They were not simply monitoring they were recording. Had they been faked the soviets would have blown the lid off WITH absolute evidence.
An article that says someone could hear the transmissions doesn't make the hoax proof* go away. There are plausible scenarios that would explain it: It might be a blatant lie. There might have been an unmanned craft on he moon relaying the transmissions. The Russians' not spilling the beans doesn't make the hoax proof go away either. What was happening behind he scenes might have been vey different from what the media were saying. The Cold War, 1940-1989 - Noam Chomsky https://libcom.org/article/cold-war-1940-1989-noam-chomsky (excerpt) ------------------------------------------------------ On the domestic front, the Cold War helped the Soviet Union entrench its military-bureaucratic ruling class in power, and it gave the US a way to compel its population to subsidise high-tech industry. It isn't easy to sell all that to the domestic populations. The technique used was the old stand-by-fear of a great enemy. ------------------------------------------------------ https://csc16-a3.angelfire.com/motive.html (excerpt) ------------------------------------------------------ The Soviets, with their own competing moon program and an intense economic and political and military rivalry with the USA, could be expected to have cried foul if the USA tried to fake a Moon landing. Theorist Ralph Rene responds that shortly after the alleged Moon landings, the USA silently started shipping hundreds of thousands of tons of grain as humanitarian aid to the allegedly starving USSR. He views this as evidence of a cover-up, the grain being the price of silence. (The Soviet Union in fact had its own Moon program). Proponents of the Apollo hoax suggest that the Soviet Union, and latterly Russia, and the United States were allied in the exploration of space, during the Cold war and after. The United States and the former Soviet Union today routinely engage in cooperative space ventures, as do many other nations that are popularly believed to be enemies. However, this suggestion is challenged by the impression of intense international competition that was under way during the Cold War and is not supported by the accounts of participants on either side of the Iron Curtain. Many argue that the fact that the Soviet Union and other Communist bloc countries, eager to discredit the United States, have not produced any contrary evidence to be the single most significant argument against such a hoax. Soviet involvement might also implausibly multiply the scale of the conspiracy, to include hundreds of thousands of conspirators of uncertain loyalty. ------------------------------------------------------ [geocentrism] Re: Bill Kaysing - the moonlanding was a hoax https://www.freelists.org/post/geocentrism/Bill-Kaysing-the-moonlanding-was-a-hoax,1 ----------------------------------------------------- Well, why did they keep faking the Apollo flights, I still don't understand. Did the Soviet Union know it was faked? Why did they keep shut up if they knew it was faked? 'Cause a lot of people would think they kept the moon race going to prove the U.S. was better than the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union knew, why did they let the U.S. get away with this? Well, I'll tell you - at the highest levels there is a coalition between governments. In other words, the Soviets said, if you won't tell on us - and they faked most of their space exploration flights - we won't tell on you. It's as simple as that. See, what Apollo is, is the beginning of the end of the ability of the government to hoodwink and bamboozle and manipulate the people. More and more people are becoming aware in the U.S. that the government is totally and completely public enemy number one. ----------------------------------------------------- * http://www.politicalforum.com/index...anding-is-fake.553296/page-18#post-1073057326 http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ers-are-corrupt.441261/page-2#post-1072215068 http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-moon-landing-is-fake.553296/page-16#post-1072816871
Well, maybe it's bogus info. The bottom line is that there wouldn't be any anomalies if the missions had been real.
Wrong. The bottom line is you do not understand reality or science. Anomolies ALWAYS exist in everything regardless of how certian we are of it. Investigate and research and dig deep enough into anything in this universe and you will find ANOMOLIES. But they do not disprove reality or what we know of it. We see anomolies that defy our understanding of gravity but we know gravity is real. We see anomlies which defy our grasp of electricity but we know electricity is real. The landings were real THAT is proven fact which cannot be refuted with evidence. Every attempt you have made has been massively discredited, debunked and disproven by many others far smarter than you. Might there still be anomolies? Yes but that proves nothing. You have been proven wrong MORE than anyone else has ever been proven wrong and you know this is true.
You are ignoring fact. It is not an obscure claim in an obscure article. The fact is gthe soviest tracked ands recorded their tracking of the mission both by radio and radar and they would have proven it a hoax if it were a hoax. You did not address this FACT or face it you dodged and weaved
What actual engineering or professional experience relevant to the moon landings did this Kaysing person have? He has also suggested that the Space Shuttle Challenger accident was deliberate murder because the astronauts on the shuttle were about to expose the moon landings as fake and they needed to be silenced. Kaysing also believed a lot of other crazy stuff. Why would anybody believe he is a credible source of anything? To me he appears to be nothing but delusional. @Scott it is a bit concerning that you have spent years trying to convince people that the moon landings were a hoax. Why do you have this compulsion to do so? Why is it so important to you to be right about this?
The idea that they deliberately caused the disaster to silence Crista McAuliffe* seems a little far-fetched because I think NASA would have made sure she'd go along with the official stars narrative before selecting her but I'm not in a position to be able to verify anything so who knows? I don't know if it was just his theory, or if an insider told him that. He was pretty well connected. I don't see anything wrong with anything else he said. It's like a hobby to me. Some people spend hours watching soap operas and reality shows. I couldn't imagine myself doing that. I think this will wake up a lot of Americans who believe the official version of 9/11 and dismiss the research that shows it was an inside job. I already know I'm right. The anomalies in the footage are very clear proof of fakery. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christa_McAuliffe
Dunning and Kruger disagree with you. Your hobby doesn't extend to actually educating yourself about a single thing in relation to the successful Apollo landings. What kind of person thinks it a "hobby" to bump a thread 10 years old? You are trolling, because every time you get your butt kicked you just ignore the reply.
And as noted dozens of times, the cowardly evasion technique: Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax (debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com) 12. Credibility Referbacks: When this hopeless individual has no answers he often resorts to just one liners concerning previous bullshit "Credibility Tests". "You've already said some pretty lame things so your judgement is obviously flawed." "....said the Man who tried to obfuscate the clear evidence of the Chinese Spacewalk" TRY AGAIN, show how you know you are right, because the LROC has imaged the landing sites and your spam videos don't answer a single thing - and you just ran away from replying to this: "There are several reasons why it would be impossible to doctor the LROC images. I will list the various reasons, in no particular order, as I think of them: 1. The LRO Team, not NASA, controls the LRO. The LRO mission control center is on the campus at Arizona State University. Thus it is the LRO Team who schedules what targets the LRO shoots, and when. Not sure, but I believe that these target commands are uploaded to the LRO on a daily basis. 2. There is no way to upload images to the LRO. 3. Jarrah believes that the LRO images of the landing sites are doctored after they are transmitted to earth. The problem with that theory is that the LRO transmits around 280 GB of data back to earth every day. This data is transmitted as analog data by the LRO's Ka band antenna, is received at White Sands and converted from analog to digital data on-the-fly, and then the data is piped directly to the LRO mission control center at ASU. If NASA or any other entity were to take the time to doctor LRO images of the landing sites, then the LRO team would certainly notice the delay when receiving LRO images of the landing sites. 4. Let's imagine the impossible -- toss out 1 through 3 -- and assume that the LRO images of the landing sites somehow are doctored before they arrive at ASU. Here are the technical hurdles which would have to be overcome. They could be overcome, but only if you took a lot of time, as in a couple of days: 4a. All fake Apollo hardware must be positioned with sub-pixel accuracy. It would be very easy to tell if this wasn't done, simply by 2x or 4x bicubic resampling LRO images of the landing sites and then overlaying the images. 4b. The LRO almost always has to be slewed towards the east or west in order to look at the landing sites. This is because the LRO rarely passes directly over a landing site. This now imposes the need to make sure that viewing perspective of the fake Apollo hardware overlaid on the LRO images is correct. 4c. And now one would have to fake the shadows cast by the fake Apollo hardware. That would be very difficult to accurately accomplish since of course the lunar terrain is far from level at the half meter scale. 