Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 56 of 56

Thread: Wisnewski: "One Small Step"

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    324
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    Well, those of us who knew what was going on did say that the new images wouldn't stop the HBs.
    Especially those Liars who make ("earn" wouldn't be appropiate) their money with those claims.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by kucharek View Post
    Uhhh... This crap made it into an english translation?
    As Wisnewski is a German journalist, we have some history of dealing with him here.
    The German sister site of Clavius has some analysis of one of his books.
    http://www.clavius.info/bibwisnewski1.htm
    It is, of course, in German.
    Wisnewski was a journalist, but seems at some point he recognized he can do much more money by "finding" conspiracies in almost anything that happens. Moon landings, 9/11 or the death of famous Austrian right-wing politician Jörg Haider who drove fast and drunken and ended up driving against a wall.
    You're absolutely right - it is crap! I've read his book "Lies in Space" and it is as crappy as it comes (I'm sorry Mr. Moderator, but sometimes it is necessary to say out loud what something is because niceties would veil the truth).
    His book is not only full of blatant lies, half-truths and deliberate misleadings but outright bad. I couldn't understand how this book made it past the editor as there are many inconsistencies and contradictions.

    E.g. he maintaines that astronauts couldn't bend over due to their suits rigidity and therefore weren't able to peer down or take photos from objects at their feet. He argues that a photo where a boot-cap is clearly visible must be faked. But this guy also managed to include a photo of earth based training where astronauts, fully suited up, excercised their excursions. And in these photos it is plain to see that the astronauts could bend over to a certain degree; making photos subsequently.
    I personally can't imagine a worse demotion for a book than an author delivering himself the material to debunk it!

    Ex

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    29,139
    There's an independent website that uses a lot of material from the book at:

    http://www.geschichteinchronologie.c...hrt-index.html

    Be warned than in addition to the usual HB incoherence, it's clear that the author's first language isn't English.
    Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by ToSeek View Post
    There's an independent website that uses a lot of material from the book at:

    http://www.geschichteinchronologie.c...hrt-index.html

    Be warned than in addition to the usual HB incoherence, it's clear that the author's first language isn't English.
    It is also evident that this site author's first language isn't German either.

    Ex

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    4,115
    And it is also pretty evident that the site's author seems to have some serious mental problems

  6. #36
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    670
    Moon cranes and spooks?

    From http://www.geschichteinchronologie.c...rt-index.html:

    ...The headquarters of the CIA are at the same place where the simulation center with the moon crane is: at Langley near Hampton (Virginia)...
    The Lunar Landing Research Facility in Hampton, Virginia, was opened by the Langley Research Center in 1965. Langley Air Force Base is located nearby. CIA headquarters at that time, however, was located in Langley, Virginia, about 215 km from the crane as the crow flies.

    Who is Michael Palomino?

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    13,131
    The Lunar Landing Research Facility in Hampton, Virginia, was opened by the Langley Research Center in 1965. Langley Air Force Base is located nearby. CIA headquarters at that time, however, was located in Langley, Virginia, about 215 km from the crane as the crow flies.
    Bad Geography.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by ToSeek View Post
    Grissom finding a special switch in the cockpit that would have caused a short-circuit - not something I've heard mentioned anywhere before, even in circles where Grissom is given some sort of credibility.
    What? Now NASA is including a "self destruct" mechanism in space craft? What do they expect, that astronauts will have to blow the ship to keep evil aliens from capturing it? Don't be ridiculous! There is no such thing as a "self destruct" switch or "short circuit" switch inside NASA space vehicles. There's no reason to have one.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Ben321 View Post
    There is no such thing as a "self destruct" switch or "short circuit" switch inside NASA space vehicles.
    Perhaps not, but I do know that on Grissom's "lost" Mercury capsule, there were explosive distruct charges that had to be disarmed before it could be recovered.

    Let me see if I can find some on web validation for that.

    OK...here it is. It was "intended" to explode if the capsule sank, but failed to do so.
    Last edited by R.A.F.; 2009-Aug-09 at 04:25 PM. Reason: to add link

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    4,115
    I doubt there were destruct charges. But there may have been other explosive bolts that are not fired during a nominal descent and landing.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    13,131
    What? Now NASA is including a "self destruct" mechanism in space craft? What do they expect, that astronauts will have to blow the ship to keep evil aliens from capturing it? Don't be ridiculous! There is no such thing as a "self destruct" switch or "short circuit" switch inside NASA space vehicles. There's no reason to have one.
    But pretending there is one is a great way to keep Mission Specialist trainees at Space Camp from interrupting Pilot trainees by randomly pressing buttons in the cockpit "just to see what happens". (It stopped ME.)

  12. #42
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    10,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Ben321 View Post
    What? Now NASA is including a "self destruct" mechanism in space craft? What do they expect, that astronauts will have to blow the ship to keep evil aliens from capturing it? Don't be ridiculous! There is no such thing as a "self destruct" switch or "short circuit" switch inside NASA space vehicles. There's no reason to have one.
    No, but Virgil Grissom's son thinks NASA murdered his father, and apparently he thought that this piece of metal was the intended murder weapon, causing a short that would lead to a lethal fire. It's even more ridiculous than there being a "self destruct" button, but that never stops CT's anyway.
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Board Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    29,139
    I posted my rebuttals to a thread on a conspiracy forum. Rather than force people to endure that site, I'm going to repost them here.
    Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    29,139
    I was able to find a significant chunk of Wisnewski's "One Small Step" book online at Google Books and so will address aspects of what I was able to read here. I realize there's a lot more, but I wasn't able to access those, and I'm not about to buy a book from a guy I consider a fraud. (I might consider buying it used, but the sources I checked had prices that were actually higher than the new price from Amazon.)



    I will say that he has a superficial plausibility, and I can understand how he might be persuasive to someone not all that familiar with the Apollo program. However, to someone who is familiar it's clear that he's egregiously ignorant and dishonest about his claims. So let's get to those.

    He starts out by claiming that there were many more Soviet crewed missions than the history books tell us, basing his claims largely on tranmissions allegedly picked up by the Judica-Cordiglia brothers. This isn't unreasonable: the Soviets were notoriously secretive, and it's impressive that they went straight from no manned flights to an orbital one when the Americans tried a couple of suborbital flights beforehand. However, he goes along with a ridiculous claim on pages 16-17 from the brothers, who say they picked up a distress call from a Russian spacecraft that was leaving Earth orbit. They conjecture that the spacecraft might have fired its retro-rockets in reverse and left orbit rather than re-entering the atmosphere. However, this is a ludicrous possibility: the change in velocity to de-orbit is around 70 meters per second; the change in velocity to leave orbit is over 3,000 meters per second. This is just the first example of Wisnewski's ignorance of his subject matter.



    Page 72: He goes on for quite a bit about the Russian program, but let's skip ahead to the Americans. On page 72, he wonders why the US chose a Moon landing as the goal rather than a space station: "Surely a manned laboratory in orbit would be an easier exercise than the complex journey to the Moon? ... A space station would also have been an easily attainable propaganda success, since one could have declared anything to be a space station...." Wisnewski is forgetting the entire point of the exercise, which is to outdo the Russians. The Russians at this point have far better booster capability than the Americans, and, if the stated goal had been to launch a good-sized space station, would have beaten us easily. If you're in a race where you're behind but think you might be able to catch up given time, you don't say, "Let's go to the next tree" but "Let's go to the hill there on the horizon."



    Page 75: Wisnewski notes that in May 1961 that the Redstone rocket used for Mercury had clocked up 20 failures in 35 flights. He doesn't provide a reference, and I haven't been able to figure out quite how he comes up with the figure, but it's probably misleading, regardless: odds are that most of the failures were in the early flights, and the later ones were more successful. That's the way these things work. In fact, the exact configuration flown for the manned mission was tried four times before Alan Shepard's flight. Three of those were entirely successful, with one failure, that being the first one, and the failure would not have been threatening to the astronaut had there been one on board. So the 20/35 figure isn't quite a lie, but it's pretty misleading, and like a good magician, Wisnewski builds on the misdirection for several pages in order to suggest that the first manned flight was much riskier than it actually was.

    In particular, he makes much of the fact that NASA is a lot more confident of a successful Redstone launch in March than in January, never mentioning that there were two totally successful launches in that interval.



    Page 78: Wisnewski casts aspersions on Robert R. Gilruth's qualifications to be in charge of NASA's manned space program. "This is remarkable because Gilruth was actually an expert on remote-controlled, unmanned aircraft... This cannot have been much of a recommendation for becoming head of manned space flights and moon landings." Wisnewski never indicates what he would consider a solid background for such an assignment - it's not as if there was anyone with existing expertise in manned space flight! I presume he's hinting that Gilruth would have been expert at doing a fake mission, but considering the high degree of automation required even for manned missions, I don't see his background as unreasonable.



    Okay, I now have to skip to page 107 because the intervening pages are not accessible.



    Page 107: He notes the problems in 1968 with the lunar module, then says "Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were supposed to be landing on the moon in eleven months' time in a vehicle like this. Um, no, the landing had not been scheduled - even the crew assignments weren't set at this point. More ignorance.



    Page 108: He marvels at Gene Cernan saying, "Quite frankly, there was no need for lunar module pilot LLTV training," the LLTV being the Lunar Landing Training Vehicle. What Wisnewski doesn't know is that the "lunar module pilot" title was a courtesy one and in fact it was the mission commander who flew the lunar module.



    Page 110: Wisnewski notes that three of the five training vehicles crashed (without ever mentioning their 100+ successful flights), then gets really ridiculous, saying that the LLTV should be the more stable vehicle because it has three engines (two to compensate for Earth's gravity and one to simulate the lunar module engine) rather than the single engine of the LM. This, in a word, is nonsense. Nevertheless, he goes on and on about the issue, even indicating that the LLTV's should have been more reliable with the three engines when in fact they were less reliable since a failure of any of the engines would make the machine unflyable.



    Page 112: Wisnewski talks about the testing of the lunar modules in flight. He mentions that on Apollo 5 "the landing engine only functioned for 4 seconds instead of 39 seconds after ignition", not mentioning that the problem was found to be with the guidance software, not the engine, and that the engine was successfully fired two more times, once for 33 seconds. I think that amounts to lying by half-truths.



    Page 113: Wisnewski marvels that they didn't fly a manned flight with the LM until March 1969. Well, that's how long it took them to get a LM ready for human beings. He claims that on Apollo 9 the descent engine "began to spit and splutter" and classifies that as a failure. I can't find a reference to this, and the Apollo 9 mission report indicates that all mission success criteria were met, so the failure designation is simply a lie.



    I have access to about 40 more pages and have commentary on those which are more to the meat of the issues, but I'm well past my lunch break at this point and need to get back to work. I'll try to finish this tomorrow.
    Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    29,139
    Haven't had much time for this thread this week, but here's some more on Wisnewski:



    Page 120: Wisnewski goes off on a sidelight with regard to the argument in favor of the Moon landings that the secret could not possibly have been kept for this long. He claims that this means that "no one is capable of keeping secrets. And this would mean that military and intelligence organizations chase after nothing but illusions." This is nonsense. Almost all secrets - certainly military secrets - only need to be kept for a certain amount of time. Military and intelligence organizations work out ferreting out opposition secrets when they're still relevant while maintaining their own for as long as possible. That they make this effort says nothing about whether or not secrets will come out in the long run.



    (There are some intervening pages that make the reasonable point that not all that many of those who worked on Apollo needed to be in on the conspiracy. I won't argue with this, though I will note that it would take even more people to do a conspiracy than to do the real thing, since you need people to work on the fake elements as well as the real stuff.)



    Page 138: Wisnewski correlates Apollo missions with bad news back home, suggesting that the former were scheduled as a distraction from the latter. He states that Apollo 14 "commands the 'undivided attention of the public." I can tell you as one who was there that very few people were paying attention - most of the networks didn't even broadcast the Moon walks for the later missions.



    Page 141: He claims that Harrison Schmitt is the only astronaut whose face is seen inside his helmet. There are in fact numerous cases of this, including Armstrong and Aldrin.



    This is all part of a discussion on how to confirm the Moon landings, something he compares to climbing a mountain or reaching the North Pole. Obviously, there are limitations here, but Wisnewski makes it sound worse than it is. For example, "Neither manned nor unmanned missions, nor the strongest telescopes in the world have so far been able to catch sight of that supposedly abandoned equipment." Anyone who knows anything about optics knows that there are at present no telescopes on or near Earth capable of imaging the landing sites.



    He dismisses the Moon rocks as evidence because they might have been brought back by Soviet missions. He doesn't bother mentioning that the Russians brought back grams while the Americans brought back kilograms, and the Moon rocks had characteristics that could only have developed from billions of years of exposure to micrometeorites, surface radiation, and other factors that don't exist on Earth and couldn't have been fabricated.



    Page 145: Okay, now he's all in a tizzy because the Hasselblad doesn't have a viewfinder. He also points out that the Hasselblad 500 EL taken to the Moon is a sophisticated and fair-sized camera and suggests that they should have taken a more suitable camera. He never mentions what a more suitable camera than a precision, German-engineered instrument reknowned for its quality and ease of use might be, that takes film magazines (not rolls), has an electric winder, and uses film with twice the width and therefore four times the resolution of the more standard 35mm film.



    He also objects to the use of slide ("diapositive") film and says that 160 ASA film is "very sensitive." Well, slide film has much better resolution than print film, and ASA 160 film is not all that sensitive. When I bought camera film, the options were generally ASA 100-400. If you wanted something really sensitive, you got ASA 800-1000. You could get sub-100 film, but it was generally for use in studios or where there was exceptionally bright lighting.



    Page 149: He points out that the astronauts had to set the aperture, exposure time, and focus manually, summarizing by saying "the problems an limitations of photography on the moon were grotesque. The astronauts had little chance of bringing back useable photos. So the result is all the more astonishing, by which I don't mean that a few of the photos on the moon worked out quite well but that all the photos on the first film of Apollo 11 came out perfectly."



    As is typical for Wisnewski, he doesn't tell you the whole truth. He doesn't tell you that the astronauts were issued with Hasselblads to practice with and therefore had months to become familiar with them. He doesn't tell you that it's easy to figure out what the lighting conditions are on the Moon and to tell the astronauts which setting to use in which situations. And, finally, it's simply a lie that all the photos on the first film came out perfectly.



    Here are some I came up with:

    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5859HR.jpg - blurred

    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5860HR.jpg - poor focus

    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5894.jpg - underexposed

    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5895.jpg - underexposed

    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5896.jpg - underexposed

    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5897.jpg - underexposed

    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5898.jpg - underexposed

    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5900.jpg - underexposed

    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5901.jpg - strangely tilted

    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5904.jpg - oops!

    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5916.jpg - astronaut half-in-shot, half-out

    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5935.jpg - glare from Sun

    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5936.jpg - glare from Sun

    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5951.jpg - top of astronaut cut off

    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5966.jpg - very underexposed (but may have been taken to finish off roll)



    You can peruse the whole roll if you go to

    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/images11.html#Mag40



    I'll have to continue the rest of this in part three because I have an appointment.
    Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    29,139
    More Wisniewski: THE photo



    To harp on the photo issue a little more, let's go to the most famous one of all. You know which one it is:



    Right? Well, wrong. That's how it showed up on all the magazine covers, nicely centered and framed, but the original actually looks like this:



    Far from being perfectly framed, Armstrong actually has the camera aimed at the vicinity of Aldrin's right toe. Wisnewski attempts to make a virtue out of a deficiency by stating that the photo of Aldrin has "the top of his helmet exactly fitting the upper edge of the frame." It's much more reasonable to point out Armstrong very nearly commits the tyro's error of cutting of the top of his subject's head.



    More about Wisnewski in my next post.
    Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    29,139
    Page 152: The lack of a blast crater and lack of dust on the lunar module. This is good for several pages. Again, I think this is more evidence for a non-hoax than a hoax because it was unexpected. Why is there no blast crater - presumably because the Moon's surface is extremely hard below the first few inches of dust. In any case, there are photos taken of the area underneath the lunar module that show clear signs that the area was scoured by the descent engine.



    As for the lack of dust on the lunar module itself, there isn't any great reason there should be. This isn't Earth, after all, where the dust is kicked up and hangs in the air before slowly settling. The Moon dust would have been blown outward and settled very quickly.



    Page 155: "Although NASA claims that the cameras were fixed to the astronauts' chests, here they can suddenly be pointed vertically 'downwards.'" This is accompanied with a few well-known photos of bootprints on the Moon. Now, when NASA says the camera (and there was only one on the Apollo 11 moonwalk unless you count the geology camera) was fixed to the chest, they don't mean it was superglued. It was attached there but could be removed. In fact the camera gets handed back and forth a couple of times between Armstrong and Aldrin during the EVA.



    Page 156: Depth of field. Wisnewski is disturbed by the lack of depth of field in the bootprint images. This is true: the bootprint is nicely focused, while the quality of focus diminishes rapidly toward the top of the frame, where the surface is farther away. Wisnewski thinks this is an anomaly since the camera should be stopped down due to the bright surface, something that increases the depth of field. What he doesn't mention is that the closer you are to your subject, the less depth of field you have. It's one thing to take a photo of a landscape (as are most of the Apollo surface photos, of course) and quite another to take something right at your feet. So I don't see this as a significant issue.



    Page 158: Charlie Duke's family photo. Charlie Duke took a photo of his family, shrink-wrapped it, took it to the Moon, put it on the surface, and took a photo of it. Wisnewski tells this story and marvels at it. Why shrink-wrap it? (To keep it from getting scratched or smudged, maybe?) Why does he expect it to last a long time on the Moon? (Well, he doesn't. He was just happy to take the photo of the photo.)



    Page 160: Bright spots. Even Wisnewski admits that the previous items are pretty trivial, but then he goes to image AS11-40-5902:



    http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5902.jpg



    and wonders about the bright area behind and to Aldrin's right. He claims that the surface lighting should be completely even and harsh due to the single light source and the lack of an atmosphere. What he doesn't mention is how reflective the Moon's surface is, as can be seen best in a down-Sun image like this one:



    http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5906.jpg



    In the case of the previous photo, the bright area is where the sunlight is bouncing off the surface and possibly enhanced because Armstrong is in the LM's shadow.



    Page 161: Bright spot in TV coverage. I'll have to look at this one when I can track down the segment he has an issue with.



    Page 162: Details visible on an astronaut in the sunward direction from the photographer. Reference photo is AS16-114-18423:



    http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/...-114-18423.jpg



    He compares this to a photo of a kid standing in snow and blocking the Sun. The kid, not surprisingly, is a silhouette. The basic problem I see here is that the Moon photo is of a bright white object against a dark setting (the Moon's surface is about as reflective as asphalt), while the Earth photo is of a dark object against a brilliant white background. This is not a fair comparison.



    He also claims that "there is another light source reflected in the astronaut's visor", which I don't see at all. I see the reflective surface around the astronaut's shadow and a bright white speck which has got to be the astronaut taking the picture, not another light source.



    Page 163: No difference between the Moon and a hangar. He claims there's no significant difference between a photo of the astronauts training:



    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/ap11-69-H-698HR.jpg



    And the real ones:

    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5868HR.jpg



    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5902HR.jpg



    Probably true, but so what? The equipment was identical, and the surface material was intended to be as similar as possible. He never really explains why this is "suspicious", just states that it is.



    Page 178 (previous pages missing from the Google excerpts): Invisible ascent engine flame. I've addressed this before, pointing out that the Titan II engines, using identical fuel and oxidizer, put out a transparent flame despite having many times the thrust. And when Wisnewski claims that the space shuttle engines and Apollo landing engines, which produce visible flames, run on "almost identical fuels" he is either incorrect or taking a very generous reading of "amost identical".



    Page 179: No noise from the ascent engine. Wisnewski does some beautiful sleight-of-hand here. He points out that there is no noise heard from the ascent engine on liftoff. He then constructs a strawman argument that the sound would not be carried in a vacuum (one he attributes to proponents like me even though I've never heard it from anyone on my side) and refutes it with the example of the astronauts hearing the "pretty large bang" on Apollo 13. He concludes that "this really does call for some explanation."



    Did you catch the sleight-of-hand? The original question was whether or not the sound should be heard on Earth. He turns it into a question of whether or not the astronauts should have heard it, which is a whole different issue. The Apollo 13 example in fact refutes, not supports, his claim. I mean, Houston didn't hear the "pretty large bang" - it took the astronauts saying the famous "Houston, we've had a problem" for them to start becoming aware that something was awry.



    And that is the end of the book segments Google provides that are extensive enough to argue with. My conclusion, based on this segment, is that Wisnewski is typical of the Moon hoax proponents I've encountered:



    - They're appallingly ignorant of the relevant science and technology, while at the same time

    - They project far more knowledge and confidence than is justified by their understanding

    - They tell only the parts of the story that support their claims while ignoring the full context.

    - They try to poke holes in the official version but don't have a clear, coherent alternative to offer that would stand up better than the official version.

    - They take a shotgun approach, firing dozens of claims without much consideration of their strength or validity in the hopes that one of them is bound to stick.



    All in all, I'm not impressed.



    There's more refutation of Wisnewski at the German Clavius site:



    http://www.clavius.info/bibwisnewski1.htm



    If you don't speak German, you can use Google language tools to get the gist of it:



    http://translate.google.com/translat...ial%26hs%3DRRU
    Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    842
    Nice summary, To Seek. The problem with these HB folks is that all they are interested in is the hoax, the conspiracy. They don't spend any time at all studying the Apollo program, the hardware, and how NASA claimes it was all accomplished. They just look at each others sites.

    Meanwhile, we become well versed in both everything Apollo (and the sciences involved) AND all the hoax theories. It's like being in the ring with a one-armed opponent...so they keep on with their totally ignorant, repetetive claims.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,447
    Quote Originally Posted by ToSeek View Post
    ...
    Military and intelligence organizations work out ferreting out opposition secrets when they're still relevant...

    As the Soviets did for Apollo, even capturing an Apollo boilerplate CM.

    There are some intervening pages that make the reasonable point that not all that many of those who worked on Apollo needed to be in on the conspiracy.

    Those who ostensibly worked on Apollo, however, were well known in their fields and had reputations for technical prowess and engineering skill. While they would not necessarily be told about the conspiracy, they were being asked to work on a cover story. Their intelligence and perseverance would make it difficult to hide the true nature of their own work from them. Cover stories aren't expected to work. Who best to know whether their technology would work than those tasked to build it?

    Conspiracy theorists deal only in speculative numbers of people involved, not their nature.

    He also points out that the Hasselblad 500 EL taken to the Moon is a sophisticated and fair-sized camera...

    It's about the same size as any other medium-format camera. As for sophistication, the 500/EL body is little more than a precision-machined box. The lens goes on one end (and is surprisingly small) and the longroll magazine goes on the other (and is surprisingly large).

    ...than a precision, German-engineered instrument reknowned for its quality...

    Swedish, actually; although the Zeiss lens was made in Germany.

    He also objects to the use of slide ("diapositive") film and says that 160 ASA film is "very sensitive."

    The Ektachrome E-3 emulsion allows for maximum exposure and tonal corrections in the darkroom. You send that film because you have relative amateurs exposing the film and top experts in the darkroom processing it. You provide the best tools to the best experts.

    ASA/ISO 160 is not very sensitive in the grand scheme of things, even in 1969. Reversal film is more sensitive to variations in light levels, meaning you have to be fairly accurate in setting the exposure. But I shot almost exclusively on reversal film in the late 1980s and took many wonderful photos that are still in my portfolio. No one told me it had a narrow exposure latitude, consequently I didn't worry about it.

    He points out that the astronauts had to set the aperture, exposure time, and focus manually...

    As did almost every photographer at that time. As I had to do for years. As I still do in my studio for some tasks. To hear conspiracists talk, no one would ever have a prayer of being a photographer because it's just too difficult.

    He claims that the surface lighting should be completely even and harsh due to the single light source and the lack of an atmosphere.

    When shooting up-sun, the texture of the surface has the primary effect on how bright it appears.

    All in all, I'm not impressed.

    Nor am I, which is why I have not really paid much attention to Wisnewski. Same old, same old.

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    29,139
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave J View Post
    Nice summary, To Seek. The problem with these HB folks is that all they are interested in is the hoax, the conspiracy. They don't spend any time at all studying the Apollo program, the hardware, and how NASA claimes it was all accomplished. They just look at each others sites.

    Meanwhile, we become well versed in both everything Apollo (and the sciences involved) AND all the hoax theories. It's like being in the ring with a one-armed opponent...so they keep on with their totally ignorant, repetetive claims.
    I think the other issue is that they never come up with a coherent alternative scenario but are content to poke holes in the mainstream one. Okay, so it was faked. Did the astronauts lift off in the Saturn V? If not, how did they get minutes-long videos of weightless astronauts in the command module? If so, where did they go? If they just went into orbit, why didn't anyone notice an extremely bright new satellite going around the Earth?
    Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    492
    Quote Originally Posted by LaurelHS View Post
    This is going to come out wrong, I'm sure, I'm a little upset and probably not wording it very well, but could someone please tell me where this claim on page 95 of the book about the Apollo 1 astronauts living for a long time comes from? Is there any actual evidence for this? I know the claims about nobody trying to rescue the Apollo 1 crew aren't right, I know people did try to rescue them but they suffered smoke inhalation and burned their hands trying to open the hatch from the outside. But is there any evidence for the claim that the astronauts survived for several minutes? It's just that this is the second time I've heard this HB claim and I find it very distressing.
    The might have got the idea from fiction. Barry N. Malzberg's 'The Falling Astronauts' contains the following:

    Grissom, at the very end had said terrible things before the flames knocked out transmissions. But fire would force curses from anyone.
    (Barry N. Malzberg, The Falling Astronauts, Arrow Books, pg 109)

    It would not take much for this to enter the HB repertoire, after some of them seem to think 'Capricorn One' is a documentary...

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    474
    Quote Originally Posted by Ben321 View Post
    What? Now NASA is including a "self destruct" mechanism in space craft? What do they expect, that astronauts will have to blow the ship to keep evil aliens from capturing it? Don't be ridiculous! There is no such thing as a "self destruct" switch or "short circuit" switch inside NASA space vehicles. There's no reason to have one.
    Actually, even the space shuttle has a "self destruct" mechanism (called the Range Safety System), and there's a very good reason for it; if the shuttle veers off-course during the ascent it's activated at cape canaveral to prevent damage to life and property. Every rocket I know of that launches from the Cape has one. There's no way to activate it (or deactivate it) from inside the orbiter, and the destruct charges are only located in the solid rocket boosters and the external tank. Once armed, an indicator is illuminated on the Pilot and Commander's stations, the second command issued fires the charges on the SRB's and external tank simultaneously. This system has even been used before, on Challenger's fatal launch. Put that way it sounds like a disgusting conspiracy theory, but it's actually true; after Challenger broke up the system was activated to detonate the rogue SRB's. There are antennas on each of the SRBs and ET, so they do not need to be connected to each other to properly function.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by ToSeek View Post
    ...

    All in all, I'm not impressed....
    Hello ToSeek,

    well you didn't expect to be, didn't you?

    Being German, I've read Wisnewskis book in German and as I've said before it's crap. The reasoning is weak, his evidence is doubtful at best and his train of logic is sloppy. This, however, this is really the positive side of his book because most of it is cherry picking, willful ignorance and deliberate omission of facts or evidence to the contrary.
    You did an extensive (and a good one on top of it) debunking, but one hardly neesd to be a rocket scientist to spot the most egregious faults:

    #1 the tired old "blast crater" claim. Of course, he can't let that be so he adds his two pence. All he manages to come up with is a pencil drawing showing the LEM upon touchdown (with crater below) to support his claim. Oh boy (head shaking in tired disbelief)
    # 2 suits rigidity: his claim is that an astronaut couldn't possibly bend over in an inflated space suit and therefore photos showing the boots of the photographer had to be faked. This genius however manages to include a photo of a training run clearly showing astronauts bending over. (eyeballs rolling towards the ceiling)
    #3 the only issue he focuses on are photos. Understandably, as this is the only subject he might be familiar with as a journalist. And that makes it easier to dismiss evidence from other fields (selenogy?! Doppler shifts, triangulation) (shrugging of shoulder with a smirk)

    My advice, don't honor him with too much attention, because it's what he's after. So far his book din't make it on any best seller list and it should stay that way ;-)

    Ex

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    6,275
    Quote Originally Posted by ToSeek View Post
    If they just went into orbit, why didn't anyone notice an extremely bright new satellite going around the Earth?
    Oh, that's easy. They just activated stealth mode once they reached orbit.

    Yeah, it'd be nice to be an HB. Never an unanswerable question.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    13,131
    Actually, even the space shuttle has a "self destruct" mechanism (called the Range Safety System), and there's a very good reason for it; if the shuttle veers off-course during the ascent it's activated at cape canaveral to prevent damage to life and property. Every rocket I know of that launches from the Cape has one. There's no way to activate it (or deactivate it) from inside the orbiter, and the destruct charges are only located in the solid rocket boosters and the external tank. Once armed, an indicator is illuminated on the Pilot and Commander's stations, the second command issued fires the charges on the SRB's and external tank simultaneously. This system has even been used before, on Challenger's fatal launch. Put that way it sounds like a disgusting conspiracy theory, but it's actually true; after Challenger broke up the system was activated to detonate the rogue SRB's. There are antennas on each of the SRBs and ET, so they do not need to be connected to each other to properly function.
    The guy from Air Force Space Command who talked to us at Space Academy said he knew the guy who pushed that button. (And while he talked about all of this, he was smiling. Very creepy guy.)

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    8,731
    Yesterday, I started reading Dan Parry's beautifully written Moonshot!

    Just the Acknowledgements / Introduction on page one captured my heart already....

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 83
    Last Post: 2011-May-10, 03:40 AM
  2. Tunnel Vision - Step Into the "Ring"…
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2009-Feb-21, 02:30 PM
  3. Replies: 68
    Last Post: 2007-Jan-31, 08:11 AM
  4. "That's one small step for man....nuts, I goofed up!&qu
    By Maha Vailo in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2004-Mar-03, 05:00 PM
  5. "One small step..."
    By Andreas in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2003-Jul-24, 12:22 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: