PDA

View Full Version : Why didn't NASA offer the same explanations as this site?



teeble
2002-May-13, 10:00 PM
There were several points made on the show that needed better answers than NASA was able to provide. Why must we rely on sites like this to disprove the conspiracy theorists? They had the world watching and their spokesperson resorted to "just trust me, we were there and to believe otherwise is crazy". These allegations are very serious. I myself hate the idea that we staged the landings to stay 1 up on Russia. What I hate even more is the idea that my government might have lied to me to save face.

Kaptain K
2002-May-13, 10:11 PM
I assume the "show" you are refering to is the Fox hoax program. The answer is simple. There is a big difference between what NASA said and what the producers put on the air.They edited out anything that seriously questioned the show's premise, leaving just enough to:
1) Look like they asked for rebuttal.
2) Make NASA look like buffons.

JayUtah
2002-May-13, 11:40 PM
There were several points made on the show that needed better answers than NASA was able to provide.

The show was produced and edited by conspiracy theorists. Do you really think they would present strong evidence that told a different story than what they were trying to say? I spoke with Dr. Brian O'Leary, who was the astronaut interviewed for the program. He said he spoke to the producers for half an hour, and told them he thought it was very unlikely that NASA had hoaxed the moon landings. Why didn't the producers include that very important statement? Why did they only include the part that made it sound like he believed it might have been hoaxed?

The answer is clear. The NASA spokesman was included only to give the illusion that the producers were presenting both sides of the story. They weren't. If they wanted to, they could have talked to any number of other NASA experts, or other experts outside of NASA. They could have consulted textbooks or college professors. But they didn't.

Why must we rely on sites like this to disprove the conspiracy theorists?

This is what's called a "complex question". That is, the conspiracy theorists want you to believe that NASA is primarily responsible for defending its version of history. The conspiracy theorists have shifted the burden of proof away from themselves and onto NASA. Unfortunately it's not NASA's -- or anyone else's -- responsibility to disprove the arguments of the hoax believers. It is, in fact, the responsibility of the conspiracy theorists to show that their hypotheses are more than just "might have been" and "what if".

NASA, in general, doesn't pay much attention to conspiracy theorists, except when specifically asked. That's because conspiracy theorists don't really care what NASA says. If NASA disproves their claim, they just say NASA is lying. There's really nothing NASA can say that will be taken seriously by the conspiracy theorists. If everything you said was just twisted around by malicious people, wouldn't you tend you keep your mouth shut too?

The fallacious premise behind the complex question is that only NASA can provide the answers. In fact, the principles of space travel, photography, etc., are well known to people outside of NASA. They can be found in college classes, textbooks, learned from practicing engineers and scientists.

If the conspiracy theorists were actually interested in the answers, they could find them in any number of places. But they aren't generally interested in the answers -- they're interested only in doing damage by asking the questions.

Some people at NASA have written web pages talking about the hoax theories. And the education department has a whole slew of materials that give the correct facts about Apollo. It's just that they aren't explicitly labeled, "To be used to dispute hoax claims."

But that's as may be. NASA's version of history isn't in any danger of being seriously undermined. We talk about it here because we like talking about Apollo history and technology. Some of us participated in building it. Some of us study it in retrospect. Some of us like solving these kinds of problems. Some of us like pointing out the flaws in other people's lines of reasoning.

The conspiracy theorists are upset at NASA's relative silence because they rely on NASA's acknowledgement to validate their theories. They want NASA to recognize them so that they can get some free publicity from NASA.

It has nothing to do with whether NASA can provide answers. The answers are out there for anyone to see. It's all about the posturing of the conspiracy theorists to maintain the illusion that their arguments have no answers.

These allegations are very serious.

They would be if there were any real evidence behind them. Because most people don't understand a lot about rocket science they don't understand how silly the conspiracy theorists' arguments sound. But NASA knows, and that's why NASA doesn't generally take them seriously.

What I hate even more is the idea that my government might have lied to me to save face.

What you might hate even more than that is the idea that the producers of the Fox program deliberately lied to you in order to get you to believe them, buy their books, and think they were hot stuff. They seem to be people who hate government just for the fun of it, not because they have any real evidence that anything was done wrong.

The conspiracy theorists believe in government corruption and deception as if it were there religion.

The Rusty Lander
2002-May-14, 02:29 AM
No amount of editing can disguise the fact that NASA made some really dumb statements. Saying that a conspiracy would require 3/4 million people is one. And calling your opponents crazy (namecalling)is a pretty good sign of not having a good argument. And you can't hide the generalised answers that would not go into specifics about photos etc. The answers were a bit patronising and an insult to alot of people's intelligence.

The spokesman for NASA on the FOX show, incidentally, is dead. I heard that he had been disatisfied with the generalised answers he had given and decided to do his own internal investigation to get some more specific facts and suddenly had a fatal heart attack. He was only 42 and had no previous heart problems as I understand it.

Has the CIA struck yet again?

_________________
Behind every conspiracy is another conspiracy.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Rusty Lander on 2002-05-13 22:33 ]</font>

Jigsaw
2002-May-14, 02:56 AM
What was the guy's name?

LunarOrbit
2002-May-14, 03:03 AM
No amount of editing can disguise the fact that NASA made some really dumb statements. Saying that a conspiracy would require 3/4 million people is one.

A conspiracy like that would require the cooperation of a lot of people.

Some examples of the people who would have to be in on the conspiracy:

1) The governments of every country (friend and foe) with the capability to track the Apollo spacecraft using radar or radio receivers;

2) The astronauts (approximately 55 were selected by NASA during that period, 24 of whom went to the moon);

3) Mission control members;

4) Scientists (how do they stop scientists from revealing the truth about the Van Allen Belt or the faked moon rocks?);

5) Rocket engineers (if the rockets weren't capable of going to the moon the engineers would know it);

6) HAM radio operators;

7) Any communications or television company who has a satellite in geosyncronous orbit (which is inside the Van Allen Belt so they must know a thing or two about the radiation);

Those are just SOME of the people who would have to be in on the secret. Some of those people will die eventually, taking the secret with them to their graves... but universities will continue to pump out new scientists. How will the government keep scientists from revealing the secret for the rest of time?

The government simply cannot control every person on Earth FOREVER... if the moon landings were faked the hoax was doomed to fail from the start. A failed hoax would be so embarrassing to the United States that I can't imagine why they would even bother to fake the landings in the first place. It would be less embarrassing to admit going to the moon isn't possible if that were the case.

It just doesn't make sense.


The spokesman for NASA on the FOX show, incidentally, is dead. I heard that he had been disatisfied with the generalised answers he had given and decided to do his own internal investigation to get some more specific facts and suddenly had a fatal heart attack. He was only 42 and had no previous heart problems as I understand it.

Whatever. Please tell me you're joking.

Peter B
2002-May-14, 03:19 AM
Rusty Lander said:

"No amount of editing can disguise the fact that NASA made some really dumb statements. Saying that a conspiracy would require 3/4 million people is one."

Why is that crazy? How would *you* compartmentalise such a conspiracy? Which people at the major contracting companies would need to know, and which wouldn't?

"And calling your opponents crazy (namecalling)is a pretty good sign of not having a good argument."

Even though most of the hoax believers' arguments are crazy? Either these people believe their crazy arguments, in which case you might consider using that word to describe them, or they don't, in which case they're liars.

"And you can't hide the generalised answers that would not go into specifics about photos etc. The answers were a bit patronising and an insult to alot of people's intelligence."

Well, maybe they asked questions outside the field of expertise of these people.

"The spokesman for NASA on the FOX show, incidentally, is dead. I heard that he had been disatisfied with the generalised answers he had given-"

Where did you hear this?

"-and decided to do his own internal investigation to get some more specific facts and suddenly had a fatal heart attack. He was only 42 and had no previous heart problems as I understand it.

"Has the CIA struck yet again?"

What? Don't young people die of heart attacks? Maybe I should investigate the possibility that the local intelligence community was responsible for my sister-in-law's fatal heart attack at 39.

This sort of talk makes me angry. Rusty Lander, do you believe the landings took place? And if not, what evidence do you have that hasn't been comprehensively debunked by sites like this or Clavius?

JayUtah
2002-May-14, 03:58 AM
No amount of editing can disguise the fact that NASA made some really dumb statements.

But people make dumb statements all the time. What if Brian Welch made 15 brilliant statements and one dumb one, and all the producers decide to keep was the dumb one?

You can't get around the fact that you're seeing only as much as the producers wanted you to see. And they want you to draw the conclusion that that's all there was. You seem to have uncritically fallen for it. However, I know in some cases what these producers left out, and it was material and it did constitute a different picture of that person's testimony than what was left in. I'm not just handwaving here. I know for a fact that these very producers left out material that they collected, which contradicts their findings and representations. Therefore when I say I believe they may have left out material information that Welch gave them, I'm not just wishfully thinking.

Besides, "dumb" is subjective. What if the assertions you dismiss as dumb are supportable?

Saying that a conspiracy would require 3/4 million people is one.

Why? Every time I mention a problem with the prevailing conspiracy theory, the theory is simply expanded to incorporate additional conjectural elements and additional conspirators. I'm really not the one piling hordes of alleged conspirators on the heap.

500,000 or so people worked on the Apollo project, including NASA employees, contractors, subcontractors, and other support personnel. According to conspiracy theorists, these people were just working on an elaborate cover story. That doesn't even count the number of people working entirely behind the scenes on the hoax elements. Is it so farfetched to claim that for every two people working on the cover story, there was one person working on the actual hoax?

Put your money where your mouth is. How many people had knowledge of the alleged conspiracy? Show your work.

And calling your opponents crazy (namecalling)is a pretty good sign of not having a good argument.

No. That someone chooses to employ a poor argument is not proof that it's the only argument that exists, or that it's the only argument he could employ.

Further, I don't recall Welch specifically calling conspiracy theorists crazy. But he did point out that their statements are illogical and seem to be based on a kind of paranoia. I happen to agree. I can point to all manner of logical flaws in the conspiracy theorist reasoning. Their books read like an encyclopedia of fallacy. Further, I have plenty of evidence to support an opinion that they are paranoid against government.

Your objection is based on the notion that a blatantly illogical argument needs a formal refutation. A blatantly illogical argument needs only to be identified as blatantly illogical. That can be done with surprising brevity.

You seem to want to give a lot of benefit of the doubt to the conspiracy theorists. To most of us there just isn't much doubt. It's pretty obvious what they're trying to do. If they tried to bring this kind of evidence to a court, or to any other kind of formal forum, they'd be laughed soundly out of it. They really have nothing. Just a lot of misrepresentation, bogus science, and heaps and heaps of conjecture. It's quite proper in that case to throw it back in their faces and say, "Sorry, you need more."

And you can't hide the generalised answers that would not go into specifics about photos etc.

Why do you assume Welch was asked about specific photos? He may have been, but see below.

When you are interviewed for a television program you don't know if your statements will be used in their entirety. You don't know where the editor will place your remarks. You don't know what shots will precede and follow your statements. You can't foresee all the possible ways your statements may be used or misused.

This kind of juxtaposition happens all the time in polemic presentations. You show a scene, then you show a clip from an interview. The viewer assumes the interviewee knows he's responding specifically to the content of the prior scene, which is almost never true.

That may or may not have happened in this case. Welch specifically says it would be fruitless to respond to individual photographs, so he may have been shown individual photographs and declined to comment on them individually. The point is not whether he was given that opportunity or not, but whether you assume he was given that opportunity. When you watch polemical documentaries you cannot make those kinds of assumptions.

After having spent more than a year responding to individual photographs, I agree fully: it's essentially fruitless to respond to each and every photograph. Most of the dozens upon dozens of photographs cited as evidence of anomaly are simply the same few mistakes made over and over again: perspective, reflectance, parallax, etc. How many different ways can you say, "The conspiracy theorist doesn't understand perspective"?

If one doesn't understand the basic principles that apply to the photographs, one is likely to believe that every photograph is anomalous -- and in fact that's what David Percy says. There are 20,000 Apollo photographs. Conspiracy theorists could conceivably show me every single one of them and say it's "anomalous". And my response would be, again, "You don't understand perspective or lighting or parallax or whatever." And I would be right every time.

Now when you realize that the conspiracy theorists profit by perpetuating the argument, then you realize why they insist on discussing every single photo, even if they're just making the same old mistakes. The point you're missing is that the "generalized" answers are, in fact, the only correct answers.

The spokesman for NASA on the FOX show, incidentally, is dead. I heard that he had been disatisfied with the generalised answers he had given and decided to do his own internal investigation to get some more specific facts and suddenly had a fatal heart attack.

Well, that's the embellishment that has arisen among conspiracy theorists. This story gets better every time I hear it. Unfortunately this is a lot like the conspiracy theories -- a lot of rumor and speculation. And it's quite proper to refute it by identifying at as rumor and speculation and leave it at that.

Has the CIA struck yet again?

Oh, please.

JayUtah
2002-May-14, 04:07 AM
The astronauts (approximately 55 were selected by NASA during that period, 24 of whom went to the moon

Astronaut Brian O'Leary told me bluntly, "If there were a conspiracy, Ed Mitchell would have told me about it. No question."

Rocket engineers (if the rockets weren't capable of going to the moon the engineers would know it);

And we would know it today. We learn how to make rockets today by studying how rockets were made for the Apollo program. Proving, for example, that the F-1 engine produces the claimed amount of thrust is a textbook exercise, due Wednesday, show your work.

Any communications or television company who has a satellite in geosyncronous orbit (which is inside the Van Allen Belt so they must know a thing or two about the radiation)

I used to work with these people. Trust me, they'd know if Apollo's information was wrong. There are indeed people today whose job is to design and build spacecraft. They like to think they're very good at it. They like to boast that their spacecraft will last upwards of 15 years in the harshest parts of cislunar space.

Either they're all in on the conspiracy -- all those companies around the world -- or the Apollo data is sound.

jrkeller
2002-May-14, 05:22 AM
He died two and a half months before the Fox show, so we will never know what his real feelings were.

http://www.space.com/news/spaceagencies/welch_obit_001127.html



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jrkeller on 2002-05-14 01:22 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-May-14, 06:04 AM
That's the point. Since Welch died never having seen his contribution in the Fox program, it makes no sense to claim he was upset by it and undertook additional research. Further, the conspiracy theorists seem to think the Fox program was Welch's only onscreen interview. Welch gave interviews to David Percy for What Happened On the Moon? in which he does go into specifics on some of the supposedly anomalous features in Apollo photos. The premises on which the conspiracy theorists' Welch fantasy is based simply aren't there.

I suppose the next embellishment to this story will be that Welch allegedly called up Bart Sibrel just before he died and offered to blow the whistle on the whole hoax thing.

LunarOrbit
2002-May-14, 07:27 AM
Besides, if NASA was going to make anyone die it would be someone like David Percy or Bart Sibrel, not Brian Welch. But they're still alive, and NASA hasn't even pressed charges against Sibrel for stealing their "top secret" footage and revealing it to the public.

I'm making my prediction now: when Percy or Sibrel die (it doesn't matter when, where, or how) the HB's will claim NASA killed them. They could be struck by lightning or killed in an earthquake and the conspiracy theorists will blame it on the government.

My second prediction is that Percy and Sibrel will live long lives and die of old age (which will still be blamed on the government).

pvtpylot
2002-May-14, 02:08 PM
I used to work with these people. Trust me, they'd know if Apollo's information was wrong. There are indeed people today whose job is to design and build spacecraft. They like to think they're very good at it. They like to boast that their spacecraft will last upwards of 15 years in the harshest parts of cislunar space.

Either they're all in on the conspiracy -- all those companies around the world -- or the Apollo data is sound.



Well, since my ESPN was working fine last night I think it's safe to assume that the Apollo data was sound. Unless, of course, the network people are in on it too and there's really no such thing as live satellite TV since their satellites really can't exist. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

SpacedOut
2002-May-14, 02:29 PM
Of course there is no such thing as satellite TV. How can that little dish work when EVERYONE knows that you need really BIG dishes like those at all of our government buildings!

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

pvtpylot
2002-May-14, 03:08 PM
On 2002-05-14 10:29, SpacedOut wrote:
Of course there is no such thing as satellite TV. How can that little dish work when EVERYONE knows that you need really BIG dishes like those at all of our government buildings!

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif



Aha! So the next time I see Christiane Amanpour on CNN with the caption "Live via satellite from Pago Pago" she's really on a secret soundstage somewhere and the report was taped earlier, eh? Wow, I guess this means that any professional sports team that's ever appeared "live" is in on it, too! I always knew there was something suspicious about the Yankees... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

kucharek
2002-May-15, 08:42 AM
On 2002-05-14 11:08, pvtpylot wrote:

Aha! So the next time I see Christiane Amanpour on CNN with the caption "Live via satellite from Pago Pago" she's really on a secret soundstage somewhere and the report was taped earlier, eh? Wow, I guess this means that any professional sports team that's ever appeared "live" is in on it, too! I always knew there was something suspicious about the Yankees... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif


You never recognized that you never see stars when they play at night under floodlights and the camera catches part of the sky above the stadium?
Of course, I mean the stars in the sky, not on the field or the Stars and Strips... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kucharek on 2002-05-15 04:46 ]</font>

pvtpylot
2002-May-15, 02:12 PM
On 2002-05-15 04:42, kucharek wrote:

You never recognized that you never see stars when they play at night under floodlights and the camera catches part of the sky above the stadium?
Of course, I mean the stars in the sky, not on the field or the Stars and Strips... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif


And, I just noticed that if you look at any closeup picture of a Yankees player taken at a night game they're all casting more then one shadow at different angles! Obviously staged! I bet Billy Martin was about to go public and that's why he was "removed".
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

The Rusty Lander
2002-May-18, 03:38 AM
Getting back to the original question of "Why didn't NASA offer the same explanations as this site?".

Well, its only more recently that the hoax theories have become well-known but in the meantime there has been plenty of time to create a mock-science techno-babble of theories to explain away the anomalies and inconsistencies. However, if the original premise of these explanations is wrong, then the whole house of card comes falling down.

For instance, where is there the empirical evidence that light behaves differently on the moon than anywhere else. This could be a very convenient excuse to explain away many photo anomalies. "Oh but you don't understand, light works differently on the moon blah blah blah". If, however, light actually functions the same throughout the universe, then everything said over the years based on this false assumption is a lie and there's one heavy pack of hards to fall down for a start. I wouldn't like to be under it when it does.

_________________
Behind every conspiracy is another conspiracy.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Rusty Lander on 2002-05-17 23:40 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-May-18, 04:57 AM
has been plenty of time to create a mock-science techno-babble of theories to explain away the anomalies and inconsistencies.

What "techno-babble" are you talking about? What "mock science" are you talking about? Do you think the principles of, say, optics were fabricated solely for the purpose of lying to the public about the Apollo landings?

For instance, where is there the empirical evidence that light behaves differently on the moon than anywhere else.

First, it is not our contention that light behaves differently on the moon than it does anywhere else. Ours is, rather, that scenes on the lunar surface lit by the sun are different in some respects than similar scenes on earth, chiefly due to the difference made by the atmosphere. You're tearing down a straw man.

Second, why does it have to be empirical evidence? Do you understand what collecting such empirical evidence would entail? And since the conspiracy theorists also advance assertions on how light behaves, or should behave, on the lunar surface, do you plan to ask them for their empirical evidence?

Third, while we're talking about that, the conspiracy theorists say the Apollo photos reveal evidence of having been created in studios, some of that evidence relating to lighting. If this is true, why has no conspiracy theorist been able to actually recreate an allegedly false Apollo photo in the studio, using the techniques they're so sure were used? Who cares whether it's an accurate depiction of the lunar surface -- can they simply produce the effects we see in the photos with studio techniques?

Fourth, certain effects such as the optical behavior of the lunar surface at a zero phase angle have been understood and quantified for generations.

This could be a very convenient excuse to explain away many photo anomalies.

Or it could be the right answer. Except that you've misrepresented the anti-hoax argument, so that's moot.

If, however, light actually functions the same throughout the universe, then everything said over the years based on this false assumption is a lie

Light does function the same way throughout the universe. It is my contention that conspiracy theorists don't understand how light behaves on the moon, on earth, or anywhere else for that matter. They don't understand light, period. They don't understand how and why it reflects. They don't understand how and why it scatters. They don't understand what happens to it when it is projected through lenses onto film. They don't understand how the world we perceive projectively relates to the world that exists in affinity.

You seem to want to measure us with a fairly stiff yardstick. Are you willing to apply that same yardstick to the conspiracy theorists?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-05-18 00:58 ]</font>

pvtpylot
2002-May-18, 06:52 AM
On 2002-05-17 23:38, The Rusty Lander wrote:
For instance, where is there the empirical evidence that light behaves differently on the moon than anywhere else. This could be a very convenient excuse to explain away many photo anomalies. "Oh but you don't understand, light works differently on the moon blah blah blah". If, however, light actually functions the same throughout the universe, then everything said over the years based on this false assumption is a lie and there's one heavy pack of hards to fall down for a start. I wouldn't like to be under it when it does.

Who ever said that light works differently on the moon? Conditions unique to the moon cause light to do things not observable on earth, but why should that be so odd? Conditions unique to Antarctica cause light to do things not observable in Central Park. Does that mean McMurdo Base is a hoax too?

In any case many of the HB's "anomalies" can be reproduced in photos taken right here on earth. Are the HB's going to claim that my wife and I really didn't go to the Grand Canyon this year because our shadows in our vacation photos aren't parallel? She'll be so bummed...

(corrected sp)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pvtpylot on 2002-05-18 03:00 ]</font>

The Rusty Lander
2002-May-18, 03:09 PM
In any case many of the HB's "anomalies" can be reproduced in photos taken right here on earth.

So the so-called moon photos could've been taken on Earth then?

Tomblvd
2002-May-18, 03:20 PM
On 2002-05-18 11:09, The Rusty Lander wrote:
In any case many of the HB's "anomalies" can be reproduced in photos taken right here on earth.

So the so-called moon photos could've been taken on Earth then?



I can't believe that you could quote him and then immediately get the quote wrong. That's pretty impressive.



What he ACTUALLY said was that some of the ANOMALIES can be reproduced on earth. He then goes into detail by describing one such anomaly, non-parallel shadows.



He said nothing about reproducing " the moon photos" on earth.



But, of course, you already knew that.

The Rusty Lander
2002-May-18, 03:24 PM
I'm simply saying that if the anomalies can be reproduced on Earth then it's possible that the photos were produced on Earth in the first place.

Tomblvd
2002-May-18, 03:30 PM
On 2002-05-18 11:24, The Rusty Lander wrote:
I'm simply saying that if the anomalies can be reproduced on Earth then it's possible that the photos were produced on Earth in the first place.



Congrats, with that monumetal leap of logic, you should be in the olympics.




Obviously, reproducing some of the "anomalies", such as converging shadows or backlighting with only one light source, does not equate to reproducing all the moon photos.

The Rusty Lander
2002-May-18, 03:36 PM
On 2002-05-14 02:04, JayUtah wrote:
That's the point. Since Welch died never having seen his contribution in the Fox program, it makes no sense to claim he was upset by it and undertook additional research.


He wouldn't necessarily need to have seen the program to have been disatisfied. He could've simply jumped to his own conclusion about that after the interview, knowing in himself that he needed more information after the questions he'd been asked and realising he should've had more to say.

If you go for a job interview, for instance, you can quite often know if it turns out bad; you should've done more research into the job, reworked your CV etc. You don't usually need to see it back on film before you realise this.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Rusty Lander on 2002-05-18 12:14 ]</font>

informant
2002-May-18, 04:01 PM
It certainly looks like behind every hoax-believer argument that is refuted is another hoax-believer argument.

Sorry, couldn't resist. Don't mind me.

Johnno
2002-May-18, 04:08 PM
hey Tom, long time no see, what's up?

The Rusty Lander
2002-May-18, 04:13 PM
A conspiracy like that would require the cooperation of a lot of people.

Some examples of the people who would have to be in on the conspiracy:

1) The governments of every country (friend and foe) with the capability to track the Apollo spacecraft using radar or radio receivers;

Ok, they may have tracked SOMETHING, but where's the proof that it was anything that was manned?

2) The astronauts (approximately 55 were selected by NASA during that period, 24 of whom went to the moon);

And the 11 who were killed in the space of a year - don't forget that!

3) Mission control members;

...who were fed what they were TOLD was a live feed.

4) Scientists (how do they stop scientists from revealing the truth about the Van Allen Belt or the faked moon rocks?);

The scientists themselves were fooled. How many "experts" get duped into buying what they consider to be the geniune article on (for instance) works of art only to discover later that it was a fake? How many are currently hanging in museums that are supposely geniune but are in fact fake? How many are being trained as experts by studying these fakes thinking they are geniune thus giving them wrong discernment about what is geniune and what is fake?

Van Allen himself in later years downplayed his initially very persuasive findings about the belt named after him. He didn't disavow them, he just went quiet.

5) Rocket engineers (if the rockets weren't capable of going to the moon the engineers would know it);

Well, the rockets were possibly capable of going to the moon, just not on a ship with men inside them

6) HAM radio operators;

who were picking up something else that had been sent up earlier supposedly as some sort of test tracker.

7) Any communications or television company who has a satellite in geosyncronous orbit (which is inside the Van Allen Belt so they must know a thing or two about the radiation);

again picking up the aforementioned bogus tracker or unmanned craft

Those are just SOME of the people who would have to be in on the secret. Some of those people will die eventually, taking the secret with them to their graves... but universities will continue to pump out new scientists. How will the government keep scientists from revealing the secret for the rest of time?

Those new scientists are being trained with misinformation so the secret will remain buried except for the occasional brave upstart who will dare to rally against the establishment by thinking for himself and work out the truth but will be labelled as crazy by aforementioned establishment and thus not be taken seriously much like what is happening already.

pvtpylot
2002-May-18, 04:15 PM
On 2002-05-18 11:24, The Rusty Lander wrote:
I'm simply saying that if the anomalies can be reproduced on Earth then it's possible that the photos were produced on Earth in the first place.


Or, that the "anomalies" HB's point to are, in fact, completely normal properties of photos taken anywhere. Since any putz with a Polaroid (RIP) can get the same results with shadows and the like why do HB's think there's something special about the Apollo pics that points to a grand conspiracy? That would fall under the "light behaving the same everywhere" mantra.

JayUtah
2002-May-18, 04:18 PM
So the so-called moon photos could've been taken on Earth then?

No, that is not the argument. I said some of the features can be reproduced on earth, such as diverging or converging shadows cast by sunlit objects. These are features conspiracy theorists claim point conclusively to a studio environment. They misrepresent light's behavior on earth, and therefore they mischaracterize the expected behavior on the moon.

Other features cannot be reproduced on earth, such as stark-hardedged shadows over a wide field of view cast by parallel light rays. And there is a whole host of non-optical features that must be considered.

Having taken the "moon photos" on earth requires reproducing all the visible characteristics, not just the ones possible to reproduce on earth.

Tomblvd
2002-May-18, 04:18 PM
On 2002-05-18 12:08, Johnno wrote:
hey Tom, long time no see, what's up?


I am well, Johnno.



How's school going?

Johnno
2002-May-18, 04:24 PM
How's school going?


well enough, passed all exams so far, only two more to go before summer vacation (and one more summer class to finish before year 2 starts), we're still doing basics, wont have any real space related subjects til year 2.

Otherwise Im doing fine /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

JayUtah
2002-May-18, 05:58 PM
He wouldn't necessarily need to have seen the program to have been disatisfied.

Not according to the argument as first formulated. In the original story, Welch thought he did pretty good, but was then criticized after the show aired and so went back to study some more. When it was pointed out that bringing criticism to the deceased Welch's attention after the program aired would be ... problematic, then the story changed. This story has many variations.

The problem is, the people telling the story either had the facts when they first told it, or they did not. It's pretty clear they did not.

Consider also that a perfectly adequate rebuttal to the moon hoax theories can be formulated using materials easily and cheaply available to the public from NASA, and even from scientific textbooks not affiliated in any way with NASA. Therefore the premise that Welch needed access to alleged top-secret files in order to prepare a more robust response is stupid.

Further, even stipulating all the points in the story, why would NASA's top officials allow Welch access to their secret files and then kill him suspiciously afterwards? That's a stupid course of action. Since Welch would not know beforehand what those files would contain, NASA conspirators could simply hand him fabricated "top secret files" in order to satisfy his curiosity, while keeping the real files hidden. Then Welch could go on the air and say, "I've seen the most top secret files NASA has, and they say nothing of a hoax."

Showing him the actual files (accepting for the sake of argument that they exist), letting the story leak out that they have shown him the actual files, and then killing him is just about the stupidest thing I can imagine.

So to summarize:

1. The originators of this story don't seem to have their facts straight.

2. The premise on which the story is based is implausible.

3. The story is simply an elaborately begged question: the postulated and unproven "secret files" can exist only if you assume the moon landing was hoaxed, which is what is trying to be proved.

4. The story requires me to believe that NASA officials will act recklessly and stupidly.

Have I left anything out?

JayUtah
2002-May-18, 06:09 PM
I'm simply saying that if the anomalies can be reproduced on Earth then it's possible that the photos were produced on Earth in the first place.

Even if it were true, what would that mean? You seem to want to reject evidence simply on the basis that it's not impossible for it to be fabricated. That's true for almost any kind of evidence, so you have to take that extra step of showing that it actually was falsified.

Further, you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. You start by misrepresenting our argument regarding the behavior of light. Then you demand examples of our arguments. When it is pointed out that many examples of some of them exist, then you say, "Ha! See, they could have faked it."

What, exactly, is your point here?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-05-18 14:09 ]</font>

Tomblvd
2002-May-18, 08:34 PM
Ok, they may have tracked SOMETHING, but where's the proof that it was anything that was manned?




...who were fed what they were TOLD was a live feed.






who were picking up something else that had been sent up earlier supposedly as some sort of test tracker.


again picking up the aforementioned bogus tracker or unmanned craft







There is a problem with your theory. Exactly where does the data on the bogus craft come from? Do they tape the entire mission and send the astronaut's side of the conversations up to be played back? That would be terribly difficult. The only other option would be to bounce the signal off the ship, but that would cause problems with the delay, essentially doubling it. Not to mention the fact that the uplink could be detected by anybody. There is no way to make this work.



Actually I think that the telemetry and radio signals are the strongest evidence against a hoax, as it is impossible to fake.

Tomblvd
2002-May-18, 08:53 PM
The scientists themselves were fooled. How many "experts" get duped into buying what they consider to be the geniune article on (for instance) works of art only to discover later that it was a fake? How many are currently hanging in museums that are supposely geniune but are in fact fake? How many are being trained as experts by studying these fakes thinking they are geniune thus giving them wrong discernment about what is geniune and what is fake?


The operative passage in that quote is "only to discover later". And your art example isn't doing you any good either, as science is regularly used to ferret out fake paintings.

And you missed another point about satellites. The fact of the matter is that satellites that are in geostationary orbit reside WITHIN the Van Allen belts. Now, I just fried a video card in my computer because I touched it without discharging the static electricity on my body, how could satellites filled with sensitive electronics survive?

Also, since these satellites spend all their time inside the Belts, don't you think there is a tremendous amount of data concerning radiation in the Belts? And this data doesn't come from any government entity, but from private corporations all over the world.


Van Allen himself in later years downplayed his initially very persuasive findings about the belt named after him. He didn't disavow them, he just went quiet.


That is completely untrue. I've seen stories of lectures or speeches he's done from a few years ago where he discusses the Belts.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tomblvd on 2002-05-18 16:55 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-May-18, 09:06 PM
Ok, they may have tracked SOMETHING, but where's the proof that it was anything that was manned?

No, that's not how it works. If you assert that they were unmanned, you must prove they were unmanned. If you say, "Well, they might have been unmanned," I say, "So what? They might have been filled with cottage cheese, but that doesn't mean they were."

Now a bunch of people tracked these objects entering orbit from the surface, then leaving orbit on a trajectory for the moon. They heard radio transmissions coming from them that contained human voice conversations. They saw the rockets burning for TLI in the night sky.

Now keep in mind that none of this evidence stands in a vacuum. NASA had previously announced it was send a manned spacecraft to the moon. That's the context in which the evidence exists. It's not a bunch of people making observations and saying, "Hm, I wonder what this could mean." It's a bunch of people making observations entirely consistent with a previously announced plan.

So there's the assertion that manned spacecraft were sent to the moon, and then all the empirical evidence collected so far points exactly to that same assertion. You come along and say, "But it's not impossible to fake that." It sounds as if you're saying, "I'm not going to believe that evidence unless you can show there's no possible way for it to have been falsified."

You can't just dismiss a body of evidence because you have devised some hypothetical way in which it might have been falsified. You must show that it actually was falsified according to that hypothesis, or perhaps some other one. There is a very, very large gulf between showing that something is possible, and showing that it was actually done.

And the 11 who were killed in the space of a year - don't forget that!

We won't forget that, but you didn't really address the issue. If anyone would have been in a position to know about the forgery, it would have been the astronauts. They would know whether or not they walked on the moon.

Eleven dead in a year. Well, two years is more accurate. 20% casualties in a high-risk occupation? Among some groups of test pilots the mortality rate due to accident was closer to 25%. The astronauts were expected to maintain flight proficiency and required to fly high-performance aircraft aerobatically in order to acclimate to flight stresses. In other words, these guys continued being test pilots.

And you might want to list the names, dates, and circumstances of their deaths. Three dead in Apollo 1. Two dead in a single plane crash. Two others in another single incident. Five of your eleven died in only three separate incidents, over the space of a year. Eleven deaths seems like a lot. But the issue is incidents, not individual deaths. And three fatal incidents in a high-risk profession over a year is not remarkable.

...who were fed what they were TOLD was a live feed.

True, most of the MOCR people would not necessarily be able to tell whether they were receiving live telemetry or simulated telemetry. But if there were simulated telemetry being passed off as real, someone had to create that telemetry. Those would be people involved in the hoax.

Besides, the MSFN operators would definitely know if they were getting a live feed or a simulated feed. They're the ones doing the actual tracking.

The scientists themselves were fooled. How many "experts" get duped into buying what they consider to be the geniune article on (for instance) works of art only to discover later that it was a fake?

Apples and oranges. Your example relates to the "soft" world of art evaluation and other enterprises which basically boil down to some person's opinion. We're talking about the "hard" sciences which rely on rigid methodology and careful quantification of observations. Art historians are experts, but they are not scientists.

We still use the data collected by and for Apollo in designing new spacecraft, for example the Boeing 601HP of which about seventy are currently on order. This spacecraft is meant to operate commercially within the Van Allen belts. It must be "hardened" against the radiation it finds there, which it can also measure.

Now if we've been using bogus Van Allen belt data and hardening our spacecraft accordingly, then we should expect to see many, many otherwise unexplained premature failures of those products. We don't. Keep in mind people pay $300 million for one of these things, and insure them to the hilt. If they fail unexpectedly, there are a lot of angry people in suits pounding desks asking for checks.

This point was already brought up, and you completely sidestepped. There are hundreds of satellites currently in geosynchronous orbit, inside the Van Allen belts. These were built, launched, and are operated by private companies from all over the world who have nothing to do with NASA.

It's a common misconception that NASA can just say whatever it wants about the Van Allen belts and nobody would know the difference. That's just pure fantasy. It's not the way the industry works at all.

Van Allen himself in later years downplayed his initially very persuasive findings about the belt named after him. He didn't disavow them, he just went quiet.

His initial findings were found to have been contaminated by orbital nuclear testing -- not his fault, but science has to march onward. And Van Allen has marched onward with it. We don't talk much about his initial findings because they aren't quantitatively useful. That's why additional samples were taken during Apollo development. Further, Van Allen opposes manned exploration of space, but he had the good sense to realize that Apollo was what the country wanted at the time and not to openly speak out against it. Now that Apollo is over and done, he is once more vocal about it.

Well, the rockets were possibly capable of going to the moon, just not on a ship with men inside them

"Rocket science" includes the parts of the spacecraft that contain astronauts. The engineers at North American and Grumman and McDonnell would certainly know if they were or weren't building spacecraft capable of the missions assigned to them.

It is another common misconception that only NASA would know how to build a spacecraft and that they just handed a set of completed plans to these companies who dumbly built them. NASA engineers worked hand in hand with the top engineers in these firms, all of whom had the required expertise to build spacecraft.

Now I am trained as an engineer. I have seen the detailed plans of these spacecraft, and I have in many cases seen the actual specimens of spacecraft that were used, and have been permitted to inspect them. I have expended considerable effort to understand the designs and verify them, according to my professional expertise.

Now after having acquired that expertise and having made the appropriate examinations, it is my opinion that the Apollo spacecraft were capable of accomplishing the moon landings substantially as advertised. Have you made the same examinations? Are you a trained engineer? What do you know about space travel? How did you learn it? In short, what can you do to convince me that my investigation is in error?

who were picking up something else that had been sent up earlier supposedly as some sort of test tracker.

I assume you refer to the TETR-A satellite. First, that satellite crashed before the first moon mission. Lots of people tracked it as it deorbited.

Second, there is no way a satellite in a 90-minute orbit can fool ground stations into thinking it's a spacecraft on a translunar trajectory. The MSFN operators who used TETR-A as a training target definitely knew the difference between a small satellite streaking overhead and an outbound Apollo spacecraft.

And so would HAM operators. A low-flying satellite is visible at any given time only to a small portion of the earth's surface. And from any point on the earth's surface it's only in the sky for a minute or two. That means the HAM operators would have been tipped off by not being able to raise the ship, or getting transmissions only for a minute. HAM operators and amateur satellite trackers, who have been doing this as a hobby since the late 1950s, are not complete idiots.

Can you explain, in detail, how the TETR-A satellite could have been used to accurately fake a translunar mission?

Those new scientists are being trained with misinformation so the secret will remain buried

This is preposterous. First, science is a worldwide body of knowledge. The rules of physics don't change from country to country. Do you really mean to propose that the U.S. government controls all the science education everywhere in the world?

Second, you can't just fake natural laws. The scientific models will either correspond to observation, or they will not. Science is a harsh mistress.

Third, science has many more uses than those applied to the Apollo project. Geology, for example, does much more than just evaluate moonrocks. If the principles of geology must be rewritten to allow fake moonrocks to be accepted as genuine, then when those principles are applied to other aspects of geology -- say, the location of petrochemical deposits -- then the error will be found. There are people who rely on science to be correct, not just appear correct, in order to carry on their business.

Optics? Did we reinvent optics in order to retrospectively validate Apollo photographs? Not likely, since the principles of affine-to-projective transformation have been around for a couple of hundred years. And that's one of many optical and mathematical properties which validate Apollo photographs.

And what of the other applications of optics? The same principles used to talk about Apollo are used in, say, medical imaging. And you can't fake that. If you fake it, people die. And then their relatives sue you. Therefore you are well motivated to keep your science correct.

The notion that government fiat can sidestep natural law is simply the most nonsensical and irrational thing I've ever heard.

much like what is happening already.

There are many forward-thinking people in the world who operate largely outside of the world of mainstream science. However, there are many more crackpots who merely fancy themselves forward-thinkers and harp about pseudoscientific principles about which they know next to nothing. Strangely, all of these people have an idea in which they want you to invest your hard-earned money.

The point is, just because someone is rejected by mainstream science doesn't automatically mean they're onto something.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-05-18 17:09 ]</font>

Ad Hominid
2002-May-18, 09:52 PM
<blockquote>Ok, they may have tracked SOMETHING, but where's the proof that it was anything that was manned?</blockquote>

Millions of people saw the Apollo/Saturn V launches, many thousands (including me) saw them in person. The vehicle was tracked continuously from the moment of liftoff by one non-NASA entity or another. Independent astronomers and foreign governments had the ability to track it visually in Earth orbit. Your "something" had to be the Apollo CSM/lander combination. The rocket had the power, the craft went to the moon. Why bother to send it if there was nobody in it, and what happened to the astronauts who were seen (by millions) to board it earlier?

<blockquote>2) The astronauts (approximately 55 were selected by NASA during that period, 24 of whom went to the moon);

And the 11 who were killed in the space of a year - don't forget that!</blockquote>

How about names, dates and sources?

<blockquote>3) Mission control members;

...who were fed what they were TOLD was a live feed.</blockquote>

Evidence? The controllers carried on a 2-way conversation with the astronauts. They could have faked it, but they would have to have known. What about the technicians who rigged the fake message system and fed the bogus messages? What about the tracking stations that monitored the signals directly?
How do you fake the direction of arrival and the time delay without doubling it? All recorded and played back on cue? Impossible, unless the the media commentators who spoke directly to the astronauts were in on the hoax as well along with the controllers and everyone who was evesdropping.

<blockquote>4) Scientists (how do they stop scientists from revealing the truth about the Van Allen Belt or the faked moon rocks?);

The scientists themselves were fooled.</blockquote>

And HBs deny that they are arrogant authoritarians! So, NASA can fool every geologist who has ever examined the moon rocks (including Soviets, Chinese, and even Iranians btw), every physicist who has ever examined satellite radiation data, and the mission controllers, and the professional media all over the world, but they can't fool you and Bart Sibrel.

<blockquote>5) Rocket engineers (if the rockets weren't capable of going to the moon the engineers would know it);

Well, the rockets were possibly capable of going to the moon, just not on a ship with men inside them</blockquote>

Why not? Oh, the "deadly" radiation in the Van Allen belts. Are you aware that about 25 countries have rockets capable of reaching the Van Allen belts, and of measuring the radiation levels there? This has been going on for 44 years, almost literally every day. Are they all conspiring to hide the truth, as pronounced by the self-educated physicist and Newton denialist, Ralph Renee?

<blockquote>6) HAM radio operators;

who were picking up something else that had been sent up earlier supposedly as some sort of test tracker.</blockquote>

Whatever it was, it left from Cape Canaveral at the same time as Apollo and it went to the moon. There is no way to fake the trajectory of an object heading toward the moon, Newton's laws won't allow it, and amateurs were able to determine the signals' direction of arrival and doppler shift.

<blockquote>7) Any communications or television company who has a satellite in geosyncronous orbit (which is inside the Van Allen Belt so they must know a thing or two about the radiation);

again picking up the aforementioned bogus tracker or unmanned craft</blockquote>

There are many comsats in orbit, these companies built them and own them and use them to broadcast signals to us. They operate the equipment that receives those signals, and they built it.
The great irony of course is that we could not have seen the Fox broadcast if its claims about radiation levels had been true.

<blockquote>Those are just SOME of the people who would have to be in on the secret. Some of those people will die eventually, taking the secret with them to their graves... but universities will continue to pump out new scientists. How will the government keep scientists from revealing the secret for the rest of time?

Those new scientists are being trained with misinformation so the secret will remain buried</blockquote>

And you have some proof of this? Yes, you and Sibrel are smarter than all the scientists and science students in the world put together. They are tricked en masse but you, someone who believes that a single 30+ year old transmitter could fool comsat operators into wasting billions, know better. And you complain about "name-calling" and insults!

<blockquote>except for the occasional brave upstart who will dare to rally against the establishment by thinking for himself and work out the truth but will be labelled as crazy</blockquote>
Megalomaniacal arrogance is pretty fair evidence of mental illness.

<blockquote>...by aforementioned establishment and thus not be taken seriously much like what is happening already.</blockquote>

Challenging the authority of Fox TV and Bart Sibrel would never cross your mind, would it?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ad Hominid on 2002-05-18 18:13 ]</font>

LunarOrbit
2002-May-19, 03:22 AM
On 2002-05-18 12:13, The Rusty Lander wrote:
Ok, they may have tracked SOMETHING, but where's the proof that it was anything that was manned?


Like Jay said, it's not up to me or NASA to prove the craft was manned. If you want to make wild claims you have to back them up with proof.

NASA has plenty of proof backing up their claims (ie. photographs of astronauts in zero-g with pictures of the moon outside their window)... where is your proof that the craft was unmanned?



2) The astronauts (approximately 55 were selected by NASA during that period, 24 of whom went to the moon);

And the 11 who were killed in the space of a year - don't forget that!


If you want to accuse NASA of murder I would like to see the evidence.

None of those deaths were unusual considering the line of work the astronauts were involved in. What did NASA do in the case of Theodore Freeman... train a bird to fly into his canopy?



3) Mission control members;

...who were fed what they were TOLD was a live feed.


That is ridiculous. How can the mission control be a part of the hoax unknowingly? How can they go along with it if they can't follow "the script"?

If the feed wasn't live when the mission control folks talked to the Apollo crew they wouldn't get real responses, just pre-recorded answers that wouldn't always make sense.

For example, this is how I imagine the communications would sound if the MC people was talking to a tape recorded crew:

MC: "Apollo 11, this is Houston. What does your CO2 monitor say?"

A11: "Houston, Apollo 11. We had hot dogs for lunch and we're about to go into the LM to prepare for separation."

MC: "Apollo 11, I repeat, please check your CO2 monitor."

A11: "Houston, the LM is fully activated, we're ready to begin..."

On the other hand, if the feed was live but the astronauts were on Earth it would be obvious. The delay in the radio transmissions would be doubled.



4) Scientists (how do they stop scientists from revealing the truth about the Van Allen Belt or the faked moon rocks?);

The scientists themselves were fooled.

How can NASA fool every scientist on Earth... forever? Sooner or later someone is going to study the Van Allen Belts for themselves. Either the radiation will be just like NASA says, or the scientist will discover NASA was lying.

In fact, people have already made their own independent studies of the VAB. That was the point I was making when I mentioned the satellites in geostationary orbit that are owned and operated by independent communications companies.



5) Rocket engineers (if the rockets weren't capable of going to the moon the engineers would know it);

Well, the rockets were possibly capable of going to the moon, just not on a ship with men inside them


So are you saying NASA built fully functional (in every possible way) spacecrafts in order to fool the engineers? The only things NASA didn't send to the moon were the astronauts?

That means NASA had to spend money on a fully operational spacecraft, not just a mock-up. And on top of that they had to bribe half a million people. So how did NASA manage to do that without spending far more than they actually did?


7) Any communications or television company who has a satellite in geosyncronous orbit (which is inside the Van Allen Belt so they must know a thing or two about the radiation);

again picking up the aforementioned bogus tracker or unmanned craft

You missed my point. What I said was that modern day communications companies have studied the Van Allen Belt. They probably know more about it than NASA did before they went to the moon. If NASA was lying about the VAB the communications companies would know about it.



Those new scientists are being trained with misinformation


Scientists aren't exactly like figure skating judges you know... science isn't a subjective sport or a form of art, it's, well, a science.

You can't tell people 2+2=5 and expect them to be fooled. If you give scientists wrong information they will realize it. That is what scientists do.

JayUtah
2002-May-19, 04:23 AM
That is ridiculous. How can the mission control be a part of the hoax unknowingly? How can they go along with it if they can't follow "the script"?

Let me explain "live feed" in this context. Most of the flight controllers operated consoles that displayed information gleaned from the digital stream of telemetry beamed down from the spaceship.

The Manned Space Flight Network (MSFN) consisted of a large number of ground receiving stations -- radio telescopes, ships, airplanes, etc. -- that fed their signals via land phone lines, satellite links, and occasionally radio links to a sort of collation point. The consoles in the Mission Operations Control Room (MOCR) -- the prosaic "Houston" -- connected to this collation equipment to receive their data.

That was the genius of the design: in order to conduct a simulation for MOCR controllers, you could simply disconnect the MSFN links and connect in its place a computer which fed the consoles a prearranged set of inputs that was, for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable from real flight data.

So the operators sitting at the consoles could be shown a simulation and many of them might not be able to tell it wasn't real. But of course the collator operators and the MSFN station operators would know without any doubt whether they were in a simulation or a flight. You're talking about fooling maybe 25 people in the MOCR, but you can't fool the hundreds of other Mission Control people.

This argument comes from the rather inexpert hypothesis by Bart Sibrel that the TETR-A training satellite did not fall to earth as observed, but instead was used to relay data down through the MSFN in order to fool flight controllers.

In fact, people have already made their own independent studies of the VAB.

People were making independent studies of the Van Allen belts before the moon landings. NASA used data from Canadian research on the Van Allen belts.

That was the point I was making when I mentioned the satellites in geostationary orbit that are owned and operated by independent communications companies.

Geosynchronous satellites for communication have been launched by various countries -- some hostile to the U.S. -- since 1965.

You can't tell people 2+2=5 and expect them to be fooled. If you give scientists wrong information they will realize it.

It's like Ralph Rene's "proof" that pi is exactly 3.1516. I don't need to refute the proof. I don't even need to see it. I know it's wrong, because if pi were different than its current definition, we engineers would be in huge trouble.

The space shuttle SRBs, for example, are about twelve feet in diameter. The infamous joints are constructed to 0.001-inch precision. If pi were wrong, then when we got around to spacing the pin holes we'd be three-quarters of an inch off by the time we got back to the starting point.

Engineers can be held legally liable for the quality of their work. If I hire a geologist to tell me all about the strength of a certain mineral material, or how it's going to react to static and dynamic loads, vibration, thermal stress, etc., I want him to tell me true facts, not some fantasy based on a government-mandated cover story that misstates the true nature of geological materials.

Science can occasionally be wrong, and it can occasionally be incomplete. (In fact, science is based on the presumption that its theories are incomplete.) But it can't be knowingly falsified. Not for very long, anyway.

Tomblvd
2002-May-19, 12:33 PM
Reading this thread will give you a good reason why most hoax-believers won't touch this place with a ten foot pole.

Karl
2002-May-20, 05:53 AM
On 2002-05-18 12:13, The Rusty Lander wrote:

6) HAM radio operators;

who were picking up something else that had been sent up earlier supposedly as some sort of test tracker.



The equipment needed to do this was a minimum of a twelve-foot parabolic dish with about a one degree field of view. Given the locations of the people on this list, where would the signals have to come from?

<h2>Amateur Apollo Tracking</h2>
<table border="1" cols="6" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td>Person(s)</td><td>Location</td><td>Latitude</td><td>Longitude</td><td>Missions Tracked</td><td>Documentation</td></tr><tr>
<td>W4HHK +W4UDQ</td><td>Collierville, TN</td><td>35 3' N</td><td>89 40' W</td><td>Apollo 10,12,14,15,16</td><td>June 72, QST</td></tr><tr><td>K2RIW</td><td>Dix Hills, NY</td><td>40 48' N</td><td>73 20' W</td><td>Apollo 15,16</td><td>June, July 72, QST</td></tr><tr><td>K2ALX</td><td>Jamaica, NY</td><td>40 42' N</td><td>73 47' W</td><td>Apollo 16</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>WA6QYR</td><td>Ridgecrest, CA</td><td>35 37' N</td><td>117 41' W</td><td>Apollo 15</td><td>History of SBMS<sup>2</sup></td></tr>
<tr><td>K6HIJ +W6DSL +WA6QYR</td><td>Barstow, CA</td><td>34 53' N</td><td>117 2' W</td><td>Apollo 14</td><td>History of SBMS</td></tr><tr><td>W6YFK</td><td>Santa Barbara, CA</td><td>34 26' N</td><td> 119 48' W</td><td>Apollo 17</td><td>CSVHF Society<sup>1</sup> Conference in Rochester MN</td></tr><tr><td>AH6NM &
Sven Grahn</td><td>Gainesville, FL</td><td>29 41' N</td><td>82 24' W</td><td>Apollo 17</td><td> <a href="http://www.users.wineasy.se/svengrahn/trackind/Apollo17/APOLLO17.htm">
WebLink</a></td></tr><tr><td>Heinz Kaminski</td><td>Bochum, Germany</td><td>51.44 N</td><td>7.26 E</td><td>Apollo 8-16</td><td>1976 Report<sup>3</sup></td></tr><tr><td>G1HTB</td><td>Penistone, England</td><td>55.54N</td><td>1.4W</td><td>Apollo 10,13</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>G0JEQ</td><td>York, England</td><td>55.4N</td><td>1.3W</td><td>Apollo 10, 11, 13, 14</td><td>
</td></tr></tbody></table>


Note 1: Central States VHF Society (http://www.csvhfs.org/)


Note 2: San Bernadino Microwave Society (http://www.ham-radio.com/sbms/)
Note 3: "Data Reception in the S-Band using the 20-metre-parabolic universal antenna of Bochum" Lists the following: </p>
<ul> Lunar Orbiter 5, (2295MHz) Pioneer 8, (2292MHz) Surveyor 7, (2295MHz) Apollo 8-16, (2272.5, 2282.5, 2287.5MHz)

[/list]

Edit to improve HTML.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Karl on 2002-05-20 01:56 ]</font>

Ian R
2002-May-20, 11:32 AM
Karl - it's nice to see that old chestnut again. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

jrkeller
2002-May-21, 06:13 PM
Jay's description of the Mission Control is essentially right, but there are several aspects of their operations that he failed to mention. First of all, there are three shifts of people, so instead of fooling 25 people, there are 75 people to be fooled. Secondly, there was and still are a large engineering support staff, called the Mission Evaluation Room (MER) which works simultaneously with Mission Control. They don't get much press, but there are bigger and typically more knowledgeable about specific aspects of the mission or specific hardware. They also work in three shifts, typically have two to four people supporting a designated aspect of the flight and received detailed telemetry on specific hardware systems. For example, the environmental control system or the thermal control system. Also, on the later flights, there was a geological support room, which helped direct the lunar surface operations.

Well back to the MER. The most important aspect about the MER is that the people who are there are the experts on a given piece of hardware and in many cases the designers and the developers of the given hardware. Therefore, if something fails, the best and brightest NASA has is right there. The interesting thing about the MER folks is that unlike Mission Control, these people are a combination of contractor and NASA people. I seriously doubt that anyone trying to fake a moon landing could fool these experts. As any engineer knows, if the data is always perfect, something's probably wrong.

As someone who has worked in the MER, I can tell you that there is always a different feel to a "SIM" vs. a real mission. I can't put my finger on it, but it probably has to do with the fact that no ones life is in danger.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jrkeller on 2002-05-21 14:15 ]</font>

LunarOrbit
2002-May-21, 06:28 PM
HB's have never really explained why NASA would have faked the Apollo 13 explosion.

Some HB's say that people were losing interest in Apollo so NASA needed a dramatic "story" to regain the audience. But that doesn't make sense. If they were really faking Apollo they would be glad that people were losing interest because it would mean they didn't need to fool as many people.

People can't see evidence of a hoax if they aren't watching the missions on TV.

JayUtah
2002-May-22, 12:34 AM
First of all, there are three shifts of people, so instead of fooling 25 people, there are 75 people to be fooled.

I'm just guessing 25 MOCR controllers. I didn't stop to count. And I know about the shifts, of course, but I figured you were only trying to fool one shift at a time.

The point is simply that feeding bogus telemetry only has the opportunity to fool certain people associated with Mission Control. There are, as you say, people who won't be fooled by canned data. And there are lots and lots of people "upstream" of the simulation injection point who will definitely know if they are receiving data from the spacecraft or not.

They [back-room controllers] don't get much press...

... and therefore aren't considered by hoax believers.

... in many cases the designers and the developers of the given hardware.

Tom Kelly tells great stories about his work in the Grumman support room. While they were babysitting LM-5 during Apollo 11 descent the designer of the landing radar actually passed out.

The point is that you've got Grummies in this case monitoring an LM that they built from the ground up over a period of years. This thing was in their factory for two or three years and they know how it "breathes". Just as a driver knows exactly how his speedometer needle wobbles in his favorite car, Grumman engineers get used to the idiosynchrasies of each part of their spacecraft. They know, for example, that the heater for RCS thruster quad A heats up a little more slowly than the others. They know that the DPS fuel system pressure "bounces" in a certain way when pressurized.

The hoax believers simply ignore the degree to which engineers can become familiar with their creations.

I seriously doubt that anyone trying to fake a moon landing could fool these experts.

Sure, the point isn't that these folks are easily fooled. It's simply that Sibrel's idea for fooling them won't work at all. You can't fool them with a satellite, if you could fool them at all.

Add to this two factors about simulation: the sims broke down a lot, and the simulation computers could only hold a couple hours worth of data. So even if you want to postulate feeding a stream of simulated data to the MOCR (and elsewhere) consoles, you have to answer why they were suddenly able to provide 150 hours of seamless data without the simulation computers breaking down.

As someone who has worked in the MER, I can tell you that there is always a different feel to a "SIM" vs. a real mission.

I have no problem with that. The notion is simply that the simulations take place at the actual consoles. It's not as if you have to go to a separate room to practice, or that there's a light that says, "This is a simulation".

I've been in lots of carefully rehearsed and seamlessly simulated situations. Sims always have that "canned" feeling. I know exactly what you mean about the different feel, but not being able to put your finger on it.

Obviously I hestitate to bring up how easy it is to feed simulated data to the consoles, but I gotta call it like it is. If Sibrel missed this one, he's obviously not well enough versed in MSFN design to say who could be fooled and how. He's clearly grasping at straws.

LunarOrbit
2002-May-22, 03:53 AM
On 2002-05-21 20:34, JayUtah wrote:
I know exactly what you mean about the different feel, but not being able to put your finger on it.


Could it be the way the astronauts act? In a simulation the astronauts would remain more or less calm and collected even when simulating a major problem with the spacecraft because they would have known there was no real danger. But in a real mission they would have had the sound of stress in their voices (not to mention their medical telemetry) when they performed difficult tasks.

This would have been most obvious during the Apollo 11 landing when they were hearing alarms, the fuel was running low, and Neil was having a hard time finding a safe place to land. To most of us Neil and Buzz sound pretty calm, but I bet people who knew them well could detect the stress.

And if the Apollo 13 astronauts only pretended to be aboard a damaged spacecraft they deserved Oscars.