ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: Faceman on December 28, 2012, 06:24:30 AM
-
NASA's 30 Billion Dollar Scam
Within forty years of Christopher Columbus setting foot in America in 1492, thousands of other Europeans had done the same. Within forty years of the Wright Brothers flight across the Atlantic Ocean in 1903, thousands of other people had done the same. Within forty years of Sir Edmond Hillary reaching the summit of Mount Everest in 1953, thousands of other explorers had done the same. And within forty years of Yuri Gagarin’s orbit of the earth in 1961, thousands of other people had done the same. Yet 40 years after 12 men allegedly set foot on the moon, not a single other person has done the same, nor attempted to do so. Does this not seem a bit strange? Well, it only seems strange to those who cling on to the belief that the Apollo space program was entirely genuine, transparent and above board. I used to be in that camp too until I actually started to seriously examine the photographic and video record of the alleged moon landings. The sheer number of inexplicable anomalies and apparent impossibilities shown in some of these photos and videos has led me to the firm conclusion that they were not taken under the conditions that NASA has led us to believe.
Using photo and video editing software, it is often possible to detect how a photo or video was put together. Many of the NASA Apollo images and videos allegedly taken on the moon, show tell-tale signs of crude compositing and re-touching, as well as the use of studio lighting, stage backdrops, scale models, Scotchlite screens and even chroma-keying. These photographic and video anomalies alone are enough to cast serious doubt about whether they were taken on the lunar surface, but this represents only a small amount of the large body of evidence proving that Apollo moon landings, as shown in the official NASA archives, are an elaborate work of fiction.
From my observations, I have come to the conclusion that all of the 12 alleged moon walkers presented to us in the Apollo videos and photos, were actually played by the same two actors. From a production perspective, there would be no need for any more than 2 actors, as their faces would be hidden by a visor for all of the moon landing footage. They probably also used some audio and video footage of the real astronauts taken previously during training simulations. Most of the Apollo space program was real, including blast-off and splashdown. But the part about landing on the moon was fabricated.
As with all conspiracies of this magnitude, the only way the truth can ever come out is if the perpetrators openly admit what they did. Unfortunately, this rarely happens. However, if the Apollo landings were faked, there are a number of good reasons why the truth will come out soon. Firstly, there are many more space agencies on the planet than there were a few decades ago, that are all interested in exploring the moon. And some have already made good progress. If any of these space agencies attempts a manned lunar mission in the future, and the photos and videos of the moon differ significantly to those of the Apollo missions, then people will start to ask serious questions. Within another few years, it may even be possible for individuals to send their own probes to the moon’s surface and beam back video straight to their iPods. And if any of this imagery contradicts NASA’s Apollo moon imagery then this would blow the whole scam wide open for all to see. But you don’t need to wait until then to confirm for yourself that the Apollo moon landings were faked. All you need to do is listen to NASA’s excuses as to why they haven’t sent a human being further than 300 miles from Earth since 1972.
If NASA wants us to believe the Apollo moon landings were real, the onus is on them to provide irrefutable evidence to support their claim, and they have failed to do this. The photo and video evidence can be discounted because of the many inexplicable anomalies they contain, and by virtue of the fact that it is possible to create realistic images of the moon using a studio set up. The moon rock evidence can also be discounted because the same rocks can easily be found in Antarctica. Also, a piece of moon rock that NASA gave to the Dutch national museum turned out to be nothing more than petrified wood. In any case, in order to collect rocks from the moon, you do not need to send humans there. The Soviet Union was using robotic landers to collect moon rocks in the 1960s and 70s. As for the laser reflector on the moon, this does not prove that humans landed on the moon. A reflector could be landed on the moon just as easily as a probe. But in any case, in the 1960s the Soviets showed that they could bounce laser beams off parts of the moon’s surface without the need for a laser reflector. So we can’t even be certain that there is a laser reflector on the moon anyway. And as for claims that the Soviet’s were able to track the Apollo craft all the way to the moon and back, well that’s a big red-herring because the Soviet’s were only able to do this from 1972, which incidentally, was just a few weeks before NASA cancelled the Apollo 18 mission and abandoned the rest of the program altogether. None of NASA’s so-called evidence proves they actually sent humans beyond Earth orbit or landed them on the surface of the moon. On top of that, NASA has made itself look even guiltier by attempting to cover up their sloppy mistakes in the photographic record of the Apollo program. They have recently been caught altering and removing the incriminating photos from their website in an attempt to cover their tracks.
As for a conspiracy like this needing thousands of people to keep secret, well that’s a red-herring too, because in reality, the Apollo program was completely compartmentalized so only a handful of senior insiders would have needed to know the big picture.
-
And within forty years of Yuri Gagarin’s orbit of the earth in 1961, thousands of other people had done the same.
Um, no. The number is closer to 525. Not even a thousand people yet. Your arguments lose credibility very early on if you can't get that little bit of information, which took me ten seconds on Google to find, correct.
I used to be in that camp too until I actually started to seriously examine the photographic and video record of the alleged moon landings.
Yawn. Another 'I used to believe until the evidence overwhelmed me' conspiracy theorist. You're nothing new so far.
The sheer number of inexplicable anomalies and apparent impossibilities
What is inexplicable and apparent to you may not be so to others. So far I have not seen a single 'inexplicable' anomaly in any Apollo picture.
Many of the NASA Apollo images and videos allegedly taken on the moon, show tell-tale signs of crude compositing and re-touching, as well as the use of studio lighting, stage backdrops, scale models, Scotchlite screens and even chroma-keying.
Present your evidence of same then. Here. Not in a video link. I won't sit through a pointless YouTube video. If you have arguments present them here.
From a production perspective, there would be no need for any more than 2 actors, as their faces would be hidden by a visor for all of the moon landing footage.
Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance of the record. Their faces were NOT hidden by visors for the entire extent of the footage. Neil Armstrong's face is clearly visible early in the Apollo 11 EVA, Harrison Schmitt spent a fair bit of time with hsi visor up on Apollo 17, and Buzz Aldrin's face is clearly visible even through the gold visor on one Apollo 11 photo. In any case, what of the film and TV inside the spacrcaft where the astronauts are not wearing helmets with visors?
They probably also used some audio and video footage of the real astronauts taken previously during training simulations.
Impossible to reconcile with the record. There are clearly far more than two voices on the Apollo record, and in many cases they are discussing live events.
However, if the Apollo landings were faked, there are a number of good reasons why the truth will come out soon.
Do you know how long conspiracy theorists like you have been telling us the truth will come out 'soon'?
If any of these space agencies attempts a manned lunar mission in the future, and the photos and videos of the moon differ significantly to those of the Apollo missions, then people will start to ask serious questions.
Indeed, and they would be justified in doing so. However, if they DO agree with NASA's version of events, you can bet your bottom dollar that the conspiracy theory crowd will NOT ask those questions about their own conclusions and will simply assume that they are in on the cover-up.
If NASA wants us to believe the Apollo moon landings were real, the onus is on them to provide irrefutable evidence to support their claim, and they have failed to do this.
No, I'd say their provision of evidence is quite adequate. The problem is your definition of irrefutable.
The photo and video evidence can be discounted because of the many inexplicable anomalies they contain, and by virtue of the fact that it is possible to create realistic images of the moon using a studio set up.
Prove it.
The moon rock evidence can also be discounted because the same rocks can easily be found in Antarctica.
No, they are not the same. To imply that the whole world's geologists can't tell the difference between a rock that was picked up on the Moon and brought back in a sealed container and one that came screaming through the atmosphere and slammed into the ground, then sat in a wet atmosphere for heaven knows how long is simply ridiculous.
Also, a piece of moon rock that NASA gave to the Dutch national museum turned out to be nothing more than petrified wood.
No, NASA never presented that as a moon rock.
In any case, in order to collect rocks from the moon, you do not need to send humans there. The Soviet Union was using robotic landers to collect moon rocks in the 1960s and 70s.
And they matched the Apollo samples perfectly well.
A reflector could be landed on the moon just as easily as a probe.
It could. So where is the evidence that it was?
But in any case, in the 1960s the Soviets showed that they could bounce laser beams off parts of the moon’s surface without the need for a laser reflector.
Yes, you can, but you get a much stronger signal with a retroreflector.
And as for claims that the Soviet’s were able to track the Apollo craft all the way to the moon and back, well that’s a big red-herring because the Soviet’s were only able to do this from 1972,
Prove it.
which incidentally, was just a few weeks before NASA cancelled the Apollo 18 mission and abandoned the rest of the program altogether.
Wow, your ignorance of hsitory is staggering. Apollo 18 was cancelled in 1970, not 1972.
On top of that, NASA has made itself look even guiltier by attempting to cover up their sloppy mistakes in the photographic record of the Apollo program. They have recently been caught altering and removing the incriminating photos from their website in an attempt to cover their tracks.
Prove it. The entire record is available on various sites. Altering NASA's website will make no odds.
As for a conspiracy like this needing thousands of people to keep secret, well that’s a red-herring too, because in reality, the Apollo program was completely compartmentalized so only a handful of senior insiders would have needed to know the big picture.
Bull. If the engineers and scientists don't know the program is fake, they will build hardware that will actually do the job it is supposed to do, thus removing the need for a fake anyway. Engineers and scientists DO NOT work by just blindly following instructions from management. Their competence and professional pride will make damn sure they point out if the stuff they are asked to work on will not work.
Do you have anything in the way of evidence to present, or can we expect the usual handwaving about what they 'probably' did, or 'could' have done?
-
Your arguments lose credibility very early on if you can't get that little bit of information, which took me ten seconds on Google to find, correct.
His entire post is a copy and paste from multiple posts by "BantheBBC" on the David Icke forum. They aren't used to actual evidence and backing things up on that forum so it isn't really his fault. The plagarism is his fault though.
-
Faceman, do you also post as banthebbc on davidicke.com? Are you coming here to defend a hoax theory, to just to post and run, or for some other purpose?
-
Faceman, do you also post as banthebbc on davidicke.com? Are you coming here to defend a hoax theory, to just to post and run, or for some other purpose?
I'm guessing its a post and run. I'd love to be proven wrong.
-
Used to play a game like that called 'thunder & lightning'. You'd knock on someone's front door and run away. Hilarious fun. When you're 10.
-
Here we go again...
-
Faceman, is that video yours?
It's the worst nonsense I have ever seen, and I want those 4 and a half minutes of my life back!
Jason has responded admirably, I await your replies but I strongly suspect this will be a seagull post.
-
he appears to be a seagull poster on the David Icke forum. I doubt he'll spend any more time here.
-
Firstly, there are many more space agencies on the planet than there were a few decades ago, that are all interested in exploring the moon. And some have already made good progress. If any of these space agencies attempts a manned lunar mission in the future, and the photos and videos of the moon differ significantly to those of the Apollo missions, then people will start to ask serious questions. Within another few years, it may even be possible for individuals to send their own probes to the moon’s surface and beam back video straight to their iPods. And if any of this imagery contradicts NASA’s Apollo moon imagery then this would blow the whole scam wide open for all to see.
And that is exactly why NASA would not have even attempted to fake the Moon landings.
NASA can't stop anyone else from examining the Moon. The Soviets had already done it prior to the first Apollo landing, and other nations have done it since. And like you said, someday it could even be possible for individuals to send small probes there.
So explain to me why NASA would fake Apollo when they knew it would only be a matter of time before someone discovered it? Don't you agree that it would be incredibly stupid to perpetrate such a huge fraud if they were guaranteed to get caught?
-
However, if the Apollo landings were faked, there are a number of good reasons why the truth will come out soon.
If the Apollo landings were faked, there are a number of good reasons why the truth would have come out immediately.
-
Within forty years of Christopher Columbus setting foot in America in 1492, thousands of other Europeans had done the same. Within forty years of the Wright Brothers flight across the Atlantic Ocean in 1903, thousands of other people had done the same. Within forty years of Sir Edmond Hillary reaching the summit of Mount Everest in 1953, thousands of other explorers had done the same. And within forty years of Yuri Gagarin’s orbit of the earth in 1961, thousands of other people had done the same. Yet 40 years after 12 men allegedly set foot on the moon, not a single other person has done the same, nor attempted to do so. Does this not seem a bit strange?
I'm pretty sure the number of people who've gone into space hasn't reached quadruple figures yet.
But by your logic, you could take anything that is no longer done today and argue that therefore it never happened.
Nobody gets a train from High Wycombe to Bourne End so that railway must have been a hoax, duplicitous Great Central Railway! Nobody goes to Mir anymore, those Russians always like a good bit of agitprop.
Most of the Apollo space program was real, including blast-off and splashdown. But the part about landing on the moon was fabricated.
So where did the spacecraft go in between?
Firstly, there are many more space agencies on the planet than there were a few decades ago, that are all interested in exploring the moon. And some have already made good progress. If any of these space agencies attempts a manned lunar mission in the future, and the photos and videos of the moon differ significantly to those of the Apollo missions, then people will start to ask serious questions. Within another few years, it may even be possible for individuals to send their own probes to the moon’s surface and beam back video straight to their iPods. And if any of this imagery contradicts NASA’s Apollo moon imagery then this would blow the whole scam wide open for all to see.
Those other agencies have studied the Moon. They see no such problem.
If NASA wants us to believe the Apollo moon landings were real, the onus is on them to provide irrefutable evidence to support their claim, and they have failed to do this. The photo and video evidence can be discounted because of the many inexplicable anomalies they contain, and by virtue of the fact that it is possible to create realistic images of the moon using a studio set up.
No, there is a mountain of evidence. The burden of proof is on you before you can dismiss it. Prove the pictures are fake. Prove it is possible to reproduce the pictures in a studio.
The moon rock evidence can also be discounted because the same rocks can easily be found in Antarctica.
False. Lunar meteorites could not be passed for Apollo lunar samples. In fact, Lunar meteorites were only identified as such thanks to the knowledge gained from Apollo.
In any case, in order to collect rocks from the moon, you do not need to send humans there.
The burden of proof is on you to prove any of your alternate theories. Simply offering them is not proof.
The Soviet Union was using robotic landers to collect moon rocks in the 1960s and 70s.
And what was returned from that was perfectly consistent with what Apollo returned.
As for the laser reflector on the moon, this does not prove that humans landed on the moon. A reflector could be landed on the moon just as easily as a probe. But in any case, in the 1960s the Soviets showed that they could bounce laser beams off parts of the moon’s surface without the need for a laser reflector. So we can’t even be certain that there is a laser reflector on the moon anyway.
Prove the alternate theory before dismissing the evidence. There is a marked difference between the laser return off the surface and a laser return off a retroreflector. Astronomers across the world can tell the difference.
And as for claims that the Soviet’s were able to track the Apollo craft all the way to the moon and back, well that’s a big red-herring because the Soviet’s were only able to do this from 1972, which incidentally, was just a few weeks before NASA cancelled the Apollo 18 mission and abandoned the rest of the program altogether.
False. The Russians, and indeed ham radio operators across the world, could track Apollo spacecraft and any other spacecraft from the time they were first being launched. The Russians had already sent spacecraft to the Moon by then.
They have recently been caught altering and removing the incriminating photos from their website in an attempt to cover their tracks.
The full record looks present at the LPI website. I think you're the one making fiction.
-
Prove it. The entire record is available on various sites. Altering NASA's website will make no odds.
Not to mention books. What, is NASA going to sneak into all of our houses and steal our 1970 National Geographic next?
-
Welcome to the Board Faceman. It's eben a Bit quiet around here since LRO, so don't be too shocked about the ultra fast replies you are getting.
I must take issue with your claim that the Video record shows signs of tampering. I work in TV in 4 different countries and in my professional opinion I fail to see the anomolies of which you speak. Further to my Tv qualifications I also extensively researched the Tv technology developed for the Apollo missions by Westinghouse and RCA. in none of the over 350 documents and photographs did I encounter anything which raised my eyebrows in as much a hoaxery is concerned. I have also used the said equipment and found it worked just as advertised, and this is something which the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (the very organistaion which sets the standards so you can enjoy Tv in your living room) agrees upon.
I take it you have acquainted yourself with the artifacts inherent in both the sequential Tv color system, and the method of archive video material on film stock (kinescope). You will find that _all_ instances of what you claim are anomolies fall under the artefacts caused by the technology of the day, and not by any sinister motive.
if you have any queries regarding the Tv technology used on Apollo (or anything right up to the shuttle) feel free to drop a line here.
regards
Dwight (Author of Live TV From the Moon)
-
As pointed out, saw this posted on DI yesterday.
This one is in the Japanese orbiter finds no evidence thread under the forum sub section UFO/ET/... etc etc section, scroll down the main page a bit..
Rather amusing the way stuff like this is swallowed hook line and sinker by the usual suspects yet the people producing evidence (as in proper evidence defending Apollo) are laughed out of court there.
-
A Fray, Rufferto, a Fray! ;D
Seriously though, this is bad even by conspiracy theorist standards. A gobbledygook of unsubstantiated claims and down right erroneous statements, this is so ignorant its probably for the best if it's just a seagull.
But like any bird it can be shot, and I know this forum can shoot it full of holes, metaphorically speaking.
-
Prove it. The entire record is available on various sites. Altering NASA's website will make no odds.
Not to mention books. What, is NASA going to sneak into all of our houses and steal our 1970 National Geographic
Dont laugh. A hoax "expert" by the name of Michael St Mark pretty claimed that with regard to the A11 photo record.
-
It's hard to expand on what's already been said. And it seems likely this will be a seagull post.
NASA's 30 Billion Dollar Scam
Unless you made the video, or you can compel its author to appear here and defend it, I'm not watching it. This is a place for you to make your arguments, not just regurgitate those made by others. You must think here, not allow others to do your thinking for you.
Does this not seem a bit strange?
Begging the question. Unless you can explain why it must be strange, it isn't. For every list of activities that had a memorable first, we can provide a list of contrary activities for which the first was the only, such as the descent to the deepest depths of the oceans. Thus not every activity must be repeated to be valid the first time. The world is not compelled to adopt your contrived schedule.
I used to be in that camp too until I actually started to seriously examine the photographic and video record of the alleged moon landings.
