Interesting thread over at Apollohoax - Were A11, A12 & A13

[Ian R]

http://www.apollohoax.com/forums/vie...14&forum=12&29

[David Hall]

That is, as I have heard, Karamoon's special theory. As explained here in past threads, he thinks the first 3 landings were faked because NASA hadn't had time to recover from the Apollo 1 fire. Do I have it right?

I guess I'll have to read through this thread to find out more.

------------

Hey, how come Apollohoax has more interesting smilies than we do? They're using the same software you know.

http://www.apollohoax.com/forums/faq.php#smilies

[Tomblvd]

On 2002-07-08 17:47, David Hall wrote:
That is, as I have heard, Karamoon's special theory. As explained here in past threads, he thinks the first 3 landings were faked because NASA hadn't had time to recover from the Apollo 1 fire. Do I have it right?

I guess I'll have to read through this thread to find out more.

Of all the theories out there, this has to be one of the worst.

I can look at the pictures and video of all the missions, and see no difference. If we are to believe this theory, then NASA would have had to know EXACTLY what the moon looked like before we got there, and then been able to fake it so convincingly that the transition from the fake missions to the real ones would be unnoticable.

There's no way they could fake that. That is something we couldn't even do now.

[Karamoon]

David Hall: As explained here in past threads, he thinks the first 3 landings were faked because NASA hadn't had time to recover from the Apollo 1 fire. Do I have it right?

Yes and no. I do not specifically believe it was the Apollo 1 fire that threw them, I think they were already hard pushed before that. But yes, I can't help but feel the Apollo 1 situation made matters worse. The end-of-the-decade deadline was important to them for a couple of reasons.

1) They could not go on funding Apollo indefinitely (funding the war in Vietnam already stripped NASA of many planned post-Apollo projects, and it had already begun to bite into Apollo's budget).

2) NASA was losing the support of the public and people in the Congress (after Apollo 1 support nearly dipped off the scale!).

So I feel that they may have bent the rules a little bit.

A good book that explains these pressures is Spaceflight and the Myth of Presidential Leadership.

[Karamoon]

Tomblvd: If we are to believe this theory, then NASA would have had to know EXACTLY what the moon looked like before we got there,

Yes, you are quite correct.

I have already stated my belief that NASA did indeed survey the surface in considerably more detail than they actually let on at the time. There are some suggestions that scientists were actually surprised with what they found on the moon, and that it totally contradicted their previously held view of a harsh sharp mountainous landscape. Well, I do not belive this for a second. I think they crash- or soft-landed a roving probe (perhaps in similar fashion to Lunakhod) and that they surveyed it in considerable detail, and so that they took no chances when it would come to landing human beings. But then, in the intervening period, somebody posed a backup plan which entailed a bit of trickery.

There's no way they could fake that. That is something we couldn't even do now.

I disagree. Take a look at the texture and quality of Portland cement, for example:

Portland cement
Portland cement/Lunar surface comparison
Grey scale
Portland cement kiln

[traztx]

How did they fake the rocks and dust samples without the latter real ones calling the bluff?

How did they make the kicked-up dust act the same way as real kicked-up dust in a vacuum at moon-G's? If they filmed it in a vacuum on the set, how did they manage the 300 lb space suits in Earth-gravity?

How did they get the solar wind experiments back? How did they deploy the other experiments, including the laser range experiment that was confirmed from Earth within hours of deployment on 11?

How did they get the film cannisters back from surveyer if 12 was fake?
--Tommy

[Karamoon]

traztx: How did they fake the rocks and dust samples without the latter real ones calling the bluff?

I'm working on that one. But please bear in mind that the early missions did not retrieve as much surface material as the G-missions did.

traztx: How did they make the kicked-up dust act the same way as real kicked-up dust in a vacuum at moon-G's?

I have supplied a couple of possible theories for this over at AH.com.

traztx: How did they deploy the other experiments, including the laser range experiment that was confirmed from Earth within hours of deployment on 11?

The Soviets also bounced lasers of their own mirrors (ask yourself how they got them up there). So it is possible that the U.S. deployed their equipment in the same fashion.

traztx: How did they get the film cannisters back from surveyer if 12 was fake?

Because it was fake, perhaps?

Grab yourself a cup off coffee, and read this..

http://www.night-sun.co.uk/loveandwar.htm

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Karamoon on 2002-07-08 18:56 ]</font>

[Tomblvd]

You misunderstand my point.

I can (and have) looked at high res pictures from the early missions and the last ones, and there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in the two. It would be impossible to perfectly recreate the lunar surface so that later, real, photos would look exactly the same. How do you say they falsified those pictures so perfectly.

And as far as the portland cement goes, I have some out in my back yard, so I went out, spread some out, and took a few shuffling steps through it. That was 10 minutes ago and the dust cloud still hasn't dissipated. Every video and film shot of the lunar regolith shows the dust falling straight to the ground. There is no way to fake the effects of both the vacuum (no dust cloud) and 1/6th gravity on earth.

[johnwitts]

Apollo 11...



Apollo 12...



Apollo 16...



Apollo 17...




Can anyone see any differences between the characteristics of the terrain in the first two and last two pictures?

[Andrew]

traztx: How did they get the film cannisters back from surveyer if 12 was fake?

Karamoon:Because it was fake, perhaps?

Surveyor 3 was launched in April '67. Three months after the Apollo 1 fire. If NASA was swayed from undetaking a real lunar landing by the Apollo 1 fire, that left them three months to decide to fake Surveyor 3.
I'm not sure whether this is your argument, though I'm not to sure of the full details of what you're arguing. Have you supplied a detailed summary of your arguments anywhere?
I think I've heard from you before that it was the Apollo 1 fire that caused them to decide to falsify the landings (well, the first three anyway).

Tomblvd:"can look at the pictures and video of all the missions, and see no difference. If we are to believe this theory, then NASA would have had to know EXACTLY what the moon looked like before we got there"

The Surveyor missions transmitted TV pictures to earth, did they not? They would have had pictures from the lunar surface by that time. But since the Surveyor missions were now fakes, that means that those pictures were fakes too.

[Andrew]

I do not specifically believe it was the Apollo 1 fire that threw them

I didn't see this before my last posting.
I thought I'd heard you state previously that it was the Apollo 1 fire?

[Tomblvd]

Can anyone see any differences between the characteristics of the terrain in the first two and last two pictures?

You read my mind. I was going to do the same thing.

Thanks for doing my work for me. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

Also, here is a picture of a lunar sample. Note how dark it is. The pictures of the lunar surface you normally see make it seem much lighter.

But it is much darker than portland cement.

[Karamoon]

Not only does it look the same, but apparently lunar material even contains two of the same ingredients as Portland cement.

So the two questions I am posing are:

1. Did they perform a hush-hush inspection of the lunar surface prior to Apollo 11.

2. Did they recognise the remarkable similarity between the lunar surface and Portland cement.

If they answer is yes, then looking for dissimilarities between the pictures maybe pointless, as the mock-up surface would have served its purpose as intended.

[Tomblvd]

On 2002-07-08 21:57, Karamoon wrote:
Not only does it look the same, but apparently lunar material even contains two of the same ingredients as Portland cement.

So the two questions I am posing are:

1. Did they perform a hush-hush inspection of the lunar surface prior to Apollo 11.

2. Did they recognise the remarkable similarity between the lunar surface and Portland cement.

If they answer is yes, then looking for dissimilarities between the pictures maybe pointless, as the mock-up surface would have served its purpose as intended.

First, the portland cement I have I much lighter than that. But, since cement has almost NONE of the characteristics necessary to mimic lunar regolith, the comparison is meaningless.

You know, since you are making all these assumptions, you might as well just speculate the scientists at NASA invented a new type of soil to use for the hoax. It is just as believable.

And you keep ignoring the main point about the pictures we are making. If you look at those shots, you will see they are, for all intents and purposes, identical. It would be completely impossible to fake the landings and THEN have the faked pictures match the real pictures exactly.

Please explain how you can't tell the difference between the fakes and the genuine shots.

[Karamoon]

But, since cement has almost NONE of the characteristics necessary to mimic lunar regolith, the comparison is meaningless.

That is simply not true. Visually, it is almost perfect. If you are referring to the trajectory of the regolith in a vacuum, then I have -- as I stated a little earlier -- provided two possible work-arounds to this. If you follow the link at the top of this thread you will find them there. You don't have to agree with them, naturally. Others have since raised further questions, and I will likely answer them tomorrow.

And you keep ignoring the main point about the pictures we are making. If you look at those shots, you will see they are, for all intents and purposes, identical.

And that is exactly the point. They would never attempt a simulation using salt or grounded pepper. They would employ a material identical or as close to the real thing as possible. There are hundreds of thousands of soils here on earth to chose from.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Karamoon on 2002-07-08 22:27 ]</font>

[DaveC]

And that is exactly the point. They would never attempt a simulation using salt or grounded pepper. They would employ a material identical or as close to the real thing as possible. There are hundreds of thousands of soils here on earth to chose from.

There are indeed lots of soils and soil-like materials here on earth, but none of them will behave in earth gravity like they are in 1/6g - without creating dust clouds. You have to look at the videos from A11 and A12 carefully, which it doesn't appear you have done and explain the 1/6 g ballistic behaviour. The soil kicked up simply stays aloft too long to be coarse sand in earth gravity - and it behaves too perfectly ballistically to be fine material in air and earth gravity. I assume your reference to providing an answer tomorrow relates to my question about the soiling of the space suits with the dust, so I won't ask here.

[JayUtah]

That is simply not true. Visually, it is almost perfect.

No, it's actually too light in my opinion. Besides, visual resemblance itself is not enough. You don't get partial credit when you're trying to fool the world.

They would employ a material identical or as close to the real thing as possible.

But the question is how they would know what the real thing looks and acts like. That's a huge, gaping hole in your theory, and you answer it simply by supposing that the unmanned exploration was more extensive than reported. If your theory doesn't fit the facts, it doesn't fit the facts and you should graciously admit it. You're trying to make the facts fit your theory.

If Apollos 11, 12, and 13 were falsified, that question is independent of why, conditionally, they may have been falsified. In short, the problem is partitionable in an evidentiary sense. Without considering why such a falsification would be necessary, you should be able to provide evidence that they were, in fact, falsified. You haven't done that.

Instead you're trying to compel belief in a falsification as a necessary consequence of your argument regarding Apollo's developmental tempo. That, in turn, is based on general and somewhat vague observations by others, and generally ignores the detailed developmental evidence. That, too, is not a strong argument.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-07-09 01:38 ]</font>

[Karamoon]

Dave: You have to look at the videos from A11 and A12 carefully, which it doesn't appear you have done

What Apollo 12 footage is this?

[RalphVanDyke]

On 2002-07-08 18:18, Karamoon wrote:
I do not specifically believe it was the Apollo 1 fire that threw them, I think they were already hard pushed before that. But yes, I can't help but feel the Apollo 1 situation made matters worse. The end-of-the-decade deadline was important to them for a couple of reasons.

Maybe there's a gaping hole in my logic here, but if they were so hard pressed to beat this deadline, why would they go about faking Apollo 11 a year and a half before the deadline? Wouldn't you wait a bit and see if your technology could catch up? If you believe 14 was real, their technology must've been close right? As it was Apollo 14 (landed on the moon on Feb. 5, 1971) was about a month outside JFK's "within this decade" claim. So why fake it in July of 69?

[DaveC]

Although there is only about half an hour of video for A12, it's still worth examining for discontinuity. I know the camera got fried when it was pointed at the sun. It won't take you long to study it. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

[JayUtah]

why would they go about faking Apollo 11 a year and a half before the deadline?

I've already talked to some people at NASA who were quite ready to remind everybody that technically Kennedy's "this decade" ended with 1970, not 1969. They were going to try to buy themselves another year.

That said, they were aiming hard for 1969. But Karamoon's "Plan B" theory has already had its support subverted. Plan B was to fudge the deadline.