Denis Pointing Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Hi all, I dont usually venture this far from the JFK forum and I openly admit to knowing virtually nothing regarding the Apollo moon landing, with my ignorance thus established my question is: I always understood that the ultimate rebuttal, the 'clincher' if you like, to the accusation of a hoax, was that the images were 'beamed' directly to Australia rather than America, therefore making any hoax, if not impossible, extremely difficult/unlikely. I gather from reading some of the posts here, that some belive this does NOT clinch the matter. Could someone please explain why? As I dont see how there could realistically be a hoax with images going directly to Australia. Thanks in advance, Denis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Hi all, I dont usually venture this far from the JFK forum and I openly admit to knowing virtually nothing regarding the Apollo moon landing, with my ignorance thus established my question is: I always understood that the ultimate rebuttal, the 'clincher' if you like, to the accusation of a hoax, was that the images were 'beamed' directly to Australia rather than America, therefore making any hoax, if not impossible, extremely difficult/unlikely. I gather from reading some of the posts here, that some belive this does NOT clinch the matter. Could someone please explain why? As I dont see how there could realistically be a hoax with images going directly to Australia. Thanks in advance, Denis. Some video was allegedly "beamed to Australia". But the bulk of the photography was done with a Hasselblad camera and Kodak Ektachrome film. Yeah...the same film you took vacation photos with. See my website: http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Hi Denis, The pictures were beamed from the Moon to a number of Earth stations, depending on what part of the Earth was facing the Moon at the time. The main stations were Goldstone on the US west coast, Parkes and Honeysuckle Creek in eastern Australia, and (I think) Madrid in Spain (maybe - a bit unsure). The fact that the signal came from a stable source in the sky (the Moon) rather than a fast moving source (a satellite in Earth orbit) convinces many people. The timing of the signals - which were not coded and could be received by anyone with the proper gear - also lead to the authenticity of them. The problem is that people will claim that the signals came from a satellite in lunar orbit, pointing to the TETR satellite which was used in training and simulating missions. This satellite was only used in Earth orbit, but how do you prove that it wasn't placed into lunar orbit? If you have the expertise and examine the thrust provided by the launch vehicles, you can say "No - it could not reach the Moon"... but then will come the claim that a satellite was surreptitiously launched into lunar orbit. The satellite would also be in orbit, so therefore be behind the Moon at some stage and thus out of contact. The reply to this would be that more than one satellite was used. The next problem with this is the time delay. The delay between people asking questions and getting replies is correct for the distance out. This however could have been simulated with careful scripting and precision delays - however this would have been precarious. Any mistake would have been immediately noticeable, and the world was listening. So, no - it does not actually prove that people walked on the Moon. IMO the best evidence are the photographs (one of the main topics here) and the lunar samples. Geologists - or more properly senologists - continually explain that the samples display properties that cannot be recreated here on Earth. Meteorites that originated on the Moon show evidence of entering the Earth's atmosphere, and can be identified as being found on Earth. The lunar samples do not, and can only have originated on the Moon. I'll leave you with two thoughts: - Geologists have said that if anyone can recreate a lunar sample here on Earth, they deserve a Nobel prize because nobody else can do it. - People involved in Apollo have said it may have been possible to fake a lunar mission... but it would have been so difficult, it was easier just to go there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Hi all, I dont usually venture this far from the JFK forum and I openly admit to knowing virtually nothing regarding the Apollo moon landing, with my ignorance thus established my question is: I always understood that the ultimate rebuttal, the 'clincher' if you like, to the accusation of a hoax, was that the images were 'beamed' directly to Australia rather than America, therefore making any hoax, if not impossible, extremely difficult/unlikely. I gather from reading some of the posts here, that some belive this does NOT clinch the matter. Could someone please explain why? As I dont see how there could realistically be a hoax with images going directly to Australia. Thanks in advance, Denis. Good question Denis! My advice: never underestimate the power of the imagination to invent a scenario that keeps the Apollo conspiracy alive. Try some of these for size:- 1. The Australians were in on it. 2. The TV feed from a soundstage in Area 51 was routed via a secret satellite in orbit around the moon, which they used to relay the TV feed back to Honeysuckle and Parkes. 3. The footage was never beamed to Australia - it's all part of the elaborate hoax. 4. <insert scenario of your choice> Other things to bear in mind:- The Russians didn't blow the whistle because they were bribed with wheat. Or they knew that the embarrassment caused to the US would have led to a nuclear war. Scientists know that the Van Allen belts are deadly, but keep quiet because they are afraid of CIA assassination squads. Or they've all been bribed. Lee H Oswald didn't kill JFK, therefore everything the Government has told us in the past must be a lie. You think I jest? I've heard all these excuses in various guises on Apollo Hoax forums over the years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Oh - just to add some other points. Some will say an unmanned lander could have collected lunar samples. After all, the Soviets did. This is correct... but the Soviets brought back ounces of soil, whereas Apollo brought back hundreds of kilograms of soil, rocks, and core samples from the lunar crust. Happy to answer any questions you might have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 This site might answer some of your questions: http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/Apollo_11/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 (edited) Evan wrote The timing of the signals - which were not coded and could be received by anyone with the proper gear - also lead to the authenticity of them. Received by anyone? Quad videotape machines that recorded the video feeds of that era ran about $200,000 each [uSD]. I doubt all but the very wealthy could afford the machine. Even then I doubt they'd would not know WHERE to buy one (and none would have access to the signals). Only NASA and or NASA associated groups had direct access to those *quad* video feeds! Edited October 25, 2007 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Evan wroteThe timing of the signals - which were not coded and could be received by anyone with the proper gear - also lead to the authenticity of them. Received by anyone? Quad videotape machines that recorded the video feeds of that era ran about $200,000 each [uSD]. I doubt all but the very wealthy could afford the machine. Even then I doubt they'd would not know WHERE to buy one (and none would have access to the signals). Only NASA and or NASA associated groups had direct access to those *quad* video feeds! I was actually referring to the voice signals but didn't make that clear. Sorry! You raise a good point - the Apollo 11 video signals were actually from a slow-scan TV camera. Have a look at the Honeysuckle Creek website for some technical details which will be up on your level. There is only one slow-scan machine left, IIRC. It was due to be decommissioned but NASA are keeping it just in case the missing tapes are found. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis Pointing Posted October 25, 2007 Author Share Posted October 25, 2007 Thanks to you all for replying, you've all been most helpful. This subject has sparked an interest, think I'll be lurking here for a while, Denis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted November 3, 2007 Share Posted November 3, 2007 These might also be of interest to you, especially with the Australian involvement: Conversations with Apollo - Mike Dinn (Honeysuckle Creek Part 1) Conversations with Apollo - John Saxon (Honeysuckle Creek Part 2) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest David Guyatt Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 I am posting a rare NASA photo that has not been made pubic before, that proves beyond a shadow of doubt that the geological structure of rocks said to be found on the Moon were tampered with by NASA. There is more than a whiff of conspiracy involved... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 (edited) I don't know, David. Something doesn't smell right to me... http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...7-140-21497.jpg Edited March 16, 2008 by Evan Burton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now