Talk:Apollo Moon landing hoax claims/Archive 1

Specificity of sources
Even if one believes in the hoax, some of the claims just don't meet reasonable standards of CZ quality: Kaysing claimed that two NASA engineers admitted that the landing was a hoax: "I received a call from a Margaret Hardin of Portland, Oregon. She said that she had met a hooker in Reno in 1970 who admitted to her that two NASA engineers told her the Moon trips were a hoax."

Howard C. Berkowitz 16:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

WP?
I compared a couple of paragraphs with the WP article, and especially the first para is too close a paraphrase for my taste. Also, I wonder if it's worth commenting at all about what WP deletes. What evidence is that? Some anonymous person somewhere asks to delete a WP article? Is that solid evidence for the suppression of a conspiracy theory? (Howard, sign your posts) Russell D. Jones 15:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Plausibility of details
Again not challenging the basic theory, there are a number of details that don't quite seem right.

For example, NASA "Greenbelt Goddard Spaceflight Center" in "Washington DC" is mentioned as a place of fakery. First, Goddard Space Flight Center is not in Washington, but the suburb of Greenbelt, MD. Its mission is primarily deep space and basic science, although it does have a network operations center; it's not primarily associated with manned spaceflight. If one was preparing fakery, would it not make more sense for that to be done at Johnson Space Center in Houston, TX, where all the training equipment and Apollo simulators are based?

"Area 51" is mentioned. That's principally a sensitive flight test center. We are talking, here, about a lot of optical special effects. At the time of Apollo, the National Photo-Interpretation Center was in Building 213 at the Washington Navy Yard, which probably had the most sophisticated optical processing in the US government.

That the Atlas (missile) engines were less reliable than the Saturn F1 doesn't seem to prove much. They used different technology; the Atlas was a 1950 design, and it's sometimes easier to build a large than a small device -- miniaturization is hard. For example, the weight penalty in an Atlas required the fuel tanks to be pressurized or their extremely light metal would crumple; Saturn fuel tanks could free-stand. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (Insert) More comparisons of Atlas vs. Saturn; there were other mechanical challenges. Atlas was a "1.5 stage" design, with a main engine, and a booster on either side. As opposed to the Space Shuttle, the boosters were not free-standing but had liquid fuel plumbing to the main body. In contrast, the F1 engine in the Saturn was much cleaner from a mechanical standpoint: the Saturn I first stage had a cluster of six identical F1s (common fuel supply if I remember, but much cleaner piping than an Atlas). The second stage had a single F1, while the SIVB third stage used a different engine. Saturn is much more KISS than Atlas. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I freely admit that I'm not fan of conspiracy theory articles, especially when we don't have mainline articles to compare and contrast. In this case, I exercised my authority as an Engineering Workgroup Editor to put this into Engineering as well as Astronomy. If you think about it, most of the alleged fakery deals with aerospace, optical, and electronic engineering, not astronomy. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I need to run to a doctor's appointment, but I'm not sure whether to bring up technical issues if they moved to the catalog. There's a throwaway line that Stanley Kubrick used Zeiss 50mm f/0.7 lenses. Why is this significant? The focal length is not informative unless one knows the image/film size.


 * More significantly, an f/0.7 lens seems awfully unlikely for special effects. It would have extremely limited depth of field, which I suppose might be useful in creating out-of-focus effects, but the main value of such a large aperture is to be able to collect dim light. Why would this be necessary in a special effects studio, which has all the lighting of which one can dream? Howard C. Berkowitz 16:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

title -- isn't there an extra Cap here?
Shouldn't the article be moved to Apollo Moon landing hoax accusations as per our discussions in the Forum? Hayford Peirce 18:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, no ..... Russell D. Jones 18:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Title
Just from a capitalization standpoint, the title doesn't meet the CZ conventions: Landing should not be capitalized. From a content standpoint, it's redundant: it should be "Moon landing hoax" or "Project Apollo hoax". Hoax implies an accusation. Moon landing hoax seems best to me--it leaves room for any other hoaxes associated with lunar explorations.

It's not clear if the people accusing have any beliefs about other unmanned landers, U.S. or otherwise, or even about orbiters. Were the Apollo flights that did not land hoaxes? For all the comments about the F1 engine versus Saturn, is there any serious claim that Saturns did not take off from Kennedy Space Center? If the engines didn't work, that would seem a consequence. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I hadn't realized that it was a brand new article until a minute ago. I was just going to move it to a more appropriate title as per your arguments above. Well, no, I'll just remove the Cap and let you and the others discuss a more appropriate title to which YOU can Move it to when some sort of consensus has been arrived at. Hayford Peirce 18:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional reference
I don't read Russian, and this is an English-language encyclopedia, so the Popov reference added needs more context.

The argument that the technologies are 40 years old also is a little oversimplified. One thing to be considered is that there was a much larger Cold War industrial and engineering base, at the time, in the U.S. There were active production lines for military missiles that could be modified.

Safety standards are different; both the US and Russia had fatalities. Assuming the Apollo 11 landing did take place, all accounts of it say that it would have crashed had Armstrong not taken manual control, and the lander was within seconds of running out of fuel. Apollo 13, conveniently, had a catastrophic failure while it still had a lander as a "lifeboat"; the crew unquestionably would have been lost had the service module explosion happened on the return. The two Space Shuttle disasters also affect risk tolerance.

Is the budget priority the same under Bush as it was in the Cold War with Kennedy? Howard C. Berkowitz 18:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

All answers in one place :)
Thank you for your contribution and edits. Let me answer to all questions in one place, to avoid scattering of comments:
 * Re: The 2 engineers: the claim is too indirect and involves too may mediators. So I agree with its removal.
 * Re: Wikipedia deletions: of course this is not so important; remove it if you like.
 * Re: Goddard centre: I don't know. You're probably right, but did Kaysing say that?
 * Re: Area 51: Kaysing probably thought so. Others (Sam Colby) think that most work was done at the Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia. So again, let's adhere to what out hero said.
 * Re: Atlas: Same; that was the opinion of Kaysing. He was not a rocket scientist but probably had some contacts, I don't know.
 * Re: Engineering as well as Astronomy: I agree. Space technology is much more engineering than astronomy in my opinion.
 * Re: The lens: I agree that this detail is not so important here, so you can remove it, if you like.
 * Re: Title: OK, the "L" must be an "l".
 * Re: Popov's note about the 40 years: it's sure oversimplified but I'd prefer the KISS principle and avoid too much detail.

I'll try to do some of the "to do's" tomorrow. I'm new to Citizendium and if I need your help, may I ask? Thanks :) A personal note: I'm glad I moved from the WP nightmare. It's like I've been in the gaol and now freed :) --Luchezar Iliev Georgiev 18:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Re: The 7 vs. 16 years: Let's remember a quote by Wernher von Braun: "Crash programs fail because they are based on theory that, with nine women pregnant, you can get a baby in a month." The 16 years deadline is much more realistic but I'm not sure that even it will be enough... --Luchezar Iliev Georgiev 18:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me speak as an Engineering Workgroup Editor. An Editor is empowered to judge if statements make sense. Just because some hoax theorist says something, under CZ criteria, isn't justification to include it. If Kaysing doesn't know the functions of NASA and Air Force facilities, it doesn't make him credible. Why are he and Colby plausible sources?


 * Ummm...I did write rocket science and Atlas (missile). While I'm not a rocket scientist (although my employer was once acquired by Orbital Sciences Corporation), I think I can say fairly I have some fairly detailed knowledge (I'm also a Military editor) of U.S. ICBMs such as Atlas. I have lectured on network design at Kennedy Spaceflight Center, done a fair bit of computer systems programming with colleagues at Goddard, and, while in college, was a credentialed student journalist at NASA Headquarters.


 * The lens accusation is not just unimportant, but throws questions at the credibility of the source. If the source chooses to mention something that has no obvious connection with how it would be faked, this is one technique to sound more credible -- introduce technobabble. On Star Trek, one brings in the flux capacitor for such reasons.


 * NASA Langley Research Center is principally an aerodynamics and sounding rocket facility. Again, it makes little sense that Apollo fakery would be done there, rather than at one of the NASA facilities directly involved with the project. See Art Lundahl for declassified and verified information on where the U.S. government did do UFO-related things; why should Apollo fakery be done at places with neither Apollo hardware or special competence in optics? Does anyone bring up contracting either to a special effects firm, or to major classified optical contractors such as Itek?


 * Welcome, and we are really here to help. CZ does have a goal of accuracy, and if something neither can be sourced credibly, or written by someone with verified expertise, we don't always include it. Silly story that might be relevant: given people are working on high platforms, not always secure ones, at Kennedy Space Center, there's an automatic announcing system that blasts "high wind warning" over the main loudspeakers. When I was lecturing on network design, it went off, and my class, knowing I didn't know about the automation, started informing me that it was the opinion of an outside reviewer in the Education Office; would I please lower my voice? Howard C. Berkowitz 18:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Some further thoughts: look at National Reconnaissance Office for an example of a highly classified U.S. space program, which, in this case, the government denied that existed. I need to do some updating; perhaps someone can help out with NASA.


 * I'd be delighted if you could extend maskirovka with Russian sources. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Done :) Thank you also for your interesting comments. I agree that Bill Kaysing wasn't very competent, but (as far as we can tell now) he was the first! As to Sam Colby, I know nothing about him. He even doesn't include his name on his site and I've learned it indirectly :( But the photos on his site (more exactly, the Apollo Reality site) are really interesting :) --Luchezar Iliev Georgiev 11:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Apropos of the pictures, let me start by proposing an experiment, if you've never done any lunar photography. Take a camera with a long telephoto lens, and take pictures of a bright Moon. Unless you have specialized narrow-angle light meters, a conventional auto-exposure camera will usually fail to get anything, because it averages the Moon against the black sky.


 * Think about how light comes from the Moon: it's reflected from the Sun, after passing through vacuum. Use the same exposure you would for a rock in bright desert sunshine, and you will start to get clear pictures of the Moon; if the lens is long enough, you'll get surface features.


 * But where did the stars go? Beyond the contrast ratio that the film can accept; while the human eye can adjust to different light levels, the orders-of-magnitude difference in brightness is more than any known photographic film can handle. (The extremes are about 9 orders of magnitude, and, for general photography, one holds it to 5).


 * So, I don't find the no-stars picture interesting, but something that fails to exhibit a knowledge at the advanced amateur photographer level. This brings me to a wider question.


 * At CZ, we use "maintainability" as a criterion, where WP uses "notability". Maintainability suggests either the original sources were well-validated or more information is coming in. Kaysing is dead, and was not authoritative in life. At least in the United States, there is no expert group that considers the moon landing hoax to be plausible.


 * What maintainable story is the article telling us? Apropos the CZ, not WP, idea of having expert review, when I was able to spot errors in NASA facilities, errors that can easily be verified in widely available literature (e.g., Goddard and Langley don't have much to do with the Moon), it casts doubt on the source that is making such errors. Should such a source be cited at all?


 * There are a great many interesting topics about Russian involvement in space -- we could use a biography of Tsiolkovsky. Why the emphasis on hoax accusations? I don't mean to say it's inherently Russian, but lots of the references are Russian, which I don't read and can't check. Please take this as encouragement -- there are lots of needed and fascinating Russian and Soviet space topics. How did Marshal Nedelin die and why? What are the differences in US and Russian design philosophy? Can we trace the history of increasing cooperation, starting with hatch compatibilty for rescue, then the Apollo-Soyuz Test Program, all the way to the ISS? Howard C. Berkowitz 13:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding the photos, I once saw an episode of Mythbusters about the aspect of this hoax theory on whether or not a single source of (parallel) light can produce shadows along different angles. They showed that it could.  They also showed that given the reflective qualities of the moon dust, it was perfectly plausible to have well-lit subjects in the shadows.  Just try reading a book during a full moon; any one would believe that the Moon has serious reflective powers.  Russell D. Jones 14:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Romeo
 * Lady, by yonder blessed moon I swear
 * That tips with silver all these fruit-tree tops—
 * Juliet
 * O, swear not by the moon, the inconstant moon,
 * That monthly changes in her circled orb,
 * Lest that thy love prove likewise variable.
 * Lest that thy love prove likewise variable.


 * Seriously, the question is what resources should be applied to this topic. From the Engineering and Military standpoints, I could not, in good conscious, say the article is at a CZ level of plausible sourcing. Merely stating what critics say, outside of context, is, in my mind questionable. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Howard! you're a romantic!
 * Probably the way this article should go is to present the argument as the hoax accusers had presented it themselves, that is, to be true to the sources. Maybe the article could have a subpage where the sources are criticized and their claims scrutinized.  But it seems to me, that the article should have the opportunity to make its case on its own merits.  If it's bunk, it should be de-bunked somewhere else (subpage?), no? Russell D. Jones 15:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This goes to the heart of CZ expertise. Speaking as an Engineering Editor with some fairly detailed relevant knowledge, many of the claims seem nonsensical, such as "no stars". Is bunking and debunking a reasonable use of resources? Remember all the outside criticism that fringe articles get; I don't think we can maintain the position of expertise and just have, WP-style, questionable articles floating about.


 * I can't speak to the Russian language sources, but I have checked some of the English ones, and the errors are amazing: some technical, and some apparently totally unaware of the structure of NASA, etc. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Are the errors to which you are referring errors in the theory that the mission was a hoax or errors in the presentation of the argument of hoax allegers? As far as expertise goes, I think we should be able to accurately present and summarize the contents of a book, isn't that what this article should be about?  The section dealing with side-by-side claims and counter claims needs to be narrativized.  The section about suppression needs to be more than WP deleted the article or that a webpage was deleted.


 * Howard, I think we need to really look at what this article is really about. It's about a popular culture idea published in books.  Shouldn't this article be moved out of the engineering workgroup and placed in the literature workgroup or philosophy workgroup?  It really isn't dealing with technology per se but with popular conceptions about technology.  Do we have a popular culture workgroup?  Russell D. Jones 15:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * First, errors in the presentation of the allegers, sufficient that to an expert, they have no credibility. "The moon is made of green cheese" makes about as much sense.


 * Second, how far do we want to go with conspiracy theories, given that there's never a resolution with the True Believers? 2.5, how important is this among conspiracy theories? To be honest, I haven't heard it brought up in years. As a politics and history editor, is it remotely plausible that a hoax of this magnitude, and enormous political risk, could have been secret for 40 years? We aren't talking about a small conspiracy such as who shot JFK. A large number of technical experts would have had to be involved, and would have had to fool literally tens to hundreds of thousands of technical experts.


 * Personal view: let's concentrate on mainstream before we get into conspiracies. For example, I've been working on 9-11 Attack in New York, and I think it's valid to have a structural analysis of the World Trade Center in CZ before starting on the conspiracies. Maybe this is a matter of personal sensitivity; I have friends that got out of the WTC and I've given seminars in areas hit by the damage. I was close enough to the Pentagon on 9/11 that the windows shook.


 * If it did move, how could it be reconciled with the CZ ideal of expert guidance? Howard C. Berkowitz 16:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't have a popular culture group, and, since such groups tend to be accuracy-free, I hope we never do.

Lede
I removed the claim about George Bush. I can say a lot of things about George Bush, but I'll give him credit that he was not an advocate of the moon hoax. Russell D. Jones 17:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Either one. (Bush, that is, not moon). Frightening image if you want one: being mooned by William Howard Taft. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

better put in a differing view right at the start
Sometimes WP does things right. At the same article over there the second paragraph reads:

There is ample third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings, and commentators have published detailed rebuttals to the hoax claims. A 1999 poll by The Gallup Organization found that 89% of the U.S. public believed the landings were genuine, while 6% did not, and 5% were undecided.

It is, of course, written in WikipediaSpeak but it something similar ought to be inserted in *this* article at the same spot. Howard? An anxious nation turns its eyes to you.... Hayford Peirce 17:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Photography-related arguments are not mentioned in this article
Gentlemen, while it's great to hear expert opinions on the matter like yours, please note that the article doesn't include the arguments about photos, shadows, stars, etc. So why do you comment on them? OK, you can do what you want with this article, rewrite, or even delete it. "Feci quod potui, faciant meliora potentes." But if you seriously believe in both the official versions of NASA about the Apollo landings and of the U.S. government about the 11 September 2001 events, then I'm afraid that I have no business here any more. Sorry, goodbye, and good luck with the Citizendium. --Luchezar Iliev Georgiev 19:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you saying, then, that the purpose of the article is to challenge U.S. government positions, rather than to discuss the substance of what is inherently a technical argument? In other words, the article should neither have been assigned to astronomy nor engineering, but to politics?


 * While the Russian language is a beautiful one, this is an English-language encyclopedia, and most of us can't verify the sourcing in Russian. On what, then, do we fall back for evidence of the theory?


 * We comment on them because I thought they formed the basis for the theory, as opposed to assumptions about politics.  If discussions about the substance of the accusations is outside scope, as an Engineering Editor, I recommend deletion. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The article deals 80% with technical not political arguments. But as I said, you can delete the article freely, like Wikipedia editors did. Popov was right. The West is not ready for this stuff yet. --Luchezar Iliev Georgiev 20:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, since we can't read Popov, we can't really say, can we? Do note that material here is submitted to be edited freely; an author cannot specify its scope here.


 * As far as I can tell, however, I was commenting on technical matters, often in my direct experience. It's not often clear what Popov's point may be, other than there's a Western conspiracy. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Hi Luchezar, we all have our own beliefs based on our education and experience. None of us agree on everything, and some don't agree on anything. If your beliefs are different, that's not unusual and in fact appreciated here as well. All we ask is that each of us follow certain guidelines in our articles. This article is of interest to you, so feel free to work on it. We have editors here to guide you and they must base their decisions on the CZ:Neutrality Policy, so become familiar with that policy and I am sure that this article can develop into something that everyone would find informative and interesting. D. Matt Innis 02:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

self-published books
Hayford, didn't we establish some guidelines, at least, for citing self-published books? Howard C. Berkowitz 20:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, in the Homeopathy discussion, I believe, but *also* in the Neil Brick articles. But it was sort of a complicated guideline, in that *some* were permitted, as per an Editor's decision, I think, but that *most* of them could not be cited. You're an Editor here, so it falls under your jurisdiction. Hayford Peirce 20:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Part of my problem is that I don't read Russian, so I can't check the majority of sources. I'm troubled, however, that several of the in-text critics are described as self-published. This is coupled with my Editor opinion that some of the technical arguments advanced are inherently flawed. Let me look at them again.


 * If the original author is leaving, however, I'm not sure how much effort I want to put into this.Howard C. Berkowitz 20:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. It is, however, I think an *interesting* topic, so I think we *should* have an article about it. There really are characters who believe this. A month ago, around July 20, the local paper had a *long* article about a nut in Tombstone or somewhere relatively nearby who was a Believer. Made himself sound plausible, of course, but a true nut. In defense of Tucson, however, I think about a dozen people wrote very indignant letters to the paper about the Daily Star wasting space on such nonsense. You're the Editor - you could heed Matt's suggestions in the new section, and/or just whack out 80% of the present stuff. If all the sources are in Russian, and no one here except the original author speaks Russian, how can we keep it in? It's not as if they were footnotes included in a bibliography from a book published by the Harvard University Press.... Hayford Peirce 02:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Luchezar sees this from another perspective, one that 3/4 of the world might well Believe. That would be a lot of nuts, unless we are the nuts.


 * Let's call the language Russian. D. Matt Innis 02:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Why would 3/4 of the world believe this nonsense? There is, in fact, absolutely no evidence that they do. For two full generations of people who have been born and grown up since July, 1969, watching science-fiction movies and fantasies all over the world, why *wouldn't* they believe in lunar landings? Hayford Peirce 03:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Because they can read Popov. All the more reason to write about it on Citizendium. D. Matt Innis 04:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It troubles me that there was a criticism linking this, out of the blue, to 9/11. Now, in some respects, that picks up Hayford's comment about Sociology. The technical things could go away completely.


 * Think about it -- why would telemetry be needed to determine speed and altitude, when there is a sun-like object being tracked by many independent cameras, in front of thousands of in-person and millions of television observers. Ummm...working out speed and altitude from the photography is rocket science, but very straightforward rocket science.


 * The sorts of things for which one wants telemetry intelligence are usually much more weapons-related. There are astronomical cameras in many nations that photographed the Saturn at high altitude. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is a sociological and psychological reason to believe that America did not land on the moon and that is important, but that doesn't negate the reasons given to support the belief. It only gives those who do believe America landed on the moon a reason to disregard those who don't believe America landed on the moon. D. Matt Innis 04:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Huh? I'm not sure I follow you, but if you want socio-political reasons for anger at the U.S., read The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order and The End of History and the Last Man, as a start. Those articles would be a lot more pertinent than Rocket Science 101 and Seminar in Electro-Optical Measurement and Signature Intelligence, if you are trying to explain behavior.


 * I reworded for you. Hopefully that helped.  And, no, I am not thinking that we need to explain the behavior in this article.  We need to concentrate on answering the reasons that are given for not believing that America landed on the moon. No need to resort to politics or sociology when science, physics and common sense will do. D. Matt Innis 05:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent) But I have offered science, physics and common sense, and gotten responses that the photographic and other issues had not been brought up in the original article (I disagree with that), so why were they being countered?

I have offered engineering articles that deal with how rockets are tracked. The problem, Matt, is that you are letting the nonbelievers set the agenda and procedure. Take the example of the alleged US military force doing jamming. First, no English source for a large military operation?

Common sense? Submarines are mentioned. How did the trawlers know they were there, and how do you jam something from underwater? Submarines can't deter as a surface ship can -- they can kill; the submariner term for when you absolutely, positively know a submarine is present is a "flaming datum."

There's handwaving about telemetry. How do I use common sense to dispute something that wouldn't be done in the first place? After a little checking, there was VHF and S-band. Here's an EA-6B jamming aircraft; the AN/ALQ-99 jammer is in the pod on top of the tail, and in the underwing pods.

Now, here's a P-3. Where are the antenna housing? The long "stinger" is a Magnetic Anomaly Detector; see geophysical MASINT.

What's wrong with the stars not showing?

Why would the Navy jam for 4 minute if Max-Q takes place, for most U.S. space launch vehicles, between 1 and 2 minutes into the flight?

I think the political things I cited are as relevant. Howard C. Berkowitz 05:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Now, if I were going to suspect NASA, I can remember having to stay in line, partially in Florida sun, waiting 5 hours to get my Kennedy Space Center badge for giving a seminar there. If they had to get through the main gate, the astronauts might never have made it to the spacecraft. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Sibrel
I am going to exercise my authority on this, as there's nothing of substance, and there was a good deal of coverage of the Aldrin attack journalism. He doesn't actually offer evidence for anything besides "research".

===Bart Sibrel===


 * Bart Winfield Sibrel (born in 1965 or late 1964), filmmaker and self proclaimed investigative journalist, created a documentary film A funny thing happened on the way to the Moon (2001).


 * Sibrel states that the Moon landings provided the US Government with a public distraction from the Vietnam War, with lunar activities stopping abruptly and planned missions canceled, around the same time that the U.S. ceased its involvement in Vietnam.


 * One of Sibrel's most significant claims (in "A funny thing happened on the way to the Moon") is that: "In my research at NASA I uncovered, deep in the archives, one mislabeled reel from the Apollo 11, first mission, to the Moon. What is on the reel and on the label are completely different. I suspect an editor put the wrong label on the tape 33 years ago and no reporter ever had the motive to be as thorough as I. It contains an hour of rare, unedited, color television footage that is dated by NASA’s own atomic clock three days into the flight. Identified on camera are Neil Armstrong, Edwin 'Buzz' Aldrin, and Michael Collins. They are doing multiple takes of a single shot of the mission, from which only about ten seconds was ever broadcast. Because I have uncovered the original unedited version, mistakenly not destroyed, the photography proves to be a clever forgery. Really! It means they did not walk on the Moon!"


 * Sibrel and Aron Ranen claim that Wernher Von Braun was complicit in the hoax, collecting samples to be used as the basis for 'Moon rocks' during his trip to Antarctica in 1967.


 * Sibrel made repeated demands over several years that Apollo 11 Lunar Module Pilot Buzz Aldrin swear an oath on the Bible that he had walked on the Moon, or admit that it was all a hoax. Aldrin ignored Sibrel, and in September 2002, Sibrel approached Aldrin and a young female relative as they were leaving a building, and called Aldrin "...a coward and a liar and a thief...". Aldrin punched Sibrel in the face, knocking him backwards. Aldrin later said that he had felt forced to defend himself and his companion (Sibrel was about half Aldrin's age and rather taller and larger). Sibrel suffered no permanent injury; immediately after being hit, he turned to the cameraman and asked, "Did you get that on camera?" The Beverly Hills police investigated the incident, but no charges were filed. CBS News reports that "witnesses have come forward stating that they saw Sibrel aggressively poke Aldrin with a Bible and that Sibrel had lured Aldrin to the hotel under false pretenses so that he could interview him."


 * Apollo 14 Lunar Module Pilot Edgar Mitchell says that when Sibrel came to his home with false History Channel credentials, he did swear to the veracity of the Moon landings on Sibrel's Bible.

Incidentally, maybe I'm being picky, but the comment about NASA's atomic clock dating things rings false. Atomic clocks, be they hydrogen, rubidium, or cesium, are, if you will, extremely precise sources of clock ticks. They usually don't keep time per se; instead, they are a "tick" reference to devices that do actually track time and date. The device that puts the time code into a video tape has other functions, and would indeed receive a signal from a high-accuracy frequency reference but wouldn't be an atomic clock itself. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yuri Mukhin
I can't check the source, and the note consists purely of ideological allegations. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yuri Mukhin (born 1949), Russian opposition politician, publicist and writer, engineer, former metallurgist, manager and inventor. He is the author of the book The Moon affair of the USA (2006) in which he denies all Moon landing evidence and accuses the U.S. establishment for plundering the money paid by the American tax payers for the Moon program and the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and some Soviet scientists for helping NASA commit the hoax without being denounced.

William Brian
I'm just plain puzzled. What is the point here? He agrees astronauts visited the moon, which is the issue at hand. Weak lunar gravity? We have quite substantial information on lunar gravity right here on earth -- in the production of tides. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * William L. Brian II is an engineer and author of the self-published book "Moongate: suppressed findings of the U.S. space program". He does not dispute that astronauts visited the Moon, but claims that "the film speed was adjusted to slow down the action to give the impression that the astronauts were lighter than they actually were. With the slow-motion effects, objects would appear to fall more slowly and the public would be convinced of the Moon's weak gravity."

how about adding a *really* pertinent Workgroup in the metadata?
Since this whole article actually falls within the sort of category of Flat Earthers and Crop Circles, shouldn't it also (or even primarily) be in either the Sociology or Psychology Workgroup? Hayford Peirce 20:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * But how do we analyze it then? Frankly, I'm confused by the statement that the photography, etc., details aren't in the article so shouldn't be criticized. What are we supposed to be able to evaluate? Howard C. Berkowitz 21:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't. We analyze it as yet another nutty phenomenon that falls within the purview of shrinks or sociologists. We get rid of the crackpot stuff here in this article unless YOU AS THE EDITOR AT THE MOMENT think that it's suitable enough to illustrate the delusions of those of believe in this stuff. Hayford Peirce 21:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless a Russian reader volunteers to fact-check, I'm going to have to start deleting more. Now, I was able to leave ULTRA without Popov. Frankly, I'd never heard of the cruise ship, so I guess it was a secret.


 * I have, however, deleted "A counterargument is that to destroy the rocket would be suicidal for the Soviets as it would equal to declaring a nuclear war. The real reason why the Soviet reconnaissance was suppressed was to not let it receive the Saturn V telemetry data, which would reveal the non-conformance of its real speed and altitude to the declared values and that the flight goes not proceed as declared."


 * This is technical nonsense. Telemetry intelligence is indeed critical to get certain information, especially from missile launches. It's particularly important in determining throw-weight and reserve power, as well as a sense of reliability.


 * I'm not sure whether to keep my additions on how it would be tracked, but the US jamming simply doesn't make sense. Yes, those ships could intimidate intelligence "trawlers", although it's rather hard to be intimidated by a submerged submarine. How was it known how many were there? A P-3 isn't a jamming platform; yes, it does carry AGM-84 Harpoon missiles, but trust me, it isn't the first choice for actually engaging something off the Florida coast. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Speed and altitude, however, isn't one of them. Speed and altitude are easily determined from visible light photography of the launch, which was on live television (or was that faked?). Sadly, I never attended a launch, but I have been at the launch site, Vehicle Assembly Building, etc. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Still needs work
Well, if we don't want to present this article as the subject of a book, then we need to present it Neutrally. There are statements that are made that seem to beg us to question something, but yet they don't go as far as to make an actual claim that can be debated. Surely there are "mainstream explanations" for each of the stated aberrations that are presented. The current text just needs to be developed to present the claim of "hoax" in the best way possible, then give the mainstream perspective in the best way possible and let the reader decide. I would hope that an end product would not only satisfy the curious minds in the West, but the East as well.D. Matt Innis 02:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The major problem, Matt, is that the primary sources are Russian, and we have no relevant Editor, as far as I know, who reads Russian. That makes it a maintainability problem -- the English languare references tended to be self-published.


 * Some of the Russian claims, such as the reconnaissance and telemetry, simply do not make sense, within my area of expertise -- and not just generally but having worked with some of it. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sure the arguments are the same in English as they are in Russian. Luchezar can you help us find sources that say the same thing in English, since you apparently read both?


 * If the telemetry arguments do not make sense, then we need to explain the argument as best possible, then explain why it does not make sense as best possible. Your comment above about thousands of cameras, etc. makes good sense to me, but we need to see them side by side in the article, placed neutrally. D. Matt Innis 03:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Matt. I am not enthralled with the idea of spending time on creating a neutral discussion of things that are obvious to anyone familiar with the subject. Let's put it this way: I added FISINT and am willing to extend telemetry to telemetry intelligence. There is relevant discussion in electro-optical MASINT, and specifically for the RC-135 COBRA BALL; also see national means of technical verification.


 * I am not sure that the arguments are the same in English, when the claims, especially about the ships, simply do not match what such ships do. Go read my articles on signals intelligence during the Vietnam War period; they have been there for a long time and discuss what existed. Go read the article on the P-3 Orion and see if it's an electronic warfare aircraft: specifically, look at the pictures and try to find antennas of the right size and shape for telemetry of the time. I'd have to do a little research, but my guess is that it was UHF and X-Band.


 * Why should I write tutorials for the purpose of debunking, when I can spend time on improving the artices on the technology? Why do we need to have the cameras side by side in the article? Why do I have to debunk the naval claims when anyone who has seen a launch knows that it disappears over the horizon, which makes a ship-based jammer rather useless? Is it not obvious that jamming the telemetry for the Russians would make it difficult for NASA to receive? The telemetry issue is, in this case, a Red herring, because the position information is electro-optical.


 * Max-Q for a Saturn V took place between 13 km and 14 km of altitude (43,000–46,000 ft). Is someone suggesting that's outside the range of the TV cameras? What? There's a question of "what is max-Q and why is it important?"  Well, I could answer that, but I have a lot of math sitting around that I could put into the rocket science article, although I didn't know how to format it and would have to create it as an image and upload.


 * In an article on telemetry intelligence, I could discuss the things you get from it, and from FISINT, that you don't get from electro-optical MASINT. Why should I do it here? Howard C. Berkowitz 04:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

President Bush's speech
I understood from an earlier version that President Bush had announced that the Americans would return to the Moon, and that it would take them as long as 16 years. Especially this long period of 16 years is important fuel for the "hoaxists". The Bush quote is now gone from the article. So, I wonder, did he, or did he not, announce return after 16 years from now? I'm curious, for I know that president Bush expects that the energy crisis will be solved by He III mined on the Moon. So, return to the Moon is very important to him.--Paul Wormer 11:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed the Bush quote because it said flatly that Bush proposed returning to the moon in 16 years and that the technology for this was already available. I probably should have re-written it to say something like "Popov claimed after George Bush's announcement that ....  blah, blah, blah."  But my threshold for diminishing returns here is very low.  I really have no interest in researching what Popov said or researching any other aspect of this article (but I'm like a moth to a flame....).  The whole GB claim is logically weak anyway.  "Yesterday, the Ford Motor Company announced it would build a new four-cylinder vehicle in the next three years."  But wait a minute, Ford claimed to have produced the Model T in 1908!  "The Technology has been available for 100 years."  Therefore and obviously, the Model T was a hoax because if the technology to build a four cylinder car was already available it couldn't possibly take Ford three years to build one.  Conversely, and supposing the Model T not to be a hoax, why do I want to drive to the grocery store in a Model T?  I would expect new technology, not a Saturn V  Model T.


 * As I've said in other places, the merit of this article is not in its technical claims, but as part of a class of research that examines why people believe the things that they do. I've mentioned before that this article should not be in the engineering workgroup.  I see also that it is in the Astronomy workgroup which completely baffles me.  Space flight puts astronomical experiments and apparatuses in space, so it's only marginally astronomical (it's akin to categorizing grocery stores as transportation because I drive to the store).  Psychological/sociological phenomena are not astronomy.  If this was a claim put forward by a single author, I'd propose that it be categorized in literature.  But because it is a series of claims put forward by various authors, it's a little harder to categorize.  I think the article needs to be properly categorized.  Russell D. Jones 13:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Suppose a person has to go shopping urgently because he's running out of food. A few years  ago he used a T-Ford to go to his supermarket. In those days he went occasionally and didn't buy much because he grew plenty of food at home; he just went there for the fun of it. Now he says: "I'm running out of food and I know  that the store that I used to drive to  is still there and my T-Ford is in the garage.  Yet, I will need another year or so to buy a new car. Only  in my new car can I go to the supermarket to  buy food. In the meantime  my children and I will go hungry".   How does this person sound to you? (Key: Person = President Bush,  food = fuel (helium-III), store = Moon, T-Ford = Saturn, children = American people.)


 * To avoid confusion: IMHO the idea of mining helium-III on the Moon is insane, T-Fords and Saturns have existed, and GW wasn't the most brilliant US president. Yet I would have liked to know what he said about going to the Moon, if only for a good laugh. --Paul Wormer 14:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There's room for a whole set of articles on the approach mentioned by Bush, from an engineering standpoint. While I haven't read all the Project Constellation documents, my initial reaction is that it is a great leap backwards, or at least sideways.


 * Russell, if the claim, not the engineering, were to move into the general area with conspiracy theory and moral panic, I'd have no great problem. For that matter, I might be tempted to put some of the Jack Bauer theories of interrogation over there; we are actually learning more and more who and why rushed to questionable coercive interrogation, some of which probably would qualify as torture. We've talked a bit about intelligence vs. historical analysis; there's a school of thought in intelligence, most recently articulated by Abram Shulsky, that ideology has to be considered in the absence of data. Also consider cognitive traps for intelligence analysis; some of this wanders into epistemology.


 * I'll remove astronomy. I added politics since the motivations of the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon Administrations would seem pertinent. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm okay with using the Sociology workgroup for this article, but that is only one aspect of this article. I'm not sure a Sociology editor will be able to adequately manage the technical jargon that only an Physics editor would be able to do.  If we want Politics, maybe we should remove the Engineering workgroup. D. Matt Innis 21:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Physics? This is hard-core engineering; engineers use applied physics. I'm not sure a physicist would be able to deal with the rocket motor, telemetry, and military jargon. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point. Okay, I'll leave it at Engineering. Are you happy with that Russell? D. Matt Innis 22:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, but I think we need to clear about what this article is about. I believe the article should be true to the sources; it should unbiasedly present the views of Kaysling and who ever else just as they are, with credible references where readers can check CZ to see that we are presenting the views of these folks accurately.  AND, if CZ wishes to get into the debunking business, it should start a separate page or a separate heading, maybe Problems with the Moon Hoax or Why the Moon Hoax is a Hoax (and I have NO APOLOGIES for the capitalization of the article title!!) where these claims can be scrutinized by our experts. Russell D. Jones 22:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am very hesitant to present fringe arguments and conspiracy theories as free-standing articles, for which CZ can be quoted. Simply being "true to sources", I believe, would be a new interpretation of Neutrality Policy &mdash; homeopathy and satanic ritual abuse are full of point-counterpoint. Now, if this were being treated as a subsection of the social behavior involved, that would be a different matter. As an Engineering Editor, I am quite concerned with putting out engineering nonsense simply because a source says it's true, while it goes against wide professional knowledge. We sent Extreme Abuse Survey to Cold Storage based on a determination of non-maintainability by Larry (see, I do agree with him sometimes), principally because none of the sources were peer-reviewed. How is this different, other than the non-peer-reviewed articles are not in English?


 * Note that there already are articles on pseudoscience and conspiracy theory and moral panic. Why, Russell, are these not reasonable starting points for why people believe things that they do?


 * I came to CZ from WP based on the respect for expertise and the concept of accuracy, and, although I don't always agree with interpretations, neutrality. If a policy change is made to put out fringe articles without balancing, I would leave. Make no mistake, what you are suggesting would be a major policy change. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't always agree with Howard on a number of policy issues but I certainly agree 100% with his above comments -- it would, in my opinion, be the purest folly for CZ to permit a long article about such a fringe subject to exist without suitable counter-points throughout it and an attempt made to show it for what it actually: a fringe subject. What Russell is proposing would, indeed, be a major policy change for CZ. Hayford Peirce 23:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent)I'm going to take a break now.... Russell D. Jones 23:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Slippery slope? It always comes down to oil, doesn't it? Howard C. Berkowitz 23:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)I don't see that Russell is saying anything against our Fundamental Statement or CZ:Neutrality Policy. I also don't have the same concerns that Howard or Hayford have about discussing fringe subjects neutrally.


 * I believe the article should be true to the sources; it should unbiasedly present the views of Kaysling and who ever else just as they are, with credible references where readers can check CZ to see that we are presenting the views of these folks accurately. I agree.


 * AND, if CZ wishes to get into the debunking business, it should start a separate page or a separate heading, maybe Problems with the Moon Hoax or Why the Moon Hoax is a Hoax where these claims can be scrutinized by our experts. I agree with separate heading. D. Matt Innis 23:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Matt, I'm fully aware of your views on neutrality, and, perhaps in an ideal world, a topic on every subject could be written neutrally. In this situation, however, are you volunteering to write the balancing of the questionable technical claims? Who is going to do it?

Again, may I remind you that I stopped trying to get into detailed argumentation here, and, in the same time, created several neutral technical arguments on the relevant topics? Is it unreasonable to expect that the proponent of a fringe position look at such articles, and, in them for greater benefit to the community, explain how they either are wrong or that the matter in question is a special case?

Apropos of allegations being made about what people here do or do not believe politically, again, I think it gets close to behavior without substantiation, and perhaps some verification that articles, I hope written objectively and with detail, definitely do not swallow U.S. government positions blindly.

Mind you, when I lectured at Kennedy Space Center, I did open my presentation with "Hello. You're from the government, and I'm here to help you." Howard C. Berkowitz 00:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have the intention to join this discussion and deal with the details. I think that an article on one of the books presenting a hoax theory would be a book review and could be a summary of its content with some comments on its reception. It need not address all the claims in detail. An article like this here, however, on "the hoax theory" has to do more than to offer a list of statements meant to support the hoax theory. It must also include the replies to these points by those who do not accept this theory. Peter Schmitt 00:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Peter, I agree with your comments. Thanks for joining the discussion - the more the merrier!


 * Howard, I can't write it, but I will check your work :) (I thought we were working for a more perfect world!)


 * Let's do keep any accusations about beliefs and Believers to a minimum. I agree that they are not productive.


 * I would LOVE to have seen that lecture!
 * D. Matt Innis 01:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Russian language sources, telemetry intelligence, etc.
Hello again, gentlemen!

Yes, we all have different beliefs and that shouldn't be an obstacle. Now, let me try to comment all issues one by one: --Luchezar Iliev Georgiev 16:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Russian sources: Even if there's no English-language counterpart, nowadays you can use machine translators, which produce somewhat strange but still rather understandable translation. I'd recommend this one (written by Russians :) as a slightly better translator from Russian than Google translator.
 * 2) The P-3 Orion: Just checked the source again and it says "Orion-type", not "Orion". I fixed that in the article's text. Further, the source says that it carried electronic warfare equipment on board. The exact type of aircraft could well be wrong, since it's not always easy to identify it from ground or sea. It could well be not an Orion but a similarly looking one, or an Orion with a non-standard equipment added. I don't know.
 * 3) The submarines: They could sink the Soviet ships. How could they determine their number? To pose a real threat to the Soviet ships, the submarines must be visible, so I suggest that they were in surface position, not submerged in this case.
 * 4) Sorry, I didn't get the sentence "the position information is electro-optical". What do you mean? That the position information is transmitted from the rocket by a light beam? Or that the speed detectors are electro-optical? Or something else?
 * 5) About determining the rocket speed by photos: This is, as far as I can tell, impossible. It's impossible to determine the speed even from a film, if you don't know the exact direction of the rocket in the three-dimensional space, and even then it's problematic as the camera must track the rocket due to its very quick movement. This is impossible even through measurements of the rotation speed of the camera or a tracking radar due to the three-dimensional character of the movement. To determine the speed from a film is possible only as a relative speed to something else (e.g. the movement of the gases from the stage ejection charges), as it has been done.
 * 6) My leaving: Assuming that the second condition for it isn't satisfied (that you believe in the official version for the 11 September 2001 events; I just can't believe how this can be so but if I'm wrong please let me know :) I haven't left yet and will keep adding material in the "statements" section, if you don't mind.
 * 7) You are the editors, "constables", etc. and it's your decision what to do with this article (keep, extend, abridge, rename, delete, etc.). I will acknowledge any action of you simply because I have no influence over these decisions so I have no other choice but to accept what I can't change :)


 * P-3 Orion: As you can see, this is something were you may not be familiar, but others are. That's a good thing -- it's the nature of collaboration. For example, there's a partial listing of P-3 electronic warfare equipment in the article, some with their own articles. Remember this was the Vietnam War area, so we have a rather good idea of what the U.S. military used for electronic warfare (I'm linking a lot to point out things that suggest that there might be authorities other than Popov). Why modify a P-3 when an EKA-3 already is a Navy jammer aircraft?
 * Submarines: but what would be the point? Without knowing the ship types, I'll guess the surface ships had Adams-class destroyers and Des Moines-class cruisers, which could sink a typical intelligence/electronic warfare cruiser by gunfire. Modern submarines, in fact, would have difficulty torpedoing a ship on the surface; the guidance systems are largely sonar-based and depend on being underwater
 * Electro-optical position and speed: this is absolutely possible with cameras (video and film). The three-dimensional launch location, on Merritt Island, is absolutely known. There are literally dozens of cameras, including scientific ones with precision time base information on each image, at many precisely known positions. The rocket is an immensely bright light source. Would there be any doubt that the cameras, through simple trigonometry, can locate themselves relative to the ground launch position? I have, incidentally, physically been at the pad, the press area, and some of the instrumentation areas.


 * When the rocket starts to lift, determining its position now becomes spherical trigonometry, which was the basic WWII method for aiming anti-aircraft artillery that has to shoot where the target will be. Determining speed and acceleration moves into calculus, integrating position versus time and taking derivatives for the instantaneous speed.


 * Radar and telemetry are also used, but I'd note that telemetry from the rocket is a poor source of speed, because the typical rocket doesn't carry the equipment for instantaneous position location; the guidance is intertial or even celestial. What telemetry will tell you is information about engine performance, fuel consumption, tank and pump pressures, internal temperatures, that it measures directly; things the engineers have to know.
 * 9/11: how did that enter into this discussion at all? Let me answer indirectly. If you think I immediately swallow government lines, go and read intelligence interrogation, U.S., George W. Bush Administration. Go and read Iraq War, with special attention to the origins and strategic planning. Now, as to 9/11, I didn't write the main article and am revising it. I am writing 9-11 attack in New York, and concentrating on events, such as the terrible command and control. For the record, I was close to the Pentagon strike and heard and felt the impact, and passed it daily for weeks. For the record, I do know just a bit about demolitions and the process of controlled implosion.
 * 9/11 isn't a proper part of this article. If you want to deal with possible American political conspiracies about Apollo, I suggest that these be documented with U.S. sources, including oral histories, documents, and other primary and secondary sources. There are people here that know quite a bit about NASA and the inner workings of the U.S. government, and perhaps may be in a better position to interpolate sources and judge truth than Popov.  Howard C. Berkowitz 18:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your detailed comments! Let me try to answer issue by issue, again: --Luchezar Iliev Georgiev 12:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Popov: He's not a saint and makes errors like anybody else. I think I've refuted one of his basic suppositions, for example.
 * 2) P-3 vs. EKA-3: Of course that's possible, but the source says that they sensed that the Soviet ships switched on their equipment, and only then the U.S. forces started to jam it. Which means that the aircraft must have not only jamming but also reconnaissance equipment (i.e. receivers, spectral analysers, bearing indicators, etc.). There are A-3 variants with this equipment, and also P-3 variants. Now, since the P-3 had over 40 variants (A-3 had only 15), it's possible that some rare variant of P-3 with jamming equipment on board left undocumented.
 * 3) Sumbarines: The sonar antennas remain under the water even when the submarine is in surface position. But if really needed, the submarine can submerge rather quickly.
 * 4) Telemetry vs. optical tracking vs. RADAR tracking: I agree with you. Telemetry information you write about would also be interesting, to see its real fuel consumption, for example, which should be lower than declared if the speed is lower and hence the temperature is also lower. Optical tracking is possible but why is the first staging filmed only from airplane (watch e.g. this), not from a ship surface or ground? As you can see from that clip, there were clouds, so the Russians couldn't be sure whether they'd be able to do this. We don't know whether the Russians managed to do that, but of course RADAR tracking of course / speed would be easiest, if not prevented by the U.S. Second Fleet...
 * 5) 11 September 2001: I was sure about what you say about yourself. That's why I'm still here. OK, let's not mention it anymore. Sorry if I faulted by doing that.

Related articles/background
I have updated/created several articles, including telemetry, foreign instrumentation signals intelligence and telemetry intelligence, and will do others such as electro-optical tracking. The Related Articles page will be updated.

First, I think it's useful to have material objectively discussing the techniques, rather than starting the discussion in a frankly politicized context here. Second, I think, as an Engineering and Military Editor, it's only reasonable to expect that when these areas are challenged, as by Popov, that the "base" articles get engineering-level corrections.

Howard C. Berkowitz 22:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Perfect, thanks Howard! D. Matt Innis 00:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and I agree with you 100%. --Luchezar Iliev Georgiev 11:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Electro-optical
This is taking longer, as I need to do some drawings. Let me give a few comments and references that may help in the interim.

NASA and the Air Force had a worldwide network of cameras that routinely photographed satellites in orbit, including things such as taking Apollo reentry burn timing (sorry it's just an abstract). As I remember, after the target passed out of line-of-sight of Florida, the next camera was in Bermuda.

A very nice tutorial on electro-optical tracking, although it doesn't cover some of the issues here, is "Electro-Optical Tracking Considerations II" by George Downey. . I will be adapting from this, but his system drawings, for example, don't show some things that we need.

For example, there's insufficient detail in the possible positions of energy source, target and sensor. I wrote a more detailed discussion at Measurement and signature intelligence, which does have a graphic (above), but that primarily assumes an airborne sensor. Nevertheless, there are some discussions that are relevant, and more under electro-optical MASINT.

The airborne images in the YouTube clip aren't from a formal tracking camera. It is standard practice, for any experimental aircraft or missile flight, to send "chase planes" to follow it. For something that will move faster than fighters, they will stack them at different altitudes. The footage looks like something from a chase plane, although I'm surprised not to see time codes -- but, since that's captioned with news material and the time codes are normally at the edge, they may have been cropped out.

The value of a chase plane is that the pilot, who will be an experienced test pilot or astronaut, may see things that no one thought to instrument. The camera is a backup to his eyes, but chase planes have a very different function than such things as the Baker-Nunn and Schmitt ground-based tracking cameras.

Clouds, incidentally, are a problem in the visual spectrum, but not in all infrared spectra, some of which are used by electro-optical tracking. See Forward-looking infrared. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Telemetry intelligence and command guidance
We know a good deal about telemetry intelligence from arms control agreements and more declassified details of national technical means of verification. There is a specific treaty provision that says that the parties to the treaties will not interfere with one anothers' verification, and, in practice, this meant either not encrypting telemetry or exchanging decryption information. Eventually, the sides recognized that they would each spend a lot of effort working out the data formats, so they exchanged those as well.

So, the basic protection against TELINT is encryption, not jamming. That's not just for arms control reasons: if you jam the signals, you may not be able to hear them yourself. In the case of Apollo, the S-band telemetry was line-of-sight, so when it went out of range, the next station had to acquire it and jamming could be a problem. Now, I don't have the numbers at hand, but, in general, the point of maximum acceleration and aerodynamic stress, Max-Q, takes place between 1 and 2 minutes into the flight, with the vehicle at 30-40 thousand feet (48-64 KM). 4 minutes seems to be a bit long, in the sense that my guess would be that the Saturn would be well downrange by then. Were there Soviet ships around Bermuda, the observatin ships, and the rest of the tracking stations? Howard C. Berkowitz 16:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)