Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: yuppa

We can understand why stars didn't show up. With whom are you debating with? And some astros testify they could see them and some said they couldn't. So which ones are lying?

Neither - it's all about context: exactly when are they discussing talking about stars, compared with when they couldn't, I have a whole web page of quotes from astronauts describing stars and planets, both from the mission audio and also from their oral histories, interviews and memoirs.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

True. But in the first press conference they seemed a bit confused when the journalist probed. I was mistaken and I believe Collins said he could see them while in the CM orbiting later on in his book. Now, I still wonder what the naked eye could see from the surface of the moon set against a black sky. I get why a camera can't capture the stars, well, without proper exposure

originally posted by: bobbypurify
Okay, enough is enough, no more circle jerking each other - LET'S GET BACK TO BUSINESS!

One thing that always made me wonder was Armstrong's voice as they made their touchdown in the Sea of Tranquility. He sounds as calm as a Hindu stoner. And the rocket booster? Like, I get the no noise in space argument - but what about all of the substance of the LEM. Plenty there to regurgitate sound. Yet, none. There should be some right? Is he in full astro gear while landing or did they land and get geared up? Was his helmet on?

Let's go!

Armstrong, as can be found if you listen to any of his interviews and to anyone who ever met him, was one of the calmest and least excitable people you could wish to meet - the ideal person to command the first landing. You can also here the calmness in his voice when his Gemini mission nearly went very badly wrong - he was just that kind of guy. Also don't forget that they had spent hours and hours in simulators going over all the procedures - none of what they were doing was strange to them, even though the environment in which they were operating was new.

They wore their suits, but not helmets and gloves (they would need their hands to operate the equipment). Their microphones were right at their mouths, as can be seen in the photos taken in the LM of (eg) Armstrong and Cernan. They were not high fidelity recording studio mics!

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: ignorant_ape

True. But in the first press conference they seemed a bit confused when the journalist probed. I was mistaken and I believe Collins said he could see them while in the CM orbiting later on in his book. Now, I still wonder what the naked eye could see from the surface of the moon set against a black sky. I get why a camera can't capture the stars, well, without proper exposure

The journalist was Patrick Moore, the famous British astronomer, and his question was very specific about stars in the solar corona. They answered very specifically. Armstrong was also clear about being able to see stars through the optics, and one of the first jobs they did on landing was to try and fix a position using the stars they could see. Again, it's about context. Later missions (notably Apollo 17) would make very good observations for stars in the solar corona, and Gene Cernan drew a very good diagram showing the position of Jupiter - a position that was very accurate when compared with where it should be as shown in astronomy software like Stellarium.

The astronauts may have been under a black sky, but it was a black sky with a bright sun in it, and for most missions an equally bright Earth. You can see the impact of the Earth's light down here when the moon is lit by Earthshine. I liken it to trying to do astronomy from a supermarket car park.

The chances of seeing stars or planets without taking any measures to cut out the glare from the lunar surface and dark adapting the eyes were therefore pretty minimal.

a reply to: bobbypurify

On a clear night where I live and with a full, or nearly full, bright moon in the sky, only a tiny percentage of the stars can be seen. On a moonless clear night I can see the Milky Way and millions of stars. Can you imagine how it would be difficult if not impossible to see any stars on the moon with the sun glaring down from above, and reflecting off the moons surface, and with no atmosphere to soften that glare?? Even thinking about it gives me cataracts.

a reply to: bobbypurify

What the world saw was not the original footage, but rather a copy of a copy. Rather than take a direct feed of what the MSFN was ‘receiving’, the networks had to broadcast a feed from a television camera that was pointed at one of the monitors at the tracking station. This was done on all the moon flights and each time NASA pulled various other stunts that degraded the pictures.

How is this taken as 'stunt' by NASA to purposely degrade the quality of the pictures? The quality of pictures from the very first moon mission were so bad because they just didn't have the technology to electronically convert the slow scan signal from the moon of 320 lines @ 10 FPS to the broadcast standard of 525 lines @ 30 FPS.So the only way to get the pictures onto the broadcast TV networks was the ghetto method of pointing a broadcast TV camera at a TV monitor both inside a box showing the images from the moon,it was as clear as it could possibly be for what they had to work with back in 1969.They also used a re-writable video disc recorder to briefly store each frame of the moon signal to expand it into 3 to match up with the frame rate of the broadcast TV signal.
So they were able to match up the frame rate but not the different number of lines,hence the famously bad quality of images from Apollo 11.Later missions got better,I think we got colour from Apollo 12 onwards with an improvement in quality on each successive mission.

It seems that NASA weren't convinced prior to this there would be that much interest in the moon landings,and had to be convinced that there was a need to take any sort of video cameras with them,so we nearly didn't have any live footage at all from the first moon landing.They of course had colour cameras back then,but were a LOT heavier so we had to make do with pictures from the lighter black and white cameras as any extra weight had to be avoided if at all possible.

I haven't been here for a few months. Has there been any disclosure of the moon landing hoax yet?

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: choos

We aren't talking about falling rocks. We are talking about footage that has been slowed down and what percentage to speed it up to get Earthly results. So, the starting premise is different for your analogy, thus, why you're getting the wrong results

did you not follow my calculations??? i sped up lunar footage 150% to get it back to the earthly speed as per your claim.. and according to the laws of physics, speeding up lunar footage 150% will yeild a local gravity of about 3.6m/s/s which is not earths gravity..

hand-waving it away will only encourage your ignorance in an attempt to hold onto your beliefs..

do it for yourself..

S = 0.5 x a x t^2

where S = distance
a = acceleration due to gravity
t = time, in seconds.

use any object falling over 1 metre for easier calculation, the only variables are a = 1.62m/s/s for lunar gravity and a = 9.81m/s/s for earths gravity.. you are a smart guy, i hope, you can work out the rest..

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: AgentSmith

I'll tell you what: I'll see if I can generate a list of innaccuracies I've come across through my studies and list them. That may reignite this thread into what it once was. There are a few claims by the hoax side that have been determined "debunked" that I don't completely agree with. I just wish I would have participated earlier in the thread. I may have learned some of the things you've claimed to.

Hi bobbypurify, I think that I have a very good item for your list: "Astronauts not using the phonetic alphabet."

This is very interesting conundrum. Take for example, Apollo 12. We all know there was a lightning strike at 36 seconds after lift off. We all know that astronauts Conrad, Gordon and Bean were very experienced military jet fighter test pilots. It is well known that military jet fighter test pilots, civilian aircraft pilots and air traffic control all uses phonetic alphabets during missions/flights.

Now, look at the Apollo 12 transcripts about the time of the lightning strike - no phonetic alphabets are used.

In fact, ground control keeps saying "SCE to AUX" several times, the commander of the Apollo 12 say "FCE to AUX, what's that?" Conrad doesn't know what ground control is telling him because the line is noisy (from the thunder of the F-1 rocket engines).

In a critical mission scenario, like a manned space launch, these experienced military jet fighter pilots should automatically revert to a phonetic alphabet. The phonetic alphabet is always used to communicate letters/abbreviations when the noise becomes noisy or there is difficulty hearing what has been said in a two-way voice communication channel.

I work in telecom (I know, personal anecdotes are lame) however, and this will probably amuse you, I use phonetic alphabet every goddamned day and I am terrestrial, ground based speaking to other terrestrial ground based offices.

Why do we use phonetics in ground-to-ground communications? Because, over the phone line, "F" sounds like "S" and "V" sounds like "B" or "D". It is not proffessional to keep repeating myself to the other party. In my line of work we use the NATO phonetic alphabet, others times people in the industry (and people who don't know the NATO) will use the "name game", for example, "Frank", "Shirley", "Victory", "Billy" or "Douglas".

In real world application the phonetic alphabet it's pretty standard "Frank", "Sam", "Victor", "Baker or Bravo", "Delta or Dog", and using words to convey acronyms is very widespread in telecommunications, it is expected and it is a regular every day thing.

Now, let's go back to the Apollo 12 transcript.

When ground control says "FCE to AUX" Conrad didn't hear him clearly. Ground control repeated "FCE to AUX" a couple of times but gc should have been using phonetics all along, for example, "Frank Charlie Echo to AUX" and Conrad would have instantly recognized and figured it out the first time. That is how air traffic control talks to regular civilian jet pilots every single day. That is how the military communicates over channels during operations, that is how a policeman called a license plate during a traffic stop (in the old days... now the cops have computers in the car and cameras that can run license plates automagically.)

I have never seen this question seriously answered by anyone on either side of the argument: Why didn't the very experienced military jet fighter pilots and NASA ground control use the phonetic alphabet during the critical time of the lightning strike on Apollo 12?

You can call me "Sierra Juliet" which is short for SJ which is short for SayonaraJupiter. I'll call you "Bravo Papa". You are doing excellent work here in this thread Bravo Papa. Keep it up!

originally posted by: bobbypurify
One thing that always made me wonder was Armstrong's voice as they made their touchdown in the Sea of Tranquility. He sounds as calm as a Hindu stoner.

This is just one of the myriad points where the hoaxer premise breaks down into ridiculousness if you examine it even casually.

They had a guy who could not only produce 8 straight days of effective faked transmissions but then stayed in character for 43 years and they wouldn't have gone back and him be more excited for dramatic effect? Or if he couldn't do it, just written that part out? Or that is the normal demeanor of experienced test pilots under pressure in which case it's a moot point either way.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
Is he in full astro gear while landing or did they land and get geared up? Was his helmet on?

Let's go!

Maybe you ought to do just a little bit of research into how the Apollo program worked before you set out to question its reality.

a reply to: choos

I merely meant to point it out a a subject for further inquiry. Should I have not?

a reply to: DelMarvel

You don't want to touch the sound of the rocket either? Thanks for you opinions on my other questions. Wasn't thete supposed to be a movie coming out busting Apollo out by testing sound in the transmissions? Man, what was that going to be called?

a reply to: choos

Try 1.667x. My quick maths of 1.5x weren't clicking. Thanks, Choos!

a reply to: Imagewerx

Wait, did you just say that NASA assumed there wouldn't be much interest in the first moon landing? I find that hard to believe. Where did you get this info?

originally posted by: Rob48
I haven't been here for a few months. Has there been any disclosure of the moon landing hoax yet?

Not that I've seen. Just a lot of back and forth, or rehashing the same thing that was discussed over a hundred pages back.

originally posted by: seabhac-rua
a reply to: bobbypurify

On a clear night where I live and with a full, or nearly full, bright moon in the sky, only a tiny percentage of the stars can be seen. On a moonless clear night I can see the Milky Way and millions of stars. Can you imagine how it would be difficult if not impossible to see any stars on the moon with the sun glaring down from above, and reflecting off the moons surface, and with no atmosphere to soften that glare?? Even thinking about it gives me cataracts.

This.

On nights when there is a full moon out, I can basically forget doing any astrophotography of faint objects at all.

Even taking pictures of the moon, or observing it through a telescope is lousy. It's much better when it's waxing or waining, due to the sun light being more oblique. Brings out a lot more detail along the terminus.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: choos

Try 1.667x. My quick maths of 1.5x weren't clicking. Thanks, Choos!

1.667x??? you really think that would work??

S = 0.5at^2
1 = 0.5 x 1.62 x t^2
t = (1 / (0.5 x 1.62))^0.5
t = 1.11 seconds

meaning any object on the moon will take 1.11 seconds to fall or rise 1 metre from rest.

1.667x faster than 1.11 seconds will be 0.667 seconds..

S = 0.5at^2
1 = 0.5 x a x 0.667^2
a = 1 / (0.5 x (0.667^2))
a = ~4.5m/s/s

still not earths gravity.. you can work it out for yourself what time factor is needed to reach 9.81m/s/s ive already told you once, if you dont believe it work it out for yourself..

a reply to: FlyingFox

and im pointing out that your opinion can be further validated/invalidated using physics if you are willing to

Gravitational acceleration on the surface of the moon is 1.62519 m/s^2

a reply to: bobbypurify

I think that's possibly a misunderstanding.

What there was was disagreement sbout the role of TV - especially on the nnon-landing missions. Some mission commanders felt that TV was a potentially dangerous distraction. Others saw the value of it, a decision vindicated during Apollo 8.