Friday, July 7, 2017

Mike Bara is probably right for once

        Welll....  I didn't really want to get into the Nazca mummy controversy at all, but it's the pseudoscience topic du jour and everybody else in the business has commented. So here's my aggregation of what's emerged so far.

        On 20 June, Gaia TV released to Youtube what they called "SPECIAL REPORT: UNEARTHING NAZCA." The video documented an expedition to Nazca, Peru, to investigate what was claimed to be the mummified corpse of an alien. The expedition was led by Jay Weidner and Melissa Tittl of Gaia.com. Weidner is the man who insists on very flimsy evidence that all the Apollo 11 video and film was faked up by Stanley Kubrick in Area 51, so his involvement makes the whole thing problematic as far as I'm concerned. Gaia's point man in Peru was Jaime Maussan, a Mexican investigative journalist who has been responsible for fakery including a previous alien mummy that wasn't (the Roswell slides.)


         Metabunk was very quick to produce, only a day later, an admirably rigorous assessment of Gaia's claims, rating "alien mummy" as the least likely of seven possible explanations for this artifact. The most likely, per this analysis, is "A modern fake mummy, created from a combination of human and animal bones, created for the show."

        Mike Bara blogged the mummy just a day later, opining that this was "just another attempt to generate clicks and drive subscriptions." He characterized Jay Weidner thus:
"I like Jay Weidner. But if jumping to conclusions was an Olympic sport, Jay Weidner would have more gold medals than Michael Phelps."
        Weidner retaliated by cancelling an appointment Bara had to appear (again) on George Noory's Gaia-sponsored TV show. Bitchery!!!!

        Jason Colavito blogged skeptically the same day. On 3rd July ufowatchdog weighed in, pouring further doubt on Jaime Maussan and also bad-mouthing Paola Harris, Don Schmitt, Clifford Stone, and Dr. Jose de Juesus Zalce Benitez—all of whom are peripherally involved. The article, headlined "Mummy, Mummy, Money," focused on the commercial aspects of the story:
"Gaia.com is clearly not hurting from any of these personalities, and they know it.  According to their own website, Gaia.com (a publicly traded company) saw a 61% increase in digital subscribers this year and this doesn't count the last few months.  It appears there is no such thing as bad publicity anymore. "
        Well, yesterday Mike Bara stood himself up in front of the flag of the Manchester City Football Club and recorded a 10-minute video giving his opinions. He said, among other zingers, that he knew the Gaia TV producer and "she is not an honest person" (was he talking about Melissa Tittl? It's not clear.)

        We should know more next week, when further medical and genetic analysis is due to be released. But for now, this blog acknowledges that Mike Bara is probably right. And Jay Weidner is a child.

Update:
        The first DNA test is in, from the  Paleo DNA Laboratory of Lakehead University, Canada.


Update 25 July:
        Bara has released a short update video today, giving two reasons why he believes the "mummy" is almost certainly a fake.

61 comments:

astroguy said...

Sharon Hill's fledgling podcast went into detail about this along with an interview from an archaeologist. I listened two nights ago and thought it was well done: http://doubtfulnews.com/2017/07/15-credibility-street-20-a-mummy-bundle-of-bs/

Two Percent said...

Yeah, I think it's a bit OT. Is anyone saying it came from Mars?

It doesn't even look like anything more than a badly made Plaster of Paris mock up.

The Apollo 11 comment is far more interesting.

So, expat, do you reckon the A11 Moon "Landing" was real?

JUSTICE FOR SUNNY SHEU said...

"The discovery was allegedly made by Jaime Maussan, a Mexican investigative journalist who has been responsible for fakery including a previous alien mummy that wasn't (the Roswell slides.)"

False. It is astonishing to me how shoddy is the research of so called "skeptics". The discovery was not made by Massaun; allegedly or otherwise.

If you're going to try to look smart, at least make an effort to be smart, and do the tiniest due diligence.

expat said...

You're correct, JFSS. I've amended the text. I appreciate your comment but I must say you do go somewhat over the top. "Astonishingly shoddy" is not how I'd describe my original text.

expat said...

« So, expat, do you reckon the A11 Moon "Landing" was real? »

I'm 110% certain of it.

Two Percent said...

« I'm 110% certain of it. »

Now that's an interesting answer! Is ANYTHING really 100% absolutely certain? Apart from mathematical certainties, such as 1 + 1 = 2? To me, 110% suggests some possibility that it's not 100% certain. At least 10% exaggerated...

Is that because it's "accepted" as fact, published by the MSM (MainStream Media), a 'long' time ago? Because "that many people" couldn't be kept silent? Because it's "too big a lie" to be a lie? What are your reasons?

You see, I believed it when I was a young kid, when I knew no better. Now, I'm extremely skeptical. Too many "facts" do not add up. There are just too many improbabilities. I do not believe it happened. At least, not at all as alleged and reported. So, I'm wondering if you are a true skeptic. Would you care to give me a brief summary of why you are so sure? What is your evidence?

I agree, it's without doubt, the most worthwhile piece of Political Showmanship the world may ever have seen, since the Middle Ages anyway. It achieved a great political goal. That's why is was so important that it seem to happen. That much is true.

I know this is far Off Topic, but let me say, as a true skeptic, that the collapse of the two WTC Towers and Building 7, all on the same day, was, with barely a shadow of doubt, a series of professional, controlled demolitions. Jet planes crashing into the Twin Towers was just the cover. Yes, I have looked into this in some depth. I have done some calculations and some estimations. What happened could not have happened >> that quickly, or in that manner << as a result of a single jet plane crashing into each building. Not to mention Building 7, just committing suicide in anguish at the loss of its big brothers.

Where do you stand on these conflicting conspiracy theories?

expat said...

Without getting into a whole fucking essay...

In the course of my professional activity, I have personally met and interviewed the following gentlemen who were part of Apollo 11:

- Neil Armstrong
- Gene Krantz, prime Flight Director
- Steve Bales, Guidance Officer who correctly said the landing could proceed despite the computer overload alarms
- Gerry Wasserburg and Jim Arnold, geologists who analyzed Apollo 11 lunar samples
- Frank Press, P.I. of the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Packages
- George Low, NASA Deputy Administrator and Manager of the Apollo Spacecraft Program Office

My interviews were not subject to restriction of any kind. I have not the slightest reservation about the honesty and sincerity of those guys and the stories they told me. Wasserburg, Arnold and Press are senior scientists—by no stretch of the imagination would they consent to fabricating data for political purposes.

Among the ~20 kilos of Apollo 11 samples were newly-discovered minerals armalcolite, tranquillityite and pyroxferroite. These have no terrestrial equivalent.

The reduced ALSEP experiments on Apollo 11 functioned as planned (except the passive seismometer failed within a month). The LRRR reflector is still there and can be used in measurement.

The Apollo 11 site has been photographed at a resolution of 0.5 m/px by Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. The LM descent stage and the astronauts' footprints can be seen

I'm not going to comment about the World Trade Center. I've blogged twice about Judy Wood, look it up.

Do you think all the Moon landings were faked, or just 11?

expat said...

P.S. I forgot Bob Walker, another lunar sample analyzer. Wasserburg, Arnold and Walker were three of what were known as "the four horsemen of Apollo science." Paul Gast was the other, dead by the time of my interviews.

Correction: Jim Arnold (also now dead) was a chemist, not a geologist. It was a privilege to have known and interacted with those guys.

Bill Belcher said...

Well said Expat!..........it's astonishing that time after time that people can not be bothered to read the facts but instead get easily drawn into the same old pseudoscientist nonesense peddled either on YouTube or forwarded on social media / websites. This is a modern day gullible society and is a scourge of history warping usually to fit the 'pedler's ' own agenda. As a teacher I talk about robotic explorers and when ever I can mention the moon landings and so often than not a student will say , ' ohh that all faked' which I then spend some time educating them on why it was not faked, followed by some excellent film footage, lunar recon Orbiter pics and so on. I go off topic but I have to put them right. It's not in current school curriculum, I think it should be covered somewhere, either a science, technology or history. I mean the moon landings were over 45 years ago it's part of history. It should be formally taught as a topic so they don't falll into this trap that we see nowadays because they have no experience of that time when it happened( and probably their parents are equally uneducated on the astounding technical feet it was then). Apologies for grammar it's rather late for me here! Regards Bill

Anonymous said...

This is the first I've heard of rare minerals on the Moon, and just a few days ago, I read somewhere, that Mars is uniquely covered with ingredients for making rocket fuel.

THE Orbs Whiperer said...


The surface of Mars is probably too toxic for bacteria to survive
July 7, 2017
astronaut.com/surface-mars-probably-toxic-bacteria-survive

Perchlorate is both a naturally occurring and man-made chemical used in the production of rocket fuel, missiles, fireworks, flares and explosives. It is also sometimes present in bleach and in some fertilizers. Its widespread release into the environment is primarily associated with defense contracting, military operations and aerospace programs.

Two Percent said...

Hi expat,

Thanks for posting and responding.

I suspect this exchange may become a bit of a test of our "relationship" but I will do my best to be polite and diplomatic. Please forgive me if I fail.

I agree you have been very fortunate to meet, interview and know these people. I'm curious to know the time frames, especially given that one had died before you had the opportunity to interview him.

My question would be, does your summary approximately form the foundation and backbone of your 110% certainty.

If it does, then may I politely say, despite the positions, credentials and general perceptions of the people you mention, this does not constitute concrete evidence?

You don't say what questions you asked, nor what answers you received, so I'm really quite in the dark about all that, but it doesn't much matter. It's simply word-of-mouth, no better than the average UFO report, and despite what you say, it's not nearly concrete enough for me.

It's a lot like the WTC Tower demolitions - except that in that case, there is far, far more "concrete" evidence. (Pun not unintended.)

Actually, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that, wrt your summary, there is actually far more evidence that Alien Spaceships have been visiting Earth for millennia, than there is that men landed Apollo landers on the moon, hopped out, wandered about, collected rocks etc, climbed back in, blasted off and returned to Earth.

Here's what I know. The world was told that rockets blasted off from Cape Canaveral for the Moon, carrying three astronauts. I was not there to see it, but it would have made no difference. For all I know, there was no one aboard. So there was video of astronauts climbing aboard. When was it shot, and what happened next? The whole thing was under NASA control. The world was told that they successfully made it to the Moon, went into orbit, two hopped into the Lunar Lander, zoomed down and landed on the surface. They, if they were aboard, would have known for sure, whether that part was true, but who else, really, would actually KNOW? We know lots of things don't stack up properly.

Then, the filmed first Press Conference of the three A11 astronauts after their historic "journey" is probably the strangest footage real-life footage I can think of. Those are the three most awkward looking examples of "the right stuff" I could imagine. They kept looking down, like they wanted to crawl under that desk/table. And the conversation... Weird! If it had been me, I would not be able to keep the grin off my face. Just arriving safely back on Earth after a flight into orbit would be enough. Going to the Moon and back, I'd hardly be able to stop raving about it. Those astronauts. Had. Next to nothing. To say. So Awkward, so WEIRD! Like, they couldn't even bring themselves to put on an act. Then, Armstrong went bush, and pretty much refused to be interviewed. (I don't know where your interview fits in there.) Sure, Buzz improved with time...

As for the rest (NASA Staff), how many would actually "Need to Know"? Many of them may not have known, because they didn't need to.

But in those circumstances, what would anyone do? The whole big spectacle, the whole world believing it. For sure, if any one of them had come out and claimed it was faked, they would have met with some terribly "unfortunate" "mishap". Look at poor Gus Grissom and his colleagues. Gus was too vocal about why they couldn't do it. Likely, "everyone" (in NASA) knows that much, and that forgetfulness would be fatal. If someone holding a loaded (or any?) gun to your head orders you to shut up, what do you do?

As for Moon Rocks. We have already discussed how over 100 Mars rocks have made it to Earth. Moon rocks would be many times easier, more likely. So, no guessing how the Moon Rocks could have been "produced".

Which brings me to this little story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8226075.stm

Of course...

Two Percent said...

...Of course, it doesn't prove anything in particular, whether it was switched at some point, or "Ooops" misidentified during the Big late-1960's, early '70's Lunar Rock Roundup, but it's a good example all the same.

As for the experiments, mostly, same deal. Who can prove any of it? It wouldn't need a human to place the LRRR on the moon (if it's even the source of the reflections), so that proves nought.

Recent photos of the "Landing Sites"? Taken by who, with what, received how? Proof that they are really real? Only someone's word, I'm sure. How many genuinely independent (unauthorised?) receivers received the raw radio data from the Orbiter? And converted it (them) to images? Even then, that wouldn't be proof. Satellites. Bounced signals. Recorded data replayed... This IS the 21st century.

IF the whole thing was staged, WHO, I ask, is going to admit that, even now? Certain Result: massive hue and cry. Huge distrust in the government. Blah, blah, blah. Far worse than admitting UFOs are real! But it served its purpose, so well done, AFAIAC.

I challenge you to be more skeptical!

May I ask a simple question: What is the atmosphere of the moon? (Is there one?) [No, this is not about the waving flag.]

expat said...

I don't have time to do justice to this discussion--have mercy, it's Wimbledon week--so I'll leave it. EXCEPT to counter that Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee died in an oxygen fire whose causes were well understood after the fact. George Low was the primary investigator and he and I spoke at great length. I also interviewed Rocco Petrone, at the time Director of launch operations. I take EXTREME exception to you or Richard Hoagland insinuating that the event was contrived; it merely points up ignorance on the part of both of you. Grissom never said the Moon landing could not be achieved; the very idea is ridiculous. For heaven's sake read Andrew Chaikin's books and educate yourself.

Anonymous said...

Two Percent,

It really boils down to probability. Sure, anything is 'possible' (like me winning the lottery tomorrow), but in this instance the evidence of the Moon landings actually happening is overwhelming. A few data points of potentially questionable data (careful choice of words on my part) aren't enough to override this. There were simple far too many people -in fact, several hundreds of thousands- involved in Apollo that would have had to be fooled, witnesses coerced, all the while a very cunning adversary (the USSR) was watching (and stealing many of our secrets). The cost for pulling off such conspiracy would be astronomical while, at the same time, the risk of exposure would be extremely high and its political effect catastrophical. It would have been far easier and politically less risky to simply cancel the whole program earlier on, blame/jail a few contractors for not delivering what they promised, and spend the money on some other issue. Yes, we would have lost some face, but not anymore than in the Bay of Pigs or Vietnam.

Lowly Contractor

P.S. If I do win the lottery tomorrow I'll come back and eat my words. :-)

Ivan Horn said...

Two Percent

In response to some of your statements.

"Actually, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that, wrt your summary, there is actually far more evidence that Alien Spaceships have been visiting Earth for millennia, than there is that men landed Apollo landers on the moon, hopped out, wandered about, collected rocks etc, climbed back in, blasted off and returned to Earth."

The intention may have been to refer to Expat's experience specifically, but even if your argument regarding that was true, it clearly is not in relation to the evidence for the reality of Apollo generally.

How many supposed visitations have the following.
1. An army of identifiable, on the record engineers and scientists who worked to make the event you call into question a reality.

2. Literally millions of people around the world, before, during and after, the Apollo program took place, who understood the various science and engineering issues related to the possibility of carrying out such an undertaking.

3. The amount of physical evidence such as rocks and suits covered in regolith

4. Literally thousands of photographs of the events, not to mention the many hours of film and live TV transmissions.

5. "After the event" evidence in the form of images from orbit taken by the LRO and reflections from the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment packages left on the moon by the missions that you're questioning.

6. The reception of live radio transmissions of the events by various ham radio enthusiasts at the time.

Not to mention that a superpower with a competing program who would have liked nothing better to embarrass their adversary's fakery and certainly had the means to show this if it were the case, actually congratulated the success of the endevour.

Your argument effectively boils down to "I wasn't there to see it therefore it's fake" type logic, If we're going that far, I could claim that the WTC (no idea why you dropped mention of that into this, but I'll go with it) still exists, or was never there in the first place, as I've never visited New York... hell who says New York exists.

Anyone living by that logic would have to be satisfied by a very small world.

expat said...

Since tennis is over for the day, I'll add more here.

2% your speculations are useless. Useless because the balance of probability is all against you. Sure, IT'S POSSIBLE that 20kg of lunar rock came quite naturally to Earth and IT'S POSSIBLE that senior geologists and chemists somehow didn't notice that these samples had been heated to almost melting point as they came through the atmosphere. But is it MORE LIKELY than the alternative?

Sure, IT'S POSSIBLE that some completely unannounced unmanned probe placed the LRRR and the passive seismometer in the exact place where Apollo 11 landed, but is it MORE LIKELY? This unannounced mission would have to have cunningly placed these experiments at exactly the right time for Frank Press to have got his ALSEP data as expected.

Data processing for the LRO images is done at Arizona State Uni by grad students and post-docs. Is it MORE LIKELY that someone intercepted the data stream and substituted false data for over 50% of the lunar surface, than that we are seeing the best image library of the surface ever created?

IT'S POSSIBLE that Kubrick shot the lunar surface scenes ON FILM using harnesses that were later painted out but it's NOT POSSIBLE that the live TV was similarly faked. It isn't possible to simulate the effect of walking in lunar gravity, as Mythbusters discovered.

You citation of the Apollo 11 press conference is, frankly, pathetic as a debating point. Neil Armstrong is a hopeless public speaker. We knew that already. What I see is three guys who didn't want to face the press but were told they had to.

You never answered my question--do you maintain that all Apollos were faked, or just 11?

THE Orbs Whiperer said...

We all take a lot for granted everyday. I suspect that we are bullshited about lotz of shit that we'd never suspect to be worthy of bullshit. Nevertheless, once somebody specifically notices something seems weird, the subject becomes fair game.

What is the harm of believing NASA if they are lying to US? Will it cause US to vote a certain way rather than another? Would it affect our willingness to pay more taxes, or to welcome a war? Or should we just spare ourselves the embarrassment an be quiet?

Two Percent said...

Hi Guys,

Sorry, haven't been able to respond to the onslaught today. Hopefully, tomorrow!

expat, will respond to you first, of course. But I misunderstood your comment so am back to square one with my reply.

At least, regarding your last question, sorry to neglect to answer:

« ... do you maintain that all Apollos were faked, or just 11? »

If you mean all the Apollo Lunar Landings, I don't know. Of course, they built and launched the rockets. From there on, it gets more and more murky. Like, distance lends enchantment to the view. But outer space is rather opaque, I think!

Faked? 11, definitely. Likely 12 too. 13 was a delaying tactic. Great theatre. And a "convenient" slight on the number 13. Awfully superstitious, the Americans. ;-)

Maybe they could do it by 14, but even then, I'm not convinced. The statistics are just too good. I mean, look at the Shuttles, designed and built how many years later?

More later...

Chris said...

Bara's article is a tactic I've seen with other pseudoscientists. They go out of their way to slate something which is in their field but obviously bollocks so that they can use that as evidence of their good judgement and past wins when making some daft claims about something else, such as alien bases and guitar-playing cats on Mars.

Two Percent said...

expat: As I mentioned yesterday, I realised later, I hope correctly, that I had originally misunderstood your comment:

« I take EXTREME exception to you or Richard Hoagland insinuating that the event was contrived... »

Originally, I thought you meant the whole Apollo Lunar Landing program. That would have left me in a position of not being able to say very much at all. I even wondered if you were laying the groundwork for banning me from your site.

Now, I think you are referring to the tragic fire that took the lives of Gus Grissom and two fellow astronauts, which makes a lot more sense.

I see that I worded that rather badly. In reality, I know about as much about the fire as I know about the Lunar Landings (albeit for very different reasons), so I'm really in no position to insinuate that it was contrived. I do not believe I made such an insinuation, and I did not intend to.

My hypothesis is that a huge proportion of the Apollo program was deliberately faked, and that further, there were oppressive secrecy restrictions imposed on those few people who really knew this "truth". (I put truth in quotes for those who disagree.) This is what I meant about a gun to the head. And that it may have been insinuated to those people that "what happened to Gus" would happen to you. This DOES NOT, (repeat...) mean that what happened to Gus & colleagues was deliberate, but could have been internally nodded to by the enforcers of this secret, for the purpose of ensuring people would not talk. Gus was outspoken, was critical of the program, and about everyone knew that, I suggest. This is what I meant to say, but didn't make clear. I'm always conscious of trying to keep it brief, but went overlength anyway.

I hope you understand. >>IF<< I and many others who hold similar beliefs, are correct, then NASA was at the time, a deep sea of lies and fabrications. I know it's a fairly hideous and virtually unthinkable thought, especially to patriotic Americans, and particularly those who have been to war to defend their country, and even more so to those who lost family members and loved ones to war. If one thinks that through to its ultimate conclusion, there are more than 400 million reasons why this truth (if it is) should never come out. The stability of the whole nation, and, as a result, of the world, would be seriously affected.

Now wind that back to the 1960's and the Cold War. A lot was at stake. (I think that term comes from the days when they used to burn people at [the] stake.) At the time, there was a lot (the whole country, the whole world) at grave risk of possible [nuclear] incineration.

When the Russians successfully launched Sputnik 1 in 1957, the Americans were caught with their pants around their ankles. This was a huge embarrassment, one they particularly hated. It exposed them as apparently far behind, technologically. They had to catch up, and show the Russians that they were superior. Hence, Kennedy made his famous speech - "We will go to the Moon..." This was 100% political. It was announced not on the basis of science, nor of man's natural exploration of the universe, but as posturing to a perceived enemy. So, Kennedy having stood up and said it, it "had to happen", possible or not! In the circumstances of the Cold War, it had to happen, or the Russians would know for certain that the Americans were full of shit.

Now, if you look at the fire that killed the three astronauts (Wikipedia):

" The launch simulation on January 27, 1967, on pad 34, was a "plugs-out" test to determine whether the spacecraft would operate nominally on (simulated) internal power while detached from all cables and umbilicals. Passing this test was essential to making the February 21 launch date. "

Note the date - 1967. The Apollo 11 Lunar Landing is recorded as July 20, 1969, 2 1/2 years later.

TBC...

Two Percent said...

...

The fire that killed Grissom and co was a complete fiasco. It really reveals just how very far the program was from achieving its mission. In reality, it was the result of incredible incompetence, ignorance and/or stupidity. Or panic.

They were doing very basic tests (as above) on a Block 1 module, a design which was scrapped as a result. It had a hatch that could not be opened under internal air pressure, and apparently, lots of other failings.

And why does a basic "plugs out" test need to be run under 100% oxygen? Surely, it could be done first time with the hatch open. Let's see if there are any obvious issues first, before we lock the guys into a inescapable metal tank. And consider the timing.

An utterly basic, fundamental test of power supply capacity and loading, being conducted just 3 (and a bit) weeks out from launch date. This should have been known, months earlier. Grissom, complaining as he did that day, was just pointing out the reality.

So, we are expected to believe that the programme went from this disaster to walking on the moon inside 30 months. Yeah... Doubt it.

expat, may I respond to other posters now, please?

Two Percent said...

expat, guys:

This might interest you:

"MikeBara.com is for sale"

Try it: www.mikebara.com, his former website. Only $795.

Yep, not $7,950, like I'd expect. From

"a New York Times Bestselling author, lecturer and TV personality"

Chris Lopes said...

@Chris
Yep, that's a trick he learned from Hoagland. It's ok to throw another woo-merchant under the bus if the crap being sold is obviously (and easily proven) BS. That is especially true if the crap doesn't support your own brand of woo. Like how Hoagie refuses to take anything related to the whole fake moon landing thing seriously. It's easily debunked and runs counter to his own narrative, so it's fair game.

expat said...

« >>IF<< I and many others who hold similar beliefs, are correct, then NASA was at the time, a deep sea of lies and fabrications. »

Well, you're not correct. There was a measure of secrecy about the Mercury and Gemini programs because their rocketry was also military, but by the time of Apollo 1 that was all history. Specialist media such as Aviation Week & Space Technology had total access to the management and engineering aspects of Apollo. My own colleagues had almost as much.

I really don't get it, 2%. Here's 20kg of precious moon rock, and thousands of happy, proud, people saying "Look what we did. We built a fucking huge rocket and two spacecraft capable of containing men, and we went to the Moon and got this stuff." Along comes little you saying "Nah, I think it got here on its own." In all your theorising you confuse "could have happened" with "did happen." You have no access to privileged information AFAIK--your opinions are purely based on what you "feel" is probably right.

I, on the other hand, do have privileged information in the sense that I've been able to make a personal judgement about the honesty of many of the key figures in Apollo. As I wrote before, I I have no reservations at all.

Regarding the fire: The oxygen cabin atmosphere was a massive mistake. North American engineers who actually made the spacecraft warned against it but NASA insisted. Harrison "Stormy" Storms, who was made a sacrificial lamb over that, was yet another of my interviewees.

You know what George Low said to me? He said "I'm not sure we would have made the lunar landing within the decade if it had not been for that fire. Because when we went over every detail in investigating the accident, we found other things. Enough problems that a landing in 1969 would have been highly unlikely."

Two Percent said...

expat: I hope you will publish these comments. I "feel" that I am entitled to a right of reply.

If not, will you please report that you have refused to publish my replies?

Earlier [July 8, 2017 at 7:09 AM] you stated: « I'm 110% certain of it. »

Later [July 10, 2017 at 1:44 PM] Lowly Contractor suggested: « It really boils down to probability. »

An idea that you echoed a bit later [July 10, 2017 at 3:37 PM] when you said: « 2% your speculations are useless. Useless because the balance of probability is all against you. »

I hope you can see the problem here. The "Balance of Probability" tips at 50.0%. So, latterly, you are saying, "Well, maybe it's only something over 50% certain."


Frankly, I could not disagree more. Either, it actually happened, or it didn't fucking happen!


If you are going to talk probabilities, you will NEVER get to 100%, let alone 110%.

For argument's sake, let's says it's 100% certain that the rockets launched. Too many people were there to see them go up, for that not to have happened. So, we know some rockets launched. But that's about all that's certain.

Were there astronauts actually on board? How many people ACTUALLY know? A few dozen? I say there is a hell of a good chance, the astronauts were not ACTUALLY aboard. They had extremely important, mission critical duties to perform, elsewhere, and their lives could not afford to be pointlessly risked by launching them on a risky rocket to nowhere.

So, we need to assign a probability value to this question. To be fair, let's say it's only a 2% probability they weren't on board, but on the basis of many other points, I believe that number should be much higher. Like 98%. Anyway, the point is this.

Under THIS example probability calculation, the probability of the rockets launching WITH the astronauts on board would be 1.0 x 0.98 .

Immediately, we have a probability of 0.98, or 98%. Keep on multiplying probability factors and you'll soon be down to well below that magic 50% level.

As I believe the Safety / Risk Assessment Guy had assessed. Of course, I don't know which parts are true and which parts are not, but I recall his report was 500 pages long, and his probability of a successful mission was something like 1 in 500 or 1 in 1,000.


Anyway, moving on, I'd like to reply to Ivan Horn.

« 1. An army of identifiable, on the record engineers and scientists who worked to make the event you call into question a reality. »

No disputing that there was an army... No disputing that it worked... No disputing that there was an event, indeed a whole series of events.

Hell - rockets, spaceships, all kinds of equipment was built. To order. By a multitude of separate, disconnected contractors, suppliers, manufacturers, building individual parts or assemblies, for putting together. Few of those fabricators would have any way of knowing if their parts would actually do what was required in outer space - or wherever they were to be deployed. They just built as specified. But they built them.

The question is, what is the true nature of the "reality" they created. THAT is the question. THEY thought they were building a "Certain" something, you obviously think the same thing. So, all those people, if you went and asked them, would confirm they built parts for Apollo whatever. I do not dispute that they made them. I just want proof of what became of them.

« 2. Literally millions of people around the world, before, during and after, the Apollo program took place, who understood the various science and engineering issues related to the possibility of carrying out such an undertaking. »

Irrelevant. Provides no proof.

Two Percent said...

« 3. The amount of physical evidence such as rocks and suits covered in regolith »

Regolith, huh!? Yep! I'm 100% certain, that was carefully analyzed and compared with all the other known samples of Lunar Regolith that we already had. And confirmed to match. 100%. Poppycock! NO way to confirm that what was claimed to be regolith actually was. No wonder there have been no (publicised) repeat visits to the Moon. Somebody might discover that the Apollo regolith was ground up petrified wood!


« 4. Literally thousands of photographs of the events, not to mention the many hours of film and live TV transmissions. »

Yep. Plenty of photos, many of which have been called into question. (Oh, and don't give me MythBusters. What pseudoscientific BS! The NASA astronaut photo even "looked" massively brighter than the one they took, but "Nah, they're the same!")

Live TV transmissions, huh? This is where those millions of Lunar Residents come in. They were up there, watching the whole thing. From the stands, around the landing site. They can confirm that it happened. They can confirm that the TV transmissions went LIVE on Earthly TV channels. I don't know how, but I'm sure they have the evidence. Somewhere. I'm sure, since Earthly TV signals can be received on the Moon. Since they don't have TV stations, up there. On the Moon. But they have TV sets, so they can watch Earth TV, right? You knew that?


« 5. "After the event" evidence in the form of images from orbit taken by the LRO and reflections from the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment packages left on the moon by the missions that you're questioning. »

Yeah, the LRO. Those images must be proof. Don't you get it? If they faked the damn thing, they are now gonna release the genuine LRO images that prove they faked it. Sheesh. I must be stupid. Not to have realised that before.

The Lunar Laser Ranging Reflector - oh yeah... I watched that on MythBusters too. Reckon I'm convinced. That reflector panel, all 2 square feet of it. It's definitely up there. HAS to be. Shit, there's nothing else on the moon that reflects light. Yeah, yeah, I know. Low albedo. On average... That's why, down here on Earth, the moon always looks black. Hayley Westenra's got a song that asked that question, so Yep. Must be true! Busted!

That's something else I noticed about the Mythbusters clip. The careful high precision targeting of the laser to the EXACT location of the 1 foot x 2 foot LLRR. Yeah, I know, atmospheric diffusion etc... Absolute proof. That Damn LLRR is STILL up there, still working like the day they installed it, up there. And, the batteries are still good. But they don't make 'em like they used to. The 70's. Those were THE days!


« 6. The reception of live radio transmissions of the events by various ham radio enthusiasts at the time. »

Oh, YEAH!!! Those fucking ham radio enthusiasts. With their ultra-precision radio receiving arrays, and their synchronized atomic clock timebases, and their multi-GHz processors, performing nanosecond-by-nanosecond triangulation calculations on the incoming signals. Early model "GPS" in 1969! None of these fancy GPS microchips back then. Yeah! So they KNEW, absolutely knew, exactly where those radio signals emanated from. Not to mention the $$Multi-Billion Supa-Dupa-Up-the-Gunga Radio Signal Anal-yzers that can look back up the incoming radio signals all the way to the source, and confirm with 100% certainty that, Yep, those signals are definitely being broadcast LIVE, from a real, hot, living human being. Get fucking real!

As for your closing comments:

« Your argument effectively boils down to "I wasn't there to see it therefore it's fake" type logic, »

Twaddle. Utter twaddle. My opinion is based on many years of looking at different aspects and elements as I came across them. It's a very complex jigsaw puzzle. Many of the pieces seem to be holographic.

Two Percent said...

Pt3:

You get different images, depending on which way you look at them.

In fact, my argument boils down to this:

As Lowly Contractor said:

« The cost for pulling off such [a] conspiracy would be astronomical while, at the same time, the risk of exposure would be extremely high and its political effect catastrophical. »

Everyday, Hollywood churns out movies. Some, more realistic, others, much less. The fact is, the cost of building up fake sets and painted backgrounds and miniature models is much, much, much less than building the real things. Take a typical Indiana Jones movie. How much money, how much time, to build a pyramid? Then, what to do with the damn thing afterwards? A few suitable painted fabric and wooden sets will do far better. So, the argument that the cost would be astronomical is irrelevant. The cost to ACTUALLY do it is far, far higher. Ah, another pun! SO: Faking Moon Landings is obviously much, MUCH cheaper than really doing it, and the risks of dismal, distastrous, monumental failure are also much, much lower.


As Lowly Contractor said: « It really boils down to probability. »

Lowly, I completely agree with you. It does. It really boils down to (which has the highest) probability (of success).


So, on the basis of probability, the fire that killed Gus Grissom and his two colleagues, which highlighted (a) just how damn risky, how dangerous, and (b) how terribly, hopelessly far behind schedule they were, probably (in all probability) led to the decision to "do it another way."

If you relate plain cost to probability, the choice is simple. Maybe the true cost to get to the moon would have been 100 times more than the cost to "make it on Earth". The risks, ENORMOUSLY higher. And the potential downside from failure, also massive, given the purpose for which it was all being done - The Cold War and scaring the Russians. A dismal failure would have proved to the Russians that the Americans were NOT Technologically superior, and really were FULL OF SHIT after all.

Looking a little closer, let's say Cost: 1:100. Risk: 1:1,000. Overall advantage 100,000:1.

Faced with these options, I know for sure what I would have picked.

Make the Decision yourself. Which way you gonna go?


Back to you Ivan:

« If we're going that far, I could claim that the WTC (no idea why you dropped mention of that into this, but I'll go with it) »

Let me explain why.


The two "events" - the Apollo "Lunar" Missions and the dropping of the WTC buildings have certain relevant elements in common.

The Apollo program was, I believe, kicked off by JFK, in response to Sputnik and various other Russian moves that the US (rightly, I believe) perceived as challenges. It was a Political move, designed to reduce, forestall or prevent the possibility of a war AGAINST the US. Although it was intended to really happen, I believe it didn't. They ran out of time, didn't actually have the knowledge or the technology, simply could not pull it off quickly enough. So it HAD to be faked. But the fact that it appeared to happen was enough. The mission was successful, as your belief clearly shows. The world fell for it. But it was an illusion.

Two Percent said...

Pt4...

The WTC downings were a series of professional demolition jobs. Again, it was a political ploy. It was meant to look (and did look, to most people), like a genuine, disgraceful terrorist attack against innocent people, going about their daily lives. But again, it was faked. Of course, it's not acceptable for one's own people/government(?) to be involved in terrorist attacks against its own people. Utterly unacceptable. So, it too HAD to be faked. It was despicable, disgusting and vile, but it too achieved its purpose. It enabled the US to go to war (again despicable, disgusting and vile) against a new, manufactured [framed] enemy. But it too, was an illusion. (And, I submit, possibly (probably) "emboldened" by the sucess of the Apollo "program".)

The problem is, technology has advanced. And as Abraham Lincoln apparently (there are variants) said:

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."


« Anyone living by that logic would have to be satisfied by a very small world. »

What logic? You said it. If the cap fits, wear it.


expat: "... when we went over every detail in investigating the accident, we found other things. Enough problems that a landing in 1969 would have been highly unlikely."

Isn't that (as close as he could go to) the truth???

expat said...

« So, we need to assign a probability value to this question. To be fair, let's say it's only a 2% probability they weren't on board, »

I see what you did there. You pulled a pseudo-statistic out of thin air and used it as though it were a fact. Naughty!!

THE Orbs Whiperer said...

What George Low said to you, Patrick, is astounding. Did I mention in a previous thread, that I know a former astronaut, who as a college student, found major defects in the software used for Apollo Moon landings, which would have resulted in insufficient fuel to escape the surface of the Moon, had the lander been forced to land at more distant coordinates? He fixed the problem, but only after the fact, and we never went back. I mention this to corroborate what Low mentioned, while that still falls short of proving anything either one way or another. As you well know, the standards for professional journalism are to have at least three separate independent sources, who all provide supportive accounts. Even that really isn't proof. The Scientific Method sets a much higher standard, so that any independent researcher is able to duplicate the study in order to determine if the findings are consistently the same.

George Benkel said...

The LLRR does not need batteries.

Two Percent said...

Hi expat,

I'm very grateful to you for publishing my very long post(s). Thank you. I hope the readership enjoys them.

But I do wish you wouldn't say stuff like this:

« I see what you did there. You pulled a pseudo-statistic out of thin air and used it as though it were a fact. Naughty!! »

A couple or so lines further on, I stressed:

Anyway, the point is this.

Under THIS example probability calculation, the probability of the rockets launching WITH the astronauts on board would be 1.0 x 0.98 .


Yes, I pulled the number out of thin air (your polite choice of words is noted!), but as I said, 0.98 was to be nice, when I think 0.02 is realistic. But it was ONLY by way of an example of what happens when you start calculating probabilities.

By my (Android phone) calculations, a mere 35 points of 98% probability brings the overall probability of success to below 50% (49.3%). You can use 99.99% if you like, even if it's hopelessly unrealistic. The point is, there are thousands of possible failure points in a Lunar Landing Mission project, and, since anything will have a failure rate or potential, you will always have a result significantly less than 1.0 (100%).

That figure, of course, can be greatly increased (towards 100%) if you can eliminate most of those risks by staying entirely (almost - hopping astronauts exempted) on Terra Firma.

Which reminds me. That MothBaster clip you referred to above, where they "proved" how hard it was to fake "The Moon Hop" on Earth. Apart from the fact that you can't prove a negative (you would know that), it really shows just how easy it is to fool people who don't think about what they are being told or shown.

It was ridiculous, but never mind, that's what they did. Tried to prove they [NASA] (couldn't have) faked it, by pretending they didn't. I mean, they went to great trouble to show the actors loading up with 180(?) lbs of lead weights, to emulate the supposed / alleged weight of the Life Support Backpacks. DOH!!! Double-DOH!!!

If they faked it, they didn't need all that weight, since they were here on Earth, breathing good old Earthly air (Ok, through a tube somewhere, not that Astroboy apparently needed one.) So, the backpacks themselves would have been empty mockups, making "Moon Hopping" that much easier..

Thus, all the "testing" they did was effectively meaningless. To prove anything, they would also have had to test with very light (empty) backpacks.

Further, if they were going to add weights, the weights should have been inside the backpacks, not strapped tightly to the body as they were (but that might have led to serious back injuries!)

No doubt, THAT would have looked very different! The tendency to tip over backwards would be very marked.

As their "experiments" showed that same amazing, almost 100% success rate, I surmise that the show was sponsored, no doubt in some convoluted way, by NASA or NASA PR agents, but that's merely a supposition. (So save your ammo!)

One last point, which I've been wondering about. Do you, or does anyone know, has anyone, anywhere, used the film footage (at whatever replay speeds they like), to calculate the apparent value of local "g", by estimating the times and heights of the filmed "hops"?

I've watched kids on bungies down at the local mall (At a popular "Pop-Up" holiday entertainment stand). Admittedly, they appear to be operating at less than 1/6th g, but they can go very high, almost effortlessly.

The astronauts, at "1/6th" g appear to "leap" about 6 inches in most of the sequences I've seen. Yeah, the added backpack mass would have extra momentum, but whatever the legs can push up, they can decelerate with equal ease, so that's not a good excuse.

Maybe I'll find time to look for / at those estimates & calculations myself...

Cheers,
2/100

Two Percent said...

P.S. Sorry to be hogging this thread, but it's a very worthwhile question.

A last point from me on the Probability question. Everyone can play with probabilities, but here's a really useful example.

Let's say we have just 1,000 potential failure points (out of many thousands if not millions possible.)

Let's say each one has a reliability factor of 99.9%. (0.999)

The resulting probability of non-failure (success) (by my MS Windoze calculator) is 36.8%. In other words, the probability of failure is >63%.

I reckon that Risk Assessment Guy, who was claimed to have been pushed under a train, would have been correct.

George Benkel said...

Those fucking ham radio enthusiasts, with their Dishes, which are pointed, in the same manner as a Baseball glove or a hand would be used in Cricket...

George Benkel said...

Those fucking ham radio enthusiasts with their Dishes that do the old impossible to figure out point in the direction of the signal...

Chris Lopes said...

The LM had separate engines and fuel supplies for landing and taking off from the Moon. Even if you landed with one drop of fuel left in the descent stage, the ascent stage would still be full. But hey, you know a guy who knew a guy so whatever.

Ivan Horn said...

In reply to Two Percent

"Everyday, Hollywood churns out movies. Some, more realistic, others, much less. The fact is, the cost of building up fake sets and painted backgrounds and miniature models is much, much, much less than building the real things. Take a typical Indiana Jones movie. How much money, how much time, to build a pyramid? Then, what to do with the damn thing afterwards? A few suitable painted fabric and wooden sets will do far better. So, the argument that the cost would be astronomical is irrelevant. The cost to ACTUALLY do it is far, far higher. Ah, another pun! SO: Faking Moon Landings is obviously much, MUCH cheaper than really doing it, and the risks of dismal, distastrous, monumental failure are also much, much lower."

A few problems with this argument.

1. Movie effects, both practical and computer based have improved massively in the decades since Apollo, so referencing movies that even in the earliest case you reference was made a decade after the Apollo program isn't valid.

2. No CG effects were available at the time of Apollo, so any effect that these have on the perception of fakery in modern movies is moot.

3. The reference point for the height of movie effects in the Apollo era was 2001: A Space Odyssey, which although impressive were nowhere near realistic enough to explain Apollo footage.

4. Even present day movies suffer from occasionally poor effects and uncanny valley issues, that make it clear in most circumstances that they are not real, especially when dealing with the movement of humans. I've been working with computer graphics for over 30 years, so I have some understanding of these issues.

5. The real cost in faking Apollo would not have been in making film records etc. of the events, but firstly setting up the hundreds of thousands of people working on tasks, all of which made sense to those individuals and in a broader sense to managers both at the many contractors as well as withing NASA itself. Secondly maintaining the coverup for decades after would have been no mean feat. Not to mention all the other details that would need to be covered, such as a transmissions from either on or close to the moon, to satisfy ham radio listeners that they were receiving transmissions from a real mission.

Finally the big problem with your argument is that science and engineering as it is understood worldwide can solve the problems that would have faced NASA in achieving the the goals of the Apollo program and would have been able to at that time also, especially with the immense amounts of funding that was at their disposal.

In other words it is and was possible to undertake such a venture, so why would they have faked it. Even if they had "run out of time" as you put it, it would have been insane to risk the catastrophic political fallout of fake Apollo missions becoming public at a later date, just because Kennedy set the end of the 1960's as a target for the program. The date would simply have been pushed back, as happens all the time in almost all areas of human endeavour, especially large government projects.

expat said...

0.02: I'm quite happy to publish your text, no problem.

Of course there were thousands of mission-critical failure points in Apollo, but they only had one. When you put a thermostat rated for 28V in a 65V circuit, you get Apollo 13.

It makes no sense, however, to stack those on top of each other to arrive at some incredibly small probability of overall success. The most critical one is the long pole that holds up the whole tent (to use space engineering jargon). There were minor failures on every Apollo flight.

I take back one thing I wrote earlier. I now think it would be actually impossible for data substitution to create a fake LROC image of the Apollo 11 landing site.

Thinking about this has invaded my dreams. Last night I dreamed I had a 3:30 appointment to meet Al Bean. I had 2 dozen hot sausage rolls to eat during our meeting. Well, 3:30 came and Al didn't. 4:00 came and Al didn't. The sausage rolls were no longer edible and I went away sad.

I did meet Al IRL, but in connection with Skylab, not Apollo. What a gent he was.

Trekker said...

Expat said: "I take back one thing I wrote earlier. I now think it would be actually impossible for data substitution to create a fake LROC image of the Apollo 11 landing site."

Can you elaborate on that? I'd like to hear your reasoning, because I've also come up with the 'fake'/'hoax' claim when I've introduced people to the LRO images who've never previously heard of them, so I'd be interested to know how to respond to those claims.

expat said...

Hiya trekker.
I've just concluded that there's no possible way it could be done without introducing a delay that could not be explained away--at least, not without an unacceptable number of technicians being in the know.

THE Orbs Whiperer said...

I guess it looks like that I can't cooperate Patrick's story after all.

Anonymous said...

You mean corroborate?

Anonymous said...

A good article a couple of years ago, Nvidia graphics reconstructed the seen of Buzz Aldrin coming down the ladder to prove that the photo was real. https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2014/09/18/debunked/

Any way for the non believers, why would NASA fake a moon landing? why didn't the Russians prove that the US didn't land on the moon?
Are there any scientists or ex NASA employees saying it was faked. If it was faked why did the Russians allow Neil,Buzz,and Mike Collins to go to star city and tour the Soviet Union as heroes shortly after their flight.

How could have NASA fake telemetry from the moon when Parkes radio dish in Australia received the live transmission from the moon at that time. That goes for the other radio dishes around the globe helping this historic Event.

How can we still bounce laser beams from the laser reflectors left by the astronauts?......I've actually seen this for myself!

Two Percent said...

Ivan:

Let me try to respond briefly to your points.

1. The only points I was trying to make in the quoted paragraph "Everyday, Hollywood..." were simply that (a) faking it would be much cheaper, and (b) much less risky, or, much less likely to go down in flames. The Indiana Jones movie reference was simply the first one that sprung to mind when thinking of popular movies featuring pyramids. Being made much later has nothing to do with the points I was trying to make. No doubt, there are better examples.

2. Who mentioned CG? Not me. Again, nothing to do with my hypothesis. You certainly don't need CG to fake things. Just look at a few of the very first (Silent) movies ever made. Charlie Chaplin? I remember a movie in which a huge wall "fell down" (as it really would have had to in those days), and Charlie was standing right where the window was, so he wasn't flattened. Brave man! Ok, only partly fake, but definitely prearranged.

3. Sorry, I don't follow... What's hard to explain about the Apollo footage? How it was faked, or why it's real!?

4. I don't see the relevance, since CG was not in the frame, so to speak.

5. Can't agree there. The people were already set up. The programme began as a real attempt. Real stuff was designed, ordered, made, supplied and assembled. Real rockets launched. No need to pretend any of that. However, has anyone ever bothered to analyze what was actually ordered after 1967, and whether it was what would have been needed?

As for the coverup, since the project started out real, what coverup was required? Only a few top level people needed to know. They could have carried on, pretend it was all good, launch as scheduled, just without astronauts. Then cut across to the "Moon" studio, just like the TV News does.

Many of the people on the lower levels probably still believe it was all real. They could have, as instructed, dropped all the assembled, untested, possibly incomplete modules into the Stage 3 equipment nose cone (whatever it is called), and launched the rockets. All those Technicians etc might have thought "Sheesh, that's never gonna work!" or they may not have even had enough overview to question it. Like in the military, compartmentalisation is the key.

They might have been astounded when it appeared on TV, a great success, but who are they to deny it? And who would listen? The proof, as they say, is in the pudding, and the pudding looked pretty damn good, right!? (Even if, 40-odd years later, it now smells a bit off.)

As for what happened to them (the rockets and empty space modules)? Well, where is MH370? Disappeared, 40+ years later, 239 people aboard, despite all the satellites, radar stations, tracking systems, air controllers, other planes in the air, ground observers, computers and other modern technology. Funny thing is, the military have not come forward this time, even though they apparently warned NASA about the tiles being shed by Columbia before re-entry. This time, many more lives lost, but maybe, if they knew anything, it was already too late to save them.

Maintaining the coverup, now that's where we might agree. I think it's fair to say, "They are struggling." As each year passes, and more people gain greater knowledge, the "cracks" seem to widen. Of course, I haven't looked at every aspect, but there are now so many lies and fakes and doctored photos etc out there that it's reaching the point of impossibility to figure it all out. And maybe, that's the way they are maintaining the coverup. Like, so it goes, the military even used fake UFO sighting stories to coverup some of the Stealth development. That's the trouble with the modern world. You never know who is actually behind anything, these days.

[OK, Fail. Overlength, again...]

Two Percent said...

For this reason, I personally don't place much credibility on reports that ham radio enthusiasts actually picked up "live" (or any) Apollo signals >>from the moon.<< Do you know any of them? It's easy to claim to be a Ham Radio enthusiast, ring up a local radio or TV station or newspaper and say "Yep, I heard 'em." Proof? Recordings? Proof? Oh, what frequency did you hear them on? Exactly when? What was said? What equipment did you use? Where did you point your dish? What reporter would have asked those questions? And, how would you prove any of it? Chances are, real ham operators tried, and likely most failed. But some reports came out, so they must have thought, "Oh, well, not my night," or whatever. Media reports don't mean it really happened, right?

The real issue was satisfying the Russians. Of course, I can't comment on that, but I guess there was some effort made to make sure the Russians received some signals, somehow. They had 2 1/2 years to figure these things out.

"Finally..." I don't know how you, with 30 years CG experience, determine that "science and engineering" can now solve these problems, and could have then. To be honest, I'm not completely convinced of either. As I understand it, the van Allen Radiation belts are still an unsolved issue, that even the Russians apparently couldn't solve. (Why no manned Outer Space missions since?) Maybe the Russians realised that the Americans probably hadn't solved it either, but gave them credit for an impressive performance.

As previously, the urgency revolved around the Cold War (and the American boast) so pushing dates back would not have helped. I think they made the right decisions, though it all looks to the ungrateful public like a huge betrayal, which is why the coverup is still being maintained. I know I'd rather have a Fake Lunar Landing (dis)belief (or reality) than live under Communist rule, but that's another conspiracy! ;-)

Cheers,
2%


expat: FWIW, 0.02 is not the same as 2%. Hey dude, you just got 1 in your exam! ;-)

BTW, did you know that the Apollo 11 LM supposedly suffered a broken Rocket Motor Enabling Switch, which was supposedly repaired on the moon?

All these lovely anecdotal accounts just add to the warm fuzzy feeling that they really did it, but none of it can be proved. Blow all that chaff away, and what's left? Some rockets went up. And a heap of dodgy looking photos, with odd looking, disappearing backgrounds, that could easily have been faked, were produced. All the rest needs independent verification, but how can that be had?

I mean, just look at how the Scientific Method is applied to most other discovery claims. Take Cold Fusion, for example. No one has yet proved it, right? Same for Lunar Landings, in my view. The only real difference is the magnitude of the "error".

On the other hand, wrt Apollo, the technical issues can be examined today to determine probability of do-ability at the time (and now), to get a better estimate / understanding.


« It makes no sense, however, to stack those on top of each other to arrive at some incredibly small probability of overall success. »

Huh? Isn't that what actually happens? I'm surprised no one else has challenged me on this, but isn't this EXACTLY what real Engineers do? (MTBF, anyone?) I'm pretty sure the Japanese car manufacturers do it. They know exactly how strong to make things, of what materials, so that certain parts start to fail after a certain length of time and/or use. Window winders (now Electric window motors and gears), seem to start to break first. Other cosmetic bits and pieces all start breaking, so the car starts to lose its appeal and therefore value and saleability after a certain "Expiry Date", but is still basically safe.

Two Percent said...


...continuing...
expat: Fascinating dream!

Not sure how it relates to LRO images but aren't dreams so often like that?

I'm sure the sausage rolls are highly symbolic though. "Fake" meat, wrapped up in nice looking pastry? I mean, sausage rolls, not naked sausages, thus, "covered up"!

Hot, burned? - Too hot to handle?

Delayed, so they could end up not "true" any more?

Burned or dried out? Over"cook"ed / "baked" so not edible - no longer acceptable to you, or him (Al).

No wonder you went away sad.

Sorry if I've done this to you.



Ivan: hope I haven't been to hard on you.

Your closing sentence might be the key to the whole thing:

The date would simply have been pushed back, as happens all the time in almost all areas of human endeavour, especially large government projects.

Isn't that so true!? Especially government projects.

But sometimes, Deadlines are Fixed, cannot, or will not, be changed by those paying. "... Pays the Piper... "?

In that case, what typically happens? Half-baked, or Faked?

Trekker said...

Two percent said: "expat: FWIW, 0.02 is not the same as 2%. Hey dude, you just got 1 in your exam! ;-)"

Erm, no. You're wrong. Expat is right. 0.02 IS the decimal form of 2%. You've just got 0 in YOUR exam.

Anonymous said...

Dear 0.02

I don't follow your ramblings, your comment on CGI, you haven't read the article that I posted, Who mentioned Ham radio? I didn't. I don't think a 64m dish is in the realms of ham radio. So let me ask you again, why would Apollo be faked? If the Russians can't dig any dirt on NASA surely they would have by now in this internet world......but they haven't.

You are completely misinformed and I don't know how you can be persuaded otherwise from your comments and I don't understand why you are so deeply sure that everything was faked, for what reason? If NASA couldn't go to the moon why would they involve an elaborate hoax. Are you thinking about the film Capricorn One is that where the conspiracy theories originally came from?

So how could you be persuaded otherwise? What other proof would you need?

Anonymous said...

Trekker said:

Erm, no. You're wrong. Expat is right. 0.02 IS the decimal form of 2%. You've just got 0 in YOUR exam.


Half correct, half wrong. It IS the Mathematical equivalent, but it's still not the same thing. It does not convey the same information, therefore it's not the SAME thing. That's why we have a special symbol to convey this extra information: %.

It's not even as close as saying a blue 2 and a red 2 are the same.

Just to clarify, you cannot know from 0.02 that my pseudonym is pronounced Two percent. But if you are happy with mistranslated information, who am I to argue? You would believe the Lunar Landings were real then?

[From an iPad]
Two Percent

Two Percent said...

Dear Ano,

Sorry you don't follow... That's the "beauty" of a debate by way of a series of blog posts.

Not much I can do about that. I won't answer the self-evident, nor rehash a lot of what I've said.

However, you said: you haven't read the article that I posted

Firstly, if you are (as I assume) the same "Anonymous" who gave at July 14, 2017 at 4:26 PM the link to the Nvidia article, you have made an incorrect assumption. The fact that I hadn't commented doesn't mean I haven't read.

Of course, that's the key to this whole debate. "Everyone' (me included at one stage) assumed that NASA could not / would not falsify / fake / lie. That's the key assumption. If the assumption is false, then everything about the Apollo Lunar Landings could also be false.

In fact, yesterday in my Time Zone was Sunday. I received and read your post Sunday morning. Thought, regarding the link, "This could be interesting," so followed the link and read the entire article. I also watched the entire video. But didn't have time yesterday, to write this reply. I replied briefly to Trekker late Sunday evening, after a day of social pursuits.

Of course, it does NOT "prove that the photo was real" as (from memory) Mr Daly himself admitted near the end of the video.

Nevertheless, I thought it was a very interesting story, and well worth the time to read and watch.

Apart from being a great Nvidia promo (and no doubt also involving NASA as well), if their work is as good as it sounds, it does (almost) prove one thing. If not prove, then strongly suggests.

It suggests that if the photo in question was faked, it was "very well faked". Or, maybe not. Maybe, if it was faked (as I claim), then it was done by an expert. Someone who knew how to make it look easy. How to do it easily.

In these circumstances, that, of course, makes PERFECT sense. This was a government job. Huge Budget. HUGE Risks - if the fakery was detected too soon.

So, in these circumstance, it makes perfect sense that "they" (NASA or US Government) would hire the absolute best. Cost irrelevant, in the circumstances. Whether that was Kubrick, I couldn't say, but somebody very skilled and knowledgeable.

The main point, I think, is this: Nvidia showed that the lighting of the scene required a significant light source on the camera side of the photo. That's long been one of the disbelievers' arguments - that there was extra lighting onto Aldrin.

However, supposedly shown in a curiously blurry film (did he say Video?) from a camera supposedly set up and running on the opposite side of the lander (Do I believe this? No. Armstrong would have had to have been very busy to achieve all that before Aldrin exited the lander), Armstrong's suit was reflecting like a flood light, and hence provided the additional illumination.

Of course, this no more proves that the picture was taken on the Lunar surface than the reflection of laser beams from the moon's surface proves they went there. It just shows that the lighting was realistic.

Of course, a cinematography expert would know this: That the easiest way to fake a shot is to set it up exactly was it should / would have been. (Isn't that EXACTLY what making movies is generally about?) In other words, do everything (as much as possible) just like it would have been if it was on the moon. Low albedo ground all around. Aluminium ladder replaced with silver-painted steel one... Major light source where the sun would be. Lander orientated "correctly". Astronauts in their spacesuits, with backpacks... Armstrong operating the camera! Exactly as he would have been. So the height of the shot would have been right, and the illumination would have been right.

No cutting and pasting, no CG / CGI required. Just good preparation, the key to any good paint job.

Two Percent said...

I don't think a 64m dish is in the realms of ham radio.

I would completely agree. But is that what was required to receive the LM signals back from the moon? If it is, I'd love to hear more...

But I don't read Russian, unfortunately.

You are completely misinformed

One of us is, I agree. My analysis is based less on information, more on scarce facts, if that's any help.

If, as it seems you do, you'd like to understand my point of view a little more, may I offer this?

When I was quite young, my parents gave me a watch. It had a leather strap and a buckle.

One day, at a fair, wearing my watch, I encountered a magician. Interesting, to most kids. I became a "suitable victim"!

While he was talking to me, I noticed that he was touching my left arm. Didn't pay it much attention. Later, he asked me the time. Of course, to my horror, my watch wasn't on my wrist where I thought it was. Fortunately, to my great relief, he miraculously "found" it, hiding behind my right ear. I had no idea that it was possible to unbuckle my watch and remove it, without me even feeling "anything". I was sure I would feel the pressure of the strap being tightened so as to release the buckle, but obviously, I didn't.

My suggestion: get up close to a real, live, sleight of hand magician. See if you can see how he does it.

Then come back to Apollo.

What proof? Good question...

Regards,
2%

expat said...

« It suggests that if the photo in question was faked, it was "very well faked" »

That's not what I take away from NVIDIA's infomercial. To me the conclusion is that those NASA haters who say that picture had to be faked are simply wrong.

Which of the Apollo 11 photos do you consider "dodgy-looking", 0.02?

Two Percent said...

expat: Given your respect for gentlemanly conduct expressed (at least twice) in this thread, I'm surprised you're still aligning with our apparent sci-fi movie fan in persisting to use an inaccurate misrepresentation of my moniker. I would expect more of you. Let's not descend into petty name-calling, in such an important and worthwhile debate.

It's interesting that you should ask about my choices of dodgy A11 photos. Couldn't you have made it easier and just asked which I think are faked? Anyway... I don't have any kind of mental catalog of the A11 photos. (Why would I? That avenue just leads to "belief" or "disbelief", or doubt and confusion.)

But, as part of this debate, I have been trying, and I have to say, repeatedly and very unsuccessfully, even when using different PCs, to download the collection of A11 photos from

https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums

After many, many repeated attempts at different albums, I ended up with just two successful downloads. It's enough to get me thinking they don't really want us to have those images. The downloads race along at up to 1MB/sec until I have anything from 4-250MB, then they just choke and die. Has anyone else had a better experience lately?

On looking at the couple of albums that I got, there is plenty plenty of material to discuss, but really not now. I was surprised at the shoddy workmanship apparent on the LM. The crappy panel work makes it look just like a very rudimentary mockup. No comparison to the Service Module pictures I've seen on the net. So, lots to discuss and debate, but I'm none too keen. For what purpose?

So, due to lack of data, I can't give you an good answer. But I can say this, for dodgy photos:

1. Any photo showing crisp, deep astronaut footprints in the Lunar "snow" (regolith).

2. The picture of the Lander, rocket exhaust hanging inches above pristine smooth Lunar regolith.

3. The "Classic" photo taken by Armstrong near the LM, of Aldrin, standing facing the camera. I even have a copy of this image as my Desktop background, but seeing an official copy:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21039130393/in/photostream/

is even more interesting. The version on my Desktop has been cropped to fit a 16:9 screen, so is missing some detail. Nevertheless, my version looks fake, because the lighting is wrong. However, looking at the "real" one, I see the same problem, and more.

I just "knew" when I saw the Nvidia clip, that the claimed immense brightness of Armstrong's suit was going to be a problem, elsewhere. In that movie clip, it sure looks bright. Very bright. But...

Aldrin's suit doesn't look nearly as bright. It should be very similar. Then take a look at Armstrong's suit, in Aldrin's visor reflection. Positively dull, compared to the movie clip. Yet he is standing in full sun, as indicated by his shadow visible in Aldrin's visor, so his suit should be almost "lighting up" the shadowed side of the LM, as described in the Nvidia advertorial, since he's quite close to it.

Now look at the strap, dangling at the front of Aldrin's suit. It appears to be mostly in shadow, but in direct "sunlight" where the long semi-vertical strap joins the folded, semi-horizontal one. There doesn't seem to be sufficient contrast. Ok, so Armstrong's suit is reflecting a little light, which would contribute. But the Lander, covered in gold foil, should be "shining like a golden egg". Not apparent in the visor reflection.

Even stranger, when you think about basic photography, it's normal to take photos with the light behind you, not brightly and powerfully, glaringly in front of you. I'm sure NASA trainers would have made sure Armstrong knew those basics, at least.

Two Percent said...

The next thing wrong with this picture is the illumination of the background. Notice how the ground gets darker as you move towards the weird "horizon"? The only time I've seen that on Earth is when there are clouds in the sky... It's actually less pronounced in the Official image than it is in my Desktop background, and that may be because NASA has adjusted it in the latest scan (or, poor image handling etc has accentuated it in my version). I surmise that the cause of this darkening is the limited output of the spotlights used when taking this image, and the fact that they had to be further from the scene in the background because of the angle of view.

Then, there's the depth of field / depth of focus - or lack thereof. In direct, unfiltered sunlight, there is no shortage of illumination. From my own schoolboy photography days, I know you could use a high F-stop and a moderate to high shutter speed and get an excellent image, where the depth of focus is much more than shown in this photo.

It's definitely fishy. But enough of this. I have other things I have to do.

I wanted also to respond to your comment about NASA haters; maybe I'll come back to that later.

Later,
TP

expat said...

My advice: Ditch that flickr collection and go to the real source.

Two Percent said...

Hi again expat,

Firstly, thanks again for publishing another "episode"! You must dread another long post from me...

Thanks too for the link. Looks very tedious to download anything though. Any ZIP files?

I'd like to address another point... I can see where you are coming from, I understand your predicament.

I can see from what you have said that you have long had faith in what you've been told, what you have perceived and what you've come to believe. Now here is "little me", suggesting that, well, a big chunk of what you have long believed might be false.

Trust me, I know what that's like. I fully empathise with you. I remember one of the first times it happened to me. About 20 years ago.

I had adopted a particular, highly technical product, that I was strongly promoting and selling. It was touted as revolutionary, and that's how I sold it. But then, along came a fierce critic, who wrote a 30+ page critique which basically said the whole thing was a con, it was not revolutionary but backward, didn't do what it claimed, etc. (It was possible to con people in that area because it was an extremely difficult thing to test, so we were relying on what the producer told us.) However, the critic had the means and resources to analyze and test the product, and the report spelled it out, including details of why it was a (deliberate, or at least knowing) fraud.

Having invested in this product and sold it to my customers, that was a very difficult document to read. The impact was extreme. I can remember where I was, and especially, how I felt:

Like my mind was a piece of paper, and, as I read the critique, it was being ripped in half down the middle. It was the strangest sensation. I didn't want to read it. My mind rebelled and rejected it, but I knew I had to read it, and do some analysis of my own. It was not pleasant, to realise that I had been deceived, conned, sucked in. But I soon came to realise that the critic was absolutely correct. The guy had an advanced degree in this area, and he did know what he was talking about. (Not referring to myself here, in case you're wondering.)

It was a bit like the death of a loved one. Traumatic! Upsetting.

The only consolation for me was not being the only person to fall for this con job. There were thousands of others. Happily, I was one of the first to accept the truth, and switch sides. For a while, I too became an ardent critic of that product, and especially, its producer. One might even say, I was a hater, but not that much.

The next major betrayal came 2 or 3 years later. That was a very different story, which I will not go into, but the perpetrator in this case was the government my own country. Just one of thousands of "hapless, selected victims", I had "no idea" before that. I guess the first incident was just a warmup, preparation for what was to come. In the second case, the situation went on for a number of years. As a result, Yes, I became a hater.

As George Bernard Shaw said, "Hatred is the revenge of the intimidated." I now understand that truth. The government of a country is pretty powerful, frightening, intimidating... It can seriously mess with your life, especially when you have been "selected" by a bunch of nasty, small-minded ladder-climbers on a misguided mission, who are pulling the levers. Of course, now I see everything very differently, as you may have noticed! You might call me a hardened skeptic.

As you may have guessed, this brings me to your comment about NASA haters - which, BTW, I am not. I mean, why?

Do you refer to anyone like me who dares to question what NASA has told us?

Are you defending NASA, or simply yourself, and your own view of the world (aka your sanity)? (No criticism intended, just wondering.)

Best regards,
2%

expat said...

The NASA haters are the gents I write about in this blog—Hoagland, Bara, Morningstar. They look for any opportunity to diss NASA and anyone associated with it. Typical is Bara's recent claim, in a published book, that Al Bean deliberately ruined the color TV camera at the start of the Apollo 12 EVA.

You aren't necessarily part of that bunch. I just think you're yet another critic who doesn't know much about spaceflight.

Anonymous said...

Now why would he want to do something like that?

I don't know this anecdote. Could you fill me in?

Sounds a bit like Armstrong's refusal to photograph Aldrin's first steps on the "moon", and other things.

2pc

expat said...

« Now why would he want to do something like that? »

See point 8 of my review of Bara's book Secret Agenda. He didn't want to show the alien ruins, you see. Never mind that Bean & Conrad shot 4 magazines of excellent quality 70mm stills.

Sean Detente said...

Jesus, I largely consider NASA and government-sponsored space exploration a huge waste of money, but goddamn, the total evidence for a hoax is so flimsy this discussion gets tiring. It's a sign of a deranged and idiotic mind that keeps harping on the same thing over and over again despite being discredited....over and over again.

It's just civil activism for the terminally lazy.