Linda told such dreadful lies
It made one gasp and stretch one's eyes...
(Hilaire Belloc, corrupted)
Get your filthy hand off her tits Erich
Howe recently conducted a long interview with someone calling himself Jon Lavine, and claiming to have been an astronaut on at least one of the Apollo 18-20 missions, that were not canceled as we all believe but launched in secret, perhaps from Vandenburg AFB, and actually landed on the Moon. There they were met by an alien who quoth "We'd like you to leave. We don't want you on the moon.” The mainstream does not print or speak of this BECAUSE IT'S NOT FUCKING TRUE.
This so-called "serious, legitimate journalist" made it all the worse by a) repeating the story for two solid and nauseating hours on Coast to Coast AM last week, and b) monetizing this pile of steaming merde by only allowing those who pay her $55/year to see it. How can anyone calling themselves a journalist do so little research that they actually believe this?
A few problems with this story
Just for a start, those missions could not have been launched from anywhere without the rockets and spacecraft they would have needed. As a matter of fact, quite a lot of the hardware for 18/19/20 was actually manufactured, but we know what became of it. For example, the second stage of the launcher intended for A18 became Skylab. Various parts of surplus rocketry are on display as a complete Saturn V stack, at the Cape.
Launches from Vandenburg are generally southwards, into polar or near-polar orbits. They cannot be eastward for safety reasons, and so cannot benefit from the free eastward velocity of the Earth's rotation. The site is therefore very unsuitable for Moon launches. And then, there are no facilities at Vandenburg for stacking and launching a Saturn V rocket, and never have been.
Unbelievably, LMH swallowed "Jon Lavine"'s story even to the point of re-telling the totally false story of Apollo 20 visiting a crashed spaceship on the far side of the Moon, and retrieving a beautiful-ish woman who was one of its pilots. God save us, that 3 mile long "crashed spaceship" is the lunar feature this blog has shown many times already. Here it is once again, first on Apollo 15's pan camera...
...then as seen by LRO's narrow-angle cameras at 8m/px.
Note, once again, that the feature (actually a trench about 7km long) is cratered to the same density as its surroundings.
Trekker proves it's a depression not an object
Latest high-def view from Chinese orbiter, provided by One Big Monkey
Update: They've done it! Chang'e 4 landed in Von Kármán crater on 2 Januaty 2019. Congratulations.
The producers of Coast to Coast AM have to share some blame for foisting this caca on their audience of millions, but it's LMH herself I want to excoriate. I'm disgusted, actually...
94 comments:
What is the X-37 'A'?
No idea. I don't think it exists.
Hmmm.
I guess the carot and the 'X' are indicating the "object" in question.
Interesting that the 'object' in the next, close up image is at a different location. Or, something has been doctored by someone, as they are clearly different. The apparent crater (a small, dense spot) seen at a heading of 045 from the 'X' is not visible in the close up.
Unless, as seems very likely to me, one of the images is a vertical reflection of the true image. That seems to match the slightly curved shape of the object better.
More interestingly, the ridge in the first image (as deduced by the shadowing) does look very like a trench in the closeup, once subject to vertical reflection. However, now the craters all look more like LMH's nipples... (Or maybe not, though who knows? The 'electric charge' from Erich's hand at that proximity might have been enough!)
You know about this, right expat?
"the feature (actually a trench about 7km long)"
It don't look like a trench, in the images you offer.
"... cratered to the same density as its surroundings" isn't quite the same as identical craters, in the same relative positions.
But hey, what's a little doctoring, here and there?
Here's a permalink to the LRO image, so you can zoom out and satisfy yourself that this is indeed the "crashed spaceship".
« It don't look like a trench, in the images you offer. »
Well it is. Trekker used the line tool in the ACT-REACT lunar map to determine that.
Any cratering at all is sufficient to disctredit the idea that this is a spaceship.
"thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25238/russia-just-launched-five-objects-into-space-one-problem-there-were-supposed-to-be-four
thesun.co.uk/news/7873610/nasa-mars-news-robot-curiosity-rover-shiny-golden-rock
It IS a trench. The 'object' is oriented roughly N-S on the Act-React map. It's oriented E-W in the Apollo 15 image.
Expat, I've drawn a line through it, using the line tool, as you've indicated. I could share it here - however, how do I insert an image into this blog?
No can do. Send it to dropbox and give us a link, that's the only way I can think of.
...or Google Drive, but that might not be ananymous.
OK, try this:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/aojs3r5fzurfxdd/Apollo%2020%20object%20with%20line%20drawn.pdf?dl=0
Perfect, thanks.
I added it to the main article.
Just to point out that it isn't at all unusual for lunar images to be inverted, it seems to relate to the direction the satellite was travelling in at the time.
I've also dealt with this crater before as it appeared in a stupid UFO documentary, and you can see Japanese and Chinese views at the bottom of this page http://onebigmonkey.com/itburns/syfy/syfy3.html
The CSM for Apollo 18 was used for the Apollo-Soyuz linkup.
The CSM that would have been used for Apollo 18 (CSM-115) was never completed. The CSM used for Apollo-Soyuz (CSM-111) was originally intended for Apollo 15. When Apollo 15 shifted from an H mission to a J mission CSM-111 became redundant and was later used for Apollo-Soyuz
Thanks OBM. That SyFy docco was disgraceful—Kiviat should have his DGA membership card yanked.
At least one of the Selene images shows clearly that it's a depression.
JD: Yes, my mistake, thanks.
Just for fun, if anyone wants to look at the crater in question in 3D I've just downloaded the Japanese DTM data and made a 3D model in QGIS, It's here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/v2yk2np6cisa3n7/del.rar?dl=0
extract the rar file to the folder of your choice and open the del.html file - use your mouse to move around :)
For some reason Chrome isn't keen on the latest version of this plugin, so you'll need to use IE (not checked it in Firefox).
Whatever else it proves it is a cool feature on the moon and nothing else.
That 'object' is one of those 'innie' or 'outie' depressions or mounds illusions. As the cross section shows, it's a depression, but under different lighting, it could well be seen as a mound.
In fact, on the Act-React map, the view at 64m/pixel and greater, makes it look like a mound, but zooming in to the next view at 32m/pixel, under different lighting, it's definitely a depression.
At 64m/pixel: http://bit.ly/2BOs7fD
At 32m/pixel: http://bit.ly/2BOHnJv
OBM and others,
“Just to point out that it isn't at all unusual for lunar images to be inverted, it seems to relate to the direction the satellite was travelling in at the time.
Sure, I agree, in part. Other-planet images are often inverted, or sideways. In fact, I’ve noticed that NASA has a penchant for inverting images, even when it is contrary to the optimum orientation. That orientation being the one that puts the illumination source to the top of the image. This gives it “more natural” lighting - like what we humans are usually accustomed to, where the sun usually shines from above, creating shadows below. In this orientation, craters look usually look like craters and hills like hills. Turn them 180 degrees and the eye/brain often has trouble seeing the correct perspective. Hence, craters tend to look like tits...
But this was not my point, which has been missed yet again.
Rotating images is not uncommon. Virtually every image viewer has an option to rotate, simply because digital images often end up displaying on their sides, when the (landscape) camera was naturally rotated to get a portrait image. Rotation (back) readily fixes that minor problem.
What I alleged here was doctoring, by which I mean doing something unnatural, and creating an image that misrepresents the scene. It is not natural to produce a reflected image. If looking at written words, they appear reversed, as in a car rear vision mirror. Clearly, one of the two images in question has been reflected.
Big Deal?
Maybe not, but IMHO, it is hypocritical.
Accusing your targets of doctoring images, while using doctored images yourself.
Hi Trekker,
Thanks for taking the time / making the effort to create that LROC image.
But my questions are these:
1: Does your line run generally left to right across the image, producing a cross-sectional representation in the same orientation.
2: Is the “crashed spaceship” area in question the darker grey area?
If Yes to both, then the cross section clearly shows that it’s a mound (not a depression) on the floor of a valley - I.e. two downward slopes, towards the area in dispute, which is raised.
As for a spaceship... More like melted, mouldy, green cheese.
... the darker grey, to the left to the much darker grey expanse on the right... that is.
I inverted the middle image to make it relate better to the Apollo 15 pancam image. I have not accused anyone of doctoring the pancam image.
Two-percent: You missed my point. By inverted I did not mean upside down, I meant in the sense of it being opposite to the way it is in reality. I have lost count of the number of images I have downloaded from the LRO and from Chandrayaan where I have had to flip them one way of another. You are accusing some of doctoring an image when in fact the image presented may simply be an original, raw, 'undoctored' image. You also appear to be making the same mistake others do of assuming that just because an image has been digitally processed that it has in some way been materially altered.
If you look at the earlier link I provide to my page you cam see a case where an image of the crater in question has been very obviously doctored in the true sense of the word - adding things that aren't actually there. This is not the case here.
The frustrating thing about may of these so called anomaly and UFO hunters is that they present information that is so easy to verify from multiple sources, yet their target audience sucks it up unquestioningly. As well as the LRO, Japan and China have global coverage at high resolution. India and Russia also have high resolution but partial coverage, then there is all the Apollo imagery. The people claiming to be independent sceptics never do any of checking of these ridiculous claims, and you could have done that quite easily before making wild accusations.
"1: Does your line run generally left to right across the image, producing a cross-sectional representation in the same orientation."
Well, yes, obviously! Otherwise, what would be the point of a line tool function?
"2: Is the “crashed spaceship” area in question the darker grey area?"
It's the trough in the centre, the same as the one in all the other photos presented, both on in the blog article, and in OBM's link.
"If Yes to both, then the cross section clearly shows that it’s a mound (not a depression) on the floor of a valley - I.e. two downward slopes, towards the area in dispute, which is raised."
It's not a mound. It's a depression on ground that is itself undulating. Use the
line tool on the LRO map and see for yourself - use the fourth icon from the top on
the left-hand panel. http://bit.ly/2KRVDUE
I went to the trouble of downloading the latest Chinese view of the area in question (they released much higher resolution images in TIFF format earlier this year), and here it is:
https://i.imgur.com/Te1Idan.jpg
As anyone can see it is exactly the same as all the other images - apart from the ones that have been deliberately manipulated to make it look like an artificial object. There is no spaceship, just an unusual and cratered feature.
I also wanted to address this point from Two-percent:
"I’ve noticed that NASA has a penchant for inverting images, even when it is contrary to the optimum orientation. That orientation being the one that puts the illumination source to the top of the image. This gives it “more natural” lighting - like what we humans are usually accustomed to, where the sun usually shines from above, creating shadows below. In this orientation, craters look usually look like craters and hills like hills. Turn them 180 degrees and the eye/brain often has trouble seeing the correct perspective."
If you interrogate the LRO quickmap you can actually get a variety of different images, some taken in the lunar morning, some at noon, some in the evening. The aim isn't to present an image that's visually pleasing, its to try and give an image that reveals the most information. Apollo astronauts always landed in the lunar morning so that the shadows from rocks and in craters allowed them to avoid areas of potential danger.
Japan's photographic imagery allows you to choose between morning and evening datasets. China, on the other hand, have produced a dataset taken almost entirely at local noon, meaning that there are very few shadows to allow you to perceive detail and judge depth or height (though they have released DEM data to allow the production of 3D models like the one I made from Japanese data).
Another point about the Chinese image I posted above is that I have (shock horror) photoshopped it. In order to enhance detail I have done some level adjustment and applied some sharpening. Have I materially altered the content? No, I have not, and it is really easy for anyone to prove that for themselves.
There is a breed of conspiracy nut out there that cannot distinguish between 'processed in photoshop' and 'photoshopped' in the commonly accepted sense of misrepresenting reality. They see that Photoshop metadata as some sort of smoking gun for fakery. They're idiots. Don't join them.
OBM, how do you look at that 3D image you created? On opening the dropbox link, there are so many files included, I don't know which one I'm supposed to look at. Can you walk us through the procedure?
That new Chinese image is excellent, thanks. It's quite plain that the feature is not different from its surroundings other than being depressed.
@Trekked- there should be an html file in there (I think I called it del.html). Open that in internet explorer - the plugin doesn't like Chrome for some reason :)
OBM,
OK, I opened the link in Explorer, but del.html is a page of code, not an image!
I didn't know she had any reputation left to throw way. Out of all the people to embrace the Apollo 18-20 fantasy, she would be there near the top of my list. Just beyond Kerry.
Rational Wiki
Anyone have the photo of the "Grey" mentioned in the Coast2Coast Show by Linda? Apparently Moon, Rover, Lander and Earth reflected in Eye of Grey.......Yeah, my thoughts too.....
erickson: I see somebody at ratwiki is on the ball, her list of gullible stupidities is updated already.
She's claiming on her website that 'Jon Harold Levine' was a 'secret' Apollo 17 astronaut! You have to wonder how he fitted on board, without being noticed by the others!
https://www.earthfiles.com/2018/11/29/part-1-did-secret-apollo-17-astronaut-photograph-grey-non-human-on-moon/
The only conclusion I can draw is that she's totally ignorant about spaceflight. Well, that and the fact that she's the most gullible person on Earth (possibly equalled by Kerry Cassidy).
If anyone can understand French, there's a guy talking about this episode on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw6j-5qryqs
I speak good French but that dude is incomprehensible. I've left a comment.
@Trekker - sounds like it's opening in edit mode and you're seeing html! It should look like this:
https://i.imgur.com/wIurxp4.png
That said, I said internet explorer, and I should have said Microsoft Edge browser. Firefox also works :)
OBM, I've just discovered that the ActReact map also allows you to make a 3D model, not just draw a cross section. Here's the feature from there in 3D:
http://target.lroc.asu.edu/qm3d/o2w_3d_851043165_10_0_100_101_0/
Oh, that's cool. Well done!
Well I didn't know you could do that! And you can export it to a 3D printer friendly format!
If anyone is ever interested in getting hold of images from the various space agencies and making 3D models I have a tutorial page here:
http://onebigmonkey.com/tuts/tuthome.html
I think I need to update the LRO section to cover that simple method :)
Gawd, that French nutcase is insisting that NASA has super-spaceships that can get to the Moon much faster than Apollo and need not stay in contact with Houston. Oy vey....
Thanks, OBM! That 3D image works! Great size, too! It looks like a gouge inside a depression. I wonder what caused it?
This is a good hook to point out the quotation from astronaut Gordon Cooper, who loved good UFO stories and even endorsed the fantasies of Dan Fry and Billy Meier, but still insisted there were no UFO encounters on NASA spaceflights of his era. Better yet, on this Russian interview about 60 min in, he describes how he looked over every inch of the Apollo film and saw no sign of any alien activity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJMrU8WCeWY&t=1943s
Maybe somebody could grab that audio clip and post it somewhere so it could be directly accessed.
Carefully crafted words: "...he describes how he looked over every inch of the Apollo film and saw no sign of any alien activity..."
Elk signs.
What does 'elk signs' mean?
Elk signs are what hunters use to find Elk. Or, just a more polite term for horseshit.
Loved every post. Thanks for making my day guys. LMH I think is actually mental.
Trekker, OBM, expat:
Been off-line, but got to have a play with the Line Tool yesterday. A great thing to know about, so thanks, Trekker.
Seems to be at the lower limits of its range (the low-high range is only about 50 metres) in this case, but having drawn quite a few lines across the area in question, I now agree. It's a depression. HOW depressing! I even got the impression it might be more about the colour than the contour, as at some points, the lip is higher on one side, but at others the opposite, with no apparent difference in "colour" - as you might expect if this is a lighting/shadowing effect.
All the more, a mystery.
Not solved by claiming it's a spashed craceship!
Orbs:
"Elk signs."
Beautifully put!
Couldn't agree more.
Theadora commented "It's not as if Colonel Cooper said that there was no sign of alien activity, now is it?"
(Stupid Youtube link disallowed)
Our own James Oberg is the expert on whhat Cooper said and didn't say. There's also this, but please let's not take this irrelevant sub-thread any further.
This show has just about killed C2C for me.....LMH has always been wrong about almost everything, but this is just too much. No more shadenfreude for me..I was awaiting the question, Where did they launch from???
Launched perhaps from, Diego Garcia, home of the US Naval Space Command's, X-37A.
"It's not as if Colonel Cooper said that there was no sign of alien activity, now is it?"
Well... I personally wouldn't expect there to be too much alien activity around a film set, even if it was an outdoor one. Them aliens do seem rather allergic to cameras, so not likely to be found on the film.
Besides, the carefully crafted wording says he looked over every inch of the film, which doesn't mean he saw (or watched) the film at all, when he looked over it.
It's the same as looking over your nose, I suppose.
That said, quoting anecdotes about aliens watching from the rim of a crater do serve to lend more credibility to the manned Lunar Landings myth.
There is no credibility or foundation whatsoever in claims that astronauts claimed to have first hand experience of UFOs.
There is no credibility whatsoever in claims that the lunar landings are a myth.
It turns out that the X-37A did exist. It was the NASA forerunner to the USAF X-37B. It had three flights in 2006, all drops from a White Night carrier.
ref: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/x-37.html
Whatever it's called, the Navy has or had it's own Space Shuttle, just like NASAss' only weaponized. The Navy conducted tests of Brilliant Pebbles with the CIA, too. That's what a former astronaut told me in person. I only surmised the Diego Garcia launch site, however.
There are no rocket launch facilities on Diego Garcia. Check it out on google earth.
My guess about Diego Garcia is mere speculation, but fact is that Google Earth makes extensive use of photoshop, even where there is nothing which requires redaction. Again I'll make a guess, that Google does that so that when there does happen to be a location which they have to redact, that one can't distinguish it from any other place they photoshopped. Google Earth and Wikipedia are not reliable, credible evidence of what's actually on the ground.
"There is no credibility whatsoever in claims that the lunar landings are a myth. "
So you say. Of course, the whole world has been told it happened, that's what's written in the history books ("History is written by the victors", as here) and what they teach in schools, and that's what many scientists say, and apparently, believe. However, for scientists, it's a question they have little freedom to contradict, if they want to continue in their chosen careers. As a result, it's little surprise that most people seem to believe it's true.
But as has been discussed here before, the Apollo Landing Missions were Political Grand-standing Exercises, first and foremost. The Americans were extremely pissed when the Russians successfully launched Sputnik while they still had their pants way down, and had to make like they were technologically superior in spite of it - by whatever means, it turns out. And, Well Done, I say!
Anyway, there are some things one just has to work out for oneself. But a careful look at the Apollo 16 Rover hijinks footage will confirm to more astute observers that the "astronoughtie" on the Rover is just a fixed model (doll). Just observe the fixed position of its left arm, throughout the entire film. Not even any natural movement or repositioning. Just stiff, like a wire doll's arm. If it was me, riding that bucking, bouncing Rover so far from any meaningful emergency assistance, you can be damn sure I'd be holding on with both hands.
And that's just one of many cracks in the façade.
But as I have discovered, it can be very hard to overturn one's own incorrect beliefs. The first requirement is that one has to suspend one's own belief, and try to look at the question with genuine objectivity.
This is why most spouses are the last to know that their own spouse is being unfaithful... Because they don't WANT to believe it.
I guess you don't want to reverse your belief, either?
[FWIW, I used to believe that the landings were real. When I was a kid. I've had a lot of belief reversals since then...]
expat said...
"There are no rocket launch facilities on Diego Garcia. Check it out on google earth."
Funny you should say that! FREAKIN' Hilarious, actually.
I looked on Google Maps (just to be perverse!)
So obviously, a series of very BAD editing jobs. So amazing, I've saved copies.
As you zoom in, it's apparent the whole image had just been pasted onto the background. But even more fun, as you continue to zoom in, suddenly, all these convenient clouds appear scattered over the pasted picture. But not on the surrounding processed image.
But then, you notice who holds copyright on the image(s)...
Orbs, you are spot on about the editing, be it Photoshop or something else.
But launching from there - wouldn't it be a logistical nightmare?
« But launching from there - wouldn't it be a logistical nightmare? »
That's putting it mildly. There are no port facilities at all. A tiny harbor with no cranes. It's a non-starter.
@2%:
Do you really think that you're the first to discover that the Apollo missions were a political exercise designed to annoy the USSR?
That's never in dispute. What is also indisputable, no matter how many people claim otherwise, is the evidence that Apollo is genuine. This is my site that covers everything you need to back that up:
http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/apollo.html
Your subjective interpretations of how you think an astronaut should behave in a rover (aww, you said astronought - are people still doing that? How cute) are no match for the wealth of evidence not just from the program itself but the images from China, India ad Japan that all prove they went.
If you are going to claim to have any kind of informed opinion, I'd inform yourself of some of the stuff I've done. If you don't like what's there you can keep your belief reversals, the 8 Apollo astronauts I've met in person don't care.
OBM,
I'll ignore the unscientific, ad hominem attack(s) and your other errors, as I had a quick look at your website... I was reminded that I've glanced at it before.
Obviously, you have too much invested in your belief to suspend it, even for a moment.
However, I guess you do know what confirmation bias is:
"This page contains links to a variety of personal projects related to the Apollo lunar missions - specifically aimed at proving that we went to the Moon.
Which we did."
Is there a better example, anyone?
I didn't explore much further, but need not say much more.
All I can ask is this: If what I say is true, why might the 8 Apollo 'nauts have said to the contrary? And how could (the mere) you expect to penetrate the veil?
Just because you didn't even glimpse behind the veil doesn't mean there isn't anything behind it. Does it?
What was the late Neil Armstrong on about with "truth's protective layers..."? Was he one of "OBM's 8"? [My bet is not.] I guess all 8 are now dead, so truly, don't care.
Anyway, as I take it, layer => veil. Surely, that's a tiny glimpse, a small confirmation, that there is, in fact, a veil (or several)? He was a brave man, by all accounts, but "that was all he said." All he dared to say, when he was old and growing frail.
There are many, many secrets in this world, as Edward Snowden and others have demonstrated. Apart from the occasional Edward and the like, the world's secrets are all held tight, right?
But there are none so blind...
... as those who dare not study the veil.
Oh, what it must be, to be an unwitting part of the veil.
@OBM
A moon rock given to the Dutch prime minister by Apollo 11 astronauts in 1969 has turned out to be a piece of petrified wood.
What is "your belief reversal" on that one??
There's no mystery about that 'rock'. Read about it: https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-moon-rock-given-to-the-Dutch-Prime-Minister-by-Apollo-11-astronauts-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-in-1969-turn-out-to-be-a-fake
It's good to see so many comments, even if we're getting a bit zany down this end of the list. The page views are in the 300-400 range, too, whereas the last five articles have not made it to 100.
I'm not interested in the Apollo hoax argument but I'll just remark that Armstrong was 64 when he spoke of truth's protective layers, and 64 IS NOT OLD.
The remark itself was just a fancy way of saying that science proceeds by investigation and by discarding what is false. A proposition that someone filmed a dummy astronaut speeding over a fake lunar surface in the LRV might be an example of a childish falsehood that belongs in the spam bucket. Ooops, I've gone and done what I said I wouldn't.
@ 2% - you have put in as much effort as I expected and I note that your confirmation bias made you run away from unpalatable truths. I see nothing in your post that refutes anything on my site. Feel free to cling on to your beliefs. I deal in verifiable facts. The facts support Apollo.
@ Anonymous - there is not a shred of evidence that anyone from NASA gave that rock to the former PM, or that anyone claimed it was a moon rock. The ex-PM wasn't there during the Apollo 11 visit and the moon rocks were not released until later that year. The whole thing was a stunt for an art exhibition.
You have to wonder why this one piece of petrified wood gets the deniers all exercised. It's not as if it were the only piece of moon rock in existence, and it certainly doesn't negate the rest of the 382 kilograms (842 pounds) of rocks returned by the Apollo missions.
And when they argue that unmanned landers could return rocks, yes that's true. The Soviet Luna missions returned a measly 10.6 oz (301 g). Nothing to get excited about.
And when they argue that earth rocks or meteorites can be faked to look like moon rocks, that's not true. Under a microscope, they're markedly different from earth rocks. They're completely dry - which is something impossible to find on earth, even in rocks from Antarctica's dry desert. They contain isotopes not found on earth - formed by nuclear reactions with high-energy cosmic rays. They also lack a ‘fusion crust’, which is the crust that forms on all meteorites as their crust melts, while they’re diving through Earth’s atmosphere. In addition, they all have ‘zap pits’, which are tiny craters that form from micrometeorite bombardment in space. These pits are absent on earth rocks, as they’re protected by Earth’s atmosphere.
Their promotion of this piece of petrified wood as proof of fakery really proves nothing at all.
OBM,
Another snippet from the "home" page of your Apollo site:
"Anyone who claims on a youtube video or a web page or a book or in fact anywhere that NASA hoaxed the missions is either an idiot or a liar. Possibly both."
According to my interpretation, that makes me an idiot, a liar, or both.
Knowing myself a little better than you do, why would I want to read such bigoted drivel any further? However, I forced myself.
A bit further down the same page:
"If you seriously believe we didn’t go, [...] maybe you’re a bad mannered, brain-damaged, half-blind Welsh pensioner with delusions of grandeur, or you’re locked away in a mid-West US truck stop making drunken lying rants at the world, or maybe you’re one of the many other crackpot trolls polluting the internet and parading your ignorance as if it’s something to be proud of then you won’t like anything here.
That makes me happy."
By that precision reckoning, I can only be just one of many other crackpot trolls polluting the internet and parading my ignorance as if it’s something to be proud of.
Speak for yourself, Big Monkey!
The fact that I mightn't like your website "makes you happy" just suggests even more clearly that you yourself might be one bad mannered, brain-damaged, half-blind Welsh pensioner with delusions of grandeur, (or you’re locked away in a mid-West US truck stop making drunken lying rants at the world) - but that's the big danger of pointing a condemning finger at others:
There's usually 3 fingers pointing back at you. Unless, of course, you've been careless around sawbenches and the like... which might explain something.
Whatever, if it was mine, I'd regard your Apollo website as a huge embarrassment. Apparently, you don't.
Anyway, from the main page, I quickly conclude it's all a one-eyed, unscientific personal rant, so not worth reading further. That's my honest feedback, and I doubt I'm alone.
My question is, what the heck motivates you to maintain this embarrassment?
The monkey guy is just providing due diligence, making it simpler to consider the source. He has a similar attitude as James Oberg and Stewart Robbins, without mincing weasel words.
"Anyone who claims on a youtube video or a web page or a book or in fact anywhere that NASA hoaxed the missions is either an idiot or a liar. Possibly both."
According to the Ministry of Truth [ Orwell ]
Some people always find it difficult to realize that they are not the almighty know-it-all. The tactic is always the same...
If there are people who question everything [ scientific ] and do not want to ride the Bamboozle express...well...
Just call them idiots, deniers, conspiracy theorists etc etc
So I agree with the two percent on this one. So and why on Earth would one call him, her itself One Big Monkey...don't get me started...So dear Monkey...please stop behaving like one and stick to the arguments in case without placing yourself on the famous "My mind is made up so do not bother me with something out of my limited scope".
Calling people liars, idiots etc does not make you the king of the corner...it really doesn't
What it does do is by doing so is that you place yourself in the corner of people like Mike "the Cartman" Bara or Al "don't you care for the polar bear" Gore or George "if you're not with us you're against us" Bush
and the list goes one and on :-) So...in fact not really a corner were one was to be spotted.
Adrian
OBM,
You may not have forgiven me for my previous post, but let's try to be nicer to each other.
I'd like to accept your challenge:
" I note that your confirmation bias made you run away from unpalatable truths. I see nothing in your post that refutes anything on my site. Feel free to cling on to your beliefs. I deal in verifiable facts. The facts support Apollo. "
I had a look at your discussion on "The Visor Has It" -
http://onebigmonkey.com/itburns/visor/visor.html
It's not too bad, IMHO, so I'd like to take you up on a few points.
You said I run away from unpalatable truths... How so, my friend? I seek the truth, palatable or not, ahead of most things. Frankly, I don't actually give a toss whether the Americans went to the moon in '69 (or the '70's) or not. I don't care either way. [That's yet another of my 'belief' reversals.] All I'm keen to know is the truth. Did they go, or did they fake it? As I've said, I used to think they went. Now I think they almost certainly didn't. All I'd like to know is which one is the actual truth.
How about you?
You say your visor commentary (more or less) proves they went. If I can use your evidence to show that they probably didn't, would you play along? (I accept that you know the details much better than I, so I'll have to rely on your greater knowledge somewhat for some of those.)
Will you pick up the gauntlet?
Let's see who really seeks the truth!
Trekker said:
"And when they argue that earth rocks or meteorites can be faked to look like moon rocks, that's not true. Under a microscope, they're markedly different from earth rocks. They're completely dry - which is something impossible to find on earth, even in rocks from Antarctica's dry desert. They contain isotopes not found on earth - formed by nuclear reactions with high-energy cosmic rays. They also lack a ‘fusion crust’, which is the crust that forms on all meteorites as their crust melts, while they’re diving through Earth’s atmosphere. In addition, they all have ‘zap pits’, which are tiny craters that form from micrometeorite bombardment in space. These pits are absent on earth rocks, as they’re protected by Earth’s atmosphere."
It sounds to me like you misunderstand this, but I stand to be corrected.
As I understand it, it's not that meteorites are "faked" to look like Moon rocks. As was the subject of a lengthy thread here some time ago, some meteorites falling to Earth do in fact come from the Moon. They are genuine Moon rocks, from the Moon. The mechanism that delivers them here is the impact of other, very high energy meteorites from farther out in the Solar System, striking the Moon. They release, in a few instants, the energy of powerful H-bombs, vaporising rock beneath the Lunar surface. This creates massive blasts that sometimes propels Moon rocks off the Moon with more than the required escape velocity. Some of these make it to Earth. They are apparently easiest to find in Antarctica, in summer. I believe John Anderson mentions this in his book.
With a bit of tidying up, they can be passed off as genuine samples from the Moon (which they are), brought here by NASA (which they weren't). And, if the truth is that NO Lunar rock samples have ever been brought back by the West, how are you going to know the difference? Especially as all rock samples vary at least slightly from one another.
Meteorites, whether from the moon or elsewhere, have a fusion crust. Rocks brought back from the moon by the astronauts don't.
The problem is just as that Dick Hoagland says, "NASA controls the data." It's same as how Google Earth obfuscates secret geographic locations by painting images of tree tops, over the tops of images of real trees, while thereby redacting the sensitive areas by painting fake tree tops over them as well. NASA probably painted in the artifacts at Cydonia, while at the same time they deny that there are artifacts there at all. Ironically, NASA tells the truth on the one hand, but lies with subterfuge of fraudulent images.
Trekker said:
"Meteorites, whether from the moon or elsewhere, have a fusion crust. "
Of course, that crust is impossible to remove. Everyone who hates the crust on their bread knows that!
Here, lend me, let's say, a hammer and chisel... and a sand blaster... and some acid...
You know, momumental masons have been turning irregular shaped lumps of rock into nice flat slabs ever since Moses came down from the mountain. If we were actually clever enough to send men to the moon and back in 1969, I'm sure we were clever enough to remove a fusion crust then too, without leaving obvious tool marks. Never mind the odd lump of pertified wood, that might have slipped through unnoticed...
Occam's Razor applies here, without question. Not to mention, economics, and time limits. And practicality.
« "NASA controls the data." »
Not any more, sweetheart, now that the Japs and the Chinese are also in lunar orbit. And if all goes well, next Tuesday the Chinese will have a data source that NASA has never had—namely, a lander on the back side, transmitting via a data relay sat. Times have truly changed.
Russia has it's own version of Google Earth, too, and they redact the same locations.
Teufelsberg
52° 29′ 51″ N, 13° 14′ 28″ E
yandex.com/maps
If we were clever enough to go to the moon we would have faked the samples they collected while they were there?? Just think about what you're saying there 2%. They are clever enough to go to the moon, so they did.
I have original copies of the conference proceedings from Apollos 11, as well as other conference proceedings covering samples from other missions. All full of scientific data, all of the contributors perfectly happy with their provenance.
Great, how do I get my mits on some of those rocks so that I can peer review them for myownself?
NASA's response to the latest denial of the moon landings by a public figure (NBA player Stephen Curry) was great - come to Houston and examine the evidence for yourself. That stopped him in his tracks, and made him see the usefulness of taking up the offer:
https://www.inc.com/justin-bariso/steph-curry-said-man-never-landed-on-moon-nasas-response-was-absolute-genius.html
"Instead of attacking Curry or his beliefs, the space organization did the best thing possible:
It extended a warm invitation to Curry to come visit and examine the evidence himself.
"We'd love for Mr. Curry to tour the lunar lab at our Johnson Space Center in Houston, perhaps the next time the Warriors are in town to play the Rockets," NASA spokesman Allard Beutel told The New York Times in a statement. "We have hundreds of pounds of moon rocks stored there, and the Apollo mission control. During his visit, he can see firsthand what we did 50 years ago, as well as what we're doing now to go back to the moon in the coming years, but this time to stay."
If only other like-minded people would go and do the same!
Hi there, Big Guy,
Good to see you back.
You said:
"Just think about what you're saying there 2%."
Don't worry, I already did, before I posted it. But I've had another think about it, since you asked. It's almost a classic "If ... Then ..." statement as so commonly used in computer programming, and though it could no doubt have been slightly better worded, I see nothing wrong with it.
In effect, what I was saying was, IF we were THAT smart in 1969, THEN we were also smart enough to do something far easier. But then, I throw in Occam's Razor - a favourite Debunker's Tool - to say that the simpler, easier path is the one far more likely to have been taken.
In effect, what I'm saying is that a successful Moon Landing and Return, complete with sample rocks, was NOT in fact possible at that time, so a viable alternative that WAS possible, was devised and carried out. Obviously, faking a bunch of moon meteorites to look like genuine Apollo moon rock samples was an insignificant exercise, compared to the "Whole Deal" of actually faking the missions.
Your Apollo conference (notes) also fall onto the alternative path, and Occam's Razor applies there just as well. Far easier to find a bunch of less educated guys who are so impressed by the apparent success of the mission that they'll swallow what they are told hook, line and sinker, without daring to question it (than to actually do the impossible).
Just put yourself in that position.
Visualise all the glamour, prestige, respect and admiration, even adulation and veneration of that time, following an apparently highly successful mission... 'EVERYONE' absolutely amazed, impressed and in awe of "what has been achieved". Now, you're gonna be the nerdy, inappropriate and disrespectful jerk who had the considerable honour of being INVITED to a "tell-all" conference on this Great Achievement, who has the audacity to stand up and dare to question something so great that WE, the (American) people, have just achieved, on the basis of some trivial technical point?
I think not. Social and peer pressures are much stronger than that. Even if some anti-social jerk did stand up and try to ask such a question, he would have been booed, hissed and jeered (if not physically intimidated) out of the conference, smartly escorted ('for his own saftey') by some burly security officers. But such a person would never have been invited in the first place, so of course the propaganda conference went off without a hitch.
What does that prove?
« Obviously, faking a bunch of moon meteorites to look like genuine Apollo moon rock samples was an insignificant exercise... »
Oh dear, such ignorance. The Apollo lunar samples include basalts, plagioclase (from Apollo 16), anorthosites, olivines, even breccias. That's because the astronauts were trained to collect the largest possible variety. Can you imagine a breccia surviving the journey from Moon to Earth, including entry to the atmosphere. LOL, as they say.
Then there's the question of sheer quantity. Lunar meteorites are considered quite precious and they're all in museums or geology labs. They simply aren't available for faking up as sample returns. This page is a good source of info. It says "The mass of all known lunar meteorites is now about 84% of the mass of the rocks >1 cm in size in the Apollo lunar sample collection."
Interesting. The Apollo deniers seem to often or maybe always be young people, "millennials" who have had internet and Google for all their lifetime. People that grew up with the Apollo missions happening in real time like me and others in their 50s and are trained in science--most of us are positive we American humans went to the moon. It was doable and yes they took some real chances. Blasted through Van Allen belts in weakest smallest areas just on guts. I have seen 1 moon rock that Nixon gave the Pope. I saw it in the Vatican. I personally feel the moon deniers are about equal in scientific status as holocaust deniers. Also I note that many moon deniers also are literally flat-earthers.
As far as lunar meteorites are concerned there is a reason why those who analyse them know that they are lunar in origin.
Can you guess what that reason is?
@ Unknown - I've noticed that too - that deniers are for the most part people under the age of 49, who weren't even born when the landings took place.
It seems to me their denial is based on a sense of incredulity that state-of-the-art technology, capable of transporting men to the moon and safely back again could possibly have existed in what is to them virtually the 'stone age', before the widespread use of computers and electronics. They also grew up in an era where schooling, in the 1980s and onward, had already slid into its downward spiral of incompetent teachers and dumbed-down educational curricula, where rational, critical thinking was no longer much of a requirement. This was also a time where the history of the Cold War and the political background to the space race of the 50s and 60s was either not taught at all, or poorly understood, even by those teaching it, and where science itself had already started to come under fire from the religious right, especially in the US.
As you've said, those of us in our 50s or older who lived through that period and watched the live transmissions from the moon never had any doubt as to what we were watching. In the era before computer fakery, CGI, Photoshop etc. were even heard of, we knew we were watching history unfold before our eyes.
I pay very little attention any more to the ignorant claims and conspiracy theories of the deniers. They haven't a clue what they're talking about, and they're just as irrelevant and delusional as flat earthers.
Unknown ranted:
"The Apollo deniers seem to often or maybe always be young people, "millennials"..."
As I'm sure expat at least, long ago discerned, you can count me out of that group.
" People that grew up with the Apollo missions happening in real time like me and others in their 50s and are trained in science--most of us are positive we American humans went to the moon. "
If you really are trained in science, you would recognise that you are spouting a preconceived point of view. If you are in your 50's, you must have been in your pre-teen childhood when the Apollo missions were broadcast. If you were born in, say, 1960, you'd be 58 now, or at the latest, on New Year's Eve. If that's the case, by my reckoning, you'd have been 9 years old when Apollo 11 supposedly landed on the moon, with Neil & Buzz aboard. Born later, you'd have been much younger.
Now you're telling the whole world that the beliefs and perceptions formed by an under-10-year old child, with no training and little knowledge or experience of science, are "As Good as Gold"! Dear me.
FWIW, I also used to believe in the Official Story, that Neil & Buzz frolicked on the moon in '69. When I was also a pre-teen. I can't say for certain when I saw through it all, but I think it would have been when I was in my 20's, with, like you, some science education under my hat.
Now, when I look at the details, I just think, 'Yeah, Right!!'
When I look at the photos of the utterly rough, ungainly, top heavy, inelegant, terribly unfinished tin-foil and sticky tape contraption they call the LEM, standing on the supposed moon, I think, 'No way!' I think, 'Hell's Bells. It looks like the Props Department forgot to order a life-sized Lunar Lander mock-up - and that was all they could throw together in one week before the Show was scheduled to "Go Live"...'
When I see the photo of the LEM standing on the moon, with no sign of disturbed regolith under the rocket exhaust, and look at the photos of dozens of clearly deep footprints in the clearly very soft soil (ahh, I mean "regolith"!) all around it, Yep, I'm, like totally, convinced.
When I look at photos like AS11-40-5927 and see that the shadow of the LM almost reaches the "Horizon", I think 'Aha... I'm a stupid believer.'
When I look at AS11-40-5923 and -24 with the image of Earth hanging in the shot, and study the position of the terminator on the Earth, then study the shadows in various other photos taken around the same time, I'm quite certain there are multiple light sources in play, depending on the shot.
When I look at so many other photos with their dodgy, artificial-looking horizons and their sudden changes of shade and consistency approaching the "Horizon Zone" I think, 'Well, they never had Photoshop, so you have to forgive them.'
When I look at the Bright, Shiny, "beautiful", perfectly finished CSM and compare it with the LEM, I think, 'Well, something ain't right here...'
As for frolicking. We'll have none of that low gravity hi-jinx, thank you very much! Not even a single, small, safe test jump. Awkward shuffling, like men labouring under a great burden is acceptable. As they were.
I could go on, but what's the point? You'll believe what you want to believe.
Already, I know what it means to reverse your viewpoint. It's life-changing. You probably don't want that, at your age.
"It was doable "
How do you know that? Because, well, they 'did it'?
"and yes they took some real chances. Blasted through Van Allen belts in weakest smallest areas just on guts. "
ctd...
Just like in the movies, where the bad guys can't shoot for shit, and the good guy can shoot dead-eye while driving on two wheels and shooting behind himself with a handgun, without looking. That would have taken an infinite amount of extremely good luck.
"I have seen 1 moon rock that Nixon gave the Pope. I saw it in the Vatican. "
Let me guess! You KNOW it was a moon rock in that glass case because some uninformed Vatican official had stuck a label near it, which said "Moon Rock". In Latin, I presume. You must be a Catholic Creationist!?"
I personally feel the moon deniers are about equal in scientific status as holocaust deniers. Also I note that many moon deniers also are literally flat-earthers."
And there we have it folks. Aptly expanded upon by Trekker.
Happy New Year, everyone.
It does. Very redible info on Y-Tube.
My uncle Was part of the team that developed the LEM. He also worked on the re-entry problem. I have seen moon rocks and their thin sections with my own eyes. Moon rocks are available to the scientific community through a loan program.
I don’t know which is worse. You “Apollo was faked” bozos or the flat earthers. At least the majority of flat earth believers aren’t so mean spirited.
Why do you assume a rocket needed to be launched? Perhaps you also don’t believe that our government has propulsion systems that are kept from the public? The worst part of all is that you have no problem trashing journalists or any other person who is working to try to get information to the public- simply because they offer a different explanation. I’m going to assume you also believe we are alone in the universe?
Thanks for the comment, anon.
« Why do you assume a rocket needed to be launched? Perhaps you also don’t believe that our government has propulsion systems that are kept from the public?»
Because it would make no sense whatsoever to go to the trouble of launching a huge rocket to the Moon ten times if there were an easier alternative.
« The worst part of all is that you have no problem trashing journalists or any other person who is working to try to get information to the public- simply because they offer a different explanation.»
LMH didn't offer "a different explanation", she swallowed a fairy story told by a con man. Please note that LMH herself later retracted most of this rubbish.
« I’m going to assume you also believe we are alone in the universe? »
There's no reliable information on that. Since we don't know exactly how life got started here on this planet, any estimate of its likelihood on other planets is merely a guess.
By the way, anon: What do you mean by "our government"? This is the internet, an international forum. My government may not be the same thing as your government. If you mean the government of the USA, please say so.
I think if you had thousands of emails per day, you too could slip a few liars through the net. After all, look at the media how many false narratives they publish on a daily basis and with far greater financial and man-power resources than Howe.
Howe openly acknowledged that the story needed further fact checking:
"December 20, 2018 Editor’s Note from Earthfiles Reporter and Editor Linda Moulton Howe: I am preparing a fact check update for Earthfiles and my December 27-28, 2018, Coast to Coast AM radio broadcast with the finding that the original November 29, 2018, three-part tale by 71-year-old Jon Lavine — Part 2 begins below — appears to be mostly dishonest for reasons unknown. In the face of contradictory facts, Lavine keeps insisting his secret astronaut story is real, even though many of his assertions don’t hold up credibly under research scrutiny that will be laid out in my upcoming fact check updates.
Helping Earthfiles’ investigations have been U. K. engineer, IT inventor and analyst Winston Keech; retired Navy Captain Mark Wood; retired Naval Flight Engineer Brian S.; writer and researcher John Hacherian; and U. K. Earthfiles field reporter Ian Halling. Ironically, three anonymous military whistleblowers have also told Linda that beyond Lavine’s fraudulent claims, there have been secret NASA missions concerning an alien presence on the moon."
Thanks for the comment, anon.
« I think if you had thousands of emails per day, you too could slip a few liars through the net. »
Not good enough. People who call themselves "investigative journalists" are expected to do some investigating. In this case, only a slight investigative effort would have been sufficient to determine that the lunar landing point claimed by Lavine is uncontactable from Earth.
« ...there have been secret NASA missions concerning an alien presence on the moon »
Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has now been sending us hi-res imagery of the lunar surface for 11 years. Hundreds of thousands of images at 0.5 m/px are now available for study. There is no trace of alien activity. Ergo, your information is false.
Post a Comment