Moon Myth Disinformation

[Evan Burton]

8. The Apollo 1 fire.

Again, this has been discussed on this forum. And again, Sibrel gets it wrong. Grissom hung the lemon on the simulator, not the spacecraft. He was upset that the simulator configuration still lagged behind that of the spacecraft. That is not to say he was happy with the spacecraft - far from it. He knew there were problems but he was confident they would be sorted out. After all, they were test pilots; this was the level of risk they were used to.

The claim they were murdered is despicable, and probably to be expected from a low-life like Sibrel. The insinuation that Pat White was murdered is likewise contemptible. She committed suicide in 1984. Ask Martha Chaffee, wife of astronaut Roger Chaffee (killed Apollo 1)

Has he talked to anyone who was actually there that day? No. I have. Mr Stephen Clemmons, who was one of the pad technicians who was there when the fire started, who tried to fight the fire, who was praised for his heroic efforts in trying to rescue the crew.

Dear Mr. Burton

Good luck. I've debated this bunch before.... No matter what I said, it was like talking to wall. If I can help in your discussions, go ahead and use my e mail.

Your posting are interesting. After Christmas, I'll take a closer look and see where I can help you. I've always been up for a good fight on Apollo because there is so much garbage out there that passes for facts. I ran into this crowd during my Apollo Days and you would be surprised at how widespread the hoax theories were. During my later talks on Apollo, they were always in the audience and our discussions became quite heated. They never bother to research their arguments, just repeat worn out phrases that will get the biggest rise from us.

Anyway, good luck and stay in touch.

Incidentally, I hope my book will be out in the spring and I will fully explain some of the hoax theories.

Have a Merry Christmas

Steve Clemmons

(e-mail from Stephen Clemmons to me dated 15 DEC 2006)

That says it all.

Apollo 1 report

[Evan Burton]

7. The Testimony of Apollo Astronauts under Light Duress.

Again, some misrepresentation by Sibrel. The answer given by Mike Collins was taken out of context. He was not asked if he could see stars from the surface of the Moon (he wouldn't have; Collins remained in the CM during the landing). The question was if he could see stars during the solar corona, to which Armstrong and Collins said no. Let's see the full transcript, not the edited portion Sibrel will show you.

REPORTER (Patrick Moore): I have two brief questions that I would like to ask, if I may. When you were carrying out that incredible Moon walk, did you find that the surface was equally firm everywhere or were there harder and softer spots that you could detect? And secondly, when you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?

ALDRIN: The first part of your question, the surface did vary in its thickness of penetration somewhere in flat regions. [...]

ARMSTRONG: We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics [i.e., the lunar module's navigation telescope]. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.

COLLINS: I don't remember seeing any.

(Source: The First Lunar Landing Press Conference, NASA EP-73)

[Evan Burton]

Evan

If you are interested in all aspects of the space program then you have to love the movie "The Right Stuff"

This is by far my favorite scene and is a laugh a second

Sputnik Crsis

Hi Dean,

Actually it's not my favourite. Although it is accurate in some respects (the book is better), I didn't like the way Tom Wolfe portrayed Gus Grissom after the Liberty Bell 7 incident ("squirming hatch blower"). There WERE conditions in which the hatch could 'just blow'. The most telling evidence came later: fellow astronauts manually blew the hatch after landing, in accordance with procedures. Each one of them got a bruise on their hand where they actuated the firing mechanism. Gus didn't have one. The best explanation is that his helmet may have hit the switch.

The irony of the situation is that it was precisely that incident that led them to design the Apollo CM hatch without explosive bolts - and Gus died during the Apollo 1 fire because they couldn't blow the hatch.

Yes, that scene is pretty funny. Surprisingly enough, it's close to the truth, too: they did consider a number of those people for astronauts, and it was Eisenhower who demanded that test pilots be used!

[Evan Burton]

6. Moon Rocks

See my previous post.

5. The Limitations of 1960's Computer Technology, small meteors, and the Van Allen Belts.

Again Sibrel talks about things he has no knowledge in and hasn't bothered to properly research. Yes, the Apollo computers were primitive as compared to today... but they could do the job. Let's think about some comparisons: those of you who were around when the first personal computers came out - remember how primitive they were? My first PC was a Tandy MC-10, which had a whole 4Kb of memory and an external cassette tape drive for data storage... but it had 16 colours and ran various games, applications, etc. Mind you, you often had to write the programmes yourself. Remember Windows 3.1? Remember when you had a top of the line computer with a 386 CPU running at 33 Mhz with 16 Mb of RAM and a massive 100 Mb hard disk drive? We used to use them in Defence, running a signal message system, tracking of fleet units as well as a full suite of office functions... but some kids of today would not believe you could operate with such primitive equipment.

Let's go back to before the digital electronic computer: at the latter part of World War II, a computer that used wheels, valves and magnets help the code breakers at Bletchley Park break Nazi high grade codes which were supposedly unbreakable.

Does Sibrel claim these activities were faked?

Anyway, a majority of the calculation for the spaceflight was done prior to launch, or done by Mission Control (using the Real Time Computer Complex, the RTCC) and relayed to the spacecraft. The onboard computer (Apollo Guidance Computer - AGC) had relatively simple tasks: know what the spacecraft inertial attitude was, operate RCS thrusters and SPS engine. For navigation, the astronauts would "sight" three known stars and the AGC would then know where it was in space (that's astronavigation, a technique that has been in use by mariners for hundreds of years, using nothing but a sextant, a timepiece and a set of printed tables. I myself have been trained in and have used astronavigation many times). Once you knew where you were, you could calculate in what direction and with what thrust you need to apply in order to get back on track. This was normally done on the ground, as they were tracking the spacecraft using radio waves.

For example, here is where Apollo 15 was given updated information as they coasted out towards the Moon (courtesy of the Apollo Flight Journal)

010:40:50 Henize: And, I'm - I've got a P37 for you - plus 25 hours, if you're ready.

010:40:59 Irwin: Stand by one. [Long pause.]

010:41:29 Irwin: [Garble] I'm ready for the P37 for 25 hours.

010:41:33 Henize: Roger. 025:00, 4621, minus 175, 075:21; 035:00, 6821, minus 174, 074:51; 045:00, 5605, minus 175, 099:06; 060:00, 5448, minus 175, 123:06 and that's the end.

[Now that the spacecraft has settled into its Moon-bound trajectory, RETRO and the RTCC can calculate abort PADs for the Return-To-Earth program, P37, for the rest of the translunar coast. These four PADs update the crew's emergency return contingencies for the planned times of 25, 35, 45 and 60 hours GET. An interpretation of the PADs follows:

Lift-off plus 25 hours

• Time of ignition:
  25 hours GET
• Change in velocity:
  4,621 fps (1,408 m/s)
• Longitude of Earth landing point:
  175° West
• Time of entry into Earth atmosphere:
  Defined as 400,000 feet (122 km) altitude; 75 hours, 21 minutes GET.

Lift-off plus 35 hours

• Time of ignition:
  35 hours GET
• Change in velocity:
  6,821 fps (2,079 m/s)
• Longitude of Earth landing point:
  174° West
• Time of entry into Earth atmosphere:
  74 hours, 51 minutes GET.

Lift-off plus 45 hours

• Time of ignition:
  45 hours GET
• Change in velocity:
  5,605 fps (1,708 m/s)
• Longitude of Earth landing point:
  175° West
• Time of entry into Earth atmosphere:
  99 hours, 06 minutes GET.

Lift-off plus 60 hours

• Time of ignition:
  60 hours GET
• Change in velocity:
  5,448 fps (1,501 m/s)
• Longitude of Earth landing point:
  175° West
• Time of entry into Earth atmosphere:
  123 hours, 06 minutes GET.]

010:42:13 Worden: Readback. 025:00, 4621, minus 175, 075:21; 035:00, 6821, minus 174, 074:51; 045:00, 5605, minus 175, 099:06; 060:00, 5448, minus 175, 123:06. 010:43:15 Henize: That's all correct. The next one I have is a P27 update.

010:43:22 Worden: Stand by. [Long pause.]

010:43:35 Irwin: Okay; I'm ready on the P27.

010:43:37 Henize: Roger. It's - the purpose, V71; GET 11:45:00; INDEX 21, 01501, 00001, 71465, 41437, 76654, 45425, 77003, 52553, 72602, 54007, 75455, 55217, 76267, 55324, 00402, 05560, and that's all.

010:45:02 Irwin: Okay. On the P27s; 71, 11:45:00; 21, 01501, 00001, 71465, 41437, 76654, 45425, 77003, 52553, 72602, 54007, 75455, 55217, 76267, 55324, 00402, and 05560.

010:45:55 Henize: That's all correct. Thank you, Jim.

[Very long comm break.]

[updating the computer's memory is performed in two different ways. The first, and the most common is to enter POO (program 00, which puts the computer into an idle state) and place the Uplink Telemetry switch to Accept. At the start of the update, the computer switches to Program 27 to perform the update. The other, and less common method (and it's not clear why it is being done here) is to enter Program 27 directly, then enter the data manually using Verb 71. Afterwards, the data is recalled onto the DSKY, one item at a time, to verify it.]

[

Flight Plan page 3-019.

]

Now, do computing experts or software programmers have a problem? Nope.

The real-time operating system in the Apollo 11 spacecraft could multi-task 8 jobs at a time, no small feat for the time it was developed, and something we take entirely for granted today. Multi-tasking however, wasn't quite as we now think of it. Today's operating systems use mostly preemptive-multitasking, where the operating system itself is in control of the execution and can stop any program at any time and hand off some computing power to another. The Apollo Guidance Computer relied on non-preemptive multi-tasking, whereby programs had to relinquish control back to the OS periodically.

The Apollo system also implemented a sophisticated virtual machine which offered more complex instructions, and could be used to perform more advanced mathematics. For it's time, this was way-out stuff in 2k of memory and 32k of storage. The real-time OS managed transition between native instructions and the instruction set of the virtual machine, which let developers mix and match the hardware level instructions with the virtual instructions within the same assembler code. The complexity of those operations is simply mind boggling for someone who grew up writing in any high-level language such as BASIC, Pascal or even C.

Keep in mind that the Apollo 11 was actually the advanced "Block II" version of the AGC, and that earlier missions had relied upon as little as 24k of core read-only storage, and 1k of main memory, and you can begin to imagine the power the developers who wrote the AGC's code must have felt.

http://www.downloads...lo-11-computer/

See also:

http://www.drdobbs.c...HOSKH4ATMY32JVN

http://en.wikipedia....idance_Computer

Something else to consider: Fly-By-Wire systems. This is where direct linkages from aircraft controls to the control surfaces are removed, and instead a computer takes in what control inputs the pilot makes with the controls, and then determines what control surfaces need to move in which direction and by how much in order to make the aircraft to what the pilot wanted. The first Fly By Wire (FBW) system was installed into an F-8 Crusader about 1972. Guess what formed the basis of the FBW computer in that first aircraft? Yep - the AGC!

With respect to travel through the Van Allen belts, see my previous posts.

Strikes by micro-meteoroids? Good planning. How many satellites have been struck? Very, very few. The majority of damage (and risk) comes whilst in low Earth orbit from space debris.

[Evan Burton]

The Professor might be interested in reading this before debating me. It's a good primer to help him understand the subject.

[Evan Burton]

Didn't people actually see them through telescopes?

I thought I read that someplace.

The landing sites? No, for the same reason Hubble can't be used - insufficient resolution. The recent images taken by LRO and others should dismiss any notions of a hoax.

You might be referring to people seeing the actual spacecraft on it's way to the Moon and back, and you'd be correct. Both large observatories and amateur astronomers with reasonably powerful telescopes were able to visually track and even photograph the spacecraft. The best opportunities were when the spacecraft was doing a waste or water dump.

Third party evidence of Apollo

[John Dolva]

I understand the flawed images from Hubble were due to a slightly misshapen lens and that that has since been compensated for leaving a fully functioning telescope. ?.

edit add: BTW this flaws in lenses is not a new thing.

afa the assassination goes, I wonder if any complete study of the z film, for example, could include a laser scan of Z's camera lens (remembering that a supercooled liquid like glass slumps and can do so noticably in 50 years (look through the image of a 100 yo window pane)) producing a ''map'' that can be used to correct any wrongly placed photons and how they caused the film grain to react, thus through ''reverse engineering'' the passage of photons to the film surface and producing a clearer image?

edit:typo

Edited July 25, 2010 by John Dolva

[Jack White]

You might be referring to people seeing the actual spacecraft on it's way to the Moon and back, and you'd be correct. Both large observatories and amateur astronomers with reasonably powerful telescopes were able to visually track and even photograph the spacecraft. The best opportunities were when the spacecraft was doing a waste or water dump.

Third party evidence of Apollo

Yes, that is what someone told me. So its accurate.

Didn't this all start with that ridiculous Fox special? I mean I know there were books about it before, but that Fox special was the first time this actually got wide play right?

Jim...I have great respect for all of your JFK research and writing. But as with 911, you again demonstrate that

you are out of your element in regard to the fakery of the Apollo "moon photos". You speak again without having

any idea what you are talking about. There are legitimate questions about whether the missions were accomplished

as per the official record. But there is no doubt that the photos were faked.

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html

http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.htm

Jack

[Evan Burton]

Jim,

It started way before the Fox special but that just gave the nonsense a popular lift. It did raise quite a ruckus though, with Neil Armstrong and other astronauts writing in to complain, and even prompting a angry letter from Professor James Van Allen, after whom the Van Allen Belts are named. I could review it but it has already been done by people far more qualified than I.

BTW, you should look at the photographic claims that Jack White makes, then have a look at my rebuttals on this Forum (rebuttals to later claims can be found here). The rebuttals are done in the same sequence that the claims were originally posted, so I'd recommend that you look at a claim, then look at the rebuttal for that claim. Go through them and make up your own mind. If you have any comments or questions, I'd be glad to hear them.

Edited to add: I'd also be a little offended at Jack White saying you are '...out of your element...' when Jack himself has demonstrated time and time again poor understanding of the subject matter and has continually made significant blunders regarding hardware, procedures, people, etc.

If ever there was a case of the kettle calling the pot black, then this is it.

[Evan Burton]

4. The Apollo 15 flag waving.

I've invited Dave Greer to explain this one, as he has done extensive work regarding it.

[Evan Burton]

3. The Lunar Surface Photographic and Video Record.

I like this one. Sibrel just mentions the same claims he had previously, teases with a couple of vague things but gives you the impression (from the title and "countless other images") there is a wealth of evidence.... but doesn't tell you what it is (you have the buy the DVD to know the truth...). let's examine what he does tell you.

- The C rock. This refers to an image in which a rock on the lunar surface appears to have the letter 'C' on it. The claim is that this is a commonly used method to mark a particular prop, and there will be a corresponding mark on the 'sound stage' where this particular prop is to be placed. This shows that the whole thing was a stage and the images are faked.

Now first off, I have no experience in movie making nor the theatre. People who do know, however, tell me this is not a widely used method... at least not just a single letter. This makes sense when you look at the full image, and see all the clutter which would of had to have been 'placed' there. I would question why a prop master would decide that a "prop rock" had to have been placed ... just there.

Anyway, in 2001 some researchers decided to look at this evidence. The 'C' was certainly there on a number of images, including NASA's own website. So they decided to order transparencies from three different sources: the National Space Sciences Data Center, the Lunar & Planetary Institute (LPI), and the Johnson Space Center. All three transparencies did NOT show any such marking. Well, okay, but they are NASA sources and they are covering up their mistake, right? The researchers decided to take a closer look at image and the 'C'. The particular rock was visible in two consecutive images: AS16-107-17445 and AS16-107-17446. The 'C' was not visible in either transparency, but it 'C' appeared on printed and electronic versions of 17446. They decided to examine the 'C' in the electronic versions of 17446 and this is what they found:

It's a hair! The 'C' is just a piece of hair or fibre that got scanned with that image and was subsequently sent out to numerous sources.

Now some may object, saying such a foreign object would have produced a white mark on photographic paper or film, not a black mark. The answer to this is that the Apollo images were colour transparencies from positive film (like slide film) rather than negative film. This is why such an object would appear dark.

http://www.clavius.org/rover1.html

http://skepticwiki.o...ported_Mistakes

EDITED TO ADD:

Dave Greer pointed out that Aviation Week and Space Technology had the very image as their cover photo for their 8 May 72 edition, less than two weeks after the astronauts returned. Notice that it does not show the 'C' on the rock... further proof that it was a hair and not on the original transparency.

(Thanks Dave!)

(continued next post)

[Evan Burton]

Two days and Prof Fetzer has not yet tried to debate me on the Apollo programme.

[Evan Burton]

Next we have the claim that:

Also, under the Apollo 11 LEM, pebbles are still in place and there is no indication of landing by anything other than a cable lowered down on a pristine surface of grayish sand and powder. There are no streaks of dust spreading out from the descent engine.

So, is this true? Well, first off you have to understand that during the final phases of the landing, the throttle was at about 10% of it's maximum setting. This meant that there wouldn't be a big blast crater. So, is what Sibrel says correct? Nope - more lies from Sibrel.

No small pebbles under the LM

Here you can see the blast effect from the descent engine.

[John Dolva]

Evan? Could you reconcile the following please? :

''Hubble can't be used - insufficient resolution.''

and

''the flawed images from (ed : Early) Hubble were due to a slightly misshapen lens and that that has since been compensated for leaving a fully functioning telescope''

keeping in mind that while the Hubble lens is smaller than earth based ones but: does not have to deal with any atmospheric interference and now seem to be producing some quite amazing results.

[Evan Burton]

Bill,

I started using it because it was a term I was often labeled with. I'm happy to just call them errors, blunders, erroneous conclusions and sometimes just plain deception.

One error with your definition though: I am not acting on behalf of any military, governmental or even civil organisation. I speak as a private citizen who has a passion in this area. If I have to wear a badge in this regard, I wear this one proudly: