http://galactic-guide.com/articles/8S12.html

This article is an rather amusing fairy tale. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]

Despite what the HBs think, 2001 does not prove in the least bit that NASA have and could stage a moon landing. As the spacecraft lands on the Moon, the dust billows like in an atmosphere, completely different of what is seen in the Apollo footage, as it has been pointed out before in this thread.

There's of plenty other goofs listed on Clavius here.

__________________
~AstroMike

This article is certainly a joke. The Apollo 13 director was Randall Cunningham? (For those who don't know, Apollo 13 director Ron Howard acted in the TV series Happy Days and his character's name was Richie Cunningham.) Also, Kubrick was a math genius who helped NASA solve an orbital problem, which meant they could go to the Moon to film the moonwalks? And they had time to do that, but they didn't have time to actually do the actual landings? Heeheeheeheehee Hawhawhawhawhaw. It's a joke.

However, what's more disturbing (in addition to the very wide format that makes it difficult to read), are some of the comments given in the reader's comments thread: http://galactic-guide.com/cgi-bin/wi...Moon_Hoax,_The. Specifically, there's one poster who actually has a pretty good, if rambling, argument. I'm going to print it here. Sorry it's so long:

I say this guy has real motor-mouth disease. He just can't seem to concisely state his points. But I do admit this one had me stumped for a bit.

Here are links to the photos and text in question:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...11-44-6550.jpg
http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/AS11/10075285.jpg (as11-44-6642) http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/AS11/10075285.htm
http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/AS11/10075297.jpg (as11-44-6689) http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/AS11/10075297.htm

I have however figured out at least one part of the problem. Looking at other photos in the series of the first photo, I've discovered that they were not actually taken on July 20th. The date listed on the JSC site is actually July 16th.

http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/AS11/10075247.jpg (as11-44-6549) http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/AS11/10075247.htm
http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/AS11/10075248.jpg (as11-44-6552) http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/AS11/10075248.htm

So for the first photo, the ASLJ is most likely to be in error.

(Added) Hold on a minute, I just thought of something. July 16th was the launch date. They couldn't have been in lunar orbit. The guilty party must be the JSC site. That makes my following theory even more probable.

But I'm less certain about the other ones. I think the most likely explanation is that the dates there are also in error.

Since 6689 is after 6642 on the roll, how could it have been taken first? My guess is that 6689 was actually taken on the return trip, and thus taken from much closer, as well as from a different angle, especially since it's much larger and shows more detail.

(Added) So what we have is a problem with photo dates, not a problem with the missions themselves. And the most likely culprit is the JSC site. It looks like the dates given there can't be trusted.

The second Apollo 17 series is easier to discount. Trying to measure angular measurements on the screen of different photos taken at different locations is iffy at best. Different settings and camera angles can spell great differences in error. Nothing convinces me there.

_________________
<font size="-1">PLEASE NOTE: Some quantum physics theories suggest that when the consumer is not directly observing this product, it may cease to exist or will exist only in a vague and undetermined state.</font>

<font size="-1">(made some formatting fixes, and added correction)</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Hall on 2002-08-01 05:19 ]</font>

Ah, and even more clear information. From the ALSJ itself:

So 6689 is definitely from much later in the mission and not from July 20th as the JSC site indicates. And 6642 is from after the landing mission which would make it July 21st.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

<a name="20020801.3:00"> page 20020801.3:00 aka Dow_Load
On 2002-08-01 05:17, David Hall wrote: To: HUb'
1: as you possibly know / what i look 4 / in Moon photos
2: ARE the presence of Earth Shine Shodows
3: .no. I dont see any
AS11-44-6550 (105k) 4:
5: in fact i don't even see Sun Shine shadows
6: on this .jpg [to me it looks like a painting] not a photograph
AS11-44-6642 (79k) 7:
8: Same Story as above { the Lunar surface }
9: Does NOT look to me like there are shadows
AS11-44-6689 (35k) 10
OK? {these two do not look like REAL photos of the Moon?
I did download 6550 & 6642 and will repost
HERE in this thread Oct 1st after checking
My point .4U was the ship I was on in `58
was the U.S.S. Chanticleer
ASR-7 {believe what you like}

