The Apollo Fiasco on 'The Sky at Night'
Did anyone catch the recent edition of 'Sky at Night' with Patrick Moore on BBC1?
What a surprise to see him interview and play Devil's Advocate to HJP Arnold, who tried to explain to viewers about the many anomalies on the pictures like shadows and rocks with the letter C on them.
I found Mr Arnold to be an interesting choice to try and explain that the Apollo landings and photos were all legitimate, especially when you consider that the very same Mr Arnold appeared in the 1999 documentary 'What Happened On The Moon', where he says that he believed that the footage was suspect and that he couldn't understand how the films could have survived the huge radiation levels in deep space. What a difference 3 years makes, or did he do it for the money?
Whatever his motive, he didn't convince me that the pictures were genuine, as he set up simulated re-enactments under 'studio lights' to show the viewer how the shadows could be recreated easily, as they appeared on the Apollo films. I had to smile, of course they could be accurately reproduced, both the Apollo footage and studio simulation were done under the same conditions - artificial lights.
They covered the whole subject basically right from shadows to radiation, but forgot to talk about the lack of dust. They didn't mention the halo in one of the shots of the lem which is 'alledgedly' the Sun. The Sun could not create a halo if it is in a vacuum with no atmosphere, you need water in the air to create it!
He did, however show some new footage that I had not seen before and this was of the Surveyor on the surface and also of one of the Apollo LEMS and buggies captured on the surface. I wasn't convinced as the 'alledged' LEM was the same size and cast the same size shadows as the surrounding hills. Also the LEM and other Apollo artifacts were about the size of the end of a pencil and Arnold himself said that it could not be verified that these 'objects' were actually the LEM, but were in the right region of the Moon for them to be so.
So, if anyone knows Mr Arnolds Email address, I would be interested to receive it, as I have quite a few questions I'd like to ask him, and see why he has done a 100% U turn since I last saw him on TV.
Finally, I was amused to notice that the show went out on April the 1st, were the producers trying to tell us something?
Dave at Cosmic Conspiracies
JimOberg Registered User
Posts: 1
(7/2/02 11:13 pm) Reply
Re: The Apollo Fiasco on 'The Sky at Night'
I'm surprised to see your remark about Doug Arnold changing his opinion on Apollo photos, I've known him for about a quarter of a century and we often amuse outselves making fun of the 'Apollo-was-faked' dimwits we keep seeing in the media. Are you sure you haven't confused him with somebody else, or just dreamed it? As for his email, he's told me he's not interested in endless, pointless arguments with nuts, so no, I won't give it to you.
Sky at Bight
Yes Jim, I am absolutely positive that we are talking about one and the same Douglas HJP Arnold. I suggest you ask why he decided to appear in 'What happened on the Moon', and why his comments are presented in a way that makes the viewer believe that he agrees that something is wrong with the Apollo footage.
If of course I am mistaken, why hasn't Mr. Douglas had the footage removed from the documentary?
Perhaps you could ask him and post his reply here?
What about the Rusians
IF Amercans never went to the moon why the Rusians didn't say it, they have the technology to continue trying to land on the moon, they were monitoring NASA transmissions, If American landings were fake, why did they stop trying after Apollo 11?, at the time the Americans landed on the moon a Rusian probe was landing a few kilometers from them.
Good Point
You have, of course, found a very large hole in the hoax proponents' "theories". The Soviets would have tracked Apollo spacecraft and monitored communications. They did confirm the Apollo landings, even though if they were fake they would have been in a very good position to reveal any kind of fraud on the part of the US.
Hoax proponents unfortunately can conjecture away and manage to find an answer for everything, they weakly try to argue that the US and Russia were collaborating all along - the Russians played along so that the US would not expose any faking of the Soviets' early space firsts. That, or the US bribed them with grain shipments. I don't buy any of it though.
You may find the Clavius.org website good reading which conclusively debunks all of this hoax garbage.
What about Russia?
Theres many reasons why the Soviet Union didn't spill the beans. Before sceptics jump onto this board perhaps they'd like to go away and research, then they would see that in fact a lot of the coldwar stuff was complete baloney and that the US and Soviet Union were actually closer than many thought. Also, and I keep saying this, perhaps they could watch 'What happened on the Moon'. I cant stress enough times that the video will explain many things that cannot be done here on this website. It also explains why Russia did'nt grass up the Yanks. As regards to Russia being afraid of the US revealing USSR secret... you could be right. After all, Im sure that the US knew that Yuri Gagarin was not the first man into space. There again, did the US know the true story behind 'Laika' the first dog into space? Anyway, Im not here to throw open conjecture or guessing.
Lets turn the tables and ask why Russia didnt bother to go to the Moon after any of the Apollo missions? I can also answer that in the same breath... its because they knew that it wasnt possible. Russia put the first man, woman, animal and satellite into space, so why stop just because the USA beat them at one single thing?
Let me also predict that the future Moon mission by China will be a failure. Either because they'll realise its not possible - or the US wont let them go up... Dont believe me? remember a certain Mr Dennis Tito having to go to Russia to get permission to go up into space? I rest my case
Not Buying It
Dave, correct me if I'm wrong but I thought Aulis's position was that the US would spill the beans about Gagarin not being the first man in space, merely the first who survived if the Russians spoke of the "truth" about Apollo. I don't buy it, though.
Perhaps you'd like to give some specific examples of events that are supposedly "complete baloney". How were the US and Soviets "actually closer than many thought"? What Happened On The Moon is a 4 hour long video costing £20. I've been told that it's excrutiating to sit through so I think I'll save my money, and from several clips I've seen from it, it appears to be filled with crap.
Did you know that Aulis's official posistion is that man did walk on the moon? Link. Read the most recent post.
Im not here to throw open conjecture or guessing.
It would appear you are with the number of unsupported claims you've made with regards to US/Soviet co-operation during the Cold War.
Lets turn the tables and ask why Russia didnt bother to go to the Moon after any of the Apollo missions?
Erm, because they couldn't develop a working super booster - i.e. a couterpart to the Saturn V (They had the N1, but it kept blowing up)? Their moon efforts were hampered by the death of their chief rocket designer Sergei Korolev?
After the success of Apollo the Soviets gave up and pretended they'd never been in the moon race to begin with.
It wasn't because it was not possible. The soviets in fact sent several unmanned Soyuz spacecraft in to circumlunar flight (which were designed to carry a human crew), though only one would have been able to successfully and safely returned a human crew. Do you want to tell me specifically why it was impossible to send men to the moon? The soviets sent biological specimens up into the Van Allen belts to discover the efftects of cislunar radiation on a human crew. They didn't think this was a major problem for any manned lunar landing.
Seeing as you accused me of lack of research, I think the same could equally, if not more so, be applied to you with regards to your rather ignorant statements about the Soviet manned lunar landing efforts. So here's some homework for you: www.astronautix.com/craft/soyz7kl1.htm
Let me also predict that the future Moon mission by China will be a failure. Either because they'll realise its not possible - or the US wont let them go up... Dont believe me? remember a certain Mr Dennis Tito having to go to Russia to get permission to go up into space? I rest my case
I don't see what Dennis Tito has to do with anything being discussed here. Dennis Tito was allowed by the Russians because they badly needed the $20million from him, so he was allowed to go. NASA weren't happy because they didn't think the ISS was ready to accept fee paying passengers.
How can the US not allow China to go to the moon? What can they do to stop them?
Also, Dave, after several significant factual errors in your moon hoax article were publicly brought to your attention a couple of months ago (namely, these ones), you agreed you would change them, I looked at your article again today and was rather dissapointed to discover that the article hasn't been corrected. What gives? Tell me if you require further clarification.
Russians themselves in the dark?
My understanding is that the Russians didn't blow the whistle because they were themselves fooled! That was one of the main points of it all. NASA made sure that that everything looked like it was where it was supposed to be, one way or another.
That's right!
NASA could fool all of Russia's (not to mention the rest of the world's) scientists and engineers for more than 30 years, but they couldn't fool you!
Apollo 8
The reason that the apollo 8 mission was moved forward was because the secret American Services detected a Soviet N-1 booster ready to launch.
Sure Russians and Americans were really close, tell that to my father that fought in the Korean War, maybe that too never happened.
Perhaps you'd like to explain...
Boy... I really have to laugh... I see that Bad Astronomy are still really wound up about my Apollo pages, and are still going on about what I should and shouldn't have on my site. As far as I'm concerned, the debate with Bad Astronomy finished way back in late July (if I remember correctly) and in fact, I haven't revisited there till you posted the link above! I guess I got you guys really wound up huh!
Its a pity that Bad Astronomy don't even have their own site about it, but would rather host a message board so all the supposed 'know it alls' can slag off other peoples sites and tell them what they can and cannot print.
I attended the 21st International UFO Conference this past weekend in Leeds, UK. One of the speakers was Dr Tom Van Flandern. What a surprise I got to learn that the photo images being released from Mars can get a resolution down to just over a few metres in length, and that a new camera which is soon to be launched will have the capability to film objects on the surface at less than 3" in length. With this in mind, I find that the Apollo believers theory that there's nothing out there capable of taking good enough images of the Lunar surface to prove that man had visited is rather lame. Perhaps you could write to your buddies on BA and tell them about the above photographic technology, because as far as they are concerned, it doesn't exist...
Show me the proof in pictures of the base of the lunar module and other artifacts left on the Moon, that are not the size of a grain of salt and even had to be pointed out to the viewer where to look (as was shown in the Clementine picture) and maybe you might start convincing me and thousands of other hoax believers that we went!
Its nice to see that your one of those people who 'again' lectures me on what I can and cannot have on this site, and yet hasn't bothered to watch the film that I say will explain alot to you. If you can't be bothered to look at the evidence that will tell you the answers, then why are you bother argueing? 'What happened on the Moon' not only explains the many faults in the Apollo record, it also explains the Russian-American connection. I'm not going to bother to explain it all here if you can't be bothered to check it out yourself... I have more important things to do!
A suggestion - Perhaps BA could change thier site name to BS!
Boy... I really have to laugh... I see that Bad Astronomy are still really wound up about my Apollo pages, and are still going on about what I should and shouldn't have on my site. As far as I'm concerned, the debate with Bad Astronomy finished way back in late July (if I remember correctly) and in fact, I haven't revisited there till you posted the link above! I guess I got you guys really wound up huh!
Hmm, perhaps it was a bit presumptuous of me to think that you could interpret such things as dates written on message boards. But then I recall that reading and comprehension was not one of your strong points.
You say you left the debate in late July, but had you payed attention to the link you'd see that the thread was started on the first of july. With the last post being on the 24th of July.
I haven't seen much mention of your site since then either, I had to go through several pages to dig up that thread and post it here.
Its a pity that Bad Astronomy don't even have their own site about it, but would rather host a message board so all the supposed 'know it alls' can slag off other peoples sites and tell them what they can and cannot print.
As far as I know, the Bad Astronomer does have a moon hoax page. There aren't "supposed 'know it alls'" on the Bad Astronomy message board, there are some very knowledgable people posting there. No one's telling what you can and can't print, Dave, they're just showing you where your moon hoax article is in error. Either that or asking you to provide more basis for your moon hoax claims. You're the only one who's slagging off people.
....and that a new camera which is soon to be launched will have the capability to film objects on the surface at less than 3" in length.
What altitude is this from? How large is the optical assembly? There are going to be spacecraft photographing the moon in coming years with enough detail to show Apollo remnants. Clementine was not equipped to photograph Apollo artifacts in any detail.
With this in mind, I find that the Apollo believers theory that there's nothing out there capable of taking good enough images of the Lunar surface to prove that man had visited is rather lame. Perhaps you could write to your buddies on BA and tell them about the above photographic technology, because as far as they are concerned, it doesn't exist...
This is where your reading comprehension skills are failing you again. As I recall, you claimed that Hubble should have been able to resolve artifacts left on the moon. You then providided a faulty analogy to demonstrate your point. You seemed (and still seem) ignorant of the fact that Hubble's resolving power is constrained by its aperture, and is prevented from resoliving objects so small in angular subtension as Apollo artifacts on the moon.
Show me the proof in pictures of the base of the lunar module and other artifacts left on the Moon, that are not the size of a grain of salt and even had to be pointed out to the viewer where to look (as was shown in the Clementine picture) and maybe you might start convincing me and thousands of other hoax believers that we went!
I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I'm just providing some counter points to what you've written and asking why you haven't changed your site after you agreed you were in error.
Its nice to see that your one of those people who 'again' lectures me on what I can and cannot have on this site, and yet hasn't bothered to watch the film that I say will explain alot to you.