No. Every conspiracist makes this claim. They want it to sound like they were dragged kicking and screaming against their will to believe in a hoax -- the evidence for it is allegedly just that strong. This implies that they would welcome having their faith restored. However when it is shown just how factually wrong and ill-conceived their beliefs are, they do the opposite from what we would expect. Instead of dropping the silly hoax belief and returning with relief to the majority view, they dig in deeper. Very few are interested in having their hoax beliefs tested or challenged in any way.
Using photo and video editing software, it is often possible to detect how a photo or video was put together.
No, that's not what happens. What happens is that people with no demonstrable training, qualification, knowledge, skill, or experience now have easy access to software tools for their personal computers, and easy access to ad hoc sources of Apollo historical material. Applying those tools to convenience sources, they attribute what they ignorantly perceive to be "inconsistencies" and "anomalies" to some speculative process of fakery.
Stated another way, these charlatans invent homegrown processes of "analysis" that they insist are able to tell real photographs from fake. They never validate these methods, or relate them to anything in the science. Most don't even know that the forensic inspection of photographs is a well-developed science. They simply wiggle sliders until they see something that defies their uninformed expectations and immediately pronounce it to be evidence of some kind of fraud.
I've listened to ten years' or more worth of finger-wagging authoritative-sounding claims based on "analysis" of photographs and video, without yet hearing one from someone who actually knew what he was talking about. My web site (linked below and elsewhere) provides an excellent cross section of many of those ridiculous claims. These self-proclaimed analysts do not get to proceed from the assumption that we accept them as authorities, and their alleged authentication methods as valid and revealing.
From my observations, I have come to the conclusion that all of the 12 alleged moon walkers presented to us in the Apollo videos and photos, were actually played by the same two actors.
As has been noted by others, your conclusion is based on an astounding level of ignorance of what the Apollo record actually shows. Your observations are incomplete and wrong, and therefore your conclusion is contradicted.
However, if the Apollo landings were faked, there are a number of good reasons why the truth will come out soon.
People have been saying this since the 1970s that the truth will "come out soon." This is a euphemistic admission that even after 40 years of studying and writing on their part, and continued space exploration on the world's part, the hoax claimants have been unable to prove their point any more convincingly now than 40 years ago.
And yes, the world's scientists have been busy probing the Moon. A decade ago, the hoax claimants said that if only the landing sites could be photographed with sufficient clarity, we'd know for sure. A couple of them even promised to recant if the eventual photographs showed evidence of Apollo activity. Little did they know how soon such a thing would come to pass. Even before the spacecraft reached lunar orbit the hoax claimants were busy shifting the goalposts. Now that low-level fly-bys and clear pictures are easily available, the conspiracists are falling all over themselves trying to tell us why we shouldn't accept that evidence either.
In short, the steady progression of science tends to confirm the Apollo record, and tends to force the conspiracists deeper and deeper into a fantasy world of doctored evidence. The truth is coming out, and it's not about a hoax.
If NASA wants us to believe the Apollo moon landings were real, the onus is on them to provide irrefutable evidence to support their claim, and they have failed to do this.
Nonsense. The evidence at hand is accepted as real and authentic by almost every qualified practitioner the world over, including those with no particular allegiance to the United States.
As stated, the problem is with your definition of "irrefutable." You seem to believe that a "refutation" consists of speculation about other ways the evidence at hand may have arisen, without bearing the burden to show your explanation is the better one. To wit:
The photo and video evidence can be discounted because of the many inexplicable anomalies they contain...
No, this is just ignorance.
It's ignorant first because it presumes authentic photographs cannot contain elements that defy later explanation, and second because the "inexplicable anomalies" are almost things that experienced photographers and analysts know to expect, but the untrained conspiracy theorists do not. The inability of the ignorant to explain something is not a challenge to the authenticity of that something.
...it is possible to create realistic images of the moon using a studio set up.
It is possible to create realistic settings of _____________ in a studio, for all possible ways to fill in the blank. That's why we have studios. But the existence of methods to simulate something does not prove that the thing doesn't or cannot exist. Formally speaking, your argument is a blatantly affirmed consequent.
The moon rock evidence can also be discounted...
As for the laser reflector on the moon, this does not prove that humans landed on the moon.
And as for claims that the Soviet’s were able to track the Apollo craft all the way to the moon and back, well that’s a big red-herring...
Others have correctly outlined your factual errors in the above claims, so I see no need to repeat their excellent responses.
None of NASA’s so-called evidence proves they actually sent humans beyond Earth orbit or landed them on the surface of the moon.
Nonsense. You simply set aside all the evidence according to ignorant pretext. You don't know what you're talking about with respect to any of it.
On top of that, NASA has made itself look even guiltier by attempting to cover up their sloppy mistakes in the photographic record of the Apollo program.
They have recently been caught altering and removing the incriminating photos from their website in an attempt to cover their tracks.
That's a very young, web-centric way of dealing with evidence. The Apollo record has been available in print and elsewhere for 40 years. It has been only recently that one could sit in the living room and download Apollo materials with little effort. It makes no sense to try to change photos on a website when so many other "incriminating" copies would still exist. In my living room, prominently displayed on a rack, is a slightly worn copy of December 1969 National Geographic (complete with vinyl "sounds from space" phono record). Spread across pages 736-737 is the famous AS11-40-5903, showing all the "anomalies" conspiracy theorists pretend to see in it. How could anything NASA did on its web site possibly alter that?
Your argument is silly not only for proposing something that's not being done in the first place, but also for proposing something that would be useless anyway. It tells the world just how little you've really thought through your conclusions and how desperately you want to believe in a hoax. It now remains to see whether you really are the reluctant conspiracy theorist you say you are.
...in reality, the Apollo program was completely compartmentalized so only a handful of senior insiders would have needed to know the big picture.
No, in fact the evidence shows almost exactly the opposite. "In fact," Apollo employed a rigorous program of cross-training among its people. And these were not just mindless factory drones, but rather highly skilled engineers, many of whom had cut their teeth in wartime engineering. The people who built Apollo were not "compartmentalized" away from a broad understanding of what they were about to do. The surviving training manuals tell exactly the opposite story, as well as the testimony of those who participated.
To say that a large engineering project can be artificially filed into silos to prevent talented, intelligent people from seeing some supposedly incriminating big picture is to fundamentally misunderstand how engineering works -- indeed how it must work. It's a fantasy invented by non-engineer conspiracy theorists to account for the patent implausibility of their claims.
-
Actually, I would say that it isn't possible to convincingly fake the Moon in a studio, and Hollywood has provided us ample evidence of that fact. It's convincing if you don't know what you're looking for, but of course the whole point is that scientists and so forth do know what to look for and are always capable of spotting the flaws.
-
Within forty years of Christopher Columbus setting foot in America in 1492, thousands of other Europeans had done the same. Within forty years of the Wright Brothers flight across the Atlantic Ocean in 1903, thousands of other people had done the same. Within forty years of Sir Edmond Hillary reaching the summit of Mount Everest in 1953, thousands of other explorers had done the same. And within forty years of Yuri Gagarin’s orbit of the earth in 1961, thousands of other people had done the same(WRONG). Yet 40 years after 12 men allegedly set foot on the moon, not a single other person has done the same, nor attempted to do so. Does this not seem a bit strange?
No. 40 years after after two nations raced to the South Pole, not one single person had set foot there. 40 after an international team sent explorers to the bottom of the Marianas Trench, no other human had ventured there.
The Soviet Union was using robotic landers to collect moon rocks in the 1960s and 70s.
.
.
.
And as for claims that the Soviet’s were able to track the Apollo craft all the way to the moon and back, well that’s a big red-herring because the Soviet’s were only able to do this from 1972.
You really do not see the glaring contradiction in these two statements?
In fact, prior to 1972, the Soviet Union sent 19 "Luna" probes and 6 "Zond" missions to the Moon.
Their deep-space tracking technology was more than adequate to the task of monitoring cislunar space.
Your ignorance of Soviet capabilities and achievements matches your ignorance of Apollo.
-
Within forty years of Christopher Columbus setting foot in America in 1492, thousands of other Europeans had done the same.
From the time a European first stepped onto America it was 500 years until another European did.
Within forty years of the Wright Brothers flight across the Atlantic Ocean in 1903, thousands of other people had done the same.
The Wright Brothers' flight in 1903 crossed 120 feet of beach. The Atlantic Ocean wasn't crossed in an airplane until 1919.
Within forty years of Sir Edmond Hillary reaching the summit of Mount Everest in 1953, thousands of other explorers had done the same.
Only 95 people summitted Everest in the 40 years since Hillary and Norgay made it to the top. After Hillary it would be another 3 years before the top was reached again. 220 people have died trying to climb Mount Everest, with 150 of their bodies still on the mountain above the Death Zone.
And within forty years of Yuri Gagarin’s orbit of the earth in 1961, thousands of other people had done the same.
Wrong again.
Yet 40 years after 12 men allegedly set foot on the moon, not a single other person has done the same, nor attempted to do so. Does this not seem a bit strange?
Maybe it wouldn't seem strange to you if you were capable of passing an elementary school history test.
-
In 1960, the bathyscaphe Trieste reached the bottommost portion of the ocean, Challenger Deep in the Mariana Trench. It was over 50 years until someone returned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepsea_Challenger).
-
Oh dear. I missed the bit about the Wright Flyer crossing the Atlantic. LOL
-
Oh dear. I missed the bit about the Wright Flyer crossing the Atlantic. LOL
At least one of them did (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers#Public_showing), it just didn't fly there. :o
-
Oh dear. I missed the bit about the Wright Flyer crossing the Atlantic. LOL
As did I. I think we have a winner!
-
I think if anything proves the hoax camp is dying out, it is clangers like this. That very absurdity is hacking away at any supposed credibility the HB side tried to convince us it had. And it is more effective than any debating we may have engaged in.
-
Within forty years of the Wright Brothers flight across the Atlantic Ocean in 1903...
I'm not a member on the JREF boards. Someone should nominate that for a stundie.
-
Within forty years of the Wright Brothers flight across the Atlantic Ocean in 1903...
I'm not a member on the JREF boards. Someone should nominate that for a stundie.
Better than Bluto's "When the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor." speech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7vtWB4owdE). ;D (probably not safe for work)
-
Within forty years of the Wright Brothers flight across the Atlantic Ocean in 1903...
I'm not a member on the JREF boards. Someone should nominate that for a stundie.
Someone did.
-
Also, a piece of moon rock that NASA gave to the Dutch national museum turned out to be nothing more than petrified wood.
Picking a nit, the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam is a national museum.
We've got a bunch of 'em.
The stone was donated to the Rijks by the Drees estate.
We have not been able to conclusively ascertain how the Drees estate got it.
There's a whole thread on the subject in the archives: When Jarrah met Buzz (http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=2957&page=1).
For every list of activities that had a memorable first, we can provide a list of contrary activities for which the first was the only, such as the descent to the deepest depths of the oceans.
That example is a bit outdated, Jay.
The inability of the ignorant to explain something is not a challenge to the authenticity of that something.
The words I've been trying to find.
-
Nobody goes to Mir anymore,
Well, Actually . . . .
The basic structural frame of Zvezda, known as "DOS-8", was initially built in the mid-1980s to be the core of the Mir-2 space station. This means that Zvezda is similar in layout to the core module (DOS-7) of the Mir space station. It was in fact labeled as "Mir-2" for quite some time in the factory.
. . . the ISS is MIR-2. Kinda.
But I love the way "theorists" totally ignore the hundreds of non-meat-carrying space missions that happened in the 40 years since Apollo. I'd say those are a pretty good track record.
-
Within forty years of the Wright Brothers flight across the Atlantic Ocean in 1903...
I'm not a member on the JREF boards. Someone should nominate that for a stundie.
Someone did.
I was surprised that no one beat me to it.
-
I don't know why you all attack him. Why don't you examine the Apollo's pictures.
I have a blog about the Apollo's photographs
http://apolloconspiracy.blogspot.co.uk/
And I am not going away
-
I don't know why you all attack him. Why don't you examine the Apollo's pictures.
I have a blog about the Apollo's photographs
http://apolloconspiracy.blogspot.co.uk/
And I am not going away
Good. Then start a new thread about what you think are the crucial arguments against the reality of Apollo.
-
I don't know why you all attack him. Why don't you examine the Apollo's pictures.
I have a blog about the Apollo's photographs
http://apolloconspiracy.blogspot.co.uk/
And I am not going away
Look's like a self promoting exercise.....using plagiarised material from numerous sources. Here....let me direct you to two websites that debunk your whole blog -
http://www.clavius.org/
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
-
Oh man is there any chance one of you next-gen HBers could actually be a next-genner and start designing websites that dont burn out the human retina after 5 seconds?
-
Oh man is there any chance one of you next-gen HBers could actually be a next-genner and start designing websites that dont burn out the human retina after 5 seconds?
Hey...maybe they NEED nice bright primary colours and big fonts.... (http://www.technologystudent.com/designpro/pricol1.htm)
-
I don't know why you all attack him.
You confuse "attack" and "defence".
Why don't you examine the Apollo's pictures.
We have.
I have a blog about the Apollo's photographs
http://apolloconspiracy.blogspot.co.uk/
I took a quick look but the layout and colours made me feel nauseous. Please state your claims here (it's in the rules).
And I am not going away
As another poster said, please start a new thread laying out your exact claims and the evidence for them (by evidence, I mean known science).
-
A quick Google search shows that a user named "Eternidad195" is a big fan of Hunchbacked's YouTube videos. Are you the same person?
-
I don't know why you all attack him.
He came in gung ho making audacious yet derivative claims that are without basis. He then never returned to defend or retract those claims.
It is those things we have attacked.
-
I don't know why you all attack him.
We deal with his claims.
Why don't you examine the Apollo's pictures.
We have. I have seen every one of them.
I have a blog about the Apollo's photographs
Good for you. If you want to discuss that here then you'll need to present your arguments here, not by linking us to your website.
And I am not going away
Good. Discussion here is always welcome.
-
I have a blog about the Apollo's photographs
Having had a quick look (the headache-inducing colours prevented a longer look), my impression is that you need to learn the basics of photography, lighting and perspective. If you understood these subjects, you would see that your claimed anomalies in the Apollo photographic record are in fact easily explained effects.
Bring your best single item of evidence here and we will explain it to you.
-
Why don't you examine the Apollo's pictures.
We have. I have seen every one of them.
From you I believe that.
Hoaxies often claim they have, and then make a statement about them that blatantly demonstrates they haven't.
-
I don't know why you all attack him.
We don't attack him. We refute his claims. He is arrogant and very wrong, hence he has received the strong response he engendered.
Why don't you examine the Apollo's pictures.
I have, and I have been consulted professionally about them and have appeared on television (including U.K. television) to discuss them and the theories that say they were hoaxed. I guarantee each one of the regulars here has studied more of the Apollo photographs, and more about them, than you have. Kindly do not begin your debate by assuming you know more than your critics.
I have a blog about the Apollo's photographs
Yes, I see. Please read a book about effective web design. Your site is painful to read.
Looking at the first couple of screenfulls, I can see that you're simply repeating the same old nonsense as others have. You clearly know nothing about radiation, whether in general or as it applies to space. You have been given the link to my web site. I suggest you read it, because everything you say on your site was refuted there years ago. You're simply dredging up old debunked claims.
-
Oh man is there any chance one of you next-gen HBers could actually be a next-genner and start designing websites that dont burn out the human retina after 5 seconds?
It's not as "good" Timecube, but he's on the right track! ;)
-
Congratulations to all of you who lasted more than a second on that page! I couldn't.
-
Black text on light backgrounds and white text on dark backgrounds is simple, elegant, and effective.
Oh, yeah, and your claims have been refuted elsewhere long ago.
-
It was the background music that got me to close the browser. It's almost like he's doing everything he can to discourage people from reading his website.
-
It was the background music that got me to close the browser. It's almost like he's doing everything he can to discourage people from reading his website.
I am so glad it didn't play for me!
-
If you have Firefox, "View -> Page Style -> No Style" seems to work wonders. :) Also, (temporarily) disabling the Flash plug-in should get rid of the music (I didn't realize it had any music).
Anyway, calling this a blog is an overstatement. It has a total of two posts. The more recent one is a poem attributed to "Neal" Armstrong. The other one consists of several hunks of text and pictures, copied from several websites, including a Wikipedia article (on radiation belts) and one of Jack White's "photographic analyses" from Aulis.
-
If you have Firefox, "View -> Page Style -> No Style" seems to work wonders. :) Also, (temporarily) disabling the Flash plug-in should get rid of the music (I didn't realize it had any music).
Anyway, calling this a blog is an overstatement. It has a total of two posts. The more recent one is a poem attributed to "Neal" Armstrong. The other one consists of several hunks of text and pictures, copied from several websites, including a Wikipedia article (on radiation belts) and one of Jack White's "photographic analyses" from Aulis.
I got as far as the claim that an astronaut with a longer shadow must be farther away from the arc light illuminating them both yet that astronaut is on the side of the light source (closer). It is like the author didn't look at his own claim. Before that was crosshair nonsense and the "C" rock.
-
http://apolloconspiracy.blogspot.co.uk/
From your blog:
The Spacecast 2020 Technical Report (http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2020/app-f.htm) puts the space weather radiation hazard to human life in perspective:
"...at geostationary orbit, with only 0.1 gm/cm2 of aluminum shielding thickness, the predicted radiation dose (REM) for one year continuous exposure, with minimum-moderate solar activity, is estimated to be about 3,000,000..."
From the linked source in the above quote:
at geostationary orbit, with only 0.1 gm/cm2 of aluminum shielding thickness, the predicted radiation dose (REM) for one year continuous exposure, with minimum-moderate solar activity, is estimated to be about 3,000,000; using 5.0 gm/cm2 of aluminum shielding, the REM for one year continuous exposure would be reduced to about 550.
(Bolding mine. Remember that this is for an annual dose, from a site within the Van Allen Belts that the Apollo missions specifically avoided. Also, the Apollo Spacecraft radiation shielding was on the order of 7-8 gm/cm2 - half-again thicker than the shielding in the bolded quote)
That's funny, Eternidad; Your quote cuts-off just before the passage that totally guts your radiation argument. Does that strike anyone as dishonest?
Mind you, he didn't have to edit it that way. Further down the page he quotes the Wiki article on the VAB, saying
A satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminium in an elliptic orbit (200 by 20,000 miles) passing through the radiation belts will receive about 2,500 rem (25 Sv) per year. Almost all radiation will be received while passing the inner belt.
2,500 rem per year equates to less than 0.3 rem per hour. Remember that the Apollo missions avoided the most intense areas (http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm) of the inner belt, and was completely past them in less than an hour.
Thus, Eternidad's quote-mining provides solid evidence that the radiation threat was adequately assessed and mitigated by the Apollo spacecraft design & mission plan.
;D
-
Nicely done, Count Zero!
-
A satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminium in an elliptic orbit (200 by 20,000 miles) passing through the radiation belts will receive about 2,500 rem (25 Sv) per year. Almost all radiation will be received while passing the inner belt.
A couple of years ago a HB used that quote in a comment on the LRO Apollo landing site page but he removed "per year." so it looked like this:
A satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminium in an elliptic orbit (200 by 20,000 miles) passing through the radiation belts will receive about 2,500 rem (25 Sv) Almost all radiation will be received while passing the inner belt.
He didn't even bother fixing the capitalization and punctuation to hide the obvious cut! I immediately recognized the origin of the quote so I called him out on it.
-
Isn't it funny that the hoax believers have to lie in order to make it look like NASA is lying? I think we all know who the real frauds are.
-
I don't know why you all attack him. Why don't you examine the Apollo's pictures.
I have a blog about the Apollo's photographs
http://apolloconspiracy.blogspot.co.uk/
And I am not going away
Oh noes! He's got a website and he's not going away. Your website is awful, by the way.
You're funny, and I like you. I look forwards to hearing more from you.
(http://images.persephonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/uexc_attach/moss-it-crowd-popcorn.gif)
-
Also, where has he gone?
-
Away.
-
Also, where has he gone?
She, I believe.
Away.
Lol.
-
She, I believe.
If so, I stand corrected. It just strikes me that, as rare as you and I are in being female defenders, female hoax believers are even more rare still. Or at least, the ones who care enough to hang about online and try to convince people.
-
She, I believe.
If so, I stand corrected. It just strikes me that, as rare as you and I are in being female defenders, female hoax believers are even more rare still. Or at least, the ones who care enough to hang about online and try to convince people.
Yes, I've noticed that. The imbalance of genders amongst people interested in spaceflight is certainly there, but appears to be far more pronounced amongst HBs we encounter.
I wonder why.
-
As much as I don't like to defend HBs, especially not ones who are spouting the same tired old rubbish we've seen a million times before, I would point out that the first appearance of eternidad was only yesterday. It seems a bit unfair to assume someone has gone away, and to make light of it because they said they wouldn't be, because they haven't been back the next day.
-
She, I believe.
If so, I stand corrected. It just strikes me that, as rare as you and I are in being female defenders, female hoax believers are even more rare still. Or at least, the ones who care enough to hang about online and try to convince people.
Yes, I've noticed that. The imbalance of genders amongst people interested in spaceflight is certainly there, but appears to be far more pronounced amongst HBs we encounter.
I wonder why.
Because HBs won't stop to ask for directions.
-
As much as I don't like to defend HBs, especially not ones who are spouting the same tired old rubbish we've seen a million times before, I would point out that the first appearance of eternidad was only yesterday. It seems a bit unfair to assume someone has gone away, and to make light of it because they said they wouldn't be, because they haven't been back the next day.
Personally, if I were going to make a statement about how I wasn't going away, I would make sure to do so only if I could be sure I would return quickly--or else make a statement the first time saying that I wouldn't be able to post regularly but that I would return as often as possible. Still, you do have a point.
-
As much as I don't like to defend HBs, especially not ones who are spouting the same tired old rubbish we've seen a million times before, I would point out that the first appearance of eternidad was only yesterday. It seems a bit unfair to assume someone has gone away, and to make light of it because they said they wouldn't be, because they haven't been back the next day.
Seconded. Sometimes people just have other things to do; to be fair to eternidad, let's hold off on such talk for a while.
-
(http://)Dear Jason Thomson
I have not gone away; I just could not find the forum.
I am going to send you some of the weirdest Apollo photos, as soon as I put them together somewhere and if I find the page
-
Dear Jason Thomson
I have not gone away, I just could not find the forum
We ducked.
;-)
-
I have been studying the Apollo pictures and I say that they never went to the moon.
(http://www.customroadsign.com/generate.php?line1=Your%20opinion%20may&line2=be%20useful%20to%20you,&line3=but%20sadly%20is%20quite&line4=useless%20to%20others)
Do you know what the bare assertion fallacy is?
edit: you appear to have deleted your comment ???
-
I want to say something about myself
I am an atheist and a sceptic and I love science, especially astronomy.
I used to be an amateur astronomer before I had my children, when I could not look at the stars anymore and I used to believe that Neil Armstrong had been the first man on the moon.
Then one day I came across a website of someone proposing the moon landing hoax and at first I did not want to believe it, until I found the inconsistencies in the pictures.
I was going to send a few pictures but my computer is not behaving at the moment
-
(http://)Dear Jason Thomson
I have not gone away; I just could not find the forum.
I am going to send you some of the weirdest Apollo photos, as soon as I put them together somewhere and if I find the page
Recommend you bookmark the page. It will save time finding this place again leaving for time for discussion.
-
(http://)Dear Jason Thomson
Why are you singling me out?
I am going to send you some of the weirdest Apollo photos, as soon as I put them together somewhere and if I find the page
Are you prepared to listen to the explanations you are given for your 'inconsistencies', or have you made up your mind on the subject already? Nothing from your website shows anything we haven't seen many many times before.
-
Then one day I came across a website of someone proposing the moon landing hoax and at first I did not want to believe it, until I found the inconsistencies in the pictures.
So your whole world view on the subject was changed by one website? Which one?
-
I want to say something about myself
I am an atheist and a sceptic and I love science, especially astronomy.
I used to be an amateur astronomer before I had my children, when I could not look at the stars anymore and I used to believe that Neil Armstrong had been the first man on the moon.
Then one day I came across a website of someone proposing the moon landing hoax and at first I did not want to believe it, until I found the inconsistencies in the pictures.
I was going to send a few pictures but my computer is not behaving at the moment
We await your report. I suggest that you start it in a new thread since this one has been going for a few pages on another topic. And be prepared to defend any inconsistencies in the photos that you assert to be evidence of a hoax. Or if you really are just confused about what you have read elsewhere, be prepared to discuss the responses to your posts.
-
A quick Google search shows that a user named "Eternidad195" is a big fan of Hunchbacked's YouTube videos. Are you the same person?
The evidence certainly points to it. I see a lot of Hunchy's stuff toward the bottom of the page, complete with references to "incoherencies".
-
I can see that this one is going to be in the category of 'nothing new here folks'. I spotted one of his comments on youtube :
"There is the Lunar Lander with bits of sellotape holding it together, Buzz Aldrin saluting the flag with different color of boots, strange footprints amidst the astronaut's footprints, and the same mountains repeated all over the place."
(http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/8479/sighsm7.gif)
-
I want to say something about myself
I am an atheist and a sceptic and I love science, especially astronomy.
I used to be an amateur astronomer before I had my children, when I could not look at the stars anymore and I used to believe that Neil Armstrong had been the first man on the moon.
Then one day I came across a website of someone proposing the moon landing hoax and at first I did not want to believe it, until I found the inconsistencies in the pictures.
I was going to send a few pictures but my computer is not behaving at the moment
Welcome to the forum, and I hope we have an engaging conversation, but I really have to point out...
Every single Apollo Denier ever, from Bill Kaysing on down to the least YouTube commenter, has said exactly the same thing. Apparently they were ALL space buffs, dragged kicking and screaming into an unwelcome reality due to seeing the wrong picture or making one (poor) calculation.
So forgive us if we don't give much weight to that.
-
A true skeptic wouldn't go from total believer to total hoax believer over a single website. A true skeptic would check out the quality of the HB site, discover that there isn't any, and remain just as convinced of the reality of Apollo.
-
Indeed. We hear this one a lot. In most cases it is more accurately stated as 'I used to not even think about it, but then I saw one book/website/TV show and was instantly converted without any further effort on my part'.
-
Yah. That's the other weird "quantity of evidence" thing that gets me about the HB's.
They are presented with nineteen preposterously stupid and obviously wrong reasons that other, apparently normal and educated people are using as support for their own belief. And then one more thing, which isn't as immediately as obvious and wrong as the other ones.
And that's all they need.
Of course, that just underlines that the Hoax Belief process is an emotional one, not a logical one. Because when they finally do realize that reason #20 is just as stupid and wrong as reason #1, they immediately cleave to a #21 and a #22.
At no point, it seems, does anyone look and say "If I was so absolutely certain before on the basis of what I know was poor evidence, what makes me believe I should be absolutely certain now -- on what looks on first glance like substantially similar evidence?"
-
Although it hardly matters, I'd been a very amateur astronomer and had some interest in space exploration. Mostly the later robotic stuff, though; I was almost completely ignorant about Apollo. When I ran into my first HB site my first reaction was how grotty and poorly organized it was -- it had that same appearance of truth and accuracy as the cover to the Weekly World News. I still read, and I have to say I found what they were saying was not impossible.
So I did a little more looking around. And very quickly found some acerbic commentary that took apart several of the common arguments with directness and simplicity and in ways that matched much better with my own experience with astronomy, physics, photography, etc. And after that, I don't think I've seen more than a dozen Hoax Believer claims that didn't make me go, "Really? You are going with THAT?"
The most convincing on the side of reality is still one of scale and scope. You don't fake WWII with a couple of prop tanks and a guy who can do a convincing German accent on a radio.
-
I want to say something about myself
I am an atheist and a sceptic and I love science, especially astronomy.
I used to be an amateur astronomer before I had my children, when I could not look at the stars anymore and I used to believe that Neil Armstrong had been the first man on the moon.
Then one day I came across a website of someone proposing the moon landing hoax and at first I did not want to believe it, until I found the inconsistencies in the pictures.
I was going to send a few pictures but my computer is not behaving at the moment
Oh my heavens. It's deja vu all over again.
-
Then one day I came across a website of someone proposing the moon landing hoax and at first I did not want to believe it, until I found the inconsistencies in the pictures.
And you just believed it without any sort of skeptical analysis. Sure...
Before you get all excited (because, looking at your site, I can tell we've seen all these arguments before), why don't you come across my web site http://www.clavius.org and see if that doesn't help. Seriously, if you post the same nonsense that your predecessors have done for the past ten years without addressing the rebuttals to them that have been on the table for that same length of time, I'm pretty sure you won't like the comments you've received.
-
I want to say something about myself
I am an atheist and a sceptic and I love science, especially astronomy.
I used to be an amateur astronomer before I had my children, when I could not look at the stars anymore and I used to believe that Neil Armstrong had been the first man on the moon.
Well, let's not forget all the other guys who walked on the Moon or orbited it, nor all the unmanned probes that passed, orbited, or landed on it.
Then one day I came across a website of someone proposing the moon landing hoax and at first I did not want to believe it,
We get that story ("I didn't want to believe it was a hoax") a lot from people who clearly have an axe to grind... so although it may actually be the case with you, please understand that people will have an eyebrow raised at that claim.
until I found the inconsistencies in the pictures.
I was going to send a few pictures but my computer is not behaving at the moment
We'll certainly be interested to look at your claims. However, please also be aware that most of these "inconsistencies" have already been thoroughly debunked in detail.
Also, I have yet to encounter one Apollo hoax believer who is even dimly aware of the sheer breadth and depth of the Apollo record, let alone how their "theory" fits into that record, let alone how it can account for the record - the imagery, samples, personal testimony, telemetry, tracking results, hardware, development and test records, and the technical, scientific, and managerial legacy. There is literally far more information than any one of us could possibly digest, and it goes into a damn near fractal level of detail. You should be aware that you'll probably be asked how your claims account for that.
-
Eternidad195, let me add... Please don't come in here waving your hands about things like "compartmentalization" and "scotch tape". Some of us actually work in this field. But there are plenty of regulars on this forum who simply took the time to edcuate themselves about how spaceflight actually works and can (and have) debunked such silly claims themselves.
What I'm getting at is... it pays to review sites like Clavius, or to search this site or its predecessor (apollohoax.proboards.com), for the claims you are thinking of presenting, to see if they've already been addressed a hundred times before. Frankly, I doubt you will be able to surprise us, and you certainly won't be able to bluff your way with appeals to incompetent nincompoops like Jack White or Ralph Rene as "experts". I am not saying this is what you will do, but I am trying to save you some time and effort (and possibly embarrassment).
-
Double-standard, isn't it?
I realize and accept that the strongest evidence in favor of the reality of Apollo is one of scale and consistency. But as honest skeptics, all of us here do feel bound to look at any testable claim the Hoax Promoters make. Each time they come up with a new one, ("Is it possible the Moon Buggy (sic) could have run so long on mere batteries?") we feel it worthwhile both as an intellectual exercise and as an exercise of intellectual honesty to take a look at the numbers, check the references, do the math, and see if the thing really is as impossible as the Hoaxie claims it is.
Now imagine one of us, with the same attitude of careful skepticism, were to adhere to the idea that there had been a hoax. What would be the first requirement? To visit Clavius and to be able to answer the majority of the objections raised there.
To do anything else would be at the very least lazy, and smacks of intellectual dishonesty, and shows a lack of willingness to test one's beliefs.
-
Here is my new page
http://apollo22.blogspot.co.uk/
-
Here is my new page
http://apollo22.blogspot.co.uk/
Annnd...? What about it?
-
Here is my new page
http://apollo22.blogspot.co.uk/
Oh, for heaven's sake, Eternidad195. First of all, that mammoth page is almost unreadable with all the junk you've loaded it up with.
Second, it's just a bunch of stuff - as far as I bothered reading - copied from the late, famously incompetent Jack White, who literally could not tell which side of the Lunar Module he was looking at.
Third, it's ridiculous. The very first bit is about how the latter, etc. look wider in one picture than another. They are taken from different angles and thus one expects the same object to appear different.
Fourth, didn't I advise you to read Clavius and look some of these claims up before posting? Like the idiotic bits about "cardboard" and "scotch tape"? Jack White had no idea what he was looking at; that's not the structure of the LM, that's part of the thermal and micrometeoroid shield. You just copied his stuff without bothering to see how it's already been debunked many times over.
You didn't put any thought into this at all, apparently. You're just regurgitating the same drivel from the same clueless ignoramuses that have been shredded a hundred times before. And you want people to wade through all that again, this time on your cluttered web site?
-
What i find utterly hilarious is that a group of normal everyday people declare that there issues with photos,not one has ANY expertise in photoanalysis or in fact any scientific discipline,it does not look right (based upon their experience with terrestrial photos) ergo its all a fraud!!!!!
Whilst on here there are literally reams upons reams of scientific data from people who are qualified to know what they are talking about.
To clarify im not a scientist by a loooong shot so its not an elitist comment just an observation.
-
By the way, I didn't see any attribution to Jack White or the site from which you copied his crap. That would be plagiarism. Did you credit the images anywhere?
-
"I don't understand it, therefore it is fake."
(http://cassandraparkin.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/spock-facepalm.png)
-
"I don't understand it, therefore it is fake."
And that seems to describe the majority of HBs (certainly the ones that I have met). They always seem to use an appeal to incredulity. By definition, I guess, if they did understand it then they would know that it wasn't fake.
-
"Lol"? Seriously?
-
Here is my new page
http://apollo22.blogspot.co.uk/
Congratulation on laying out a new blog page made up of someone else's work. We have seen White's annotations before and they are not impressive. Care to tell us what of this is your original content and actually discuss it?
-
It seems that the "original content" are the "witty" remarks between the pictures. LOL.
And I found a glaring error - the astronaut with the colored foot is Apollo 12's Alan Bean, not Apollo 11's Buzz Aldrin. So, a completely different astronaut during a completely different mission. Good job, Eternidad.
The full picture in HD can be seen here:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a12/AS12-46-6728HR.jpg
What Eternidad/Jack White thinks is a footprint is actually part of the LM leg. In the HD picture, the sole of Bean's boot can be easily distinguished from the background.
-
Here is my new page
http://apollo22.blogspot.co.uk/
Wow. Just wow.
Is CTRL-C and CTRL-P the only contribution that you are going to make? Most, if not all (I couldn't be bothered spending too long on your site to be honest) of the content is long-debunked stuff that has just been plagiarised from other sources.
There's hundreds of similar sites on the Web all repeating the same old guff. Do yourself a favour Eternidad195. Instead of wasting your time, our bandwidth and our time, spend an afternoon on clavius.org and the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal and see if you can educate yourself a little.
M-Kay?
(http://media.steampowered.com/steamcommunity/public/images/avatars/77/772e6ea2c8014e08a276f22a8052121317e9b3da_full.jpg)
-
a) The "alien" boot print is a an angled toe print from the boot.
b) The "backdrops" are mountains sometimes up to 10km away.
c) Aldrin doesn't come down the ladder in Earth gravity, he just gently drops between rungs on his stronger foot in 1/6th gravity.
d) "little man big door". Just rubbish. He has cropped the pictures. The full picture looks fine and he is inside the LM and away from the hatch on the first one. "Impossible lighting", very bizzare claim, since it is perfectly obvious that the edges that face the surface are brighter.
e) "Can you see the alien object superimposed to the articulation? It's a bottle" - No it isn't.
f) "How can Buzz Aldrin be different sizes? " This is just stupid. He is further away for heavens sake! Jack White assumes that distance is easy to judge in a photograph on the Moon. Just look at the eva footage and you can see the solar wind experiment is about 30 feet away from the flag.
When/if you respond to that, I may consider bombarding my senses with more of that page.
It may come as a huge surprise to you, but people debunked this crap many years ago:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5911
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax-jw.htm
-
Here are some more comments, because I want to close the tabs with the pictures:
I find lots of inconsistencies between these photographs.
They don't seem to be two consecutive pictures, because of all the differences between them.
The ladder and the door of the picture on the left are much wider than the other one.
There is a blue triangle in one picture and none in the other one.
There is a white thing on the first picture and none in the other one.
The United States plate is sort of bigger in the first picture than in the other one.
It also remains in the same place even if the picture rotates.
Here are high-resolution scans of those two pictures:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5862HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5863HR.jpg
It is really easy to notice that the first picture was made from a position closer to the lander, almost at the foot of the ladder, and that the second one is made from further away and to the side. They are consecutive pictures, with some time elapsed between them. Armstrong probably decided to move away to free the spot in front of the ladder and give a side view of Aldrin's exit. (Otherwise, most of the photos would be showing Aldrin's ass.)
The apparent widths of the door and the ladder change because of the different distance and different angle.
The "blue triangle" is the triangular window of the LM. It's dark in the first picture, and in the second picture, it reflects a piece of moonscape. The difference is again due to the different position of the photographer.
The "white thing" is a shiny surface on the side of the LM, probably on the fuel tank. The whole length of the cylindrical side of the "front part" of the LM is visible. On the second picture, only a part of the side of the cylinder is visible, and a possible view of the same shiny spot is blocked by the jet deflection skirt of the RCS thrusters.
The "United States" decal is bigger in the first picture, because it was closer to the camera than in the second picture. Its position does change, though not by much. It was attached to a surface that was at an angle to the photographer in both cases.
How can Buzz Aldrin be different sizes?
He should be the same height, wherever he is, and not a tall man in a picture and a tiny one in another one, unless he's a shape shifting moonman
No, he shouldn't be the same height. His apparent size will vary with distance to the camera. The same applies to the other objects in the scene. Do you know perspective works, Eternidad?
Here are the high-resolution scans of those two pictures of Apollo 17:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-148-22756HR.jpg - this is an extreme close up of the Command Module,showing the aluminium-covered strips on its surface
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-145-22272HR.jpg - this is the Command Module some time before docking (the usual dishonest tricks are in place - only a cropped version of the second picture is presented, rotated and scaled to create the illusion that both pictures were made from the same distance to the CM)
The purpose of the shiny covering is the same as the purpose of the "shiny foil" on the LM - thermal control. It reflects the heat radiation of the Sun back into space. (For the same reason the insides of thermos bottles are mirror-like.)
The strips are visible in the first picture only because of the extremely small distance and the angle of illumination. On the second picture, the CM is far away and the picture is a bit blurred (out of focus?), which makes small details harder to distinguish. Also, that particular part of the CM is illuminated by the Moon with even color (look at the high resolution picture linked above) - that's why is looks evenly gray. It's possible to see striping on the second picture on the sunlit part of the CM, though it's less distinct due to the greater distance and the blurring.
-
No, he shouldn't be the same height. His apparent size will vary with distance to the camera. The same applies to the other objects in the scene. Do you know perspective works, Eternidad?
Here are some simple examples for Eternidad.
(http://i1336.photobucket.com/albums/o657/Andromeda_Apollo/image_zps7fc2597d.jpg)
(http://i1336.photobucket.com/albums/o657/Andromeda_Apollo/image_zps3baaacb5.jpg)
(http://i1336.photobucket.com/albums/o657/Andromeda_Apollo/image_zpsbb58781f.jpg)
-
No, he shouldn't be the same height. His apparent size will vary with distance to the camera. The same applies to the other objects in the scene. Do you know perspective works, Eternidad?
A clip from the British Classic Father Ted, which explains perspective well:
(I've been waiting for so long to be able to use this clip)
-
Ah yes, another example of how living in a very strange place (Earth) has created biases, commonly referred to by conspiracy theorists as 'common sense'. One way Earthlings judge distances is fading and blurring by dust and intervening atmosphere. The moon has no significant atmosphere, so things far away but big can look like the same as something closer but nearby, especially in a 2D picture.
Yeah, I am preaching to the choir, but this is for our 'skeptic' friend.
-
(I've been waiting for so long to be able to use this clip)
So have I, but you beat me to it.
Eternidad - the "Buzz does a seismic experiment" effects are due to reflections in the mirrored surface on the side of the package next to his leg.
-
No, he shouldn't be the same height. His apparent size will vary with distance to the camera. The same applies to the other objects in the scene. Do you know perspective works, Eternidad?
A clip from the British Classic Father Ted, which explains perspective well:
(I've been waiting for so long to be able to use this clip)
It's Irish.
-
Eternidad, I still await your answer to my question from earlier about singling me out. I've looked at your page and have to echo the sentiments already expressed: there is nothing new there, and Jack White's analyses are notoriously bad. Jack white infamously could not tell one side of the LM from another (which is impressive for all the wrong reasons when we are talking about a completely asymmetrical structure) and was forced under oath to admit he had no idea how to properly analyse photographs during the JFK assassination hearings.
-
Eternidad,
I am certainly NOT you "friend" just because I visited a page with content you stole from Jack White.
-
Eternidad - For "Check Aldrin's Accouterments" (sic), I suggest you look at some high-resolution versions of the photos, for instance here:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/
You will find that the alleged missing antenna is present in all except AS11-40-5903, where it is cropped by the edge of the frame. The other alleged differences are simply the effects of different lighting from photo to photo, made worse by the use of low-res copies. For example, the "high boots" are clearly there in AS11-40-5875.
-
Like the idiotic bits about "cardboard" and "scotch tape"?
Foil covering is a very common feature of satellites, for instance:
http://www.hispasat.com/media/Prensa/Galeria_fotos/1C/Hispasat_1C_shaker.jpg
http://www.weirdwarp.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Satellite-Construction.jpg
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4312/p157.jpg
-
Well. No point in my bothering to waste my time/damage my eyes with that site, is there? Why is anyone still taking Jack White seriously enough to plagiarize him?
-
It's Irish.
<pendant>Made by a British company and shown first on British TV</pendant>
;D
-
<pendant>Made by a British company and shown first on British TV</pendant>
<pedant>It's "pedant".</pedant>
-
Within forty years of the Wright Brothers flight across the Atlantic Ocean in 1903...
I'm not a member on the JREF boards. Someone should nominate that for a stundie.
Someone did.
I was surprised that no one beat me to it.
Voting for the December Stundies is open and Faceman is in the lead!
-
Here is my new page
http://apollo22.blogspot.co.uk/
Plagiarized nonsense, debunked long ago.
-
It's Irish.
<pendant>Made by a British company and shown first on British TV</pendant>
;D
<pedant mode as well> It was an Anglo-Irish affair. It was written by two Irishmen, had virtually all Irish actors and all of the external shooting was done in Ireland. </pedant mode as well>
-
Urgh. You know Blogspot do provide templates. Your blog doesn't need to look like it was written by hand in 1991.
Good to see the Jack White (hee hee I nearly wrote Hack White by mistake; fraudian finger slip) shrinking mountains example. I loved reading the debunking of that by Jay.
Loved looking at the photos. Wish White's crap wasn't all over them though.
-
Your blog doesn't need to look like it was written by hand in 1991.
<archer> But it doesn't not have to look like it was written by hand in 1991, right? </archer>
I loved reading the debunking of that by Jay.
It's the very classic Jack-White crop-'n'-resize trick. I don't know if he ever managed to figure out why that doesn't work as an analysis technique. Really the man's apparent incompetence was so egregious that we constantly debated whether he were really that clueless or what. I tend to think he really believed it himself on some level, but was so enamored of the attention he got that he never strayed from the pattern of making sure he only wrote and spoke from behind carefully fortified trenches. It was very telling to hear him talk on Education Forum about how he consulted "for three days" with my friend John, a moderately well known documentary producer, about lunar surface photography when in fact it was less than half a day and, also in fact, he was actually being set up by John. It's telling because I think we get a sense of how White's ego was so very prominently inflated in his own mind.
But back to the matter at hand, it's obvious that our newcomer has put very little effort into his site, at least in the sense of advancing the argument. In fact he's stuck in the conspiracy claims of at least ten years ago, if not earlier. The fact that he is oblivious to long-standing answers to his challenges means there isn't much to notice.
-
Jay, Eternidad195 is female.
-
Your blog doesn't need to look like it was written by hand in 1991.
<archer> But it doesn't not have to look like it was written by hand in 1991, right? </archer>
I loved reading the debunking of that by Jay.
It's the very classic Jack-White crop-'n'-resize trick. I don't know if he ever managed to figure out why that doesn't work as an analysis technique. Really the man's apparent incompetence was so egregious that we constantly debated whether he were really that clueless or what. I tend to think he really believed it himself on some level, but was so enamored of the attention he got that he never strayed from the pattern of making sure he only wrote and spoke from behind carefully fortified trenches. It was very telling to hear him talk on Education Forum about how he consulted "for three days" with my friend John, a moderately well known documentary producer, about lunar surface photography when in fact it was less than half a day and, also in fact, he was actually being set up by John. It's telling because I think we get a sense of how White's ego was so very prominently inflated in his own mind.
But back to the matter at hand, it's obvious that our newcomer has put very little effort into his site, at least in the sense of advancing the argument. In fact he's stuck in the conspiracy claims of at least ten years ago, if not earlier. The fact that he is oblivious to long-standing answers to his challenges means there isn't much to notice.
The transcript of White's testimony before the congressional committee is pretty telling in itself. It's hard to believe that an individual would actually subject himself to that level of humiliation if he didn't - on some level - believe that his claims had some validity.
-
The transcript of White's testimony before the congressional committee is pretty telling in itself. It's hard to believe that an individual would actually subject himself to that level of humiliation if he didn't - on some level - believe that his claims had some validity.
The transcript is at http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/hscawhte.htm, for those who haven't encountered it.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, answer my question. Did you compute photogrammetrically----
Mr. WHITE. What is "photogrammetrically"? Describe to me what "photogrammetrically" is.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. I just have one more question Mr. White. Do you know what photogrammetry is?
Mr. WHITE. No.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. I have no further questions. Thank you. Chairman STOKES. The committee will recess until 1:30 p.m. this afternoon.
I'm not sure whether the use of the cropping trick was an indication that he was playing dumb (and outright lying) in his other claims, or if he really was that spectacularly deficient in spatial reasoning ability and did it purely by accident or by following some misguided "technique". (or got them from someone else...)
-
Jay, Eternidad195 is female.
s/him/her/g
s/he/she/g
Actually I question whether the poster is human. Any proof?
-
Jay, Eternidad195 is female.
s/him/her/g
s/he/she/g
Actually I question whether the poster is human. Any proof?
Of being a human??!
Hmm - a captcha/Turing test for new members?
-
It's hard to believe that an individual would actually subject himself to that level of humiliation if he didn't - on some level - believe that his claims had some validity.
I agree, but then he and his followers evolved the notion that he had been railroaded by a sham committee that was trying to discredit the conspiracy movement. That was when White styled himself as the "most dangerous photo analyst in the world," owing to the apparently colossal effort the government had put forth to "humiliate" him and discredit his testimony. Even abject failure can be twisted to support one's ego-fantasy construct. White stayed almost exclusively within various walled gardens, protected by webmasters and pawns who bullied away any meaningful criticism of his work. He worked hard to insulate himself from any real challenges and to try to dismiss his critics as agents provacateurs.
-
Hmm - a captcha/Turing test for new members?
I wonder how many Turing tests a human conspiracist would fail. The essence of the Turing test is whether the interlocutor seems like a normal, rational person.
-
Obviously I don't have much experience, but many HBs I have met in various places are quite rational, but lack the appropriate education and/or understanding so they fall for some of the more convincing conspiracy theories.
It seems to be that the very worst HBs are the ones who shout the loudest and hence get more attention. It might also be that those are the ones most likely to attack you in particular.
-
Heh. We could have a test for being allowed to post wherein we ask every new member how they react to discovering they're wrong. Of course, we'd probably never have a conspiracist here again. They don't understand the question.
-
I'm not sure whether the use of the cropping trick was an indication that he was playing dumb (and outright lying) in his other claims, or if he really was that spectacularly deficient in spatial reasoning ability and did it purely by accident or by following some misguided "technique". (or got them from someone else...)
That's a question White took with him to the grave. As I said, we have speculated for years whether White's colossal displays of poor spatial reasoning were affected or real. Given that he seems to fit well the classic Dunning-Kruger model, I tend to think they were real and that White's charisma and other factors allowed him to translate that stunning inability into some degree of fame. If he was faking his spatial dysfunction, he was remarkably consistent with it. His notorious inability to determine the orientation of the lunar module from photographs was the stuff of riotous ridicule -- justly so.
In addition to crop-and-resize, which could be attributed to simple problems with spatial reasoning, White also undertook some activity that's harder to dismiss as only incompetence. In an infamous case, he assembled small sections of different photographs to establish a ridgeline for a mountain range, which he argued was identical to one appearing in a different photo from a different mission. It's hard to argue that this degree of deliberate misrepresentation is accidental or the product of ignorance.
-
...but many HBs I have met in various places are quite rational, but lack the appropriate education and/or understanding so they fall for some of the more convincing conspiracy theories.
Of course, I'm not entirely serious. I note our conspiracist here has posted a few times without addressing the content of anything else in the thread. But no, I don't seriously propose that she isn't human. I simply missed where her gender was established and took the opportunity to defuse my embarrassment with a little humor.
It might also be that those are the ones most likely to attack you in particular.
I do tend to attract a lot of that kind of attention, don't I?
-
...but many HBs I have met in various places are quite rational, but lack the appropriate education and/or understanding so they fall for some of the more convincing conspiracy theories.
Of course, I'm not entirely serious. I note our conspiracist here has posted a few times without addressing the content of anything else in the thread. But no, I don't seriously propose that she isn't human. I simply missed where her gender was established and took the opportunity to defuse my embarrassment with a little humor.
Oh, sorry.
Her username and self-description matches up with the YouTube profile (and other online profiles) of a woman who is a fan of Hunchy, I have assumed she is the same person. I might be wrong but I suspect I am not.
-
She is most definitley female. I looked through her main blog. It wasnt the best 30 minutes that Ive ever spent......
-
...but many HBs I have met in various places are quite rational, but lack the appropriate education and/or understanding so they fall for some of the more convincing conspiracy theories.
Of course, I'm not entirely serious. I note our conspiracist here has posted a few times without addressing the content of anything else in the thread. But no, I don't seriously propose that she isn't human. I simply missed where her gender was established and took the opportunity to defuse my embarrassment with a little humor.
It might also be that those are the ones most likely to attack you in particular.
I do tend to attract a lot of that kind of attention, don't I?
You have a standing offer of drink from me if we ever meet at an air show or aviation trade show.
I'm curious to see if you're really the three-eyed ogre many HBers would have us believe. :)
-
He's got a standing invitation to dinner here if he's ever in the area. We're less vocal, but I think Jay has at least as many devoted supporters as devoted enemies. It comes of being so devastatingly eloquent, I suspect.
-
She is most definitley female. I looked through her main blog. It wasnt the best 30 minutes that Ive ever spent......
I did like her cat videos.
-
NASA's 30 Billion Dollar Scam
Within forty years of Christopher Columbus setting foot in America in 1492, thousands of other Europeans had done the same. Within forty years of the Wright Brothers flight across the Atlantic Ocean in 1903, thousands of other people had done the same. Within forty years of Sir Edmond Hillary reaching the summit of Mount Everest in 1953, thousands of other explorers had done the same. And within forty years of Yuri Gagarin’s orbit of the earth in 1961, thousands of other people had done the same. Yet 40 years after 12 men allegedly set foot on the moon, not a single other person has done the same, nor attempted to do so. Does this not seem a bit strange? Well, it only seems strange to those who cling on to the belief that the Apollo space program was entirely genuine, transparent and above board. I used to be in that camp too until I actually started to seriously examine the photographic and video record of the alleged moon landings. The sheer number of inexplicable anomalies and apparent impossibilities shown in some of these photos and videos has led me to the firm conclusion that they were not taken under the conditions that NASA has led us to believe.
Using photo and video editing software, it is often possible to detect how a photo or video was put together. Many of the NASA Apollo images and videos allegedly taken on the moon, show tell-tale signs of crude compositing and re-touching, as well as the use of studio lighting, stage backdrops, scale models, Scotchlite screens and even chroma-keying. These photographic and video anomalies alone are enough to cast serious doubt about whether they were taken on the lunar surface, but this represents only a small amount of the large body of evidence proving that Apollo moon landings, as shown in the official NASA archives, are an elaborate work of fiction.
From my observations, I have come to the conclusion that all of the 12 alleged moon walkers presented to us in the Apollo videos and photos, were actually played by the same two actors. From a production perspective, there would be no need for any more than 2 actors, as their faces would be hidden by a visor for all of the moon landing footage. They probably also used some audio and video footage of the real astronauts taken previously during training simulations. Most of the Apollo space program was real, including blast-off and splashdown. But the part about landing on the moon was fabricated.
As with all conspiracies of this magnitude, the only way the truth can ever come out is if the perpetrators openly admit what they did. Unfortunately, this rarely happens. However, if the Apollo landings were faked, there are a number of good reasons why the truth will come out soon. Firstly, there are many more space agencies on the planet than there were a few decades ago, that are all interested in exploring the moon. And some have already made good progress. If any of these space agencies attempts a manned lunar mission in the future, and the photos and videos of the moon differ significantly to those of the Apollo missions, then people will start to ask serious questions. Within another few years, it may even be possible for individuals to send their own probes to the moon’s surface and beam back video straight to their iPods. And if any of this imagery contradicts NASA’s Apollo moon imagery then this would blow the whole scam wide open for all to see. But you don’t need to wait until then to confirm for yourself that the Apollo moon landings were faked. All you need to do is listen to NASA’s excuses as to why they haven’t sent a human being further than 300 miles from Earth since 1972.
If NASA wants us to believe the Apollo moon landings were real, the onus is on them to provide irrefutable evidence to support their claim, and they have failed to do this. The photo and video evidence can be discounted because of the many inexplicable anomalies they contain, and by virtue of the fact that it is possible to create realistic images of the moon using a studio set up. The moon rock evidence can also be discounted because the same rocks can easily be found in Antarctica. Also, a piece of moon rock that NASA gave to the Dutch national museum turned out to be nothing more than petrified wood. In any case, in order to collect rocks from the moon, you do not need to send humans there. The Soviet Union was using robotic landers to collect moon rocks in the 1960s and 70s. As for the laser reflector on the moon, this does not prove that humans landed on the moon. A reflector could be landed on the moon just as easily as a probe. But in any case, in the 1960s the Soviets showed that they could bounce laser beams off parts of the moon’s surface without the need for a laser reflector. So we can’t even be certain that there is a laser reflector on the moon anyway. And as for claims that the Soviet’s were able to track the Apollo craft all the way to the moon and back, well that’s a big red-herring because the Soviet’s were only able to do this from 1972, which incidentally, was just a few weeks before NASA cancelled the Apollo 18 mission and abandoned the rest of the program altogether. None of NASA’s so-called evidence proves they actually sent humans beyond Earth orbit or landed them on the surface of the moon. On top of that, NASA has made itself look even guiltier by attempting to cover up their sloppy mistakes in the photographic record of the Apollo program. They have recently been caught altering and removing the incriminating photos from their website in an attempt to cover their tracks.
As for a conspiracy like this needing thousands of people to keep secret, well that’s a red-herring too, because in reality, the Apollo program was completely compartmentalized so only a handful of senior insiders would have needed to know the big picture.
That video ia so friggin' weak dude. You gotta' come up with something better. LEt's see more in the way of hardcore specifics.
-
You mean like posting on every single thread in this forum to show how balanced and sane the HB side is? The mind boggles with the limitless possibilities!
-
You mean like posting on every single thread in this forum to show how balanced and sane the HB side is? The mind boggles with the limitless possibilities!
Well I am trying to read though this. Makes sense to comment. Take a look they are relevant.
The topic here is the 30 billion buck scam. Me and me mum paid for a bit of that. We are entitled to weigh in.
-
It doesn't make sense to comment on threads that have been inactive for months. In fact it looks downright disruptive, peppering the site with comments that relate only to the first posts and ignore the rest of the discussion. It looks like someone trying to throw so much mud at the wall he can't possibly be called to account for all of it.
Why don't you do what most others do and start a new thread to discuss any particular points you want to talk about? Because you're not interested in a proper discussion, that's why. Do you think this site exists in some kind of isolation from the rest of the web and we haven't noticed you in other places and figured out who you are?
-
Heh and all along I thought it was just me and my arrow. And isn't it actually "My mother and I" given that HBs relentlessly claim to be of higher intelligence than the rest of us?
-
No comments by Eternidad yet?
-
Foil covering is a very common feature of satellites
It's not actually foil. Although there is a lot of gold in most spacecraft, most of it's hidden inside because gold gets very hot in sunlight.
What looks like a lot of gold foil on the outside of spacecraft actually isn't gold at all. It's Kapton, an orange-colored plastic very popular in aerospace because it can tolerate extreme temperatures. It's usually rear coated with an extremely thin layer of aluminum, which you see through the Kapton, and the apparent color ranges from light yellow to dark amber depending on the thickness of the Kapton.
This material is often used in multiple layers as a thermal "blanket" to isolate the spacecraft surface from the outside. It's in a vacuum so there is no convection or conduction, only radiation. The aluminum surfaces reflect and stop radiation just like the walls of a thermos bottle.
-
Foil covering is a very common feature of satellites
It's not actually foil.
I know that, but the word is commonly used to describe aluminised mylar or Kapton films. I was just making the point that the "foil" that HBs say the LM is made of is actually a pretty common surface material for satellites.
-
And isn't it actually "My mother and I" given that HBs relentlessly claim to be of higher intelligence than the rest of us?
It ought to be, yes.
-
Heh and all along I thought it was just me and my arrow. And isn't it actually "My mother and I" given that HBs relentlessly claim to be of higher intelligence than the rest of us?
Exception being when they want to show off their mystic powers of Sock-a-mancy.
-
No comments by Eternidad yet?
Maybe she "couldn't find the forum" again. ::) Don't people know what the bookmark feature on a browser does?
-
I've noticed that's a common thread among conspiracy believers. That threads become "selectively visible" or drop off the map for a while completely. IDW used to go into regular screaming fits claiming the mods at Godlike were hiding his threads. The idea that, just maybe, not enough people were interested enough to keep it on the top page...
The more technically-minded hoax believers take it a step further; when they can't seem to find the thread they were just posting on, they accuse other posters, forum administrators, and secret operatives working out of Langley of deliberately infecting their computer with a virus which prevents them from being able to post "Was so!" yet another time on a thread they are already losing.
-
Here is my new page
http://apollo22.blogspot.co.uk/
Oh, for heaven's sake, Eternidad195. First of all, that mammoth page is almost unreadable with all the junk you've loaded it up with.
Second, it's just a bunch of stuff - as far as I bothered reading - copied from the late, famously incompetent Jack White, who literally could not tell which side of the Lunar Module he was looking at.
Third, it's ridiculous. The very first bit is about how the latter, etc. look wider in one picture than another. They are taken from different angles and thus one expects the same object to appear different.
Fourth, didn't I advise you to read Clavius and look some of these claims up before posting? Like the idiotic bits about "cardboard" and "scotch tape"? Jack White had no idea what he was looking at; that's not the structure of the LM, that's part of the thermal and micrometeoroid shield. You just copied his stuff without bothering to see how it's already been debunked many times over.
You didn't put any thought into this at all, apparently. You're just regurgitating the same drivel from the same clueless ignoramuses that have been shredded a hundred times before. And you want people to wade through all that again, this time on your cluttered web site?
jack White has passed but his crap lives on.
-
This picture of the lunar lander by NASA is made up of paper, and cardboard, stuck up with Scotch tape.
The question is: Why do they have this picture of the lander, if it is a faked one?
I did get permission to publish Mr. White’s pictures
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5922HR.jpg
If they publish a faked lander as the real one, how many more things are they faking?
Having a lunar lander made up of cardboard and Scotch tape is not an idiotic thing, is a funny thing. Can you drive a car made up of cardboard and stuck together with Scotch paper?
The answer is no.
So do not try to convince me that that thing landed on the moon.
-
This picture of the lunar lander by NASA is made up of paper, and cardboard, stuck up with Scotch tape.
What makes you think it's paper, cardboard and Scotch tape, when it's not?
Do you know anything about spacecraft construction? Have you ever seen a picture of a spacecraft being prepared for launch, covered in exactly the same kinds of materials?
That is indeed a picture of a real LM on the real moon.
-
I assume you have similar thoughts about this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Viking_Satellite_Thermal_Blankets.jpg
and this:
http://claudelafleur.qc.ca/images/Insat4Ab.jpg
-
I assume you have similar thoughts about this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Viking_Satellite_Thermal_Blankets.jpg
and this:
http://claudelafleur.qc.ca/images/Insat4Ab.jpg
...and the images I posted earlier:
http://www.hispasat.com/media/Prensa/Galeria_fotos/1C/Hispasat_1C_shaker.jpg
http://www.weirdwarp.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Satellite-Construction.jpg
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4312/p157.jpg
-
This picture of the lunar lander by NASA is made up of paper, and cardboard, stuck up with Scotch tape.
Provide evidence that those are in fact the materials used. 'Because it looks like it' is not evidence.
The question is: Why do they have this picture of the lander, if it is a faked one?
That's a very good question, and one I have never had answered satisfactorily by any hoax believer. If they were faking it, why did their LM not look more like you would expect a spaceship to look like? Why publish pictures like this at all?
Could it just be that that is actually how it really looked, and that in fact it worked?
I assume you are ignorant of the fact that the outer layer of the LM you see in the pictures is nothing more than a thin thermal control and micrometeoroid protection layer. It had no structural role whatsoever, and since it would not be subjected to aerodynamic forces, a strong industrial kapton tape (NOT commercially available scotch tape) was the lightest and best way to attach those thin sheets of aluminium to the frame.
I did get permission to publish Mr. White’s pictures
Then it would only be polite to acknowledge the source on your website. Presenting other people's material without attribution is plagiarism.
If they publish a faked lander as the real one, how many more things are they faking?
Begging the question. You have yet to prove that it is in fact a fake lander.
Having a lunar lander made up of Scotch tape is not an idiotic thing, is a funny thing. Can you drive a car made up of cardboard and stuck together with Scotch paper?
Irrelevant comparison, since the LM did not use those materials and a car is a whole different engineering challenge to a spacecraft. However, I have seen people sail a boat made of duct tape, stick a car back together with it, make a bridge out of it, lift a car with it....
So do not try to convince me that that thing landed on the moon.
Not our burden of proof. It is your job to convince us that it could not land on the Moon. Just looking at it and noting that it does not meet your expectations for the design of a spacecraft is not any kind of proof, since you have not adequately justified your expectations of what it should look like in the first place.
-
This picture of the lunar lander by NASA is made up of paper, and cardboard, stuck up with Scotch tape.
The question is: Why do they have this picture of the lander, if it is a faked one?
I did get permission to publish Mr. White’s pictures
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5922HR.jpg
If they publish a faked lander as the real one, how many more things are they faking?
Having a lunar lander made up of Scotch tape is not an idiotic thing, is a funny thing. Can you drive a car made up of cardboard and stuck together with Scotch paper?
The answer is no.
So do not try to convince me that that thing landed on the moon.
So you're going with "it looks like it to me so it must be". None of your "paper" or "Scotch tape" is structural, nor is it what you think it is. Your argument means nothing. Can you say WHY you think it couldn't have landed on the Moon? Can you say WHY you think your ignorant opinion is worth more than the thousands of engineers that have looked at it and see nothing wrong with a craft designed to only ever operate in the vacuum of space?
-
So do not try to convince me that that thing landed on the moon.
As you obviously are not reading our posts, how could we convince you?
Lots of other satellites, the ones that bring you your TV and GPS signals among them, have LM-like thermal blankets.
It should be obvious to anyone that the LM has a structure under the blankets, otherwise it would collapse.
-
It looks like one of those things my children make in the school but my kids would make it much better. It is obvious where the Scotch tape has been added and it is obvious that is a blue paper.
It is golden Scotch tape and blue paper and it seems to have been stiched in some places.
Those metal rods are kept in place by the tape.
I can even ask my kids to do something like this and post the results on facebook
-
It is golden Scotch tape and blue paper and it seems to have been stiched in some places.
...and the reason other satellites have the same look is that satellite TV and GPS are also faked?
-
It is obvious where the Scotch tape has been added and it is obvious that is a blue paper.
Ah 'it's obvious'. The standard cry of a hoax believer who actually has no evidence at all.
You don't read anything we say, do you? You are determined to cling on to your belief that it was all fake, so all our responses just blur into white noise.
I will ask again, why should the outer thermal protection layer not be made of taped foil and thin sheets of metal? Why is this an unacceptable way to construct the outer skin of a spacecraft? Have you seen any of the pictures of the LM being constructed, that show the actual metal structure underneath, with its support beams and sheet metal?
-
It looks like one of those things my children make in the school but my kids would make it much better. It is obvious where the Scotch tape has been added and it is obvious that is a blue paper.
It is golden Scotch tape and blue paper and it seems to have been stiched in some places.
Those metal rods are kept in place by the tape.
I can even ask my kids to do something like this and post the results on facebook
"It looks like, so it is" - sorry, that's no evidence.
Then you go on to implicit insult. Niiiiiice.
-
I am reading about multi layer insulation in wikipedia and it says :
More layers can be added to reduce the loss further. The blanket can be further improved by making the outside surfaces highly reflective to thermal radiation,
That blue paper does not seem to be highly reflective. It just looks like paper and not reflective at all.
And that picture of the satellite with a golden surface, that is a highly reflective surface and not like the one of the lander, which is a non reflective blue paper.
Not very good for reflecting thermal radiation
-
You don't see the reflective material in that picture?!
Besides, why would you think the whole LM needs to be reflective?
-
It is obvious where the Scotch tape has been added and it is obvious that is a blue paper.
Obvious to whom? Obvious because Jack White says so? That doesn't start to work as an appeal to authority because White new practicably nothing about photo analysis and new even less about space craft design. Do you have any other source?
-
That blue paper does not seem to be highly reflective. It just looks like paper and not reflective at all.
What "blue paper" are you talking about?
-
Most of the surface of the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter is highly reflective and does not look like something made up in your garage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mars_Reconnaissance_Orbiter_fully_assembled.jpg
In fact I do not believe that the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter is a scam.
I believe is real and is up there in space
-
The MRO is a very different craft, built to function in a different place, for a different purpose, and unmanned.
You keep saying things do or do not "look like" other things. That doesn't mean anything. Have you considered that perhaps your expectations, as someone who does not build spacecraft, might be in error?
-
It looks shabbily made, like some of the things my children make for their school homework.
Here is another picture of the module
http://strangeapollo2.blogspot.co.uk/
In one picture it looks fine, but it the other picture looks strange
I'll be back later. I have to feed my family
-
It looks shabbily made, like some of the things my children make for their school homework.
Here is another picture of the module
http://strangeapollo2.blogspot.co.uk/
In one picture it looks fine, but it the other picture looks strange
I'll be back later. I have to feed my family
Define "strange".
-
It looks shabbily made, like some of the things my children make for their school homework.
Here is another picture of the module
http://strangeapollo2.blogspot.co.uk/
In one picture it looks fine, but it the other picture looks strange
That's because one of the pics is a highly enlarged portion of a lot larger image taken from some distance.
-
It looks shabbily made, like some of the things my children make for their school homework.
Here is another picture of the module
http://strangeapollo2.blogspot.co.uk/
In one picture it looks fine, but it the other picture looks strange
I'll be back later. I have to feed my family
Read the replies!
Here is the Lunar Module without its exterior heat and micro meteorite shielding -
http://www.nordenretireesclub.org/level2/album_images/images/museum_2011/Grumman%20LTA-1,%201st%20functional%20Lunar%20Module.jpg
Answer the simple question from Jason Thompson -
" If they were faking it, why did their LM not look more like you would expect a spaceship to look like? Why publish pictures like this at all?"
-
Not very good for reflecting thermal radiation
Like this one, you mean?
http://www.newswise.com/images/uploads/2010/03/23/SIBRSPHOTO1.jpg
or this:
http://ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/qzs1satellite_retroform.jpg
Engineers pick shiny or black covering depending of the thermal properties needed, which vary from one satellite or part thereof to another.
-
In one picture it looks fine, but it the other picture looks strange
Here's a high-resolution version of that picture. Note that it isn't quite in focus, but you can nevertheless see tape joins in the parts of the module that Jack White crops out.
http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/images/ISD/highres/AS17/AS17-145-22272.JPG
The other picture is in sharp focus around the window, but further aft on the module is out of the sharp zone and there the tape joins are not so apparent.
-
Read the replies!
Here is the Lunar Module without its exterior heat and micro meteorite shielding -
http://www.nordenretireesclub.org/level2/album_images/images/museum_2011/Grumman%20LTA-1,%201st%20functional%20Lunar%20Module.jpg
Ooh, thanks, I've been looking for a picture like that. It is nice to have one on hand showing that the external shell and foil was not the pressure vessel or main structure of the spacecraft, so, given that it never had to operate in a significant atmosphere, it didn't need to be terribly robust to its job.
-
given that it never had to operate in a significant atmosphere, it didn't need to be terribly robust to its job.
Not only did it not have to operate in an atmosphere, its internal atmosphere was only 5 psi (about 1/3 of sea level pressure on earth) because pure oxygen was used. That allowed the structure to be even lighter.
-
Eternidad195, didn't I tell you to do a little research before coming on here waving your hands about "Scotch tape" (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=272.msg9244#msg9244)? You didn't take my advice, did you?
You should have - it would have saved you some embarrassment. At least, you should be embarassed: You came on to a board frequented by space flight experts and well-informed laymen and made a demonstrably false claim, based on your plagiarization of a conspiracy nut so famously incompetent he literally couldn't tell which side of the Lunar Module he was looking at (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php/3537-lunar-rover).
This picture of the lunar lander by NASA is made up of paper, and cardboard, stuck up with Scotch tape.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. In fact, you're not only wrong, you're wrong about what you're looking at; that's not the LM structure you're looking at, it's the thermal and micrometeoroid protective layers.
The LM primary structure was made of aluminum. The thermal and micrometeoroid shielding, attached to the outside of the LM structure, was made of things like Inconel and Kapton (the tape is a form of Kapton with adhesive). These are standard materials used in aerospace.
If you had done a little research as I had advised you, you would already know this and would not have made such a silly mistake (http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=585&page=4).
The question is: Why do they have this picture of the lander, if it is a faked one?
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5922HR.jpg
Your question debunks itself. If any random, uninformed layman like you could immediately spot a fake, NASA certainly would not use such an arrangement and publish such images in the service of attempting a fake mission. Doesn't that tell you something?
I did get permission to publish Mr. White’s pictures
From where? Even supposing you did, using them without attribution is plagiarism. And you plagiarized a raving incompetent.
If they publish a faked lander as the real one, how many more things are they faking?
Begging the question. They didn't publish a faked lander.
Having a lunar lander made up of cardboard and Scotch tape...
Repeating your mistaken claim does not make it any less wrong.
...is not an idiotic thing, is a funny thing. Can you drive a car made up of cardboard and stuck together with Scotch paper?
The answer is no.
What's funny is that you came on here, having literally no idea what you're talking about, and simply regurgtated someone else's easily- and often-debunked claims, and expect that we should grant any weight to your uninformed opinion. Well, if it comes to opinions, I work in this field. To me, the LM looks exactly what a purpose-built spacecraft designed for operation in a low-G, vacuum environment should look like.
But your opinions - or I should say, someone else's opinions that you are merely parroting - mean that you should have some idea of what a "real" lunar lander should look like. So why don't you tell us?
So do not try to convince me that that thing landed on the moon.
Here's your choice: You can either cling to your opinion, based on no knowledge of the subject and informed only by often-debunked codswallop; or you can listen to people who actually know something about the subject and learn.
Which do you want to do? Dig in your heels and cling to your opinion, or learn?
-
Here is another picture of the module
http://strangeapollo2.blogspot.co.uk/
In one picture it looks fine, but it the other picture looks strange
They're pictures of the same thing. The Command Module was covered with strips of aluminized mylar for thermal control in space. How they appear depends strongly on the type and angle of illumination. In one picture the CM is lit by direct sunlight, in the other by reflected moonlight. That's why they look so different.
-
And that picture of the satellite with a golden surface, that is a highly reflective surface and not like the one of the lander, which is a non reflective blue paper.
Not very good for reflecting thermal radiation
How do you know? Please present your experience and qualifications that allow you to make that assumption.
In one picture it looks fine, but it the other picture looks strange
I'll be back later. I have to feed my family
What is your experience in spacecraft design?
What are your qualifications and experience in space craft or associated industries?
In fact, do you have ANY qualifications in engineering, design or fabrication?
Have you ever worked in spacecraft construction? Or in any associated space related industries?
If not, then how are you able to say what is "fine" or "strange"? Or are your assumptions based on what Hollywood thinks a spacecraft should look like?
Do you know what an argument from incredulity (http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity) is? Do you know what auto-epistemic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_self-knowing_.28auto-epistemic.29) is?
Without knowing how spacecraft are constructed you cannot say what is strange and what is fine. And please don't say "it's common-sense"....."Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" (http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/254.html)
-
given that it never had to operate in a significant atmosphere, it didn't need to be terribly robust to its job.
Not only did it not have to operate in an atmosphere, its internal atmosphere was only 5 psi (about 1/3 of sea level pressure on earth) because pure oxygen was used. That allowed the structure to be even lighter.
And even that load was taken up not by the 'cardboard and scotch tape', but by the interior vessel seen in the photo from Grumman.
-
Ooh, thanks, I've been looking for a picture like that. It is nice to have one on hand showing that the external shell and foil was not the pressure vessel or main structure of the spacecraft, so, given that it never had to operate in a significant atmosphere, it didn't need to be terribly robust to its job.
It's been mentioned a few times, but it wasn't even foil, it was aluminized plastic film. Similar to the mylar material used in balloons, food wrapping, and emergency blankets...extremely lightweight, but considerably tougher than foil. But yeah, the thermal blanket was simply not a structural component.
And Kapton tape is used in a variety of applications where heat resistance is needed. For one example, it's used to mask areas of a circuit board and hold parts in place in wave soldering, where it's immersed briefly in molten solder. It's an engineering material, and its use in spacecraft is entirely appropriate and not at all unique to Apollo. Insisting on calling it "Scotch tape" is absurd.
More pictures of spacecraft covered in Kapton tape and aluminized film:
http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/images/large/05pd2590.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/esa_events/7070913129/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/esa_events/6924835676/in/photostream/
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/aquarius/20110124/aquarius20110124-full.jpg
-
It looks like one of those things my children make in the school but my kids would make it much better.
Really? Let's see your kids make this:
(http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/misc/apmisc-LM-noID-19.jpg)
That's a look under the layers you were looking at and wrongly thought were part of the structure. The image shown was part of the discussion of the LM structure in this thread (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php/86907-The-Lunar-Module-Too-Flimsy), and if you had done any actual research - as I advised you - you wouldn't have made such a silly mistake.
If you'd actually like to learn something about it, this site has a nice explanation of the various LM structural features (http://www.ehartwell.com/LM/SCATSystems.htm).
It is obvious where the Scotch tape has been added and it is obvious that is a blue paper.
It is golden Scotch tape and blue paper and it seems to have been stiched in some places.
It is obvious that you do not know what you are talking about.
The LM Structures handout (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11LM5structures.pdf) has detailed illustrations of the layers of H-film, Mylar, Inconel, and nickel of which the thermal control and micrometeoroid layers are actually made. And I have used Kapton adhesive tape myself on spacecraft; I have hands-on experience working on spacecraft. Would you like to tell me again about "Scotch tape"? If so, please show either the relevant documentation listing its use, or cite your personal experience in spacecraft design, manufacture, and operations.
Those metal rods are kept in place by the tape.
I can even ask my kids to do something like this and post the results on facebook
Or you could actually do some research - heck, I'll even do it for you (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730010174_1973010174.pdf):
The cabin and midsection structural shell is cylindrical and of semimonocoque construction. The shell is a welded and mechanically fastened assembly of aluminum alloy sheets and machined longerons. The shell is supported by formed sheet-metal rings that are riveted to the structural skin.
A front-face assembly, attached mechanically to the cabin, encloses the forward end of the cabin. The front-face assembly incorporates openings in the structure for two triangular windows and the egress/ingress hatch. The midsection is attached mechanically to the cabin by a bulkhead. The midsection structure contains an opening for the docking (top) hatch. The aft end of the midsection is closed by a bulkhead. The aft equipment bay is formed by a rack cantilevered off the aft bulkhead by tubular struts. The main propellant tanks are nonintegral and are supported from the midsection by tubular struts. Various other tanks, such as the oxygen and helium tanks, are supported from the aft bulkhead or aft equipment rack in the aft equipment bay.
The descent-stage structure is constructed primarily of chemically milled webs, extruded and milled stiffeners, and milled cap strips (fig. 5). The material used in the construction of the descent stage is primarily 7075-T6 aluminum alloy. Titanium is used where high temperatures are experienced. The main structure consists of two
pairs of parallel beams arranged in a cruciform configuration with structural upper and lower decks and end bulkheads. A four-legged truss assembly (outrigger) is attached at the end of each pair of beams. These assemblies serve as support for the LM in the SLA and as attachment points for the main struts of the landing gear (fig. 5).
You're welcome.
If you want to learn more about how a real spaceship was built - and not make irrelevant and ignorant comparisons to art projects by your children, as wonderful as I'm sure they are - then I recommend reading Moon Lander (http://www.amazon.com/Moon-Lander-Developed-Smithsonian-Spaceflight/dp/1588342735) by Thomas Kelly, Grumman's engineering manager for the LM development; and Chariots for Apollo (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4205/cover.html), which gives a detailed history of the development of the Apollo spacecraft.
But it's up to you. Do you actually want to learn something?
-
I really hate when people think "it looks like" is a reasonable explanation when they don't have enough information to know why it looks like that or what it should look like. I started calling it "look at the picture" science, and it is not a compliment. Most of the most laughable beliefs I've encountered started with "look at the picture" science.
-
It looks like one of those things my children make in the school but my kids would make it much better. It is obvious where the Scotch tape has been added and it is obvious that is a blue paper.
It is golden Scotch tape and blue paper and it seems to have been stiched in some places.
It's not paper and tape but even if it were, so what? Did you think the wind would have blown it off?
-
Tremendous post sts60
It looks like one of those things my children make in the school but my kids would make it much better.
But it's up to you. Do you actually want to learn something?
And there's the rub. Its so easy to regurgitate the same old clap-trap that has been debunked a million times before.
I'm changing my mind about HBs after seeing some recent behaviour on here. I used to think that some HBs were just misinformed. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that most of them are just bone-idle lazy. It would take nothing more than a Google search and an hours worth of reading to see *exactly* how Apollo worked, yet they (this one in particular) would rather spend their time creating rubbish websites with plagiarised material that can be debunked in seconds.
Eternidad195...what says you now? Are you prepared to withdraw your ridiculous statements and publicly do so on your blog?
-
It looks like one of those things my children make in the school but my kids would make it much better. It is obvious where the Scotch tape has been added and it is obvious that is a blue paper.
It is golden Scotch tape and blue paper and it seems to have been stiched in some places.
What 'blue paper' are you referring to? ???
-
The question is: Why do they have this picture of the lander [...]?
There are a lot of pictures of the many "landers", and the answer is: Because this is what the Lunar Modules look like.
I had the great fortune to be able to visit the US in my autumn holiday 2012, and amongst others I went to Washington DC and visited "National Air and Space Museum". I spent the most of a day there but saw maybe only half of the collection. It was more than overwhelming.
One of the items on display is an original Lunar Module out of 12 built for the Apollo missions. The one on display is similar to those, that flew in space, but it was never used, because the previous test had been sufficiently successful.
It is free to visit the museum, and you can spend as long time there as you want. If you live too far away, you can see the LM on display here: http://airandspace.si.edu/webimages/highres/99-15232h.jpg
So do not try to convince me that that thing landed on the moon.
Ha ha :-)
You know what: When I came to this forum, I had the notion that I could contribute with something useful having taught math an physics all my life. But I found out, that compared to the regulars here, I knew next to nothing about spaceflight and "rocket science". But still I know enough to see, that you know absolutely nothing about it. Start studying instead of making a fool of yourself among experts in the field.
-
I am reading about multi layer insulation in wikipedia
That's nice. Understanding spacecraft thermal management is part of what I do for a living.
and it says :
More layers can be added to reduce the loss further. The blanket can be further improved by making the outside surfaces highly reflective to thermal radiation,
That blue paper does not seem to be highly reflective. It just looks like paper and not reflective at all.
1. It's not paper. You can look at the information already handed to you. In case it's not already been cited, Grumman LMA790-3-LM 10 and Subsequent, Apollo Operations Handbook, Lunar Module, LM 10 and Subsequent, vol. 1, Subsystems Data (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM10HandbookVol1.pdf) also has a good description.
2. Thermal control depends on more than what you perceive to be "shiny".
3. Different parts of the vehicle will have different thermal shielding depending on the operational requirements and mission profile.
And that picture of the satellite with a golden surface, that is a highly reflective surface and not like the one of the lander, which is a non reflective blue paper.
Not paper, and different spacecraft having different missions willl have different thermal coatings and shieldings. That is how actual spacecraft - not Hollywood versions - are made.
Not very good for reflecting thermal radiation
How would you know? That's not a rhetorical question. On what basis of actual spacecraft engineering experience do you base your opinion?
You are certainly not required to be an aerospace engineer to participate in the discussion. But if you make such claims, you must be prepared to cite facts - not just your opinion or your "common sense" - and demonstrate some understanding of what you're talking about if you want to be taken seriously.
So how about it? Do you want to just echo the bilge spewed by the likes of Jack White, or do you want to learn something?
-
I really hate when people think "it looks like" is a reasonable explanation when they don't have enough information to know why it looks like that or what it should look like. I started calling it "look at the picture" science, and it is not a compliment. Most of the most laughable beliefs I've encountered started with "look at the picture" science.
I've mentioned it already, but it bears repeating:
I do not say to folks like Eternidad195, "I work in this field and you don't, therefore I can dismiss anything you say."
If Eternidad195 can cite facts or come up with a legitimate problem with the Apollo record, it doesn't matter what education, job, etc. she has. If I say something wrong, I'm wrong - and several folks here know more about a lot of things Apollo then I do, and the same rule applies to them. (There is a reason that the "I corrected JayUtah" shirt exists, rare items that they may be.)
But if Eternidad195 just renders her personal opinion, without anything to back it up, then I most certainly will consult my own training and experience. And making claims like "paper and Scotch tape" that are so easily debunked shows a priori that her opinion is likely to be wrong. It's even worse when the opinions are just plagiarized from spectacularly incompetent crackpots like Jack White; that's crossing over from "uninformed" to "ignorant and intellectually lazy".
It's been a rough ride for Eternidad195, but I genuinely hope that she decides it's more important to learn than to cling to her belief in the face of rather stinging criticism. Part of that tone is my responsibility, I admit, but I'm trying to be blunt enough to administer a wake-up call without simply being rude.
-
Anybody want to know the exact external surfaces on LM-5 (Eagle, Apollo 11's LM)? Here you go:
http://home.earthlink.net/~pfjeld/lmdata/index.html
-
Here is another picture of the module
http://strangeapollo2.blogspot.co.uk/
Um, nope. That's the command module. If you can't tell the difference between the lunar module and the command module this will be a very one-sided discussion...
-
I certainly don't see any blue on the LM, except in the US flag. Perhaps he's referring to the black areas. I checked and found that they are generally Pyromark-painted Inconel foil. They were used primarily as protection from the RCS exhaust plumes. It was found before Apollo 11 that this wouldn't be sufficient protection so the plume deflectors you see on Eagle were added almost at the last minute while it was on the launch pad.
Inconel is one of a set of nickel-chromium alloys designed for high temperature applications. (Another such alloy, nichrome, is widely used in electrical heating elements).
Pyromark is a heat-resistant paint specifically designed to protect exposed metal surfaces on spacecraft. It has an absorptivity of 0.95, making it almost completely black. You can buy it here: http://www.tempil.com/products/pyromark/
Since the LM thermal design is to isolate the spacecraft from the outside as much as possible, I presume the Pyromark/Inconel was backed by the usual multilayer insulation blankets. The Inconel would get hot in the sun, but the heat wouldn't conduct in. That would be especially important on Quad 3 shown in AS11-40-5922 as it contained the supercritical helium tank. You can see it bulging out in the middle of the cover.
-
I am reading about multi layer insulation in wikipedia
When wikipedia is the ultimate online educational resource, we'll give you a call.
Try to grasp that there are people on this thread who do this stuff for a living. They don't need to check wikipedia for information on thermal control because they studied it and practice it now.
That blue paper does not seem to be highly reflective.
And why do you assume it would need to be reflective all over? Thermal control is a complex discipline, not a simple 'cover it in foil and everything's done' business. Different parts of the spacecraft need different levels of control, hence will need different surface coverings.
-
Another issue is that the appearance of some of these materials is dominated by specular (mirror-like) reflections of the surroundings, which are generally a brightly lit room in photos taken here on Earth and largely a black sky in space. From some angles you'll get reflections of the sun, lunar surface, Earth, or other parts of the spacecraft. From others you don't get a reflection of anything, and see only the small amount of diffusely scattered light that normally gets overwhelmed by the specular reflection. Sometimes, familiar things in an unfamiliar environment just look odd.
-
I'm changing my mind about HBs after seeing some recent behaviour on here. I used to think that some HBs were just misinformed. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that most of them are just bone-idle lazy.
Now, now. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
-
This picture of the lunar lander by NASA is made up of paper, and cardboard, stuck up with Scotch tape.
The question is: Why do they have this picture of the lander, if it is a faked one?
I did get permission to publish Mr. White’s pictures
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5922HR.jpg
If they publish a faked lander as the real one, how many more things are they faking?
Having a lunar lander made up of cardboard and Scotch tape is not an idiotic thing, is a funny thing. Can you drive a car made up of cardboard and stuck together with Scotch paper?
The answer is no.
So do not try to convince me that that thing landed on the moon.
No, the question is why it looks to you like it is cardboard and scotch tape.
This is not the BBC. Please, cast your mind back. Think of every big budget science fiction movie you have seen (NASA had, after all, billions of dollars to make this look right). How many of those movies looked like cardboard and scotch tape?
In reality, a great many movies are done with the equivalents of cardboard and scotch tape. But filmmakers are quite good at making them look like rock and steel.
Did the ships from "2001" look like cardboard and scotch tape?
Please explain to me why a billion-dollar project with lives and careers on the line can't make (according to you) a space-ship as good as those from a movie that opened a year before Apollo 11 flew.
-
Not to mention that, if compartmentalization was in-effect as often claimed by conspiracy theorists, the engineers and scientists would be doing their darndest to make something that could actually go to the moon. Which raises the question of, if they had the hardware, why didn't NASA just go?
-
Eternidad, your argument isn't even consistent with itself.
Why would an entity trying to fool people use such shoddy workmanship? That doesn't make sense according to your own conspiracy theory.
Far more likely that you are just mistaken in your impressions. It may look like something, but that doesn't mean it is.
Are you open to the possibility that your interpretation of what you're seeing might be wrong?
-
I am reading about multi layer insulation in wikipedia...
That's cute. I also build and operate spacecraft for a living, in part. How many spacecraft have you personally designed and built?
Or maybe the right answer is that you don't know what you're talking about and thousands of professional engineers do.
-
I have just come back from my job.
That picture that you posted is beautiful and it really looks like whatever it's supposed to be. A satellite?
But the two pictures I posted of the lunar module are absolutely different.
One looks like a proper module and the other one is shabby and has Scotch tape all over the place. You have not proven anything to me.
Anyway I want to tell something to all of you.
I’m not some kind of hoax fanatic, and I’m willing to accept defeat if proven wrong, so I have decided to do a proper investigation into everything to do with the Apollo missions to the moon.
I will be using some of Jack White’s findings but I will look into them carefully and taking into account the laws of physics, unchangeable wherever you are in this reality, even on the moon.
I will be not coming back to the forum, until I have everything I have collected in another internet page, and as I said before, I’m willing to change my mind if proven wrong.
You have not proven anything to me yet, even if you posted that beautiful picture of the satellite but that proves nothing.
As I said before, I won't be coming back until I have researched the Apollo missions properlly, so don't keep on saying why I'm not back.
It could take a few weeks or months, because I'm busy during the day with my family and my job.
So bye for the moment
-
That is the most elegant flounce I have ever read.
-
As I said before, I won't be coming back until I have researched the Apollo missions properlly, so don't keep on saying why I'm not back.
It could take a few weeks or months, because I'm busy during the day with my family and my job.
Many have been going over Apollo stuff for years and still have plenty to learn.
-
I’m not some kind of hoax fanatic, and I’m willing to accept defeat if proven wrong....
Perhaps during your hiatus,you can also learn the concept of burden of proof. That is you need to prove you are right, not arrogantly declare yourself to be right based on some crank website and demand others prove you wrong. A hoax? Your claim, your proof.
-
One looks like a proper module and the other one is shabby and has Scotch tape all over the place. You have not proven anything to me.
It is impossible to prove anything to someone who does not actually read and understand the replies given. Since you insist on referring to it as 'scotch tape' despite many people telling you it is nothing of the kind, we can reasonably assume your promised' research' will be very limited in scope and you will return having not been convinced at all.
I will be using some of Jack White’s findings but I will look into them carefully and taking into account the laws of physics, unchangeable wherever you are in this reality, even on the moon.
But useless if you lack the framework to apply them.
As I said before, I won't be coming back until I have researched the Apollo missions properlly, so don't keep on saying why I'm not back.
It could take a few weeks or months, because I'm busy during the day with my family and my job.
If you're researching it 'properly' it will take longer than that. I've been doing it for a decade and still have stuff I don't know.
-
I’m not some kind of hoax fanatic,
The same as a lot of other HBs...you lack the intellectual capacity, education and experience to understand what you mock, and haven't the cojones to admit it. Or to even admit that you ARE a hoax believer and fanatic. Why else would you dedicate hours of your life to creating a conspiracy theory website with plagiarised material???
I will be using some of Jack White’s findings but I will look into them carefully and taking into account the laws of physics, unchangeable wherever you are in this reality, even on the moon.
And you are qualified or even knowledgeable in the laws of physics???
I will be not coming back to the forum, until I have everything I have collected in another internet page, and as I said before, I’m willing to change my mind if proven wrong.
No you're not (so far anyway). You've taken the cowards approach of not even acknowledging the responses that you have received from people that are experts in the field. Rather, you will slink away, no doubt to continue to delude yourself. I'm sorry, but your approach smacks of intellectual cowardice.
You have not proven anything to me yet, even if you posted that beautiful picture of the satellite but that proves nothing.
Its not for anyone to prove you wrong. When did it become anyone's job to prove every nutjob on the Internet that they are wrong??? Learn about the burden of proof (though I bet you won't). You are the one making the extraordinary claims therefore you carry the burden of proof. Its as simple as that.
Anyway, the runway is yours. You're cleared for take-off....
(http://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/flounce_one_9er.jpg)
-
I have just come back from my job.
That picture that you posted is beautiful and it really looks like whatever it's supposed to be. A satellite?
But the two pictures I posted of the lunar module are absolutely different.
One looks like a proper module and the other one is shabby and has Scotch tape all over the place. You have not proven anything to me.
Anyway I want to tell something to all of you.
I’m not some kind of hoax fanatic, and I’m willing to accept defeat if proven wrong, so I have decided to do a proper investigation into everything to do with the Apollo missions to the moon.
I will be using some of Jack White’s findings but I will look into them carefully and taking into account the laws of physics, unchangeable wherever you are in this reality, even on the moon.
I will be not coming back to the forum, until I have everything I have collected in another internet page, and as I said before, I’m willing to change my mind if proven wrong.
You have not proven anything to me yet, even if you posted that beautiful picture of the satellite but that proves nothing.
As I said before, I won't be coming back until I have researched the Apollo missions properlly, so don't keep on saying why I'm not back.
It could take a few weeks or months, because I'm busy during the day with my family and my job.
So bye for the moment
You're going to research this? Haven't you already researched this?
You created a website making audacious claims. Surely research went into that. I don't expect people to make public audacious claims without doing research first.
-
I will be using some of Jack White’s findings.
Jack White’s findings.
Jack White’s findings.
Jack White’s findings.
Dear Lord!
:o
-
I have just come back from my job.
That picture that you posted is beautiful and it really looks like whatever it's supposed to be. A satellite?
But the two pictures I posted of the lunar module are absolutely different.
One looks like a proper module and the other one is shabby and has Scotch tape all over the place. You have not proven anything to me.
Anyway I want to tell something to all of you.
I’m not some kind of hoax fanatic, and I’m willing to accept defeat if proven wrong, so I have decided to do a proper investigation into everything to do with the Apollo missions to the moon.
I will be using some of Jack White’s findings but I will look into them carefully and taking into account the laws of physics, unchangeable wherever you are in this reality, even on the moon.
I will be not coming back to the forum, until I have everything I have collected in another internet page, and as I said before, I’m willing to change my mind if proven wrong.
You have not proven anything to me yet, even if you posted that beautiful picture of the satellite but that proves nothing.
As I said before, I won't be coming back until I have researched the Apollo missions properlly, so don't keep on saying why I'm not back.
It could take a few weeks or months, because I'm busy during the day with my family and my job.
So bye for the moment
Good idea, but even better, look at Jack Whites "studies" taking into account GEOMETRY. Your kids could probably help with this.
-
(http://i1336.photobucket.com/albums/o657/Andromeda_Apollo/image_zps7381efbf.jpg)
-
It looks like one of those things my children make in the school but my kids would make it much better. It is obvious where the Scotch tape has been added and it is obvious that is a blue paper.
It is golden Scotch tape and blue paper and it seems to have been stiched in some places.
Those metal rods are kept in place by the tape.
I can even ask my kids to do something like this and post the results on facebook
What is obvious is you are not an aerospace engineer and you have no idea what you are talking about.
-
It looks shabbily made, like some of the things my children make for their school homework.
Here is another picture of the module
http://strangeapollo2.blogspot.co.uk/
In one picture it looks fine, but it the other picture looks strange
I'll be back later. I have to feed my family
Jack White, whose crap you've seemed to swallow without looking at any of it critically, has taken a low res, picture taken from farther away and deceptively cropped it for the pic on the left. The lighting is also different.
What have you done to verify the accuracy of White's supposed analyses? From whom did you obtain permission to repost his stuff? Why have you not acknowledged his copyright on your badly written page?
Is it impossible for you to respond to the comments you're getting? Ignoring them as you have been is rude and will likely end up getting you banned.
-
As I said before, I won't be coming back until I have researched the Apollo missions properlly, so don't keep on saying why I'm not back.
It could take a few weeks or months, because I'm busy during the day with my family and my job.
So bye for the moment
You're unable to discuss the multiple things you've already brought up without having more crap to fling at the wall? ???
-
Anybody want to know the exact external surfaces on LM-5 (Eagle, Apollo 11's LM)? Here you go:
http://home.earthlink.net/~pfjeld/lmdata/index.html (http://home.earthlink.net/~pfjeld/lmdata/index.html)
Great googly moogly. That's the kind of thing I'll need when I get 'round to working on the LM models I have in the queue (Revell's 1:96 Apollo/Saturn and Revell's 1:100 LM). Thanks! ;D
Fred
-
It looks shabbily made, like some of the things my children make for their school homework.
I've seen clouds that look like castles.
Proof of anti-gravity?
Pray tell,
You must have spend quite a lot of time on YouTube and Apollo Hoax promoting sites "studying" the Hoax "Theory".
You also must have spend quite a lot of time on making your very own Apollo Hoax promoting site.
Couldn't you have spared a few hour to research Apollo itself?
Actually, shouldn't you have done that before concluding that Apollo was hoaxed?
If you'd gone to an astronautics forum, or the NASA site, and had just asked: "What am I looking at?" people would have been happy to explain.
There's no air in space.
So air cooling won't work.
The trick is not to get hot in the first place.
You use a parasol to keep the sunlight away from you.
The "space blankets" are that parasol, they keep the sunlight away from the spacecraft itself.
You also might want to learn what a Whipple Shield is.
I’m not some kind of hoax fanatic, and I’m willing to accept defeat if proven wrong,
Uh, uh.
YOU have libellously accused (at least) thousands of criminal conduct.
YOU need to proof your claim or retract it.
so I have decided to do a proper investigation into everything to do with the Apollo missions to the moon.
As I said, you should have done that before accusing thousands of criminal conduct.
So how many more Hoax sites are you going to "study", and how many more real Apollo documents are you going to ignore?
I don't expect people to make public audacious claims without doing research first.
But than you are a rational and moral person.
-
One looks like a proper module and the other one is shabby and has Scotch tape all over the place. You have not proven anything to me.
"Scotch" tape (Cellophane) is processed cellulose (plant fiber). Kapton is a polyimide plastic. They have vastly different physical properties:
1. Kapton is far stronger than Cellophane.
2. Kapton can withstand a huge temperature range: −273 to +400 °C. I don't know the range for Cellophane, but I suspect it's a lot narrower.
3. Kapton is orange; Cellophane is clear.
4. Kapton is more expensive than Cellophane.
5. I'm sure there are others.
Because of Kapton's cost and that it's exceptional physical properties aren't terribly useful to the general public, they are unlikely to be familiar with it. I've got several rolls of it in a drawer, and it has occurred to me to do a little Youtube video showing the differences between it and ordinary "Scotch" (Cellophane) tape. Just pouring some molten solder onto a sample of each should make a good point. If I can find some liquid nitrogen, that would help too.
-
I use scotch tape for soldering. Well...to hold parts to perf whilst I'm soldering them down! From what I can tell it has about the same ability to withstand contact with hot metal as my own fingers do.
-
I have just come back from my job.
Same here. I design, analyze, build, and operate spacecraft and space and ground systems for a living. How about you?
That picture that you posted is beautiful and it really looks like whatever it's supposed to be. A satellite?
But the two pictures I posted of the lunar module are absolutely different.
Well, you posted pictures of both the Lunar Module and the Command/Service Module. They are two different spacecraft, and thus one might well expect them to look, you know, different. But you've also posted - well, plagiarized - an illustration showing an inability to recognize that a ladder will look different when viewed from the side, so...
One looks like a proper module and the other one is shabby and has Scotch tape all over the place. You have not proven anything to me.
No. We've proven that one uses various standard aerospace materials - not Scotch tape - as part of its exterior thermal insulation. We provided detailed references and shown examples from other spacecraft. Some of us have cited direct personal experience with said materials. I have personally applied Kapton adhesive to spacecraft; it is not Scotch tape. I don't understand why you cannot or will not grasp such well-documented facts, but the proof you have been provided would stand up in any engineering review board. Or a Congressional review panel, or a court of law.
It's proof, alright, even if you pretend it hasn't been provided to you.
You, on the other hand, have proven that you can't tell the difference between the spacecraft that landed men on the Moon, and the spacecraft that returned them to Earth; the latter designed to operate in a pure vacuum environment, the former designed to reenter Earth's atmosphere at many thousands of miles per hour. Not even the famously incompetent Jack White made that mistake. What does that tell you?
Anyway I want to tell something to all of you.
I’m not some kind of hoax fanatic, and I’m willing to accept defeat if proven wrong, so I have decided to do a proper investigation into everything to do with the Apollo missions to the moon.
I'm glad you've decided to start learning about Apollo. We've provided you a number of references, and are willing to help you with any questions. But it's not a question of "defeat" (or "victory") for that matter. This isn't a political debate. We're here to teach and to learn.
I might also point out that everything to do with the Apollo missions to the Moon is a very, very tall order indeed. The Apollo record is much broader and deeper than you imagine. It's not just a few dozen photographs and a couple of hours of video. It's tens of thousands of still images, hundreds of hours of motion imagery, thousands of tons of flight, ground, and test hardware, tens of thousands of pages of design studies, status reports, Congressional panel publications, engineering analyses, test reports, operations manuals, engineering drawings of all sizes, experience reports, and countless scientific papers. It's the personal testimony of some of the four hundred thousand people, civil servants and contractors alike, who designed, built, tested, flew, and studied Apollo. It's the engineering, scientific, and programmatic lessons incorporated into standard aerospace practice and planetary science today. It's thirty gigabits of telemetry from nuclear-powered robotic laboratories deployed by the Apollo crews that operated up to eight years on the Moon. It's been public record from the start, but a staggering amount of the documentation has been digitized and placed on the NASA Technical Reports Server and other sites; there is more information freely downloadable than you would ever be able to read, in incredible detail. And there's more on paper at contractors and collectors and government archives that's not on the Internet.
So you'll never investigate everything to do with Apollo. But you can get a good general overview, and start in one or a few key areas in more detail. If you'd like suggestions, we'll provide them.
I will be using some of Jack White’s findings but I will look into them carefully and taking into account the laws of physics, unchangeable wherever you are in this reality, even on the moon.
That's terrific; my undergraduate degree was in space physics. Physics is why the LM's thermal and micrometeoroid layers (the wrinkly ones over the aluminum hull) look the way they do, not sleek and Hollywood-ish.
But using Jack White's findings is a pretty poor way to start; as stated, he was a very poor observer and quite ignorant of the Apollo record, plus he tended to deliberately distort his presentations to create "anomalies". Why don't you go to reputable sources first?
I will be not coming back to the forum, until I have everything I have collected in another internet page, .
OK, but what will you collect? So far, all you've done is plagiarize and echo the work of one seriously clueless crank. Willl you look at actual documentation of the missions? Will you talk to actual experts? Or will you just make the rounds of other conspiracist sites?
and as I said before, I’m willing to change my mind if proven wrong
Frankly, it's hard to believe you when you say this. For example:
You have not proven anything to me yet, even if you posted that beautiful picture of the satellite but that proves nothing.
You say you are willing to change your mind, but you keep on repeating idiot cliches like "Scotch tape and cardboard" when abosolutely explict information to the contrary is handed to you on a silver platter by genuine experts. In fact, you act as if it never happened. So it's hard to take your protestations of open-mindedness seriously with your track record. But I am willing to be pleasantly surprised.
As I said before, I won't be coming back until I have researched the Apollo missions properlly, so don't keep on saying why I'm not back.
It could take a few weeks or months, because I'm busy during the day with my family and my job.
So bye for the moment
We have our families and jobs too, but again, I think I speak for the forum regulars that we'll gladly help you if you decide you wish to learn about Apollo in particular and space flight in general.
-
I use scotch tape for soldering. Well...to hold parts to perf whilst I'm soldering them down! From what I can tell it has about the same ability to withstand contact with hot metal as my own fingers do.
Perhaps I shouldn't mention my own experiences with soldering :-*
Pete
-
Hrm. It sort of bothers me to go in this direction. Sure, it's Kapton tape. Incredibly tough stuff. Can (does!) hold airplanes together.
But there's two errors being made. One is seeing what looks like a familiar material -- scotch tape, cardboard, tinfoil -- and assuming that this is what it really is.
The other error, though, is declaring by fiat that "scotch tape" is incapable of doing the job, or is the inappropriate material. I've never had my hands on Kapton, but I've used scotch tape, gaffer's tape, and electrician's tape in a production environment. I've used them in load-bearing tasks. The point is needing to understand the actual environment of use and the engineering constraints.
Declaring "tape would never hold" of the LM is a failure to understand the operational environment; an assumption that what you know of things like cars jouncing around roads under 1G and being torn at by 60 MPH headwinds has diddly-all to do with what a spacecraft landing on the Moon experiences. Both for good and for bad.
Declaring "tape looks cheap" is deciding that what you know first-hand of craft-paper work for a preschooler's party decorations makes you fit to understand the production process and direct the work of the skilled craftspeople of other industries -- not just aerospace, but everything you think looks similar enough to what you do in your own kitchen that you can stroll onto the shop floor and dictate the best way THEY should build.
(And, yeah, there is a bit of both of those when it comes down to the actual tape and adhesive. Because as an outsider to those materials you are thinking in terms of direct experience, NOT in terms of the physical chemistry and physics of materials. Because if you could actually do the work from first principles, you'd see just how those kinds of bonds are capable of weathering strains much larger than anything you've come to expect from your experience sealing christmas presents.)
-
I know of some of the uses duct tape has been used in Apollo, helping make a jury-rigged carbon dioxide filter adaptor for the LM and a dust flap for the lunar rover, but what sort of uses can you personally recount, nomuse, for duct tape in the aerospace industry?
-
Eternidad, if you're still looking in on us, check YouTube for the Moon Machines series; there's a ton of good information on the various mechanical systems of Apollo.
-
Eternidad, if you're still looking in on us, check YouTube for the Moon Machines series; there's a ton of good information on the various mechanical systems of Apollo.
I second Moon Machines. It gets a few technical details wrong according to more knowledgeable friends, but is still an intriguing look into the lives of the people who built the things in all their human detail, their troubles and hardships.
-
I know of some of the uses duct tape has been used in Apollo, helping make a jury-rigged carbon dioxide filter adaptor for the LM and a dust flap for the lunar rover, but what sort of uses can you personally recount, nomuse, for duct tape in the aerospace industry?
I have no personal recollections of the aerospace industry. My field is the theater, and there are shows that are almost literally held together with gaffer's tape (which is -- in a lesser degree -- to duck tape as Kapton is to Scotch).
I'm willing to bet a lot that there are plenty of harnesses dressed with plain old vinyl electrician's tape. And a whole bunch of more esoteric aerospace solutions that still come off a roll and are applied by hand.
-
As I said before, I won't be coming back until I have researched the Apollo missions properlly,
If you come back and still believe the LM was some sort of bad and shoddy construction, please don't forget to explain why NASA wouldn't even try to fake a convincing LM.
-
...held together with gaffer's tape (which is -- in a lesser degree -- to duck tape as Kapton is to Scotch).
And which is actually the tape carried on Apollo and on subsequent space missions -- not duct tape. The official supplier is Shurtape.
Gaffer tape is cotton duck impregnated with fire retardant and electrically insulative resins, supplied in different colors but used chiefly in black. The pressure-sensitive adhesive is low residue when removed within a few weeks, and functions in a vacuum. It can be torn easily by hand either lengthwise or widthwise (i.e., the cardinal dimensions of the duck weave), but maintains high tensile strength when axially loaded. (It does, however, shear somewhat more easily than duct tape.) It has been flown on every space mission since Apollo, for the same reasons it's so useful in the entertainment industry. A square of gaffer tape is robust enough to plug a quarter-inch hole in a spacecraft pressure hull.
-
Ah, interesting. I know the stuff aboard Apollo was the grey silver often associated with duct tape, at least on some missions.
-
Because if you could actually do the work from first principles, you'd see just how those kinds of bonds are capable of weathering strains much larger than anything you've come to expect from your experience sealing christmas presents.)
...I've actually used Kapton tape on Christmas presents. (It's what I had.)
-
But the two pictures I posted of the lunar module are absolutely different.
One looks like a proper module and the other one is shabby and has Scotch tape all over the place.
Well, first, you can't tell the difference between the Apollo command module and lunar module. So clearly you already know less about the Apollo missions that most school children of the 1960s and 1970s. And you certainly know far, far less than the dedicated amateurs such as those here who emphatically study and preserve a legacy of technical excellence. And in comparison with what I as an aerospace engineer, and the others here similarly situated, know about the field, you don't know enough even to warrant much further attention. Your knowledge of my profession is negligible. Do you really think such abject ignorance is the proper position from which to launch a critical attack of it?
Let me help you put this in perspective. You say you have children. I, however, have none. I would consider myself rather inept as a parent, knowing nothing of the theory and practice of child-rearing, and having negligible practical experience in the long-term care of children. Imagine what you would do if I told you that you were raising your children inappropriately and that I was going to report you to the authorities. Imagine if the yardstick against which I measured your performance were nothing more than my own ignorant suppositions and expectations that practically no experienced parent shared. This is exactly the sort of fool you're making of yourself here.
Second, and also belabored, these two spacecraft were built for very different purposes. They look different because they had to look different. The command module is sleek because it's also an airplane. The lunar module is minimal because it has the highest fuel compounding factor for the mission.
Third, and further belabored, you still refer to "Scotch tape" and other wrong, preconceived notions despite their having been clearly rebutted. We'll get back to this.
You have not proven anything to me.
If your argument is "This doesn't look right to me," then you have the burden of proof to show that you know what you're talking about. Specifically you bear the burden to prove that your expectation of what a lunar lander should look like is what a real engineering company would build. Your romantic notion of what a real spaceship looks like is entirely irrelevant to how the industry really works.
You didn't reason your way into your beliefs. You just decided that's the way things should be. Therefore you can't be reasoned out of beliefs you hold simply because you like them.
I’m not some kind of hoax fanatic...
Clearly you are. As has already been said, what other kind of person would spend hours putting together a massive web site plagiarizing other people's arguments in favor of a hoax? Lots of people put together summary pages as personal study and writing projects. You expended zero original thought, neither in formulating your hoax claims nor in researching opposing views. You simply plagiarized other people's work and subscribed to it wholesale. How is that anything other than uncritical homage to hoax theories?
...and I’m willing to accept defeat if proven wrong
Clearly not. You continue to refer to "shoddy" construction for the lunar module even when it's been painstakingly shown to you just how wrong you are. You don't have the faintest idea how the lunar module was built and why it had to have been built that way, and you are unwilling to accept information and correction from well-qualified practitioners in the field. You are refusing the strongest kind of proof that exists, so I think it's fair to say no one believes your sudden forthrightness.
I have decided to do a proper investigation into everything to do with the Apollo missions to the moon.
Based on what you say, I doubt it.
I'm the webmaster of the most widely consulted web site on the subject of debunking Moon hoax claims. That site has been in its present form and at its present location for more than ten years. On your page you reiterated claims that have been debunked for literally a decade, and which even a cursory effort at balanced research would have uncovered. You had the opportunity to do proper research before. You obviously weren't interested in doing it. And when presented here with material that challenges your borrowed beliefs, you don't consider it -- you simply dig in your heels and re-assert your original claims. Hence no one believes you when you promise us that you'll be doing more balanced research. You don't seem especially motivated.
I will be using some of Jack White’s findings...
No "proper investigation" of the Apollo missions considers what Jack White has published on the subject anything more noteworthy than the ignorant and dishonest ravings of an egomaniacal crackpot. I have debated him directly, and all he could do was call me names and threaten to sue me. He was shown repeatedly what was wrong with his methods and claims, but chose to ignore his critics and pay attention only to his fans. He was never acknowledged or endorsed by any professional body of photographic interpreters and analysts. His only "analysis" efforts were in chasing one conspiracy theory after another and lamenting about how agents provocateurs dogged his "obvious" brilliance.
Not only did White lack any sort of legitimate qualification or recognition as a photographic analyst, his basic spatial reasoning skills were so poor as to likely rank him below average among laymen. He constantly made egregious and embarrassing errors of basic observation, all the while crowing about his supposed skill and basking in the admiration, behind walled gardens, of legions of fans who looked to him to give pseudo-scientific justification to all manner of irrational conspiracy beliefs.
This even culminated in his intentional fabrication of photographic evidence allegedly of fakery. Not content with merely misinterpreting legitimate photos and "accidentally" cropping away exculpatory evidence, he put together his own composites and tried to trump up arguments that arose only in the composition, not in the original source material. What better evidence do you need of his willingness to put his own goals ahead of serious scholarship? Do you really want to continue using material so thoroughly discredited and refuted?
...but I will look into them carefully and taking into account the laws of physics, unchangeable wherever you are in this reality, even on the moon.
There is more to the proper interpretation of photographs than vague recollections of high-school physics. It is just as specialized and skilled a field as aerospace engineering. If you've realized that we don't accept your bluff and bluster on the subject of how to build spacecraft, then you should also realize we won't accept your bluff and bluster about how to properly interpret and analyze photographs. And in case it's not explicit enough, any argument that simply requires us to accept Jack White's opinion as if it were that of an expert photo analyst is an immediate non-starter.
Given your obvious bias, I'm not confident your newfound devotion to the "laws of physics" is going to reach a useful level of skepticism over White's drivel. You had that knowledge a few weeks ago. What prevented you from applying it then? If you're now admitting that you have a lot to learn about how to interpret photographs properly, then I agree. However I don't agree that you presently possess the required knowledge, nor that you're likely to suddenly acquire a useful amount of it over the next few weeks.
It might be easier simply for you to concede that people far more knowledgeable than you and Jack White aren't fooled by the handwaving references to "anomalies" and "inconsistencies" in photographs.
You have not proven anything to me yet, even if you posted that beautiful picture of the satellite but that proves nothing.
Yes, it proves you aren't willing to be corrected on any point.
-
...I've actually used Kapton tape on Christmas presents. (It's what I had.)
Coincidentally my employees and co-workers did that to me at the company holiday party recently. They completely covered their gift to me in Kapton tape, knowing that it would be nigh unto impossible for me to open it. With some scissors provided by another attendee and a knife borrowed from the bartender, I was finally able to get through it. It took just over four minutes; I'm told there's video.
-
If you were inclined to do that to a person, why wouldn't you record it?
The funny thing is, my expectations of what a craft designed to land on the Moon should look like is entirely based on seeing pictures and so forth from Apollo. This is partially my age; I was -7 when Apollo 11 landed on the Moon. Heck, my parents hadn't even met yet! So far as I'm concerned, Apollo is exactly what lunar landing craft would look like and the stuff in the movies looks fake and silly. I'm much happier that way; I like being more in touch with reality than fiction.
-
Ah, interesting. I know the stuff aboard Apollo was the grey silver often associated with duct tape, at least on some missions.
Most notably Apollo 17. And in 1972 what you bought as gray-silver duct tape was very similar to what you now buy as gaffer tape. Today's duct tape has departed from its original form, and what you now buy as gaffer tape more closely carries on the legacy of the early product. In short, it makes sense only today to differentiate so markedly between duct tape and gaffer tape. However modern space usage continues with the gaffer tape, owing to experience learned through Apollo. In short(er), yes it's unfair to distinguish between gaffer tape and duct tape in the context of a 1972 space mission.
Modern duct tape has gone the route of a polyethylene membrane attached to a scrim of natural or artificial fibers. That formulation existed in Apollo times, but was unsuitable for various reasons, most notably not being hand-tearable. Mission rules strictly limited the use of cutting tools while wearing a space suit. Hand-tearability was a requirement for Apollo and remains a requirement for modern space usage. Gaffer tape today has better adhesives than duct tape, specifically so that it doesn't contaminate fingers or other surfaces.
And conversely you can still get aluminized gaffer tape, which is specified for high-temperature applications. But for most entertainment purposes it eschewed in favor of matte black, for visual reasons. The plastic in gaffer tape is vinyl -- as noted, respected for its thermal and electrical insulative properties. But rather than being a vinyl membrane, the vinyl is impregnated into the fabric. The duck is a very tight weave, like a muslin.
The products have diverged a great deal. They have that common ancestor, so I'm okay calling Apollo 17's provision "duct tape." What you see in Apollo 17, during the attempt to repair the rover fender, is aluminized, vinyl-impregnated cotton duck. What you see in Apollo 13 is gray gaffer tape, which is a reasonable stand-in. What they carried on the space shuttle is gaffer tape manufactured by Shurtape.
There has been some debate whether "speed tape" was used in all these contexts, but speed tape isn't generally hand-tearable.
-
Ah, interesting. I know the stuff aboard Apollo was the grey silver often associated with duct tape, at least on some missions.
Most notably Apollo 17.
I don't know about most notibly. Without duct, or gaffer, tape, the crew of Apollo 13 wouldn't have made it back home, (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a13/AS13-62-8929.jpg) though I understand the danger of rooster-tails from a broken fender from a thermal control perspective.
Thank you though for the fascinating reading on the present and past differences of duct tape and gaffer tape.
-
So does that mean they were actually using gaffer tape in the Mythbusters duct tape episodes? I'm pretty sure they hand-tore it there.
-
I don't know about most notibly. Without duct, or gaffer, tape, the crew of Apollo 13 wouldn't have made it back home, (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a13/AS13-62-8929.jpg)
True. I meant notably from the visual perspective. On Apollo 17 we can see the crew on camera fumbling with the tape roll, while on Apollo 13 we see only the still photos of the result.
-
I don't know about most notibly. Without duct, or gaffer, tape, the crew of Apollo 13 wouldn't have made it back home, (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a13/AS13-62-8929.jpg)
True. I meant notably from the visual perspective. On Apollo 17 we can see the crew on camera fumbling with the tape roll, while on Apollo 13 we see only the still photos of the result.
I can't see any Apollo 13 crew member doing this:
"Here is a device that may well save our lives"
"Screw you, I am going to sit back and just take photographs"
I think not.
-
"Screw you, I am going to sit back and just take photographs"
Well put. After the danger had passed, NASA asked for photographs so that they could compare the as-built device with what the engineers had described. They had the foresight to realize that future missions might need ad hoc procedure call-ups just like this one, so an assessment of how successful the process had been was deemed good practice.
-
...held together with gaffer's tape (which is -- in a lesser degree -- to duck tape as Kapton is to Scotch).
And which is actually the tape carried on Apollo and on subsequent space missions -- not duct tape. The official supplier is Shurtape.
Gaffer tape is cotton duck impregnated with fire retardant and electrically insulative resins, supplied in different colors but used chiefly in black. The pressure-sensitive adhesive is low residue when removed within a few weeks, and functions in a vacuum. It can be torn easily by hand either lengthwise or widthwise (i.e., the cardinal dimensions of the duck weave), but maintains high tensile strength when axially loaded. (It does, however, shear somewhat more easily than duct tape.) It has been flown on every space mission since Apollo, for the same reasons it's so useful in the entertainment industry. A square of gaffer tape is robust enough to plug a quarter-inch hole in a spacecraft pressure hull.
Well, now I'm a happy camper - I'm closer to the aerospace industry than I thought. Shurtape's corporate headquarters is just across the river from me and the plant that manufactures cloth tapes is just up the road. And as I've said before, the other primary industry in the county is Schneider Mills, who made the fabric for Curiosity's parachute.
I've done computer service and emergency responder training at both facilities, so I guess I've made my own tiny contribution to space exploration, which I have to admit gives me a bit of a warm fuzzy feeling.
Gaffer's tape is, indeed, pretty impressive. Right now I have in my back pocket a pair of gloves patched with the stuff where the fingers wore through - staying in place with the constant flexing is remarkable for any kind of tape.
-
Expecting the exterior of the LM to be structural is like believing that shirts & pants are what hold human beings upright.
I like pictures like this one (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/misc/apmisc-LM-noID-16.jpg) that show the big structural struts, the lightweight stringers from which the external shield hung, and just all-around that these were extremely complex constructions, not just some slip-shod prop.
-
This tape has cropped up before here, I thought I would lay out my trump card, a gaffer tape wallet (sans gooey stuff obviously) then I was super trumped by someone with a link to people making clothes out of it :)
The wallet is still alive but relegated to the substitution bench as it deformed slightly and was awkward with the notes after a year or so stuffed in my pocket.
I also have a padded postal bag with various adapters in I use at work. A proper receptacle is on my roundtoit list. The bag bottom is now 9/10 gaffer. I might sort it out next year.
WIt is also handy for sticking cables to various structures and tarmac and walkways. Wonder what the weirdest Earthly use has been?
Edit. Spilling mistook conected.
-
The fine people at Duck Tape actually run a scholarship contest every year for people who make their prom outfits primarily out of the product. Helpfully, it now comes in a wide array of designer colours.
-
I dunno weird, but I've used it underwater, and used it on hot lighting instruments. It doesn't handle thick dust/sawdust/other powders well, though. I've also used it as light-weight strapping to dangle small weights (usually folding it over).
And even further off the subject, when you don't have anything but tape and you are securing a roll of cable, start the winding inside-out, then reverse it after one full turn. That way you get a band of tape securing the cable but none of the adhesive is in contact.
-
It doesn't handle thick dust/sawdust/other powders well, though.
Gene Cernan found it didn't handle lunar regolith very well either. This is why we tape stuff up in clean, controlled environments where possible. I have yet to see a stage or scenery shop that qualified. Gene and Jack eventually had to take the LRV fender into the LM cabin to finish the repair.
And even further off the subject, when you don't have anything but tape and you are securing a roll of cable, start the winding inside-out, then reverse it after one full turn. That way you get a band of tape securing the cable but none of the adhesive is in contact.
Wow, I learned a new trick today. Thanks!
-
Expecting the exterior of the LM to be structural is like believing that shirts & pants are what hold human beings upright.
I like pictures like this one (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/misc/apmisc-LM-noID-16.jpg) that show the big structural struts, the lightweight stringers from which the external shield hung, and just all-around that these were extremely complex constructions, not just some slip-shod prop.
An example which occurred to me is the dome of Saint Paul's Cathedral in London.
It's actually three domes: http://www.explore-stpauls.net/oct03/textMM/DomeConstructionN.htm
The outer and inner domes are decorative, not structural, and there's a considerable gap between them. The space separating them contains the structual dome. The difference between the three is that the inner and outer domes are hemispherical, while the middle, structural, dome is conical, which is close to a parabola. The conical shape is structurally much more stable, and needed to support the lantern on the top of the outer dome, but it isn't as aesthetically pleasing as the hemisphere.
-
And even further off the subject, when you don't have anything but tape and you are securing a roll of cable, start the winding inside-out, then reverse it after one full turn. That way you get a band of tape securing the cable but none of the adhesive is in contact.
Another tape I have seen with less sticky residue, called camera tape. That may be a generic term but it feels more like a cloth and the glue less tacky (?). Still tears easy and you can write on it.
Edit. I do not think it is as strong as gaffer.
But, never ever thought of that. Give that a go soon.
-
What would be good for fixing my rubber watch strap?
-
And even further off the subject, when you don't have anything but tape and you are securing a roll of cable, start the winding inside-out, then reverse it after one full turn. That way you get a band of tape securing the cable but none of the adhesive is in contact.
Another tape I have seen with less sticky residue, called camera tape. That may be a generic term but it feels more like a cloth and the glue less tacky (?). Still tears easy and you can write on it.
Edit. I do not think it is as strong as gaffer.
But, never ever thought of that. Give that a go soon.
Sounds like the stuff we call spike tape. Which is a low-residue, less-sticky soft cloth tape that tears well. We use it for marking stages, trick lines, edges of things you don't want to run into in the dark, etc.
Heh. My world is a lot of tape. Specialized tapes, but none of them particularly strong/sticky. There's also white painter's masking tape, universally called "board tape" -- smooth finish, residue is so low you can use it as drafting tape, takes Sharpie well.
Think the OP will ever come back?
-
What would be good for fixing my rubber watch strap?
Self amalg and an outer strip of denso......
Sorry, no idea ;)
Something pleasing applying denso, sod to get off your hands though.
-
"board tape"
Used the usual stuff for decorating the wall then it tore off the ceiling paint. Oh well, then found out there was a decorators version that is less tacky and no crinkly edges for the paint to get under. Oops, go back to check my lines and not only has the other tape lifted the ceiling paint, the edge is crinkly.
Use the latter on model making holding the parts together. Nothing left on the plastic after.
-
And even further off the subject, when you don't have anything but tape and you are securing a roll of cable, start the winding inside-out, then reverse it after one full turn. That way you get a band of tape securing the cable but none of the adhesive is in contact.
That just get's the nomination for awesome, I am so going to actually do that.
-
And even further off the subject, when you don't have anything but tape and you are securing a roll of cable, start the winding inside-out, then reverse it after one full turn. That way you get a band of tape securing the cable but none of the adhesive is in contact.
That just get's the nomination for awesome, I am so going to actually do that.
It is perhaps the single most directly useful thing anyone has ever said on the many generations of this board. 8) I second the nomination for awesome.
-
And even further off the subject, when you don't have anything but tape and you are securing a roll of cable, start the winding inside-out, then reverse it after one full turn. That way you get a band of tape securing the cable but none of the adhesive is in contact.
I learned that one from a Sgt. when I was stationed in Germany many years ago. It's also a good mickey mouse solution for neatly tying cable bundles together when you're out of zip ties (loose cables and grunts don't mix well! ;) ).
-
Speaking of cables, I learned a long time ago how to wind them in a figure-8 fashion to keep them from snarling when you unwind them. You don't have to twist the cable to keep it from curling, and you can just toss the wound cable on the floor and pull one end out without it getting tangled.
I actually learned it first as a way to wind paper tape from a teletype machine, but I don't handle that stuff much anymore...
-
To Eternidad, if you should return.. Could you do me (us) a HUGE favour?
I went to your website, and within a very short time began to lose the will to live... Now, it's your website, so you can please yourself, I guess, but HERE... would you PLEASE just post your ABSOLUTE, BEST, MOST CONVINCING TOPIC.
Just ONE. The one you think is most worthy.. Then, we can concentrate on that, and do a step by step analysis on it before moving on to anything else. Gee, maybe it's just me, but I find plagiarism, lack of citing, and very brief postings that lack any sign of a true analysis rather less than convincing...
Surely it would be in your best interest (and the interest of truth) to concentrate on one topic at a time in FULL DETAIL. Then, your 'proof' (once it has withstood proper analysis) and your expertise will both be immediately obvious to all.
If you would rather not do that, instead preferring to run the usual Gish Gallop of Apollo deniers, then I'm afraid the conclusion will be quite clear..
BTW, I note with amusement your first post said "I'm not going away" and then .. you went away.
To Glom.. there are commercial rubber glues that might work, and I've used a neoprene repair glue to repair my wetsuit - that glue is awesome and is now outlasting the wetsuit - try a dive/scuba shop.. Trouble is you might need to experiment to find out what type of rubber..
-
I actually learned it first as a way to wind paper tape from a teletype machine, but I don't handle that stuff much anymore...
Yuck. I'm glad the only place I had to deal with TT paper tape was during commo school training. I can't imagine working with that stuff in the field, in the back of a darkish M577, like the RATT rig operators sometimes had to.
-
Faceman won the December Stundie award! Congratulations!
The official announcement won't be out for another week but you can see the vote count here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=250995
Once again, congratulations.
-
Oh, do not read all the nominations in one go. I feel a bit dizzy.
-
While the Wright Brothers quote was indeed awesome, it is not so much of a logic bender as the one where the poster said that, in order to cut time on travelling to a star or planet, you should just launch your vessel closer to it.
I can see someone trying that in the real world.
"Oh dear, we need to get to the airport in an hour, but it's a two hour drive. We'll never get there in time."
"No problem, just start your trip at the turnoff from the highway. That'll only be a 10 minute drive to the terminal!"
-
To be absolutely fair, that's basically what we do for probes to other planets.
-
Faceman won the December Stundie award! Congratulations!
The official announcement won't be out for another week but you can see the vote count here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=250995
Once again, congratulations.
Yes, congrats and thanks to Faceman! Your marvelous seagull one-and-done post was my first Stundie nomination finalist. I knew you were a contender!