Comin in late due to time differences, but here's my two penn'orth.
However, given the number of lies and cover-ups engaged in by the govt, i.e., JFK, etc., I assert that the moon landings were fake.
So not based on any actual examination of evidence then?
What you are doing is the equivalent of trying to convict me of murdering my wife because you have evidence that I lied about things, so I am probably lying about my innocence. Only thing is, you're so fixated on that you've neglected to check if my wife is actually dead. She's not (and she might well pop up here to confirm that in a minute). Since the case hinges on that rather salient point, it would be prudent to check the facts before singing on about motives and likelihood of lying.
But if the govt gives a geologist a rock and says it's from the moon, the geologist will assume it's from the moon, having nothing to go on to prove otherwise.
Typical layman's mistake: assume that without prior samples we would have no way to confirm anything. Science doesn't work solely by comparison.
Moon rocks from Antarctica could be reconditioned to appear to have come from the moon.
How?
The only video I've seen was Armstrong parachuting to safety after losing control of the LLTV.
That's because that's the only one that ever appears on conspiracy theory websites and TV shows. Those of us who have done a little more research have seen a lot more of the record.
I think NASA simply would not have attempted a moon landing with an untested LM,
How do you test a landing craft designed to be flown by two men? Could it be that you put two men in it and get them to land it?
The LM was tested on three flights before Apollo 11. Apollo 11 was the final test.
First, you don't know exactly where you are on the moon due to the manual landing,
That applies only to one landing. What about the other five? Apollo 12 in particular did have a reference and was sighted from orbit by the CSM optics, just on the other side of a crater that had Surveyor 3 in it.
The star finder was useless on the moon (my assertion) because the astronauts claimed they couldn't see stars with the naked eye.
But through the navigation optics?
That means they had to rely on radar to rendezvous with a speeding bullet.
Again the layman's error. The rendezvous was accomplished at closing speeds measured in the low feet per second range.
Getting to the exact orbit would be extremely difficult because the LM IMU did not have the inertial coordinates for the moon, they only had earth coordinates, and rough one's at that due to the gyro drift rate. They wouldn't even have a gyro-compass to get a bearing before liftoff. No theodolite bearing. How do you lift off from an unknown location with an unknown bearing?
You don't have an unknown bearing. You don't need to lift off into exactly the right orbit, as has been explained to you over and over again. Why can't you grasp the simple fact that getting into orbit and the rendezvous were decoupled?
The least documented part of the mission, and the most complicated by far, is the rendezvous.
Absolute rubbish.
You can slant an experiment to show anything you want.
No you can't.
The missions were infinitely easier to fake than conduct for real,
Prove it. We hear that all the time. Literally. And no-one has ever been able to explain how faking is easier than going.
My patent has really nothing to do with my arguments. The patent happens to be for translating NASA software from an old language to object oriented C++, or any other modern language. It could just as well be used for converting accounting software to C++. My arguments about Apollo stand on their own.
No, you don't get out of it that easily. You have used your patent and your former colleagues as evidence of your own credentials, having made arguments that are based on your supposed expertise. You have been unable to substantiate that expertise, and when pressed to do so your attempts to bluff us failed miserably.
With the moon landings, it's NASA said it and I believe it.
What absolute utter rubbish. You can try all you like to reduce this to an argument of faith with no right or wrong answer, but the reality is exactly the opposite of that. We have tools and methods for analysing the evidence available. It is absolutely NOT a matter of faith.
I'd have to do some more research to attempt to prove they aren't there
And this is why the real engineers and scientists here don't take your claims of expertise seriously. What you should have said is 'I'd have to do some more research to attempt to find out if they are there or not'. You have clearly illustrated your agenda of choosing what the answer is before starting the research.
I'm not here to prove anything. I can't. I'm just here to debate. A devils advocate. It would be great if people could do that with a sense of humor.
It would be great if you could have done it without childish rudeness and insults. Sorry, you don't get it forgotten that easily when you suddenly say 'hey, I'm just here to debate'.
Are you saying there's no water on the moon?
Are you going down this road as well? How boring.
Yes, there is water on the Moon. It seems to be formed by interaction with the solar wind on the surface of the rocks and soil. It was
not present when the rocks formed. Moon rocks are chemically anhydrous once you remove the outer layers.
Water was found in the Apollo samples, but not in parts of the rock and soil they could conclusively say had not been contaminated by water here on Earth. Since water is everywhere, contamination is almost impossible to avoid. Since they could not rule it out they could not say the water was part of the rock while it was on the moon. Inside the rock, there is no water chemically bound at all.
Did the astronauts come back with any 'zap pits'?
They hadn't been sitting on the Moon for billions of years to acquire them.
And the way to fake a moon video is to use a telecine.
And once again, as someone who knows what a telecine is and how it works, I will say again, no, that would not work.
The parts in 2001: ASO that looks like they are in zero gravity (they're close enough.)
No, they're not. They're really not. They're ingeniously shot but they do not pass muster under close examination as true zero gravity footage.
Kubrick would have been told to do an intentionally bad job showing them walking on the moon in 1968, a time when he would have been working for NASA.
I am always amused by this claim. Do you happen to know where Kubrick lived and worked during the 1960s, or where 2001 was actually shot?
As I've said several times, from a technical standpoint, it's the navigation problem of lifting off from the moon.
So you are indeed saying the engineering was not up to the task, despite your claim otherwise. You've supposedly worked for and with some of the companies that actually participated in Apollo. Why don't you contact your former colleagues with your ideas?
You can go back through my earlier posts about IMU alignment to moon-centered coordinates, and the inability to do so.
And you can go back and read the explanations as to why that is not right, and you can answer the questions that have been put to you. I'll repeat my question:
To what degree of precision and accuracy would they need to know their position to be able to get into orbit similar to that of the CSM? Provide your evidence.
My main objection is from both a political and statistical standpoint - the only way to insure a guaranteed 100% success was to fake it.
Prove that.
It was infinitely more valuable to appear to have gone to the moon than it was to have risked going.
Prove that.
What if the astronauts had been stranded on the moon and were forced to sit there until their oxygen ran out?
Yes, it's a risk, but that's why there was an extensive testing program.
Apollo 1 killed three men on the pad. Challenger killed 7 people on ascent. Columbia killed seven people on re-entry. The space program goes on.
If the astronauts were prepared to die, I'm sure they were prepared to go into hiding.
Wow, you really have no idea about how people work, do you? Why do you think someone who is prepared to die risking their life for a worthy goal would be prepared to go into hiding to maintain a lie? That's just about the flimsiest argument ever.
While I still maintain it was possible to fake, there's adequate argument to maintain that it wasn't.
So now you finally realised we don't believe a word you say about your expertise and technical know-how, you're trying this lame about-face? Rather than defend your arguments against people who actually do have experience in the aerosapce industry that goes beyond software development patents, you've wimped out?
I still want answers to the following questions:
What do your former friends and colleagues at Boeing, General Dynamics and MacDonnell Douglas say about your ideas, and if they disagree why do you maintain your views?
How do you explain your absurd claim that you did image processing for Boeing on the U2 program, when those three things have nothing to do with each other?
What have you to say about your bare-faced lie about being kicked off a forum for believing the ISS was real?
Do you think we can't see a poor attempt at a face-saving exit after realising you can't actually discuss the technical details with the people here who actually know what they are talking about and recognise your arguments for the rubbish they are?
