to fake the telemetry transmissions without the astronauts actually being on the spacecraft.

The answer is so obvious, I am amazed no one has yet supplied it. An unmanned craft with pre-recorded broadcasts. But since NASA controlled the feed, and broadcast to the general public, even that wasn't necessary.

Pretty simple stuff. I'm sure even the most loyal Apollogist should be able to GET IT...

All prerecorded? That must have been a suprise to John Saxon, an Aussie, and non-NASA employee who was monitoring the mission from Honeysuckle Creek station in Australia.

This is from Apollo 16, EVA 2:

139:38:52 England: Say again, John. (Pause)

[It is not easy to understand John's transmission because of the static and the fact that he has changed subjects. Somebody else in Houston apparently understood what John said and told Tony.]
139:38:58 England: Okay, we've got a plan here at the end of the EVA to move it back. Do you think it will stay out of the Sun until then?
139:39:05 Young: Did you get that, Houston? (Pause) Houston, 16. Over.

139:39:17 England: Go ahead. (Long Pause)

[As we will discover in a moment, the LM crew is no longer able to hear Tony because of a problem with the communications link between Houston and the receiving station in Australia.]
139:39:38 Duke: Houston, did you copy John? Over.
139:39:41 England: We sure did there, Charlie. You copy us? (Long Pause)

139:40:04 Saxon: Orion, this is Honeysuckle (Australia). We have a comm outage with Houston at this time. Stand by one, please.

[The speaker is the Operations supervisor at the Honeysuckle receiving station near Canberra, Mr. John Saxon, an Australian. My thanks to Dean Davidson who located this information in the August 24, 1972 editions of the Sydney Morning Herald and the Canberra Times.]
139:40:13 Young: (Under heavy static) Okay, Honeysuckle. Nice to talk to you. How are y'all doing down there?
139:40:17 Saxon: We're doing great; nice to talk to you.

139:40:26 Young: Right; you sound good.

139:40:28 Saxon: Roger that; we'll be with you shortly. We're just getting some line (garbled). (Pause)

139:40:33 Young: Have a Swan for us.

reply to post by truthquest


Excellent post and balanced. This is only one of the issues I've had since I starting looking at the data of this whole program. Somethings just don't match up.

I would agree with you in the fact that yes, JW didn't get the details, but I do think he has presented 'major' points of concern. however, to me, IF the movie Apollo 13 WAS correct in showing the both the modules in the sun when they linked up, wouldn't that put them BOTH in the sun?

This brings me to a point I come to believe for the last 6 years, that there's no way the astronaunts could have even endured the heat from the sun in either module..

Air condictioning.. and the basic facts. I stumble across an thread 5 yrs ago which explained that the amount of equipment needed to cool JUST the astronauts in their suits on the moon doesn't add up.. IMO.. but i'll let facts speak for themselves..

How Conditioners Work

The amount of cooling that you get from a cooling tower depends on the relative humidity of the air and the barometric pressure.

For example, assuming a 95-degree Fahrenheit (35-degree Celsius) day, barometric pressure of 29.92 inches (sea-level normal pressure) and 80-percent humidity, the temperature of the water in the cooling tower will drop about 6 degrees to 89 degrees Fahrenheit (3.36 degrees to 31.7 degrees Celsius). If the humidity is 50 percent, then the water temperature will drop perhaps 15 degrees to 80 degrees Fahrenheit (8.4 degrees to 26.7 degrees Celsius). And, if the humidity is 20 percent, then the water temperature will drop about 28 degrees to 67 degrees Fahrenheit (15.7 degrees to 19.4 degrees Celsius). Even small temperature drops can have a significant effect on energy consumption.

Whenever you walk behind a building and find a unit that has large quantities of water running through a thick sheet of plastic mesh, you will know you have found a cooling tower!

In many office complexes and college campuses, cooling towers and air conditioning equipment are centralized, and chilled water is routed to all of the buildings through miles of underground pipes

I'll take NASA's word on it that the sun radiates 250F outside earth's orbit..we'll need a HUGE AC to extract/cool the air in the suits of the A-naunts. Now i understand the packs on the men could have held enough wattage to run the packs to expend or cool the 250F heat for 8hrs??

someone plz.. run the numbers according to the data I pasted above .. since I'm on limited time for this post.. of someone that is a HVAC professional ~cuz to me.. it's just not adding up..

organic life detected (bacterial microbes? i don't know)www.google.co.uk...=en&tbo=1&q=organic+signatures+found+on+moon&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=56064e970b0b8654




Water all over the moon.. www.nasa.gov...

lots more to read on the subject too, check for yourselves, but I would reccomend using all sources not just NASA's.

The moon has no atmosphere so the polar regions are not shielded like the earth is, any place subject to cool temperatures on the moon will likely have ice... water is all over the moon there's no excuse for NASA not to find the evidence. Just the varying amounts of NASA's own 'water contamination' from each mission if mapped out should of shown clear evidence. The scans of today only pentrate a few cm's into the moons surface, what would we find out if we could drill and take samples ???????? ...imagine that ???????

Originally posted by nonamoose7




Water all over the moon.. www.nasa.gov...

lots more to read on the subject too, check for yourselves, but I would reccomend using all sources not just NASA's.

The moon has no atmosphere so the polar regions are not shielded like the earth is, any place subject to cool temperatures on the moon will likely have ice... water is all over the moon there's no excuse for NASA not to find the evidence. Just the varying amounts of NASA's own 'water contamination' from each mission if mapped out should of shown clear evidence. The scans of today only pentrate a few cm's into the moons surface, what would we find out if we could drill and take samples ???????? ...imagine that ???????

You say "there's no excuse for NASA not to find the evidence" of water on the moon. Yet as has already been shown to your, the bound molecules of water in the NASA samples was only discovered in the past two years. They had no reason to expect water. The rest of the water, as ALSO already shown, is primarily deep in the bottom of craters at the polar regions, and were also only recently discovered.

So what exactly is your point???

[edit on 30-5-2010 by Tomblvd]

Originally posted by nonamoose7
organic life detected (bacterial microbes? i don't know)www.google.co.uk...=en&tbo=1&q=organic+signatures+found+on+moon&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=56064e970b0b8654

Well, your link doesn't work, but I would bet that it has something to do with the Indian probe finding organic compounds in the regolith. That is a long, long, LONG way from bacteria. (say, a billion years of evolution, along with a lot of other fortuitous circumstances?)

[edit on 30-5-2010 by Tomblvd]

Originally posted by Un4g1v3n1

The answer is so obvious, I am amazed no one has yet supplied it. An unmanned craft with pre-recorded broadcasts. But since NASA controlled the feed, and broadcast to the general public, even that wasn't necessary.

Pretty simple stuff. I'm sure even the most loyal Apollogist should be able to GET IT...

Here is a good website that goes into what it would have taken to fake an Apollo mission:

How to fake a lunar landing

Originally posted by Komodo
yea.. and plz post your sources AS AWELL ..if it's a copy and paste.. well SOURCE it! If it's coming from your mind.. SOURCE where you got the info.. other wise..

yea..other wise.. your just spew'n garbarge ..

I hope you hold the HBs to that standard:

Old Rocks Drown Dry Moon Theory

Apollo Moon Rocks Contain Evidence of Water

Water Discovered in Apollo Moon Rocks Likely Came from Comets

Study on possible existence of water on the moon

NB: These aren't in any specific order, so if you have any questions, just ask.

[edit on 30-5-2010 by Tomblvd]

So where are those "new arguments"??

I've read most of the "HOax!"-claims in this thread back in the 90's. I have not read one argument against the moon landings that hasn't been around since... ever...

reply to post by joeroxor


I'm sceptical to any or in this case either view that debates one side or the other. Objectivity is always the key to investigation. Even seemingly overwhelming evidence is not always correct.