I'm not lecturing about you can and can't have on your site, I'm just debating your points. The question about the content of your site was only because you agreed that your article was erroneous and said you would change it. I'm asking why it wasn't changed. Not telling you what to do.
Also, about What Happened On The Moon. I'll watch the video, I'm just not paying £20 for it. I have seen a number of video clips from their movie. What I saw I was not impressed with.
I'm somewhat familiar with Percy and Bennet's claims, perhaps even more familiar than you are. I know that they don't claim man had never set foot on the moon.
A suggestion - Perhaps BA could change thier site name to BS!
Hehe. Very witty. Did you think of that all by yourself?
This may help!
If you didn't mean that I should take stuff off this site, why did you post a link to a messageboard that says that very thing?
I don't know all the technical data concerning NASA's plans for new photographic technology, but I would suggest contacting Dr. Tom Van Flandern who's site is at www.metaresearch.org.
He was the guy who talked about this high resolution camera. In the meantime I'm prepared to wait and see what these new cameras uncover, as Im sure that neither of us are going to change our viewpoints or beliefs. I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this one until further photographic evidence is available
Re: This May Help! If you didn't mean that I should take stuff off this site, why did you post a link to a messageboard that says that very thing?
Because it outlined some mistakes that you'd been confronted with and admitted too, it also had other suggested changes. I don't necessarily agree with every thing in that thread, it was just convenient because I wouldn't have to write it all out on here.
Thinking about it now, it's probably not the best thread to have chosen to link to, but it'll do.
You're dodging all of my questions.
I don't know all the technical data concerning NASA's plans for new photographic technology...
Of course you don't. I didn't expect you to.
Will you acknowledge that your comparison was faulty? You were comparing apples to oranges. Clementine was not supposed to verify the Apollo missions.
....but I would suggest contacting Dr. Tom Van Flandern who's site is at www.metaresearch.org.
Is this an admission that you didn't know what the hell you were talking about?
Dave, you have an amazing ability to evade all of my questions and points raised about your arguments.
Instead of disputing with my points brought up in previous posts, you change the subject. Do I take it that you don't dispute what you haven't responded to?
I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this one until further photographic evidence is available
Disagree about what? You seem to disagree with yourself judging from the fact that you have two web pages containing conflicting viewpoints. On one you talk about how impossible it was for man to have gone to the moon. On the other you talk about how Apollo astronauts encountered aliens on the surface of the moon.
Anyway, convince me that you really believe either viewpoint.
I think you keep that page because you know it annoys people like the Bad Astronomy posters. And me.
My reasoning is thus: You made two alterations to your moon hoax page that directly contradicted your orginal assertions, your reason? To try and prove the debunkers wrong. Why undermine "your" hoax theories in such a manner for that reason if you really cared about the validity of Apollo?
This May Help
I'm not dodging any questions. I suggested contacting Van Flandern because he was the source that told me of the new camera technology... is that dodging the question? or simply giving you information that you can check out to find out more?
Actually if you read carefully you'll see that my two Apollo pages do not contradict each other. For starters you'll notice that the vast majority of the pictures on the 'UFOs on the Moon' section are actually taken from orbit and not on the Moons surface. This easily ties in with my theory that man didn't land, but stayed in orbit.
Huh? "I'm not dodging any questions. I suggested contacting Van Flandern because he was the source that told me of the new camera technology... is that dodging the question? or simply giving you information that you can check out to find out more?"
Not specifically about Van Flandern and NASA's proposed new Mars imaging systems, but in general. This Mars imaging stuff is a side issue.
Actually if you read carefully you'll see that my two Apollo pages do not contradict each other.
Yes they do.
For starters you'll notice that the vast majority of the pictures on the 'UFOs on the Moon' section are actually taken from orbit and not on the Moons surface
But you do have lunar surface photos there. 2 that you examine. 1 looks like it was taken from lunar orbit. One during trans-lunar coast, and the rest don't look like they're even from Apollo. So that's 4 Apollo pictures, 2 of which are from the lunar surface.
This easily ties in with my theory that man didn't land, but stayed in orbit.
Low earth orbit, or lunar orbit? Could you please clarify.
Contradiction
So if they took pictures from the moon orbit that mean they went to the moon, so you can't agree, first you said Nasa did'nt have tha cappability to go because the radioactive belts, and is impossible, but to take pictures of the moon is o right!!!!.
RDChemist
Unregistered User
(10/1/02 9:03 pm) Reply
Satelite photos
Littlegreys,
If you don't believe that the photographs from the Apollo landings are authentic, how can anybody be expected to believe that if a satelite took a picture from orbit of the landing sites you'd accept that as proof?
Be careful, NASA isn't in the business of designing missions to prove that a previous mission took place. That's a waste of money. But, in the event that images were taken of the sites or if even man went back to those landing sites himself and saw Apollo hardware, would you reverse your position?
Yes...
RD Chemist,
Yes, I would change my opinions on the Apollo missions if it could be proved today that there is artifacts on the Moons surface. The pictures would however have to show without doubt that the objects can be proven to be the Apollo artifacts - not like the pictures released taken by the Clementine which show a small dot, which quite frankly could be anything.
For the benefit of Andrew, perhaps you could read the first few lines of my Apollo hoax page.. the ones which say... quote: 'I would like to suggest that if Man did go to the Moon during the missions, the Apollo films that we were told were filmed on the Moon are bogus and not the real footage.' and on my Apollo photo page it states 'You may have read my Apollo hoax article elsewhere on this web site, where I believe that the Apollo footage that has been released by NASA seems to be a hoax. I have uncovered various pictures and transcripts of astronaut conversations from the Apollo missions that relate to encounters with UFOs, and perhaps this is one reason why NASA would release fake footage to the general public.'
I hope this clears up a few doubts that you had about my stance on the Apollo missions. I'm not exactly saying that they never went, I'm saying that the footage released seems to be bogus and show why I think it was faked. I also point out the difficulties that would be encountered on the way, and last but not least show the reader film footage showing blue sky outside of the Apollo 13 module when it is supposed to be 200,000 miles in deep space!
Your right to think that some of the pictures are from other missions... this however is pointed out in the pictures, telling the reader that they are from Gemini and Mercury missions.
Musical Hoax Theories 'I would like to suggest that if Man did go to the Moon during the missions, the Apollo films that we were told were filmed on the Moon are bogus and not the real footage.' and on my Apollo photo page it states 'You may have read my Apollo hoax article elsewhere on this web site, where I believe that the Apollo footage that has been released by NASA seems to be a hoax. I have uncovered various pictures and transcripts of astronaut conversations from the Apollo missions that relate to encounters with UFOs, and perhaps this is one reason why NASA would release fake footage to the general public.'
Yes that is what your hoax pages say. But you are hardly consistent in any of it.
I hope this clears up a few doubts that you had about my stance on the Apollo missions. I'm not exactly saying that they never went, I'm saying that the footage released seems to be bogus and show why I think it was faked.
Dave, when I confronted you about your contradictory pages in this thread you repsonded thusly:
"For starters you'll notice that the vast majority of the pictures on the 'UFOs on the Moon' section are actually taken from orbit and not on the Moons surface. This easily ties in with my theory that man didn't land, but stayed in orbit."
Now pay particular attention to the last sentence. You said they didn't land.
You also tried to make out the fact that there were only two lunar surface photos allegedly showing evidence of UFOs on the moon as an insignificant proportion of the total number of photos. Though they comprise 50% of all Apollo photos on that page (correct me if I'm wrong). For you to investigate them like this you have to assume that these two photos are genuine, otherwise it's completly pointless. But that's another point all together.
"I'm not exactly saying that they never went,"
Dave, in the "Do You Agree?" thread, on the 24th of September you said this:
I think normal thinking adults can answer the above questions quit rationally...
We didn't go
Now, HOW THE HELL ARE THESE TWO SENTENCES NOT CONTRADICTORY?
In this post, your above comment was preceded by a group of questions that would be absolutely pointless if you believed they only faked the photographs.
"I also point out the difficulties that would be encountered on the way"
Why? You acknowledged that they'd overcome all obstacles and actually landed on the moon. All your arguments about the LM being insufficient, radiation levels too high, etc, are completely irrelevant as a consequence of your theory.
Your Previous Theory.
When you were posting on Bad Astronomy earlier this year, your stance was that Apollo only made it as far as some low earth orbit. You even proposed some kind of strange geostationary low earth orbit, which is impossible, but nevermind. The point is that you argued Apollo only made it as far low earth orbit.
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies