"The Truth Behind the Moon Landings" is screening. We'll be able to get a glimpse of JayUtah.

After being cancelled on Prime TV back on 18 July, it's good to see that it is being aired on one of our most popular free-to-air channels.

Apparently the History Channel showed it on 20 and 21 July under the name, "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?"

Yeah I saw it in the TV Guide, but they still have a whole week to cancel it yet.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

This thread:
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=15308
has more information about the programme.

I intend to email a few teenagers about it a little later in the week -- one who used to live next door had seen the Fox mockumentary and thought the moon landings were faked. It's probably a good idea to alert any teachers we know
.

I'm certainly planning to watch it.

"The Truth Behind the Moon Landings" is screening.
There's a nice programme listing on the TV3 website.

Apparently the History Channel showed it on 20 and 21 July under the name, "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?"
No, that was the Fox "documentary" and I still can't believe they scheduled it as part of their 35th anniversary celebration.

Welcome ajv

__________________
If this writing is blue you're going too fast!

Watching it now. Kaysing and Rene's ignorance is really showing.

A good point-by-point refutation. Funny how the whole shadow argument gets reamed by a few examples of perspective.

Wish my VCR wasn't bung.

__________________
A faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets.
-Arthur C. Clarke

They surely wanted to give a balanced view on the event...

__________________
"Flying in space is risky business, but just staying on this planet is risky business too." - John Young, astronaut

I'm afraid to say that Jay's gone down in my opinions. I just can't get over that squecky voice.


8-[

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Well, Jay's answers and explanations seemed pretty resonable, in particular as regards to the parallel shadows business.

But I have to wonder why the tune has been changed on that flag business. It use to be that the reason for the waving was because there was a pully system that had deliberately been put into the flag to make it wave for show though I wondered why they would bother to do that with all the other things on their plate and, in any case, the whole point would be to show how it really behaved on the moon. But, as I said, that story or reason for the flag waving has evolved and changed over the years to the one presented on the show. And for a long time, the general public have simply not had access to the full moon landing footage in spite of VHS video libraries being around for years. They have had plenty of time to digitally modify the footage to suit whatever explantions they have spent forty years coming up with. The flag waves when they're away from it? No problem, just alter the footage to make it look still. IF ONLY we had personal VCRs in 1969, it would be a completely different story.

Then there's the ability to getting the same infomration from firing lasers at the moon without the need for reflectors.

Here's a quote from my archives (sorry, I don't know where it came from):

"Even stranger, a laser aimed at the moon can return enough of a signal that a reflector is not even needed.

"According to the official explanation, of about one sextillion photons fired by an earth-based laser at the reflector in a burst, one photon will make it back to be recorded in the collector on earth. I am no expert, but why would that one-in-one-sextillion photons have bounced back from the reflector and not just the lunar surface? How could you tell? Would the “hit” rate from the lunar that contained one of those reflectors be higher than lunar surface that did not? In 1962, scientists bounced lasers off the moon and caught the signal coming back."

And the real possiblity that Russia did not in fact have a tracking satellite up until 1972. Russia had no intention of telling the Americans that but the Americans knew anyway - that's why they knew they could get away with it and that Russia would simply "confirm" the Apollo data rather than let on that they didn't have the ability to do so. When they finally had a real tracking satellite up, the Apollo missions were suddenly cancelled.

Again, a quote from the archives but no source unfortunately:

"Fact - The Soviets DID NOT have doppler shift radar capable of tracking objects in deep space until almost the end of the Apollo program."

He did more than that, he blew Kaysing out of the water.

I'd heard that too, but having since seem the schemtics of the flag, there was no room for such a system. I'd say that the original tale was introduced by those that did as much reseach as the CT's, ie, none, and didn't know the real reason for it.

I'm sure that Jay can nswer this one, but I'd suspect that with the number of stills taken from the video having been available from the word go, any altering would be extremely obvious. I'm pretty sure that the footage was available as well if you wanted it. Kaysing got it, including what he claimed was "Secret" footage (some secret if they gave it out to a member of the general public!!!!!)

I'm sure that the scientists that actually use them would disagree. It's even possible to determine the difference between the USSR planeted ones and the USA's because of the amount of light return.

First there was nothing sudden about the cancellation. It was decided after Apollo 13. NASA hoped they could convince Congress to continue the project and so continued their planning, but the plug was pulled aways. It's also interesting that it wasn't NASA's decision to end the missions, if Congress had decided to ignore public lack of interest and the danger of losing on American in space, then NASA would have been still conducting missions well into the mid 70's.

Second, you dont need Doppler equipment to track a radio signal. The signal's frequency changes as the source moves and so you have to adjust the frequency as you listen. Even ham radio operaters across the world were able to follow the mission, including the Eagle's landing. All it takes to work out where the signal is is a little math.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Don't think I've ever heard that explanation before and I can find nothing on Google from past or present mentioning it either. The only explanation I've ever heard is the usual lack of air resistance on the moon due to no atmosphere. Do you have any references you could share as I'm interested in the explanation?

Do you have any information regarding their lack of satellite tracking? I can recall reading several Venera pages mentioning that they used 'Soviet satellite tracking stations' to track it until they lost contact with it (1961).

Russia was also not the only country to track Apollo to the Moon. Jodrell Bank in England also tracked (and recorded) everything down to the descent of the Lunar Module.

So the USSR have planted some on the moon. How? With an unmanned spacecraft? Well, then... :wink:

Yes, the Soviets used unmanned spacecraft to put laser reflectors on the Moon. It may be news to you, but not to the rest of us, as it has been discussed many times in this forum and elsewhere.

Also, please provide a source for your claim that a "pulley system" was once posited as the method used to make the flag wave.

I don't know if you really can get measurements by "naturally" relected laser. But even when: You would never know from which point of the moon the reflection came (the beam has a diameter of a few kilometers when hitting the moon) and so you could never make measurements with the precision of a few centimeters. You need some fixed point on the lunar surface.

__________________
"Flying in space is risky business, but just staying on this planet is risky business too." - John Young, astronaut

They put them on the back of their Moon rover(s).

This is a typical HB sidetrack without any substance, just conjecture. It aslo quckly becomes inconsistant with the rest of the Theory. This is what most HB's seem to forget. If they were right their theories should build on each other, but they don't, they detract one from the other.

Kaysing claims that the astronaunts didn't leave on the rocket because NASA was worried it would explode, however this ignores the fact that the Saturn V had been lunched successfully 9 times prior to that, 5 times un-manned and 4 times manned. Was Apollo 7 faked? If it was, why? All they did was a low Earth Orbit, the same as the 10 manned Gemini and 7 manned Mercury Missions, as well as the Russian missions. Were all these faked? If so why was there a space race at all, if not, then why would they have been scared to launch the Apollo 11 crew for fear of the Rocket exploding?

Not only this, Kaysing disgrees with Sibrel who claims that his video shows that the Apollo Mission was in low Earth Orbit, and the list goes on.

As to the Reflectors, how would they have gotten there if not place by men? The trouble with claiming they were done by an unmanned flight is that you have to produce the unmanned flight. If you were to claim the Apollo missions were really unmanned then you have to explain the Sibrel video as well as how come the reflectors are better placed, and in the end, it would have been easier to actually land a man on the moon that it was to land unmanned craft. The surveyers were much more complex that the LLM because the LLM didn't need the automatic landing systems, they had a pilot. Why not send a passanger or two along if you are sending a ship, and of course its totally against that other great argument that they didn't have the Tech to do it. If they couldn't land a manned mission with a pilot who can react instantaneously when things go wrong, how would they have stood a chance of landing an unmanned one (I'll note here that the USSR's first attempts were spectaular failures.)

In the end, it really doesn't matter how you twist it, the HB's ideas just won't stack up unless you totally ignore everything else, including all the other HB ideas.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Leaving aside the amusing typo about 'lunching' on Saturn Vs....

The Saturn V was launched only five times prior to Apollo 11, and undertook only two unmanned flights. Apollo 4 was the first flight of a Saturn V, and it was unmanned. Apollo 5 was an unmanned LM test, and the LM was sent up on a Saturn 1B. Apollo 6 was another unmanned Saturn V launch. Apollo 7 was a Saturn 1B launch, not a Saturn V, since it was only taking the CSM to low Earth orbit. Apollos 8-10 were the manned Saturn V flights preceding Apollo 11.

Nonetheless, NASA had no more reason to suppose that the Saturn V rocket would explode than they had to believe any other rocket would. Rather less, probably, since they were more involved in the development than they had been with any of the other launch vehicles they used (which they purchased from the military). The Saturn series remains the only rocket series never to have exploded on the pad or in flight (although an SIV-B stage did explode during a test firing). Just as well. The outcome of a Saturn V exploding on the launchpad scarcely bears thinking about.

__________________
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Face of Evil.