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HUb' on 2002-08-03 01:18 ]</font>

In addition to various discrepancies about the dates of certain photographs, bear in mind that the translunar trajectory is not a straight line. Both the earth and the moon will go through changes of phase as seen from the spacecraft en route simply due to the spacecraft's change in position. That doesn't hold for circular orbits, but if any of the dates for the photos place the spacecraft en route, you can't make generalizations about phase.

As for the apparent fluctuation of the earth in the sky in the J-missions, recall that the J-missions lasted for three days, producing a difference in sun elevation of up to 30&deg; between photographs. Further, the local horizon is not necessarily a good approximation of the theoretical horizon, especially on the moon where the horizon is actually much closer to the photographer.

Randall Cunningham is not listed in the Internet Movie Datebase, but he was the quarterback for the Philadelphia Eagles for a long time, and lately the Vikings, Cowboys, and the Ravens.

That article is on the Galactic Guide project webpages. Note what they say their mission is. It includes: "(a) it's a collaborative Internet attempt at creating an electronic reference meant to guide and misguide its readers in matters of life, death, and finding a parking space anywhere in the Universe;"

The Galactic Misguide. Very funny.

They faked the moonlandings, but Kubrick filmed them on location, to solve the 1/6 gravity problem, directing them remotely!?

Ironically Kubrick got the phases and elevations of the earth wrong.

It's not ironic, Jay, it was a hidden whistle-blow for future generations to discover! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2009 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

Yes, refresh my memory: what's the difference between a whistle-blow and a mistake?

Easy. A mistake is a retroactive whistle-blow.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

I didn't say it wasn't a mistake, I said it wasn't ironic. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

However, technically, the distinction between a "whistle-blow" and a "mistake" would be the intention of perpetrator. If it was done knowing it was wrong for the purpose of alerting others, it's a whistle-blow. If it was done as a result of inattention to detail, it's a mistake. If you take the definition of "mistake" to encompass all falsehoods, regardless of intention, then "whistle-blows" is just a subset of "mistakes."

Of course, most of what the HB's present as "whistle-blows" are neither, but that's beside the point.

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2009 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

I didn't say it wasn't a mistake, I said it wasn't ironic. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Well, I said it was a mistake. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

However, technically, the distinction between a "whistle-blow" and a "mistake" would be the intention of perpetrator.

That's the problem I have with Aulis's theory on whistle-blowing. Not only does he presume to know the intent of the perpetrator, he presumes that a perpetrator exists. I don't mean stuff like Diamonds Are Forever and all the stuff that just refers to moon landings. I mean the alleged anomalies found in Apollo materials themselves, which Aulis claims were "encoded" by the people falsifying the record.

Their case depends on first being able to prove the record was falsified at all. Then they can go about trying to determine who falsified it and why. They jump right to the juicy part.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-08-01 13:27 ]</font>

The relevant images from A11 are 44-6550 and 44-6642 which show the earth phases exactly as expected. The first image taken from the command module shows the Earth phase as something more than half. The writer says 2/3 but I estimate it is less than that. The second picture (6550) is taken at the time of rendezvous with the ascent module when the moon has moved a day (or more) further in its easterly orbit around the Earth and it thus appears that the terminator has "moved" westward by what looks to be the 13+ degrees expected.

WRT the A17 images, the height of the sun in the lunar sky would indeed change by the aforementioned 13 degrees per day, but that would only affect the earth's phases, not its position in the lunar sky. The proper explanation to the apparent anomaly is that the true horizon can't be seen, or even deduced, from any of the pictures, just as Jay's post states. I think what's notable is that the change in the position of the terminator over the period the three images were made (one in each of the three EVA's) is exactly as expected. It appears to move westward at about 13 degrees per day. This tells me the pictures are indeed exactly as advertised.

It's often hard to "eyeball" phase angles accurately. If someone is going to make the case that the phase angle is wrong, he should at the very least have tried to compute the phase angle.

And our dear friend Clyde Lewis of course quoted the "spoof" article in his essay "Good Luck, Mr. Gorsky":

http://clydelewis.com/dis/gorsky/gorsky.html

"The crude versions were seen in Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space Odyssey. It has even been suggested that Kubrick was selected as The director in Charge (a la Wag the Dog) of the moon landings. That he will never get the credit he deserves for their direction. Author C.Powers wrote:

The story goes that in early 1968, Kubrick was secretly approached by NASA officials who presented him with a lucrative offer to "direct" the first three moon landings.

Initially Kubrick declined, as "2001: A Space Odyssey" was in post-production at the time, but NASA threatened to publicly reveal the heavy involvement of Stanley's younger brother, Raul, with the American Communist Party. This would have been an intolerable embarrassment to Mr. Kubrick, especially since the release of "Dr. Strangelove". Kubrick finally relented, and for sixteen months he and a special effects team -- led by Douglas Trumbull worked in a specially built sound stage in Huntsville, Alabama, "creating" the first and second moon landings. This effort resulted in hundreds of hours of 35mm and video "footage" of the Apollo 11 and 12 moon missions.

The bogus Apollo 11 mission was masterfully staged in July of 1969. A Saturn V rocket with astronauts Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins was launched into low Earth orbit, remaining there while NASA carefully released Kubrick's studio footage to the press. After the spectacular "lunar landing" and "return to Earth," the astronauts reentered Earth's atmosphere and made a perfect splash down in the Pacific, right on schedule. Several months later, the Apollo 12 mission was successfully staged in a similar manner.

Mr. Kubrick refused to direct the Apollo 13 mission, however, because NASA officials rejected his screenplay in which the Apollo 13 mission fails. Kubrick insisted that a dramatic failed mission from which the astronauts were safely returned to Earth would ultimately prove to be NASA's "finest hour."

NASA maintained that a failed mission would unnecessarily jeopardize the agency's image, so Kubrick quit the project. Ironically, NASA later decided to use the failed mission scenario, for which Randall Cunningham -- a little known but highly respected British director was recruited to direct.

Kubrick's relentless perfectionism is evident throughout the Apollo production, from the chilling "1201 alarm" during the final seconds of the Eagle's descent to the lunar surface, right down to the lunar dust covering the astronaut's EVA suits."

So, clearly Clyde Lewis is quoting from the "spoof" article - and I´ll claim that he perfectly well knows that the article was just a "spoof". How do I know ? Well, because

(1): Clyde "forgets" to tell about the source for his above info. If he told his readers about the source, they would of course know that the source is a spoof. But now - well, now they can not check out his source.

(2): Clyde "forgets" to quote THIS part of the "spoof" article:

"Consequently, the moon walk sequences were actually filmed on location in the Sea of Tranquility. Kubrick did not accompany the crew to the lunar site because of his well-known fear of flying. However, all of the scenes were carefully scripted in advance, and Kubrick was able to direct remotely from the Johnson Space Center in Houston -- a film making "first."

Had Clyde quoted the above, his readers would of course have known that Clyde´s source was merely a spoof. But Clyde forgot to ............

*******************************
*******************************

BTW, I have done some research on the credited author "C. Powers".

In the newsgroup alt.galactic-guide, there was a July 5, 1996 posting giving some info on the original story.

Read that post HERE

A. Back in 1995, the story was posted in the newsgroup alt.humor.best-of-usenet. In other words, meants as a joke from Day 1.

B. "C. Powers"´s email was cwpowers@gate.net.

Now armed with that knowledge, I looked up his email on the Usenet and found that from 1994 to 1996, Christopher Powers posted 26 times in various newsgroups, including several times in alt.movies.kubrick.

So ... the mysterious "whistleblower" (Ha !) "C. Powers" is - most likely - Stanley Kubrick fan and alt.movies.kubrick poster Christopher Powers. Author of a piece that back in 1995 was posted in alt.humor.best-of-usenet !!


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Man In Black on 2002-08-01 15:52 ]</font>

Even if this is a joke it underscores something about the HB crowd in general in that they can't seem to agree on the story details wherin the devil resides. Yet ANOTHER location for the filming to add to "Area 51" (Lord how I hate that term), A hanger at edwards, somewhere in New Mexico, and I am sure there is one or two more. They can't seem to agree whether A. Clarke or Kubrick was the author, nor as to the motive and size of the conspiracy. The only consistent things form Proponent to Proponent of the hoax hypothesis is ofuscation and inconsistency, yet when those on our side are consistent, open and direct all the way down the line, we are passed off as brainwashed, moronic, and/or government stooges. It boggles the mind. Now HB types, you guys don't corner the market on inconsistency, the Roswellians have a tough time with this too so don't feel alone.

Which only proves...that you guys have no sense of humor. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Didn't Kubrick died in 1999? It is suspicious why the HBs haven't said anything about him being murdered because he was going blow the whistle, or have they?

__________________
~AstroMike

Prediction:
Arthur C. Clarke will shortly fake reports of his death and release a "deathbed confession" exposing his participation in the scam. Both HB and BA pedants will continue arguing over semantics for the next six months whereupon Arthur will re-appear and show everyone up for the fools that they are. Hilarity ensues.

__________________
Does earth plug a hole in Heaven or Heaven plug a hole in Earth? -Peter Gabriel

I'm laughing already.....

Kubrick faked the Moon landings?
Hmm.
THen, is my book "Filming the Future" about the filming of 2001, a fake of a fake, and all the photos of sets, props, actors, etc, merely window-dressing that Stanley conjured up to cover-up the cover-up?
And and and, isn't the Lunar base of 2001 suspiciously similar to that of Moonbase Alpha? Is Gerry Anderson also working for NASA? Was Captain Scarlet a Man in Black, as opposed to Captain Black, who was a man in ...

Excuse me, I seem to be confused and rambling!

__________________
Garlic Bread?!?!

LOL, good one Senor.

BTW, has anyone noticed that CosmicDave seem to have gone away?

__________________
~AstroMike

Astromike...don't type too loud or he may hear you. LOL

I have noticed a pattern to cosmic's postings. First, he posts some outragous, weird HB claim. Then the kind folks here try to set him straight. Then dave disappears for a while. When he returns it's like he has forgotten the previous posts because he starts all over again with the same old stuff. I may be
wrong about this but thats the way it seems to me. Right now he is going through his "forget" cycle.

I just decided to go ahead and submit a refutation of that post on the site, so I posted my findings and directed people to this thread.

http://www.galactic-guide.com/cgi-bi...Moon_Hoax,_The

(Since I noticed that this link only carries the most recent revisions, if it get's pushed off over time you can find it by going to the bottom of the page and hitting "view other revisions".)

_________________
<font size="-1">PLEASE NOTE: Some quantum physics theories suggest that when the consumer is not directly observing this product, it may cease to exist or will exist only in a vague and undetermined state.</font>

<font size="-1">(fixed link)</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Hall on 2002-08-26 12:12 ]</font>

I noticed this new comment:

The next logical step to landing on the moon would have been its colonisation, which after 30 years has not taken place. This proves beyond a shadow of doubt that the landing on the moon was an elaborate hoax. America has amply shown its inability to retain a space station in orbit - the Skylab is a well recorded fact - whereas the Russians set their sights much lower and kept the space station Mir in space for 15 years. The technology required to travel to the moon and settle there is complex and has yet to be developed.

Okay, whatever. That doesn't prove anything (as usual) since colonization on the Moon and Skylab are two different issues. An Apollo mission usually lasts about 2 weeks, good chances of avoiding extreme solar flares, but colonization would require a different method than duration, which has not been developed yet.

The next logical step to landing on the moon would have been its colonisation

Why necessarily? How about further scientific inquiry? Commercial exploitation? What about public opinion? That it may be a logical step doesn't necessarily make it a prudent step.

... which after 30 years has not taken place.

Or rather, after 30 years has not been brought to culmination. Work is being done now at NASA and at ESA preliminary to long duration lunar habitation. NASA suffered many lean years during the late 1970s and all of the 1980s. We're not really making up for it with lavish funding these days. But the long-range plan includes the possibility of an extended stay on the moon.

Apollo was a race. We don't have to work at that pace anymore. It's bad to work that way. You get untested technology, burned out workers, and it costs much more in the long run to do it quickly.

This proves beyond a shadow of doubt that the landing on the moon was an elaborate hoax.

This must be some new definition of "proves" of which I have not been made aware. The impatience of the author hardly constitutes support for the conclusion.

America has amply shown its inability to retain a space station in orbit - the Skylab is a well recorded fact

Skylab was a successful space station during its operational phase. It de-orbited because its manuevering fuel was exhausted and the space shuttle could not be readied in time. And that in turn was just as much a bureaucratic foul-up as a technical one.

whereas the Russians set their sights much lower and kept the space station Mir in space for 15 years.

Due partly to those $100 million rental payments from the United States and supply and repair missions from the space shuttle. The author seems to forget the problems with Salyut 1. All in all, the first U.S. space station was as successful, or more so, than the first Soviet space station.

The technology required to travel to the moon and settle there is complex and has yet to be developed.

Apples and oranges. The technology required to get there is well-established. Just go read the textbooks from the 1960s and 1970s. The technology to achieve a short sojourn is well-established. We still use it today on the space shuttle. The technology to inhabit the moon is a quantum leap beyond that. And yes, it is currently out of our reach. From an engineering standpoint it is very different to engineer something to endure the lunar environment and sustain life for two weeks than to do all that for two months or two years.

Radiation is one of the issues. But not the only one. For two weeks you can take with you everything you need: food, water, oxygen. You can deal with waste products by tossing them out the door. That doesn't work for two months or two years. You've got to be able to produce oxygen, or have it delivered. You have to produce food or have it delivered. You have to produce water or have it delivered. None of these is an easy problem to solve.

This article from the London Guardian repeats the Kubrick myth, though rather skeptically (noting, like a previous poster, that Randall Cunningham is an American football quarterback rather than a British film director).

_________________
"... to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson, Ulysses

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ToSeek on 2002-09-17 22:07 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ToSeek on 2002-09-17 22:08 ]</font>

The NASA site is almost certainly in error on the dates. Several in the set have dates of July 16, 1969 listed. If that was the launch date, the spacecraft never made it out of Earth orbit that day, right?

No. Trans-lunar injection (TLI) was scheduled 2:44:15 after liftoff. They were well on their way by midnight on the 16th, particularly considering that their top speed is right at the end of the TLI burn, and they slow down until entering the Moon's gravity well a couple of days later.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

"The next logical step to landing on the moon would have been its colonization, which after 30 years has not taken place."

Well that's like saying "The next logical step after the Shackelton expedition would have been the colonization of Antarctica." A rather non-sequitur statement, typical of the dumbed down illogic of the HB'rs.

Speaking of Antarctica, though harsh, it is a lot less harsh an environment than the moon, and easier to get to. And yet, there is no interest in "colonizing" it. (Which is good, because in addition to being incredibly cold, it's a very complex and delicate environment. Yes, there are scientific stations there now, and several large bases that have varied in size from time to time over the years, but there are no Antarctic domed cities, akin to lunar colonies.)

BTW: I think there will be a automated station which accommodates occasional human visitors on the moon before mid-century.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chip on 2002-09-18 00:51 ]</font>