4d. Even after all of the above, faking the Apollo hardware -- especially the shadows of said hardware, becomes very difficult. Why? Because each NAC CCD is read out by first reading out all of the even numbered pixels (called the A channel) and then reading out all of the odd numbered pixels (the B channel). The problem is that this readout method (which is slightly faster than reading out the entire row of pixels) introduces the pattern of dark 1 pixel wide bands seen in the LRO images. This banding pattern is non-linear in terms of brightness for a variety of reasons, but my point is that trying to overlay a "correct" banding pattern on top of the fake hardware now becomes virtually impossible due to issues which I will describe further below. 5. Each of the LRO's Narrow Angle Camera (NAC) optical systems consists of an 8" aperture 700 mm focal length Ritchie-Chretien telescope with a group of field corrector lenses placed ahead of the focal plane. The field corrector lenses are mounted in a metal assembly in similar fashion to the way that lenses are mounted in older camera lenses which featured all metal mechanical construction. Temperature changes which occur when the LRO passes from the sunlit side to the dark side of the moon cause these lens elements to creep around very slightly, on the order of a few ten thousandths of an inch. This results in very slight random optical decentering.which in turn produces a very slightly different PSF function for LRO images taken each time the LRO's orbit shifts back to the sunlit side of the moon. 5a. It would be impossible for me to get the results which I do when deconvolving and enhancing the LRO images of the landing sites if the PSF function for the "fake" overlaid Apollo hardware didn't match the PSF function for the rest of the image. There is no getting around this issue. If a somewhat incorrect PSF function was applied to the "fake" image data to be overlaid, then the fake image data would stand out like a sore thumb as showing either an obviously incorrect deconvolution result or showing slight trailing in a random direction compared to the rest of the image. 5b. Image deconvolution involves the use of a PSF which is either calculated from the image (takes a while to do), or which is present in the image itself. For PSFs, I select and use one of the small pieces of highly reflective Kapton film which was blown off the LM descent stage when the ascent stage lifted off. The PSF of one of these pieces of Kapton film usually involves at least 10 to 20 pixels of PSF data. That is a lot of PSF data which one would need to generate not only for each pixel of the fake image to be overlaid, but which also must be fully merged into the actual PSF data of the original image. This would have to be pulled off with 64-bit depth precision since I perform image deconvolution at 32-bit depth precision. In other words, some serious number crunching would be involved in order to make sure that the fake overlaid image is not detectable. 5c. Assuming that, somehow, issues 5a and 5b are tackled, and after taking the time to test the results, then one would have to tackle the repeating electronic noise patterns which are present in every LRO image. The placement of these repeating electronic noise patterns are random since the noise patterns come from all of the electronics on-board the LRO itself. Want to see the noise patterns? Simply use Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) analysis. The upshot is that the repeating electronic noise patterns, present in the rest of the original image, would have to be incorporated into the fake image of the Apollo hardware which was to be overlaid onto the original LRO image. But wait...one would have to do this, while at the same time factoring in the issues mentioned in 5a and 5b! And each LRO image contains a few hundred repeating electronic noise patterns from transistors, diodes, capacitors, various circuits, other instruments, and the LRO's Ka band antenna. Lots of stuff, all very faint, but readily visible using FFT analysis. 6. Okay, now let's assume that somebody takes the time to address all of issues described in 4 through 5. The best way to actually fake the Apollo hardware would be to, and if you had plenty of time... -- decompand the original LRO image, -- then fully calibrate the original LRO image, -- then to use FFT to identify and remove all of the original electronic noise patterns in the original image, -- then to simulate the perspective of the fake Apollo hardware which one wishes to overlay, -- then to simulate the shadows of the fake hardware in the fake image which one wishes to overlay while at the same time taking into account the terrain of the original image and making the shadow patterns correctly match to at least at or better than the image scale which generally is around 0.5 meters, -- then properly simulate the effects of the A and B channel vertical nonlinear CCD readout patterns in the fake image, -- then overlay the fake image of the Apollo hardware onto the original LRO image, -- then reapply the original image's electronic noise pattern, -- then de-calibrate the image, -- then re-compand the image, -- then insert all of the original LRO spacecraft data which was sent along with the original image's data stream, -- then calculate and apply new but fake checksums for both the image and the data stream, -- and finally, then send the fake image to the LRO Team's mission control center at Arizona State University, -- and then come up with a reasonable explanation for the LRO Team as to why, each time the LRO images one of the Apollo landing sites, that the resulting image is mysteriously delayed for several hours or days in order to accomplish all of the above, to simply to keep alive some sort of 40-year-old moon hoax which other countries would be able to prove within a decade, if not much sooner. 7. Obviously the dozens of scientists and researchers involved with the LRO, if one is to believe conspiracy theorists, would have to be "in" on the conspiracy -- more than 40 years later. That is beyond being patently absurd. 8. On average, every year roughly a half dozen research papers are published which reveal new and completely unique findings related to studies of the moon rocks returned by the Apollo astronauts. Findings which are impossible to duplicate, unless one is willing to believe that to this day research scientists are part of some sort of 40-year-old moon hoax conspiracy. 9. You can't bounce data off of the LRO. You would have to bounce data off of the moon itself since LRO's reflectivity in radio wavelengths is several orders of magnitude less than the moon. Any Ka band (since that is what the LRO uses) transmitter strong enough to bounce a fake signal off of the moon in order to simulate the LRO's Ka band transmission to earth would be picked up by radio astronomers around the world, and they would be very pissed off due to the interference with their work. Every LRO image of an Apollo landing site is unique. By this, I mean that the solar altitude above the terrain, the direction of solar incidence onto the terrain and direction of solar emission off of the terrain, and the LRO's viewing perspective when looking at an Apollo landing site and surrounding terrain always is unique for each image. Thus, I just realized that absolutely everything in the LRO image would have to be faked if the fake image were to somehow be uploaded to the LRO prior to the LRO team commanding the LRO to actually image one of the Apollo landing sites. In order to do this, one would have to have a DTM of the terrain with better than 1/2 meter accuracy in terms of both the position and altitude for every single object in the image. That is one hell of a huge swath of terrain to model down to 1/2 meter accuracy in both position and elevation in a DTM. To do so would require at least several dozen LRO images of each landing site over a several year period, combined with supercomputer crunching of all of the image data. So far the best LRO DTMs produced from NAC images have accuracies in the neighborhood of around 5 meters -- far short of what would be needed to properly simulate the height of every object plus the shadow direction and shadow length cast by every object in the image. The altitude component of a NAC DTM is what has by far the least resolution and thus the most amount of error. And this is just to fake one single LRO image. In a nutshell, I realize now that it is utterly impossible to fake a LRO image and upload it to the LRO beforehand."
This is pretty lame. The government could find enough corruptible people and if any of them tried to come forward, the media wouldn't report it. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...at-the-lies-furiously.583345/#post-1072353798 You've already discredited yourself several times on this forum... http://www.politicalforum.com/index...anding-is-fake.553296/page-19#post-1073690247 ...so when you post stuff that only an engineer could understand, you shouldn't expect people to just believe you. In order to be able to reply to your last post, I'd have to have a degree in engineering. When you're shown the clearest anomalies that any twelve-year-old could understand, you say some pretty lame things that totally discredit you (see above).
Pathetic spam statement. There is nothing "lame" about it. Once again using a vague spam OPINION to attempt to generalize into ridiculous proportions. The sheer numbers of people to carry this forward through NASA and the entire scientific community(because they would all "work it out" if it was true!) is moronic in the extreme. It is so absurd, only somebody who was completely deluded could even consider it. When somebody who has zero credibility acts as my judge, it is once again moronic for them to think it holds water. Especially when the two quoted instances are both proof that neither are conspiracies. We have a falling lid that miraculously doesn't displace any of the copious dust we see - just that would not confuse a 12 year old, so quite clearly it should not confuse you. You know this is a physical impossibility. You know it, therefore you are on some sort of agenda here. This is no "hobby", you are probably getting paid by somebody to do this. I understand it. Experts understand it, intelligent laymen understand it. It takes very little research to look into the process involved in deconvolving KA band transmissions from LROC. No, the reason you dismiss it is because you know it proves these images could never be faked. You lose yet again. Bullshit. It proves the LROC transmissions could not be faked and it goes into great detail that can be double checked. Right there is your opportunity to disprove an expert, but instead, you run away. You lose yet again.
QUESTION: Can you see what a simple lid does to fine flour? QUESTION: Can you explain why it doesn't do this on the LRV battery lid?
How come none of the moon landing deniers have ever attempted to recreate the moon landings in a studio? This guy has it right — great sense of humour too! and the same guy did another one. This is quite an entertaining debunking.
"How come none of the moon landing deniers have ever attempted to recreate the moon landings in a studio?" Why would they need to do that when NASA has already been caught doing it and has proven 100 percent that it can be done, but with serious flaws and anomalies that could only have been done here on Earth, not on the Moon. The FACTS are that NASA lied and were caught over and over again in their BIG lie as shown by the many Moon landing debunking EXPERTS who have way more credibility than any of the NASA scammers like the muderous WW-2 NAZIS and their Apollo'gists who were running the NASA Apollo program
Troll-noise. I'm sure when you typed that you had this warm fuzzy feeling inside at how smart you are, but I'm afraid it's just hogwash and rather foolish circular reasoning.
Taken from the other thread, 10 years old that your "hobby" felt compelled to bump. A quite ludicrous attempt at spamming the forum. Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy: Bad TV Clavius Moon Base - debunking the moon hoax MAD Scientist: The Van Allen Belts and Travel to the Moon (wwheaton.com) Ok, so let's start with the "no stars" argument. One that is so moronic it beggars belief. With a simple camera pointed at the night sky, this idiotic claim is laid to rest. Anyone who considers it worthy of quoting must have some disturbingly poor research skills and zero photographic skills. Sounds right. Then Kaysing tells one of his famous lies. He had ZERO involvement in the program. He worked in the library at Rocketdyne who had no direct link to NASA, they were commissioned to do their rocketry. The idea this Kaysing nobody was somehow in the know within the inner workings of NASA because he filed documents in the library at Rocketdyne is quite laughable, almost as laughable as people being sucked in by his ignorance. Meh! This clown doesn't get anything right. A little bit further up than that. And as for "cooking" anything, charged particles in the central areas with no shielding at all would cause significant radiation sickness after many hours. Luckily NASA were smart enough to understand a good solution. The flights all took 30 degree inclined orbits around the much weaker areas and passed in around about an hour and a half - with significant capsule shielding and suit shielding. Bullshit. If this were the case, satellites in orbit would be dropping in large numbers. Bullshit conflation. Whilst micro-meteorites can cause significant damage, the likelihood of being hit by one is very remote. Nope. Never occurred. It would be orders of magnitude harder to fake the landings to the depth we see in the footage. Besides, the rocks cannot be faked under any circumstances! Made up bullshit. Bullshit. lead would be a terrible shielding material causing deadly bremsstrahlung. He's just making this crap up. The SURFACE temperature is that hot after several days of constant heating. Just ignorance embodied. The PLSS was an amazing device using the natural power of sublimation from water/ice to act as a simple heat exchange. AND, it was nothing to do with keeping them cool from the Sun, which their spacesuits took care of, just their own body heat. Made up bullshit. It's frightening how somebody like Kaysing, who is so very uneducated and foolish can influence the gullible. Russia couldn't solve the problems with their N! heavy launch vehicle, that is why they failed to beat USA to the moon landing. Idiotic video that cherry picks a statement about solving radiation exposure. Already addressed and ignored of course. Orion will be taking all sorts of different routes to the Moon and the modern small circuitry is far more susceptible to effects from the charged particles in the belts. Batshit, debunked, rehashed garbage.
I think this is more than a hobby for you. How can you ‘know’ you are right because the anomalies in the footage are not clear proof of fakery. I see clear debunking of everything you are trying to claim — here and on a lot of other forums. From a forum that deals directly with the moon-landing as a hoax — as in — it’s not a hoax. https://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1444.240 Perhaps, the person they are addressing is you. The forum seems to have a lot of people who are very knowledgeable and they provide a thorough debunking.
On that forum there's a group of pro-Apollo posters that mostly just talk to each other. They have the attitude that they're debunking the hoax theory. When there's a hoax-believer there asking real questions, they start saying some pretty lame things. They keep their authoritative patronizing attitudes the whole time they're saying lame things. Tell us whether you think they thoroughly debunked this alleged anomaly.... https://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1145.0 ...and this one. https://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=993.0 My first post is #21. I got banned before the two discussions ended so I couldn't make all my points. My first post is #18 on this thread. https://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1118.0 Look at Jay Windley's* response to post #25. Do you agree with him? Do you also maintain that putting large-grained dust-free sand in a dump truck and transporting it and dumping it would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over? * http://www.clavius.org/about.html
There is no hoax theory, there are ignorant claims, lies and stupid observations. They debunk every idiotic thing presented to them, as do I! No such thing. Hoax believers don't ask questions, they make foolish statements and ignore all responses, as do you! . Nothing lame about you getting your ass kicked in every post. The Apollo 15 flag spam. You have the attitude that you actually have a clue about anything occurring. You don't. Literally hundreds of times I've attempted to get a logical and critical thinking response from you and failed every time. Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax: The Apollo 15 flag (debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com) From apollohoax.net, user Headlikearock has made a very significant observation concerning the lens flares on the flag. They actually move alongside the flag itself, the flagpole and parts of the ground. Here is the direct link, and the picture below:- http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r81/headlikearock/Apollo 15/flag-wave-new-gif_zps435e5ced.gif You simply do not have the intelligence to be able to understand the significance of what is being presented to you. There is nothing anomalous at all about the LRV dust trails. There is no suspension, perfect parabolic arcs and a ridiculous height for an electric car wheel to produce a rooster tail! Proof they are on the Moon. Hsu_S.pdf (colorado.edu) "We track the motion of the dust cloud by the LRV along its trail. The motion of the dust cloud can be described by the ballistic motion in an airless environment. The derived lunar gravity and LRV speed agree with the expect values." You made all your points, they are useless and debunked. You have nothing to say and get banned at practically every forum you spam and troll on. You have referenced dead links. Your whole argument is hearsay and he is an engineer. So let's weigh that one up. The spammer, or the engineer. This is where you spam your idiotic "credibility test", based on your worse-than-a-layman useless opinion.
A forum full of ‘pro-Apollo’ posters? Seriously! They seem to be a group of really smart people who have the qualifications to debunk any of the points made related to the moon-landings being a hoax. What is the point of even having any kind of discussion with you? You have convinced yourself that you are right and nothing is going to change that. I remember watching the first moon landing, did you? Regarding the flapping coat. Do you know what inertia is? Inertial action explains that anomaly just fine. You stated in the thread — “I tried it myself and I was able to duplicate the movement of Collins jacket with my own jacket. My common sense tells me that the movement would be different in zero-G or microgravity.” But, have you tried it in zero-G or microgravity? If you haven’t, common sense tells me, you have duplicated nothing. Regarding Scott and the moving flag, I believe that has been totally debunked Betamax101. As far as your sand theory — there already is a post here that nicely debunks that — http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ee-sand-strawman-claim.443515/#post1065831407 I do not believe the moon landings were a hoax.
Here are some more discussions I had over at the Clavius forum. https://apollohoax.proboards.com/thread/1009?page=26#29354 https://apollohoax.proboards.com/thread/1094 My username there is Rocky. Back in those days lots of people on the internet referred to it as the Clavius forum because that's what came up when you clicked on the forum hot link at the Clavius site. http://www.clavius.org/ I just want to make sure everybody knows that forum is associated with the Clavius site.
You got banned — twice. Reading your discussions makes me realize you are just spamming different forums with the same tired theories that get debunked. Prolific spammage doesn’t make what you say true.
Bill Kaysing is absolutely right about this. The world governments are in collusion about the history of space exploration. Some of it is true but much of it is not. We saw the same type of collusion with the covid response. The world is run by a group of gangsters very similar to Chicago gangsters Al Capone, Frank Nitti and Bugs Moran. Russia knew the moon landings were faked and even said so at the time. Real engineers always knew that the “Rocket Equation” and the available upper limit of energy stored in the fuel - puts limitations to rocketry that are not compatible with what we witnessed in the Apollo program - all of which the Russians were very much aware of, having had the better engineers and for that reason the stronger rockets - yet still couldn’t make it work. They didn't lose a space race - they never intended to send a man to the moon and even told us so.
