ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: rocketman on July 25, 2024, 03:08:14 PM
-
There are numerous anomalies in this NASA photo, and some of them are just obvious.
(https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/D4D22AQHaMn9FB47vug/feedshare-shrink_2048_1536/0/1710272842180?e=2147483647&v=beta&t=JbMSbA3VOEHEocieQ4xbCM8UTe9Jwi2D1Fi_60UkWvU)
Where to begin?
1. The viking ship is wind powered. But there is no air on the moon! How did it get there? How did it move around on the moon?
2. There are only 24 stars on the American flag. But there were 50 states at the time of this so-called moon landing!
3. The astronaut is saying "Seriously?!" But without air on the moon, there is no way for the sound to be transmitted. How can we hear what he is saying?
4. Look at the earth in the background. We can see Africa and Arabia. The so-called moon landings took off from Florida, which should be on the other side of the world. So a rocket traveling up from Florida would be moving away from the moon, not towards it!
If you still believe the moon landings were real in light of this evidence, there is no hope for you.
-
There are numerous anomalies in this NASA photo, and some of them are just obvious.
(https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/D4D22AQHaMn9FB47vug/feedshare-shrink_2048_1536/0/1710272842180?e=2147483647&v=beta&t=JbMSbA3VOEHEocieQ4xbCM8UTe9Jwi2D1Fi_60UkWvU)
Where to begin?
1. The viking ship is wind powered. But there is no air on the moon! How did it get there? How did it move around on the moon?
2. There are only 24 stars on the American flag. But there were 50 states at the time of this so-called moon landing!
3. The astronaut is saying "Seriously?!" But without air on the moon, there is no way for the sound to be transmitted. How can we hear what he is saying?
4. Look at the earth in the background. We can see Africa and Arabia. The so-called moon landings took off from Florida, which should be on the other side of the world. So a rocket traveling up from Florida would be moving away from the moon, not towards it!
If you still believe the moon landings were real in light of this evidence, there is no hope for you.
Nice pisstake!
-
If you stick with me - I believe I can present to you, compelling evidence that we didn't land humans on the moon.
Be nice. I'm nice. And I'm sincere. So please lend me your ear. I've posted my first thread here:
https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2016.0
I invite your scrutiny and challenges. We are One. We're in this together.
-
If you stick with me - I believe I can present to you, compelling evidence that we didn't land humans on the moon.
Be nice. I'm nice. And I'm sincere. So please lend me your ear. I've posted my first thread here:
https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2016.0
I invite your scrutiny and challenges. We are One. We're in this together.
You asked us to reconcile a dish falling away with gravity in one of your A 12 threads. Now I'll ask you as a HB to reconcile.
800 lbs of moon rocks and regolith, that obviuosly were not made on earth?
Many minutes of lunar terrain from with the LRV?
Images of the landing stages still on the Moon capture days apart casting different aspect shadows?
Reflected laser beams from areas aimed at the landing sites?
Data collected from ALSEP's?
Telemetry received from the vehicles travelling to/from the Moon?
Apollo CSM taking images of cloud patterns on earth from distances greater than geosynchronous orbits?
Massive Saturn V rockets firing all the stages third stage twice propelling SM toward the Moon?
If the CSM didn't travel to the Moon as you claim where did it go? How were images taken from the capsule showing the Earth not travelling in orbit?
Images/videos of ascent stage LM rendezvousing with CM with the Moon in the background?
Similar videos of the LM departing the CM?
Hours of video/film depicting stuff behaving in a lower G than Earth?
Images of Surveyor 3?
Returned camera and scoop from Surveyor returned inside the A12 CM?
-
You asked us to reconcile a dish falling away with gravity in one of your A 12 threads. Now I'll ask you as a HB to reconcile.
800 lbs of moon rocks and regolith, that obviuosly were not made on earth?
Many minutes of lunar terrain from with the LRV?
Images of the landing stages still on the Moon capture days apart casting different aspect shadows?
Reflected laser beams from areas aimed at the landing sites?
Data collected from ALSEP's?
Telemetry received from the vehicles travelling to/from the Moon?
Apollo CSM taking images of cloud patterns on earth from distances greater than geosynchronous orbits?
Massive Saturn V rockets firing all the stages third stage twice propelling SM toward the Moon?
If the CSM didn't travel to the Moon as you claim where did it go? How were images taken from the capsule showing the Earth not travelling in orbit?
Images/videos of ascent stage LM rendezvousing with CM with the Moon in the background?
Similar videos of the LM departing the CM?
Hours of video/film depicting stuff behaving in a lower G than Earth?
Images of Surveyor 3?
Returned camera and scoop from Surveyor returned inside the A12 CM?
And I will add a story that makes it impossible for the astronauts to have NOT been on the moon when it happened.
In 1969, an Amateur Radio Operator, Larry Baysinger (W4EJA) listened to, and recorded the Apollo 11 astronauts during the Lunar EVA from his home in Louisville Kentucky.
https://www.arrl.org/eavesdropping-on-apollo-11
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/40664/what-was-the-transmitting-power-of-the-apollo-astronauts-plss-vhf-radio-transmi
The 8 × 12 foot “corner horn” reflector antenna Larry used had a motorized steering mechanism but it had to be manually guided. Its beam was such that, once pointed at the Moon, he could hear the 259.7 MHz VHF signals coming from the antenna mounted on the astronauts' PLSS "backpack" .
(https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yrquckzia8842qfkbz9xe/LarryBaysinger-Corner-Reflector.jpg?rlkey=2z6xhzhioqevvo0s4mu882pam&raw=1)
There a couple of pieces of irrefutable evidence that proved conclusively the signals he received must have been coming from the moon.
1. The antenna had to be continually re-aimed at the moon. If this wasn't done, the signal disappeared. The moon set at his location during the time he was listening, so he was unable to continue to hear them
2. Baysinger's recordings do not include the voices of CAPCOM in Houston, Texas or the associated quindar tones (beeps) heard in NASA audio. In other words, he could only hear the transmissions from the Moon, and not transmissions to the Moon from the Earth.
There is no way either of the above could be true if he was listening to some random local transmission or had somehow hooked into a satellite by accident (and in point of fact, no satellite would have been using a VHF frequency in that range anyway)
Here is one of Larry's recordings
https://soundcloud.com/shannon-hall4/apollo-11-recording
-
I had forgotten that one. Thanks for refreshing the story.
-
I had forgotten that one. Thanks for refreshing the story.
There are others too.
Professor Heinz Kaminski recorded Apollo 11 transmissions at Bochum Observatory in Germany. Again, the transmissions he received and recorded had no CAPCOM transmissions, and no quindar tones.
https://honeysucklecreek.net/other_stations/bochum/main.html
And of course, the famous occasion when British scientist Sir Bernard Lovell and his team used the Jodrell Bank Radio Telescope as a radar to track the Lunar Module on its decent to Tranquility (as well as the Soviet Luna 15 probe that was operating near the moon at the same time). They were even able to detect when Neil Armstrong took control of the LM and started to translate across the Lunar surface to look for a safer landing site.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-49001181
All this is further proof of the reality of the Moon landings... and as a bonus, the three of them together prove the earth is not flat!!
-
Professor Heinz Kaminski recorded Apollo 11 transmissions at Bochum Observatory in Germany. Again, the transmissions he received and recorded had no CAPCOM transmissions, and no quindar tones.
https://honeysucklecreek.net/other_stations/bochum/main.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-49001181
Thanks for the 3 references. I hadn't see the 1st one about Larry Baysinger (although I had seen other articles, but just not one as good as this one).
Those are the BIG three.. Are there more?
From a MLH perspective, I reconcile these as following:
1. Baysinger - spent a lot of money/time on this. Could he and his one friend be lying? (Otherwise, they wasted all that time/money; or they could fib and be famous)
Where is his recording? I've seen/heard NOTHING about this... seems like that would be pretty VITAL -- as the ONLY amateur recording in history to capture this.
Did he do it again a few months later for Apollo 12? 14, 15, 16, 17?
I hear about NO OTHER amateurs ever doing this.
2. Bochum - all we have left here is 67 second MP3. What else is there? How many witnesses? Any other testimonies? Or just one guy?.... Anymore more than an MP3 which simply plays the same track that was also broadcast.. I'm not sure how to tell that "this is verifiable fact".
3. Jodrelll -- same questions. What proof still exists? Who are the witnesses? All I've seen from them is a "altitude line graph" - without knowing "how did they actually track their landing from their earth dish that was a lot smaller than what we see now.
All 3 sources have gains for these claims - fame, good for tourism or funding.. Jodrell got LOTS of funding after this... Follow the money?
===
LASTLY, and maybe most importantly.... I am not trying to prove we didn't orbit the moon -- ONLY that we didn't land humans on the moon.
The moon itself is only 0.4 arc angle field-of-view from earth. Our technology back then wasn't so precise that we could tell a difference of 0.2 deg tolerance (likely).
So there exist a few other options, to transmit from the Lunar orbit (70 minutes Line-of-Site, per 2 hr orbit).
Rumor has it that the Russians played a joke on Nixon by sending some fake transmissions from their own lunar satellite, using it as a relay - to say that they landed on the moon. Have you heard this rumor? (is it true, or just made up?)
Anyhow - I'm a rookie, filliing in gaps of info as I go. But what I've presented is my current understanding of this situation and evidence.
-
Professor Heinz Kaminski recorded Apollo 11 transmissions at Bochum Observatory in Germany. Again, the transmissions he received and recorded had no CAPCOM transmissions, and no quindar tones.
https://honeysucklecreek.net/other_stations/bochum/main.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-49001181
Thanks for the 3 references. I hadn't see the 1st one about Larry Baysinger (although I had seen other articles, but just not one as good as this one).
Those are the BIG three.. Are there more?
From a MLH perspective, I reconcile these as following:
1. Baysinger - spent a lot of money/time on this. Could he and his one friend be lying? (Otherwise, they wasted all that time/money; or they could fib and be famous)
Where is his recording? I've seen/heard NOTHING about this... seems like that would be pretty VITAL -- as the ONLY amateur recording in history to capture this.
Did he do it again a few months later for Apollo 12? 14, 15, 16, 17?
I hear about NO OTHER amateurs ever doing this.
2. Bochum - all we have left here is 67 second MP3. What else is there? How many witnesses? Any other testimonies? Or just one guy?.... Anymore more than an MP3 which simply plays the same track that was also broadcast.. I'm not sure how to tell that "this is verifiable fact".
3. Jodrelll -- same questions. What proof still exists? Who are the witnesses? All I've seen from them is a "altitude line graph" - without knowing "how did they actually track their landing from their earth dish that was a lot smaller than what we see now.
All 3 sources have gains for these claims - fame, good for tourism or funding.. Jodrell got LOTS of funding after this... Follow the money?
Standard conspiracist thinking at work.
It is not enough to imagine that something could happen- you have to show that it did happen. And if you can show that it did, your workings have to overcome the other vast mounds of independently verified corroborating evidence.
You place standards of proof on theirs that you happily hand-wave away when it doesn't confirm with your internal belief system. No mind so closed as those who do not want to learn.
I bet that you have never heard of Christopher Taylor (https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/stargazers-corner/apollo-8-view/)? He observed the fuel dump from the Apollo 8 booster from a backyard in the UK
I bet you also have never heard of Commander Henry Hatfield either. He, along with a number of other UK amateur astronomers not only observed the same dump, but actually photographed it.
https://pages.astronomy.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html
Just goes to show how ridiculous claims of a conspiracy are. It would be easier to go to the Moon that to plant all of these pieces on independent evidence all over the world.
-
It is not enough to imagine that something could happen- you have to show that it did happen. And if you can show that it did, your workings have to overcome the other vast mounds of independently verified corroborating evidence.
My approach is to show "what could NOT have happened." If I prove enough IMPOSSIBILITIES - even the Mighty Apollo cannot Break Physics. Once you show Physics being broken, it compels the physicists to open their minds to the likelihood that what they previously believed, may simply not be true.
I bet that you have never heard of Christopher Taylor (https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/stargazers-corner/apollo-8-view/)? He observed the fuel dump from the Apollo 8 booster from a backyard in the UK
I bet you also have never heard of Commander Henry Hatfield either. He, along with a number of other UK amateur astronomers not only observed the same dump, but actually photographed it.
https://pages.astronomy.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html
I think you misunderstand my MLH theory -- I simply say "we didn't LAND humans on the moon".
So sure -- we saw fuel dumps. At minimum, we made it into LOE -- and here again, there will be fuel dumps, no?
And does that video seem like a "good argument against MLH" really? This is a strawman approach - pretending MLH is something that it's not.
Most believe the real decision to fake it, occurred in 1967, after Apollo 1, but also that these preparations/considerations as Plan B, had started earlier.
Like any good Military plan, there's always multiple COA's -- in 1967 "Plan B" went into effect.... a year later Webb and Seamans both resigned -- didn't want to be a part of it.
Nearly all 400,000 people working on NASA were doing "good work" - but the LEM was simply not "capable of landing humans on the surface", and even harder -- "ascending back into a perfectly aligned and timed orbit at 3000 mph 60 miles high - 1st try every time".
So they had to fake this Landing part... minimum.
===
And that video talks about "the biggest cost being SaturnV" -- there's a strong theory that the SaturnV was NOT CAPABLE of launching a 110,000 lb payload to leave Earth's orbit. I may delve into this issue in the future.
The biggest smoking gun I know of now is that SpaceX's SLS rocket has more total power than the SaturnV by a lot - but is still only rated at 59,000 lbs for leaving earth's orbit... about HALF.
I haven't gotten more into this yet -- but what I've seen so far, doesn't bode too well, even for leaving LOE. More on that later...
-
And that video talks about "the biggest cost being SaturnV" -- there's a strong theory that the SaturnV was NOT CAPABLE of launching a 110,000 lb payload to leave Earth's orbit. I may delve into this issue in the future.
The biggest smoking gun I know of now is that SpaceX's SLS rocket has more total power than the SaturnV by a lot - but is still only rated at 59,000 lbs for leaving earth's orbit... about HALF.
I haven't gotten more into this yet -- but what I've seen so far, doesn't bode too well, even for leaving LOE. More on that later...
Firstly the fact that you are confusing SpaceX's Falcon Superheavy/Starship and the SLS is not a good start at all, they are completely different vehicles.
Secondly consider what the FSh/Starship do that the Saturn V doesn't do and why that might make comparing them need more thought than just looking at the maximum payload. Perhaps consider how many times a given Saturn V was intended to be used vs the fully resuable FSh/Starship
Finally the Saturn V is rocket that is still looked at today, why wouldn't all the rocket scientists and engineers notice that it was not as capable as it was claimed?
-
Firstly the fact that you are confusing SpaceX's Falcon Superheavy/Starship and the SLS is not a good start at all, they are completely different vehicles.
Secondly consider what the FSh/Starship do that the Saturn V doesn't do and why that might make comparing them need more thought than just looking at the maximum payload. Perhaps consider how many times a given Saturn V was intended to be used vs the fully resuable FSh/Starship
Finally the Saturn V is rocket that is still looked at today, why wouldn't all the rocket scientists and engineers notice that it was not as capable as it was claimed?
Thanks for the info - I will record/keep ALL Of this for later reference. My rookie focus is purposefully limited to (for now) only "the moon landing part". I have abundant very solid reasons to doubt this.
As for the SaturnV - I'm only recounting "memories of what I saw/heard" along the way. My thoughts haven't been tested. Your comments are great, and what I really need most. Thank you.
Since we're on this topic, there are 3 more reasons I doubt the SaturnV's capability:
1. Some Russian scientist did an analysis of the Saturn V Timed rocket launch to where it went through the clouds. And based on his estimated timing and velocity as it went through the clouds, it showed the Saturn V to have only a fraction of the power advertised.
2. In part, this was because they throttled it down some, because the "Cooling system" was incapable of handling full throttle.
3. Artemis X - the one wants to land 220,000 lbs on the moon - currently thinks they need 15 re-fuelings to get there.... So SaturnV can deliver 110,000 lbs with one fueling... But Starship with boosters (more lift than Saturn) - we need 15 refuelings??? Why not just put 110,000 lbs onto TWO Saturn V's?? They could just rendezvous and attach in orbit around the moon!
I get some of the excuses -- but there is a DRAMATIC rift here... between what we "said we did" vs. "what we can do now"... regarding the "Payload capacity" and Rocket power needed to launch to the moon.
===
Again -- the above is not-tested/vetted -- I'm writing it to you now -- so you can tell me what about all of this is crap, or how it's refuted.
-
As for the SaturnV - I'm only recounting "memories of what I saw/heard" along the way. My thoughts haven't been tested. Your comments are great, and what I really need most. Thank you.
Since we're on this topic, there are 3 more reasons I doubt the SaturnV's capability:
1. Some Russian scientist did an analysis of the Saturn V Timed rocket launch to where it went through the clouds. And based on his estimated timing and velocity as it went through the clouds, it showed the Saturn V to have only a fraction of the power advertised.
This is like one of those situations where you throw a party and someone shows up to your house fifteen years late:
https://apollohoax.proboards.com/thread/2732
https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=776.0
. In part, this was because they throttled it down some, because the "Cooling system" was incapable of handling full throttle.
I wouldn't make any statements about rocket science if I were you.
3. Artemis X - the one wants to land 220,000 lbs on the moon - currently thinks they need 15 re-fuelings to get there.... So SaturnV can deliver 110,000 lbs with one fueling... But Starship with boosters (more lift than Saturn) - we need 15 refuelings??? Why not just put 110,000 lbs onto TWO Saturn V's?? They could just rendezvous and attach in orbit around the moon!
If I ran the Zoo. The HB playback, every single thing. Maybe they don't have 2 Saturn V's?
-
. In part, this was because they throttled it down some, because the "Cooling system" was incapable of handling full throttle.
I wouldn't make any statements about rocket science if I were you.
If I ran the Zoo. The HB playback, every single thing. Maybe they don't have 2 Saturn V's?
Thanks for those links -- added those to my list for future reading before I consider tackling the "SaturnV was underpowered" argument, if I ever do this.
I believe there might be something to the "Cooling system" thing, as well as some factuality to the USA switching over to use a Russian design for cooling.
And why use SaturnV when we have ones with MORE power today -- just use two of those... and we're done, right?
(We can just do what Apollo did in 1969, but have two.)
And since Apollo tech knows how to rendezvous 50x faster than ISS/CST100/etc -- we should use their designs for this too. Why take hours to dock, when Apollo always did it in a few minutes.
-
And why use SaturnV when we have ones with MORE power today -- just use two of those... and we're done, right?
I'm being flippant. One of the rocket guys is better qualified to answer your parroted claim.
And since Apollo tech knows how to rendezvous 50x faster than ISS/CST100/etc -- we should use their designs for this too. Why take hours to dock, when Apollo always did it in a few minutes.
You don't know what you are talking about .
-
Firstly the fact that you are confusing SpaceX's Falcon Superheavy/Starship and the SLS is not a good start at all, they are completely different vehicles.
Secondly consider what the FSh/Starship do that the Saturn V doesn't do and why that might make comparing them need more thought than just looking at the maximum payload. Perhaps consider how many times a given Saturn V was intended to be used vs the fully resuable FSh/Starship
Finally the Saturn V is rocket that is still looked at today, why wouldn't all the rocket scientists and engineers notice that it was not as capable as it was claimed?
Thanks for the info - I will record/keep ALL Of this for later reference. My rookie focus is purposefully limited to (for now) only "the moon landing part". I have abundant very solid reasons to doubt this.
As for the SaturnV - I'm only recounting "memories of what I saw/heard" along the way. My thoughts haven't been tested. Your comments are great, and what I really need most. Thank you.
Since we're on this topic, there are 3 more reasons I doubt the SaturnV's capability:
1. Some Russian scientist did an analysis of the Saturn V Timed rocket launch to where it went through the clouds. And based on his estimated timing and velocity as it went through the clouds, it showed the Saturn V to have only a fraction of the power advertised.
I have seen their "work" and found it lacking. I built with some help a spreadsheet that models the ascent of A11 quiet correctly with publish data. Bob B. has a similar calculation on his website, try looking at using the way back machine.
2. In part, this was because they throttled it down some, because the "Cooling system" was incapable of handling full throttle.
No, RPG fuel was injected into the engine bell to help cool it. The real reason they throttled back was to maintain an acceleration of ~4.5g. You are really bad at this
3. Artemis X - the one wants to land 220,000 lbs on the moon - currently thinks they need 15 re-fuelings to get there.... So SaturnV can deliver 110,000 lbs with one fueling... But Starship with boosters (more lift than Saturn) - we need 15 refuelings??? Why not just put 110,000 lbs onto TWO Saturn V's?? They could just rendezvous and attach in orbit around the moon!
For an individual who proclaims a good geal of physics knowledge, you don't show much. the reason for Starship refuelings is in part business, they want a fully reusable rocket. NASA only wanted to go to the Moon. Secondly and this goes again with reusability Saturn V used three stages, a more optimal launch system, than SpaceX using two stages.
I get some of the excuses -- but there is a DRAMATIC rift here... between what we "said we did" vs. "what we can do now"... regarding the "Payload capacity" and Rocket power needed to launch to the moon.
===
Again -- the above is not-tested/vetted -- I'm writing it to you now -- so you can tell me what about all of this is crap, or how it's refuted.
You should really read about Apollo in other places than CT it would broaden your mind.
-
I'm being flippant. One of the rocket guys is better qualified to answer your parroted claim.
Yet this claim isn't "niche".. It's front-and-center -- it's fairly widely known that 2024 Artemis math/plans was going to require 15 "re-fuelings" for double-the-load. This discrepancy is quite glaring.
So I'd think we no longer need "one of the rocket guys to answer this" - because they should already answered this, and you can just tell me "what they said".
Surely I'm not the first to notice this, right?
-
NAJAK WROTE: "Again -- the above is not-tested/vetted -- I'm writing it to you now -- so you can tell me what about all of this is crap, or how it's refuted."
You should really read about Apollo in other places than CT it would broaden your mind.
Note my disclaimer. I've purposefully NOT delved into SaturnV validations, but as I've been searching the other evidence, I happen across some of this, which looks compelling for the Fakery.
At this time, I'm avoiding the "We never left earth orbit" claim -- because for this, there is much less evidence, and the mechanisms for a hoax would need to be larger. So it's a 10X harder argument to make. So I'm focusing on the "Humans didn't land on the moon" part of the MLH theory. I currently have zero doubts about whether or not we landed -- due to my understanding of 3D physics. I'm in process of devising a Unity3D mini-app that behaves like an "LM/AM" lab - which shows "perfect/ideal LM/AM control" vs. "what happens when you introduce those unavoidable imperfections" (differences between desired RCS output vs. actual, both on lbF as well as timing). Hypergolic combustion has some chaos and variance in how it happens... Plus the AM isn't a perfect "regular 3D shape" with "perfect center of mass" and wasn't being rotated along the actual center-of-mass for the "pitch/roll" maneuvers especially.
It's these imperfections that made this docking IMPOSSIBLE. And even the might Apollo cannot break physics (and imperfections are a part of it all).
Especially right before docking, the AM, using the same 100 lbF RCS thrusters to maneuver Attitude, were GROSSLY OVERPOWERED, such that a single 1 msec of error in firing time for one RCS thruster, would introduce a scant, but deadly, off-axis rotation...
Instead, we see Apollo 11/12 rendezvous, with impossible "Snap-stop" behaviors repeated, stopping turns that are up to 4.2 deg/sec in speed - in an instant, and perfectly. No imperfections at all.
I'll be getting to this next. For me, this is the BIGGEST slam dunk in MY MIND- because of my professional experience with this domain, the world of realistic high-fidelity 3D physics simulations.
-
Yet this claim isn't "niche".. It's front-and-center -- it's fairly widely known that 2024 Artemis math/plans was going to require 15 "re-fuelings" for double-the-load. This discrepancy is quite glaring.
So I'd think we no longer need "one of the rocket guys to answer this" - because they should already answered this, and you can just tell me "what they said".
Surely I'm not the first to notice this, right?
We don't even need one of the "rocket guys", just some simple common sense.
What did Apollo send to the moon? The CM, SM, LM, 3rd Stage, and the adaptor. All up, less than 163,313kg (since the 3rd stage wasn't full when TLI occurred).
What's Starship's weight? 100,000kg.... empty. Fully fueled, Starship is apparently 1,300,000kg.
And then there's the mission profile. Starship HLS has to get itself to Earth orbit, that uses it's fuel. Then it will need to get itself to the moon, hence the need to refuel. That fuel will also be needed to establish lunar orbit, descent to the lunar surface, and return from the surface to lunar orbit.
Apollo used the 1st, 2nd, and part of the 3rd stage to get to Earth orbit, reducing in mass with each subsequent staging. The 3rd stage sent them to the moon. The CSM, now with a lot less mass to worry about, put them in lunar orbit and sent them back to Earth, while the LM, with even more less mass to worry about, got them to the surface, and the LM ascent stage, with even less mass again, got back to lunar orbit.
-
Yet this claim isn't "niche".. It's front-and-center -- it's fairly widely known that 2024 Artemis math/plans was going to require 15 "re-fuelings" for double-the-load. This discrepancy is quite glaring.
So I'd think we no longer need "one of the rocket guys to answer this" - because they should already answered this, and you can just tell me "what they said".
Surely I'm not the first to notice this, right?
We don't even need one of the "rocket guys", just some simple common sense.
What did Apollo send to the moon? The CM, SM, LM, 3rd Stage, and the adaptor. All up, less than 163,313kg (since the 3rd stage wasn't full when TLI occurred).
What's Starship's weight? 100,000kg.... empty. Fully fueled, Starship is apparently 1,300,000kg.
And then there's the mission profile. Starship HLS has to get itself to Earth orbit, that uses it's fuel. Then it will need to get itself to the moon, hence the need to refuel. That fuel will also be needed to establish lunar orbit, descent to the lunar surface, and return from the surface to lunar orbit.
Apollo used the 1st, 2nd, and part of the 3rd stage to get to Earth orbit, reducing in mass with each subsequent staging. The 3rd stage sent them to the moon. The CSM, now with a lot less mass to worry about, put them in lunar orbit and sent them back to Earth, while the LM, with even more less mass to worry about, got them to the surface, and the LM ascent stage, with even less mass again, got back to lunar orbit.
To display this graphically
(https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/zl1mszzevzhljpisixoz6/Saturn-v-HLS.png?rlkey=bqryrsv7s6i2slsz4r22cn628&raw=1)
Both NASA and SpaceX were/are trying to get their respective blue bits to the moon
NASA's blue bit was around 61,000 kg with fuel and expendables
SpaceX's blue bit is around 1,300,000 kg with fuel and expendables
And SpaceX want to get the green bit back for re-use, while NASA didn't get anything back except the CM, which was not re-usbale.
This is what we mean when we say that Apollo and Starship cannot be compared because they had/have different mission profiles. Starship's profile is to send 21x the mass Apollo did (1.3 million kg v 61 thousand kg) to TLI... this is more than an order of magnitude greater - not a difference that can just be handwaved away in conspiracy theorist fashion!
-
This is what we mean when we say that Apollo and Starship cannot be compared because they had/have different mission profiles. Starship's profile is to send 21x the mass Apollo did (1.3 million kg v 61 thousand kg) to TLI... this is more than an order of magnitude greater - not a difference that can just be handwaved away in conspiracy theorist fashion!
Thanks for the responses here, and since we have a lot of balls in the air right now -- I'm going to put this one to rest... punt/postpone.
My focus will ONLY be part where I'm sure we did not "land men on the moon"... that's the only part I'm going to stay focused on here, until I get through my "slam dunk" list.
-
To display this graphically
Both NASA and SpaceX were/are trying to get their respective blue bits to the moon
NASA's blue bit was around 61,000 kg with fuel and expendables
SpaceX's blue bit is around 1,300,000 kg with fuel and expendables
And SpaceX want to get the green bit back for re-use, while NASA didn't get anything back except the CM, which was not re-usbale.
This is what we mean when we say that Apollo and Starship cannot be compared because they had/have different mission profiles. Starship's profile is to send 21x the mass Apollo did (1.3 million kg v 61 thousand kg) to TLI... this is more than an order of magnitude greater - not a difference that can just be handwaved away in conspiracy theorist fashion!
Heh, stealing that. Although, technically the third stage and the SLA should be blue as well, since they were all boosted in the direction of the moon.
until I get through my "slam dunk" list.
Oh? Have you started it yet?
-
Professor Heinz Kaminski recorded Apollo 11 transmissions at Bochum Observatory in Germany. Again, the transmissions he received and recorded had no CAPCOM transmissions, and no quindar tones.
https://honeysucklecreek.net/other_stations/bochum/main.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-49001181
Thanks for the 3 references. I hadn't see the 1st one about Larry Baysinger (although I had seen other articles, but just not one as good as this one).
Those are the BIG three.. Are there more?
From a MLH perspective, I reconcile these as following:
1. Baysinger - spent a lot of money/time on this. Could he and his one friend be lying? (Otherwise, they wasted all that time/money; or they could fib and be famous)
Where is his recording? I've seen/heard NOTHING about this... seems like that would be pretty VITAL -- as the ONLY amateur recording in history to capture this.
Did he do it again a few months later for Apollo 12? 14, 15, 16, 17?
I hear about NO OTHER amateurs ever doing this.
2. Bochum - all we have left here is 67 second MP3. What else is there? How many witnesses? Any other testimonies? Or just one guy?.... Anymore more than an MP3 which simply plays the same track that was also broadcast.. I'm not sure how to tell that "this is verifiable fact".
3. Jodrelll -- same questions. What proof still exists? Who are the witnesses? All I've seen from them is a "altitude line graph" - without knowing "how did they actually track their landing from their earth dish that was a lot smaller than what we see now.
All 3 sources have gains for these claims - fame, good for tourism or funding.. Jodrell got LOTS of funding after this... Follow the money?
===
LASTLY, and maybe most importantly.... I am not trying to prove we didn't orbit the moon -- ONLY that we didn't land humans on the moon.
The moon itself is only 0.4 arc angle field-of-view from earth. Our technology back then wasn't so precise that we could tell a difference of 0.2 deg tolerance (likely).
So there exist a few other options, to transmit from the Lunar orbit (70 minutes Line-of-Site, per 2 hr orbit).
Rumor has it that the Russians played a joke on Nixon by sending some fake transmissions from their own lunar satellite, using it as a relay - to say that they landed on the moon. Have you heard this rumor? (is it true, or just made up?)
Conspiracy Theory 101... If you can't explain something someone has done that shows you are wrong, claim they were lying.
Anyhow - I'm a rookie
This is the first and only factual thing you have said here so far.
-
Conspiracy Theory 101... If you can't explain something someone has done that shows you are wrong, claim they were lying.
Nah, it's common sense. When you go to a magic show that everyone is proclaiming to be "real" and you see the man cut a lady in half, then put her back together again... while everyone else is saying "it's real!" and quoting some remote/historic sources saying "but so-and-so verified it"..
I'm still saying "that was impossible"- there's likely a more scientifically sound explanation.
My point in stating all of that was to demonstrate that MOST people who accept Apollo as real have a VERY SKEWED understanding of the *actual* evidence that forms the foundation of their beliefs.
In their minds, Apollogists happily summarize their foundation with many dishonest claims, such as:
1. 400,000 people couldn't have all lied. (this hoax required the work of a few hundred - military men who firmly understand the nature of Top Secret and Treason).
2. Nations around the world validated it as it was happening. (a few, claims, with no lasting evidence, and no witnesses specified except a few names)
3. Amateurs around the world validated it as it was happening. (we have one)
4. Russia had no reason to congratulate us if we lied.
5. 50,000 samples have been given out to 500 labs in over 15 nations (not true).
-
Conspiracy Theory 101... If you can't explain something someone has done that shows you are wrong, claim they were lying.
Nah, it's common sense. When you go to a magic show that everyone is proclaiming to be "real" and you see the man cut a lady in half, then put her back together again... while everyone else is saying "it's real!" and quoting some remote/historic sources saying "but so-and-so verified it"..
I'm still saying "that was impossible"- there's likely a more scientifically sound explanation.
My point in stating all of that was to demonstrate that MOST people who accept Apollo as real have a VERY SKEWED understanding of the *actual* evidence that forms the foundation of their beliefs.
In their minds, Apollogists happily summarize their foundation with many dishonest claims, such as:
1. 400,000 people couldn't have all lied. (this hoax required the work of a few hundred - military men who firmly understand the nature of Top Secret and Treason).
2. Nations around the world validated it as it was happening. (a few, claims, with no lasting evidence, and no witnesses specified except a few names)
3. Amateurs around the world validated it as it was happening. (we have one)
4. Russia had no reason to congratulate us if we lied.
5. 50,000 samples have been given out to 500 labs in over 15 nations (not true).
The more people that are associated with a conspiracy the harder it is to keep a lid on it.
Yes nations validated the A11 mission, Great Britain, Rusia (USSR) for another.
You have been shown some of the individuals and hand waved them away because it doesn't fit you CT.
Well I didn't count the countries/scientists that have been supplied with regolith, but it is substantial. You saying that is not true does not make it a lie/falsehood.
You have no evidence nothing except you belief. Don't understand that if scientist disbelieved the story they would cry foul? And not in aulis.com, nor Jarrah, nor Kasing, nor Rene, nor Allen, nor Persey, none of them.
-
Nah, it's common sense.
Oh no! Did he just play the "common sense" card? The one played by people who demonstrate a lack of even that?
When you go to a magic show that everyone is proclaiming to be "real" and you see the man cut a lady in half, then put her back together again... while everyone else is saying "it's real!" and quoting some remote/historic sources saying "but so-and-so verified it".
A pathetic and already used analogy. The whole thing is supplied with copious amounts of evidence - more than any event in history by a considerable amount. They prove it's real with things that cannot be faked, items that include rocks and soil, visible motion that no variant of speed makes look real.
I'm still saying "that was impossible"- there's likely a more scientifically sound explanation.
The explanation is that you don't know what you are doing and you are doing everything you can to bluster replies rather than face up to things that stand up to scrutiny.
My point in stating all of that was to demonstrate that MOST people who accept Apollo as real have a VERY SKEWED understanding of the *actual* evidence that forms the foundation of their beliefs.
Oh do shut up with your patronising. You have no idea how "most" people arrived at their belief. I would add that it is an order of magnitude more robust than the flimsy bollocks HBs get taken in by.
In their minds, Apollogists happily summarize their foundation with many dishonest claims, such as:
1. 400,000 people couldn't have all lied. (this hoax required the work of a few hundred - military men who firmly understand the nature of Top Secret and Treason).
2. Nations around the world validated it as it was happening. (a few, claims, with no lasting evidence, and no witnesses specified except a few names)
3. Amateurs around the world validated it as it was happening. (we have one)
4. Russia had no reason to congratulate us if we lied.
5. 50,000 samples have been given out to 500 labs in over 15 nations (not true).
These are just background items. I'm sure there are a whole host of pathetic hand waved replies to all of them.
-
These are just background items. I'm sure there are a whole host of pathetic hand waved replies to all of them.
Do you both, Mag40 and bknight, believe that "400,000 people would have had to know they are participating in a hoax?" - as a reason to believe in Apollo?
-
No I know that all those people have worked in a very technical and complex project It is plain to see that you are providing only lip service to you participation, if any in military projects. Each of the other disciplines need to know the dimension of the hardware that is to be integrated into the parts. If they don't the project doesn't proceed. So, in a way yes everyone would need to be in on a CT. But you are waving a red herring, instead of proving hard scientific calculations on your pet theories. "I don't understand", is not proof of a CTI
-
No I know that all those people have worked in a very technical and complex project It is plain to see that you are providing only lip service to you participation, if any in military projects. Each of the other disciplines need to know the dimension of the hardware that is to be integrated into the parts. If they don't the project doesn't proceed. So, in a way yes everyone would need to be in on a CT. But you are waving a red herring, instead of proving hard scientific calculations on your pet theories. "I don't understand", is not proof of a CTI
I worked for 4 years in an environment with Secret Clearances where you were prohibited from talking to other groups. "Need to Know Basis" and very compartmentalized.
These NASA workers were all doing "legit work" - then they tossed it over the wall to the next group. So if you weren't at the "end of the process" - the "Systems Engineers" - you'd have no idea about the full system, nor integration tests, etc... All you knew is that your Unit/component testing met spec and you delivered your piece.
NASA was very very spread out and compartmentalized like this for the development.
And MOST of Apollo was real. But parts simply were incomplete... such as the LM itself.
-
No I know that all those people have worked in a very technical and complex project It is plain to see that you are providing only lip service to you participation, if any in military projects. Each of the other disciplines need to know the dimension of the hardware that is to be integrated into the parts. If they don't the project doesn't proceed. So, in a way yes everyone would need to be in on a CT. But you are waving a red herring, instead of proving hard scientific calculations on your pet theories. "I don't understand", is not proof of a CTI
I worked for 4 years in an environment with Secret Clearances where you were prohibited from talking to other groups. "Need to Know Basis" and very compartmentalized.
These NASA workers were all doing "legit work" - then they tossed it over the wall to the next group. So if you weren't at the "end of the process" - the "Systems Engineers" - you'd have no idea about the full system, nor integration tests, etc... All you knew is that your Unit/component testing met spec and you delivered your piece.
NASA was very very spread out and compartmentalized like this for the development.
And MOST of Apollo was real. But parts simply were incomplete... such as the LM itself.
NASA was not run in that manner every group knew what other groups were doing. You lose big time. Yes, NASA was/is compartmentalized, but they all know and work together.
The LM was a complete vehicle regardles of what you think, look up the pices aand you will find out.
-
NASA was not run in that manner every group knew what other groups were doing. You lose big time. Yes, NASA was/is compartmentalized, but they all know and work together.
The LM was a complete vehicle regardles of what you think, look up the pices aand you will find out.
Wrong, they were highly compartmentalized. And without computers to help them with their 400,000 person Gannt chart, for hundreds of teams working across the entire USA.
The LM was real -- it just wasn't capable of (safely doing?) the landings/ascents. They tried; really tried.
There's good reason they threw out the LM design/test docs, as they destroyed the evidence that this LM was insufficient for the task.
-
There's good reason they threw out the LM design/test docs, as they destroyed the evidence that this LM was insufficient for the task.
Repeating the lie. Where the hell IS this integrity you suggest you wanted to demonstrate. Grumman built these machines - they built them fit for purpose or a very significant number of engineers are being called into question. Your insinuations and fumbling suggestions mean nothing.
www.clavius.org/scale.html
-
NASA was not run in that manner every group knew what other groups were doing. You lose big time. Yes, NASA was/is compartmentalized, but they all know and work together.
The LM was a complete vehicle regardles of what you think, look up the pices aand you will find out.
Wrong, they were highly compartmentalized. And without computers to help them with their 400,000 person Gannt chart, for hundreds of teams working across the entire USA.
The LM was real -- it just wasn't capable of (safely doing?) the landings/ascents. They tried; really tried.
There's good reason they threw out the LM design/test docs, as they destroyed the evidence that this LM was insufficient for the task.
Wrong on all statements.
-
In their minds, Apollogists happily summarize their foundation with many dishonest claims, such as:
1. 400,000 people couldn't have all lied. (this hoax required the work of a few hundred - military men who firmly understand the nature of Top Secret and Treason).
2. Nations around the world validated it as it was happening. (a few, claims, with no lasting evidence, and no witnesses specified except a few names)
3. Amateurs around the world validated it as it was happening. (we have one)
4. Russia had no reason to congratulate us if we lied.
5. 50,000 samples have been given out to 500 labs in over 15 nations (not true).
Yeah, let's go through these points.
1. 400,000 people couldn't have all lied. (this hoax required the work of a few hundred - military men who firmly understand the nature of Top Secret and Treason).
You seriously misunderstand the extent to which the engineers in the different contracting and sub-contracting companies needed to talk to each other. For example, the people designing the space suits needed to talk to the people designing the Command Module and the people designing the Lunar Module, because at different points in the mission the suits would be supplied by oxygen from the two spacecraft, so they needed to be sure all three connections were compatible. And that's just one of many such interactions.
You suggest the LM was real but couldn't be made to land on the Moon. According to that hypothesis there must have been teams of engineers who couldn't make the component they were working on function as intended. Yet somehow they were able to interact with related teams of engineers as described in the preceding paragraph without arousing any suspicions. That sounds implausible, so I eagerly await your evidence for the existence of such non-functional components.
2. Nations around the world validated it as it was happening. (a few, claims, with no lasting evidence, and no witnesses specified except a few names)
Looks like you didn't look too hard.
Can I point you to the www.honeysucklecreek.net website, dedicated to the tracking station just outside Canberra which was one of the three stations used to communicate with the Apollo missions. The (Australian) staff who worked there remain happy to talk about their work, took a heap of photos during missions (including of the highest quality TV image anyone saw in Apollo 11), and one of the staff even spoke directly to the crew of Apollo 16 at one point.
They have explained how they know they were receiving a signal from the Moon, and how it couldn't have come from anywhere else. One of the staff explained to me how he tried to work out how NASA could have perpetrated a hoax without the Honeysuckle Creek staff knowing, and was unable to (though I assume you'll say he didn't try too hard).
3. Amateurs around the world validated it as it was happening. (we have one)
You can add Swede Sven Grahn to that list (http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/). He was part of a team of amateurs who picked up signals from Apollo 17. Some signals were from the spacecraft in lunar orbit, while other signals were definitely from the surface. I'll leave it up to you to either search his website, or work out for yourself how it would be possible to tell the difference.
And obviously, in addition to the amateurs tracking the missions, were the professionals in the USSR who also tracked the missions.
4. Russia had no reason to congratulate us if we lied.
No comment about this? Remember, the Space Race was another front in the Cold War, one which both the USA and USSR were highly motivated to win. The whole purpose of the Space Race was to convince countries around the world that their science and technology was better than the other guys' science and technology. Therefore, being caught lying about an achievement in the Space Race would destroy their credibility in the Space Race in the eyes of the world.
Therefore, both the USA and USSR were limited in their ability to fib. The USSR managed it by not announcing missions until they'd been successfully launched, by releasing as little information as they could get away with, and letting eager Western journalists over-interpret things. So, for example, while the Soviets misled the West about the nature of the Voskhod 1 spacecraft, they couldn't hide the fact of the mission because people on Earth could and did track the mission.
By contrast the USA didn't hide anything except medical information about the astronauts. Journalists had easy access to NASA and to the astronauts.
We also know the Soviets were receiving information about Apollo from contacts within NASA and its contractors.
And because the Soviets operated spacecraft in every part of space and the Moon where the Apollo missions went, we know the Soviets knew the details of those environments. Therefore, the ability of the USA to lie about those environments was non-existent.
Put all of that together, and it's clear the Soviets had (a) an accurate understanding of what Apollo involved and (b) clear knowledge that Apollo was real.
5. 50,000 samples have been given out to 500 labs in over 15 nations (not true).
Not true? Just like that you know it's not true. Sorry, but you're going to have to do a little better than that.
Have you been to the Lunar and Planetary Institute website (www.lpi.usra.edu) and checked out their Lunar Sample Atlas? Pick a rock at random (say, Apollo 12 sample 12035), and download the summary document which includes photos, a list of the rock's minerals, it's chemical composition, a summary of geochemical studies, and a list of 20 scientific papers about just that one rock. Now repeat that for literally thousands of individually numbered rock samples.
As scientists have explained to me, they know the Apollo rocks must be from the Moon, can't be fake, can't be from the Earth, can't be lunar meteorites, and can't have been collected by unmanned sample retriever missions.
Feel free to explain how these scientists don't know what they're talking about, or accept that people collected those rocks from the surface of the Moon.
-
There's good reason they threw out the LM design/test docs, as they destroyed the evidence that this LM was insufficient for the task.
Repeating the lie. Where the hell IS this integrity you suggest you wanted to demonstrate. Grumman built these machines - they built them fit for purpose or a very significant number of engineers are being called into question. Your insinuations and fumbling suggestions mean nothing.
www.clavius.org/scale.html
Digging through my old bookmarks (very disappointed that some links are now expired websites), managed to find this lot:
http://heroicrelics.org/info/lm/lm-structural.html
https://archive.org/details/apertureCardBox515NARASW_images/page/n539/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/apertureCardBox502NARASW_images
https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/links.html#gsc.tab=0
https://www.nasa.gov/history/diagrams/apollo.html
I definitely recall from years gone by where Grumman's detailed drawings were online in their entirety. Something completely out of NASA's control:
https://www.bonhams.com/auction/23378/lot/50/grumman-lunar-module-documents/
In the interests of compiling references, if anyone else has some, that would be appreciated.
-
There's good reason they threw out the LM design/test docs, as they destroyed the evidence that this LM was insufficient for the task.
Repeating the lie. Where the hell IS this integrity you suggest you wanted to demonstrate. Grumman built these machines - they built them fit for purpose or a very significant number of engineers are being called into question. Your insinuations and fumbling suggestions mean nothing.
www.clavius.org/scale.html
najak Why would an agency store/keep records on a program thatis defunct and has no more funding, no life, no prospects, no launches?
-
Feel free to explain how these scientists don't know what they're talking about, or accept that people collected those rocks from the surface of the Moon.
Thank you for responding. For me, you just illustrated that even the Apollogists here, do not see an issue with the hyperbole claims of the Apollogy.
The evidence that remains to substantiate these claims is miniscule. Honeysuckle has 67 second audio clip which simply matches... where is the chain-of-custody for this audio clip? And how do we know it was broadcast directly from the S-Band of the LM on the surface of the moon? - we don't.
Where are the S-Band transmission tapes themselves? Gone. With all of the rest of the source tapes.
The dirty details behind each claim are not noted... purposefully skewing the "claim" to make it seem far more substantial than it truly is.
Claim -- "thousands of Amateurs witnessed it" -- we have ONE -- Larry Baysinger and his friend, for 30 minutes. They CLAIM. Where are these recordings? How many witnesses claimed to hear these recordings? ZERO, AFAIK... This is ALL of the evidence that back up that BIG CLAIM.
I'll stop here. You confirmed for me that the basis upon which this Apollo Religion was founded, is a exaggerations with much less substantiation than most people know.
Apollogists are not motivated to be Truthful - they are motivated to be "Convincing" -- and so accept without question/concern - the skewed/exaggerations that support their beliefs/religion.
-
Digging through my old bookmarks (very disappointed that some links are now expired websites), managed to find this lot:
http://heroicrelics.org/info/lm/lm-structural.html
https://archive.org/details/apertureCardBox515NARASW_images/page/n539/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/apertureCardBox502NARASW_images
https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/links.html#gsc.tab=0
https://www.nasa.gov/history/diagrams/apollo.html
https://www.bonhams.com/auction/23378/lot/50/grumman-lunar-module-documents/
This is a great start. Thanks for sharing!
The first link of the "LM diagram" was interesting... but without Weights or measurements. There should be a master diagram that shows measurements.
Then there needs to a "Weight & Balance" worksheet (or the equivalent) for the LM. This is something all aviators know about and is even more vital to LM/AM which undergoes high fidelity rotations about the center of mass.
This sheet should at minimum, indicate the 3D center of mass for the empty hull, along with it's rotational inertia ratings (used to calculate "how much torque/time it takes to rotate it in each direction").
The drawings shown here may "look substantial" to an most people, but this barely scratches the surface:
http://heroicrelics.org/info/lm/lm-4-full-download.php (http://heroicrelics.org/info/lm/lm-4-full-download.php)
What I believe NO LONGER EXISTS, but would love to see:
1. Weight & Balance information for the Hull, and expected contents (and compartments where expected contents will go - e.g. moon rocks, helmets, etc).
The summary of this document would be short -- a few pages... a diagram to picture the various component sets, and the worksheet - for each component, shows Mass and XYZ arm measurement.
2. Detailed architectural diagram with measurements. A few dozen pages of measurements and physical layouts and geometry.
-
najak Why would an agency store/keep records on a program thatis defunct and has no more funding, no life, no prospects, no launches?
It's part of "Man's Greatest Achievement" - so saving just a few stacks of boxes is cheap. Or give it to a museum.
The documents I'm seeing so far are still very lacking. I'd like to see something with actual "meat on the bones" from the TOP LEVEL of the LM.
1. Full architectural 3D layout, with measurements/angles.
2. Simplified "Weight & Balance + Inertia" worksheet that is VITAL (would show HULL, humans, equipment, water, oxygen, fuel, oxidizer tanks) -- both with and without the Lander base attached.
This way you can calculate, as it lands or ascends, the Torque/time required by the RCS thrusters to adjust the module's attitude (yaw/pitch/roll).
-
This is a great start. Thanks for sharing!
You're welcome. Quite why you couldn't do this yourself is the question.
The first link of the "LM diagram" was interesting... but without Weights or measurements. There should be a master diagram that shows measurements.
Please take note: this, this parroted garbage claim is yours, not mine. You are the one who thinks it all so significant. It isn't. Virtually everything was subcontracted out by NASA.
There was a really excellent summary of the issue made by JayUtah a short while back on this forum.
https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1893.msg56499#msg56499
https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1563.msg48922#msg48922
Then there needs to a "Weight & Balance" worksheet (or the equivalent) for the LM. This is something all aviators know about and is even more vital to LM/AM which undergoes high fidelity rotations about the center of mass.
And what exactly do you think you are going to then do with these?
The drawings shown here may "look substantial" to an most people, but this barely scratches the surface:
Is this guy really patronising "most people" on this forum? The drawings are plenty for most HBs who wouldn't have a clue about any of it. I am fairly close to concluding that you belong in that group.
The Grumman original drawings get passed around auction houses, so you go and get your cheque-book out if it means that much to you.
-
najak Why would an agency store/keep records on a program thatis defunct and has no more funding, no life, no prospects, no launches?
It's part of "Man's Greatest Achievement" - so saving just a few stacks of boxes is cheap. Or give it to a museum.
The documents I'm seeing so far are still very lacking. I'd like to see something with actual "meat on the bones" from the TOP LEVEL of the LM.
1. Full architectural 3D layout, with measurements/angles.
2. Simplified "Weight & Balance + Inertia" worksheet that is VITAL (would show HULL, humans, equipment, water, oxygen, fuel, oxidizer tanks) -- both with and without the Lander base attached.
This way you can calculate, as it lands or ascends, the Torque/time required by the RCS thrusters to adjust the module's attitude (yaw/pitch/roll).
I suspect it is way more than a few stacks of boxes, so no they were stored no reason for anyone to use them on a project that has been cancelled.
I doubt that you are able to calculate the RCS thrusters attitude control system. But I will tell you to maybe contact Bill Tindall, who was in charge of the programs of the LM guidance, if he is still alive. Here is a link to some of his work during Apollo.
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/alsj-Tindallgrams.html
-
najak Why would an agency store/keep records on a program thatis defunct and has no more funding, no life, no prospects, no launches?
It's part of "Man's Greatest Achievement" - so saving just a few stacks of boxes is cheap. Or give it to a museum.
The documents I'm seeing so far are still very lacking. I'd like to see something with actual "meat on the bones" from the TOP LEVEL of the LM.
1. Full architectural 3D layout, with measurements/angles.
2. Simplified "Weight & Balance + Inertia" worksheet that is VITAL (would show HULL, humans, equipment, water, oxygen, fuel, oxidizer tanks) -- both with and without the Lander base attached.
This way you can calculate, as it lands or ascends, the Torque/time required by the RCS thrusters to adjust the module's attitude (yaw/pitch/roll).
It occurrs to me that you suffer from "If I ran the zoo" fallacy.
-
#1: You're welcome. Quite why you couldn't do this yourself is the question.
#2: [Weight & Balance + Inertia] And what exactly do you think you are going to then do with these?
#3: The Grumman original drawings get passed around auction houses, so you go and get your cheque-book out if it means that much to you.
#1: The claim that "LM design/test/etc docs were mostly discarded" is the MLH long-standing claim. If this can be refuted, the Apollogists surely know how to refute. If I stayed in an Echo Chamber, no one would correct this claim -- MLH advocates, just like the Apollogists, by default tend to "accept most things that agree with MLH" due to confirmation bias. So I come here for the "refutation".
#2: W&B&I - are CRUCIAL. Essential for the calculations for Rotational acceleration conducted by the RCS thrusters. What we need to know could be SUMMARIZED on a piece of paper... Without this analysis, they have NO IDEA how to control attitude of the LM/AM using the AGC or manual controls, etc... none. So this would have had to have been a document and information used by those programming the Attitude control system.
Where is it?
#3: We don't need Originals. We just want copies.
It seems to me that the MLH claim is essentially TRUE -- they discarded CRITICAL DESIGN documents that contain the top level crucial results/specs.
I would LOVE to be proven wrong here. I would LOVE to see the detailed blueprints with measurements, as well as the Weight/balance/Inertial results.
-
I suspect it is way more than a few stacks of boxes, so no they were stored no reason for anyone to use them on a project that has been cancelled.
I doubt that you are able to calculate the RCS thrusters attitude control system. But I will tell you to maybe contact Bill Tindall, who was in charge of the programs of the LM guidance, if he is still alive. Here is a link to some of his work during Apollo.
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/alsj-Tindallgrams.html
I'm just looking for the top-level design documents for now. This should fit into a few thick binders... one big box at most.
THANK YOU FOR THE LINK AND SUGGESTION -- I GRABBED A FEW OF THESE THAT MENTION THE LM... to see if anything pans out.
-
It occurrs to me that you suffer from "If I ran the zoo" fallacy.
Only to the extent of saying things like this. "If I ran the zoo, I would..."
1. Not put the predators and prey together.
2. I would feed the animals regularly.
3. I would keep them caged to prevent people from being hurt.
Just the obvious stuff -- like when you spend Billions to design an LM to do the IMPOSSIBLE -- super complex!... Lots of time/money invested. Then just "throw away your R&D as though it's not worth a few boxes for storage of the most vital design docs?"
No other technology has EVER DONE THIS... Only Apollo - and Apollogists don't bat an eye.
Every other zoo keeper EVER, wouldn't have discarded the materials that explain "how it all worked", "how it was built", "how it was tested/verified".
And a museum, would have gladly taken this off their hands. Or NASA. Except -- it was "evidence AGAINST them" - so they did what has otherwise NEVER been done before - destroy it.
-
It seems to me that the MLH claim is essentially TRUE -- they discarded CRITICAL DESIGN documents that contain the top level crucial results/specs.
Go back to my links page. Go to the Archive website. The two boxes of many have nearly 4000 pages scanned.
In addition the virtual AGC page has an astonishing number of references and downloadable documents.
https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/ElectroMechanical.html#LEM_Engineering_Drawings&gsc.tab=0
There is no way you have looked over these in any depth. Once again you are playing this pathetic hand-waving game demonstrating a complete lack of this "100% integrity" you claim to be offering.
I would LOVE to be proven wrong here. I would LOVE to see the detailed blueprints with measurements, as well as the Weight/balance/Inertial results.
Bollocks. You've been proven wrong many times and you just wriggle, obfuscate and offer petty diversion.
-
In addition the virtual AGC page has an astonishing number of references and downloadable documents.
https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/ElectroMechanical.html#LEM_Engineering_Drawings&gsc.tab=0
Mike Stewart's contribution. Early on I dropped his name as someone who has been enormously successful at re-engineering Apollo systems using cast-off and scavenged hardware and the original documentation. It's very hard to look him up without running into the ibiblio.org site. So when someone says they looked diligently for LM designs and couldn't find many, that's a tell-tale.
There is no way you have looked over these in any depth.
Another indicator of the lack of sincerity. As soon as a giant tranche of documents was revealed, the claim switches immediately to, "But these certain critical documents are missing, therefore still fake." And in this case, the "critical" documents don't even apply to spacecraft. Weight-and-balance forms are for airplanes and other things that fly in air. So we're back to the same, "Unless every scrap of paper was preserved, it's fake," claim—sure proof that the claimant has never been within 10 miles of a major engineering project and can't meaningfully comment on whether other people did it right.
Even if you don't understand what the drawings are meant to convey, the cross references are telling. In the Stewart tranche there are many references to other drawings. Note the serial portions: they're up past 58,000—that's fifty-eight thousand drawings (typically ANSI D or ANSI E sheets) just for one spacecraft revision (the preceding number, generally 280 for that model LM). And you don't typically roll them up. They're kept flat in large map cases.
-
Mike Stewart's contribution. Early on I dropped his name as someone who has been enormously successful at re-engineering Apollo systems using cast-off and scavenged hardware and the original documentation.
Mike Steward - It appears to me that all he's done here is reconstruct the AGC itself. I have reviewed the AGC software github (at the beggining). As a life long software engineer, I don't find this code "capable", but also realize that "proving this to non-software people" is futile. So I went on to things that can be proven via Newtonian physics.
I've love to find just ONE document for LM that shows the "Moment of Inertia" calculations/sheet for the LM and AM... specifically important is how it varies with fuel mass. This will also indicate the "Center of Mass" along XYZ axes... which changes, with fuel loss, stowage mass, humans. And there is an amount of sloshing that happens with humans/equipment and fuel (unless the baffles were perfect at removing this).
As A15 said, it's CRITICAL to know this ahead of time -- because the BEST WAY to control a Differential-Control system is to ALSO KNOW the "predicted response".. so that your first shot can "get you pretty close".
The firing of the RCS thrusters requires fidelity down to the 1 msec.... which is hard to do, since the ignition process itself appears to be close to 10 msec... Awaiting feedback from the IMU (which has error and lag) - is too slow for good control. You have to "fire your best shot" (based on the calculations the incorporate Intertial moments) - and then when the IMU tells you "you're off" -- you won't be that far off, and then can make ANOTHER CALCULATED ATTEMPT to adjust for this error -- Predicted vs. Actual.
We did the "balance a broomstick" laboratory in college. You ALWAYS want to know "expected/predicted response to the input you are inserting into the system".
I'm not getting the sense that you know as much as everyone here thinks you do.
My "circle of friends" isn't the "MLH guys"... My circle are top-tier engineers, graduating from a near-MIT-caliber college, who are aerospace and mechanical engineers.
I'm the only "dumb one" among them willing to spend so much time on a thing that offers "no personal/financial payback". I'm here because I value "truth" and am convinced that Apollo didn't land men on the moon.
-
So I went on to things that can be proven via Newtonian physics.
Oh please! You've demonstrated a complete ineptitude with this.
I'm not getting the sense that you know as much as everyone here thinks you do.
I'm getting the sense that you are the one completely out of their depth. You exited the comfort of bleedin' Facebook and the gaggle of hoax claimants and arrived here expecting to bluster your way through. You have been found seriously wanting. A "Newtonian physicist" who doesn't understand what free flight is!
My "circle of friends" isn't the "MLH guys"... My circle are top-tier engineers, graduating from a near-MIT-caliber college, who are aerospace and mechanical engineers.
Bollocks.
I'm the only "dumb one" among them willing to spend so much time on a thing that offers "no personal/financial payback". I'm here because I value "truth" and am convinced that Apollo didn't land men on the moon.
Your conviction heavily relies on your ability to hide from things that disprove it. I'm not even one of the "heavy hitters" around here. There's quite a large number who have not even posted. But just a few small clips of video have handed you your arse. The "100% integrity" bit awaits.
-
It occurrs to me that you suffer from "If I ran the zoo" fallacy.
Only to the extent of saying things like this. "If I ran the zoo, I would..."
1. Not put the predators and prey together.
2. I would feed the animals regularly.
3. I would keep them caged to prevent people from being hurt.
Just the obvious stuff -- like when you spend Billions to design an LM to do the IMPOSSIBLE -- super complex!... Lots of time/money invested. Then just "throw away your R&D as though it's not worth a few boxes for storage of the most vital design docs?"
No other technology has EVER DONE THIS... Only Apollo - and Apollogists don't bat an eye.
Every other zoo keeper EVER, wouldn't have discarded the materials that explain "how it all worked", "how it was built", "how it was tested/verified".
And a museum, would have gladly taken this off their hands. Or NASA. Except -- it was "evidence AGAINST them" - so they did what has otherwise NEVER been done before - destroy it.
Really? How did the Chinese land multiple spacecraft on the Moon if it is impossible? And those weren't manned but robot vehicles.
You take document management to new lows.
And by the phrase if I ran the zoo, means to us that you wish to make the rules for everything and if they don't meet your criteria, then those destroting documents are preserving a secret. The records of Apollo are in the end not the means.
-
Mike Steward - It appears to me that all he's done here is reconstruct the AGC itself.
Yes, he "merely" restored an AGC to full functionality that he found on a trash heap, using only his knowledge of engineering and the documents he obtained that described how it worked and how it interfaced with the rest of the spacecraft you say doesn't work. And he filmed the whole thing so you can see how he did it.
As a life long software engineer, I don't find this code "capable", but also realize that "proving this to non-software people" is futile.
Try us. Why would you assume that the people here are not capable of entertaining a discussion about software? If that's your core competency, why would you eschew that and go instead for things that are clearly outside your ken?
As A15 said, it's CRITICAL to know this ahead of time -- because the BEST WAY to control a Differential-Control system is to ALSO KNOW the "predicted response".. so that your first shot can "get you pretty close".
That's an optimization, not a criticality.
We did the "balance a broomstick" laboratory in college.
Which is ironically known not to be a correct model of the attitudinal stability problem.
I'm not getting the sense that you know as much as everyone here thinks you do.
And how many actual spacecraft have you worked on?
My "circle of friends" isn't the "MLH guys"... My circle are top-tier engineers, graduating from a near-MIT-caliber college, who are aerospace and mechanical engineers.
And how many of them can provide scientifically valid reasons for why the Moon landings were faked? Or do they all belong to the "religion" of Apollo that you imagine?
I'm the only "dumb one" among them willing to spend so much time on a thing that offers "no personal/financial payback". I'm here because I value "truth" and am convinced that Apollo didn't land men on the moon.
No, I really don't see any evidence that you are interested in the truth, nor do I accept the tacit inference that your MIT buddies would agree with you if only they would take the time to listen.
-
#1: That's an optimization, not a criticality.
#2: Which is ironically known not to be a correct model of the attitudinal stability problem.
#1: It's critical for Apollo, aiming to minimize fuel. You said it was NOT useful at all.
#2: Correct, the broomstick is MUCH easier. LM had to do this in 2.5 dimensions (while balancing descent at an angle) and while having ZERO constraints, no hinges, no stabilizing forces at all. The Broomstick was a fair challenge... while the LM task was 100x harder... Yet we did it just fine in 1969.
-
I've love to find just ONE document for LM that shows the "Moment of Inertia" calculations/sheet for the LM and AM[/b]... specifically important is how it varies with fuel mass.
There is no "sheet" because real rocket scientists understand that these values are dynamic, and therefore that proper control cannot depend on nailing them down. The envelope for center of mass is very large, and you can see evidence of some of the efforts to provide passive control by—for example—placing one of the ascent stage propellant tanks farther outboard than the other. Passive stability is not the heinous problem you seem to imagine.
And there is an amount of sloshing that happens with humans/equipment and fuel (unless the baffles were perfect at removing this).
Yes, liquid slosh is modeled in the linearized free body dynamics that applies here. That was more a problem for the descent, but the problem was limited to not being able to accurately measure propellant levels.
The firing of the RCS thrusters requires fidelity down to the 1 msec....
According to whom?
...which is hard to do, since the ignition process itself appears to be close to 10 msec...
But in your mind this somehow affected only the lunar module? Not the CSM?
Awaiting feedback from the IMU (which has error and lag) - is too slow for good control. You have to "fire your best shot" (based on the calculations the incorporate Intertial moments) - and then when the IMU tells you "you're off" -- you won't be that far off, and then can make ANOTHER CALCULATED ATTEMPT to adjust for this error -- Predicted vs. Actual.
This is necessary no matter what you do. Every method produces "residuals" that must be nulled. You can't seem to make up your mind about which sources of error are unacceptable and which are simply part of the problem, and what is critical versus what is optimal.
-
It's critical for Apollo, aiming to minimize fuel.
That is not the overriding concern, nor does it eliminate error to the point of not requiring dealing with residuals.
You said it was NOT useful at all.
I said it was not required to solve the guidance problem. It remains an optimization.
Correct, the broomstick is MUCH easier.
False.
The broomstick problem is harder because the angle of the corrective moment changes as the broomstick tilts, and in fact becomes more pronounced and requiring greater finesse and a dynamically adaptive solution. In a spacecraft, the moment remains the same and can be expressed in simpler control laws. Newton does not approve of your reasoning.
-
#1: According to whom?
#1: What fidelity is required per YOU - the 20+ year expert on Apollo. You should know this one. Tell us.
-
What fidelity is required per YOU...
No, it doesn't work that way. You claimed that effective control of the lunar module requires controlling the duration of RCS jet firing to a precision of 1 ms. What is your source for that claim?
-
No, it doesn't work that way. You claimed that effective control of the lunar module requires controlling the duration of RCS jet firing to a precision of 1 ms. What is your source for that claim?
My claim is me, but I could be wrong. So consider this statement "pending more validation". I've only done a preliminary analysis so far.
You claim intimate knowledge of this stuff, 20+ years - what is the timing fidelity required for the LM/AM maintain sufficient Attitude control?
-
My claim is me, but I could be wrong.
So you just made it up. Got it.
You claim intimate knowledge of this stuff, 20+ years - what is the timing fidelity required for the LM/AM maintain sufficient Attitude control?
No, it does not work that way.
Your approach here is to allege from a position of (claimed) unassailable intelligence and "100% integrity" that certain elements of Apollo are impossible according to "basic physics," and then to challenge your critics to explain them if they can. And if they do not satisfy you or jump through your hoops, then you declare that your claim is unrefuted. But your critics are under no obligation to address stuff you just make up. And you just poured a whole lot of cold water on your claim to "100% integrity." Shame on you.
-
#1: So you just made it up. Got it.
#2: No, it does not work that way.
#3: Your approach here is to allege from a position of (claimed) unassailable intelligence and "100% integrity" that certain elements of Apollo are impossible..
#1: I did some considerable analysis using math, and made an estimate. When questioned, I clarified, and call it "pending".
#2: Because you don't know the answer -- you could have typed "10 msec" quicker than what you typed, but you chose to dodge....
#3: "Unassailable" - not even close. I'm not the one waving around my statement -- made ONCE... you are. I said that (and overstated it) as a resume. Just because I scored at the top of most tests, doesn't make me unassailable ... just puts me at the top in aptitude, if the tests are accurate.
"100% Integrity" - this is my END GOAL. The process of getting there can be bumpy and error-prone. It's a process. And part of this process is to go up against RESISTANCE - which is why I'm here.
Unfortunately, you won't give answers to document. Answers that SHOULD already exist or be easy... but you dodge and stall, reducing your usefulness in helping to develop higher integrity conclusions.
I think your dodging is a way of hiding that you aren't as knowledgeable as people here think. For example, you called "W&B and Inertia concepts" as "Utterly useless for the LM/AM". Yet it's utterly important... vital. Otherwise, you can end up with an undamped/unstable control system, and for sure, less efficient and lower fidelity. But to YOU, it's "Utterly Useless" - this is revealing for someone who assures us of their unassailable knowledge of rocketry and such.
-
I did some considerable analysis using math, and made an estimate.
Present the math.
Because you don't know the answer...
No, because reversing the burden of proof is always wrong.
...you could have typed "10 msec" quicker than what you typed, but you chose to dodge....
No, I chose to be faithful to the truth. As a matter of historical fact, the RCS jets were never fired at an interval of less than 10 ms, but to what precision that occurred or could have occurred remains unknown. Further, to say, "That's what happened," is not the same as saying, "That's what is required." That would be circular reasoning in the context of addressing your claim. It's your burden to show that the smallest purported interval is insufficient to have achieved effective attitudinal control. If you cannot, you should withdraw the claim.
You concede that most of Apollo worked, but then claim that the LM could not have worked. You claim that the attitudinal control purported for the LM is not credible. But you don't seem concerned that the CSM used the same RCS jets (fewer, in fact) and the same basic control laws. How do you reconcile that one example apparently worked, and another nearly identical example apparently did not?
"100% Integrity" - this is my END GOAL. The process of getting there can be bumpy and error-prone. It's a process. And part of this process is to go up against RESISTANCE - which is why I'm here.
No, you seem to be here in order to reinforce the illusion that you're the smartest one in the room and that the only objections to your claims must be "religious."
Unfortunately, you won't give answers to document.
No one is required to address claims you just make up.
Answers that SHOULD already exist or be easy...
No, you don't get to assume that there is a pat documented answer for every question that crosses your mind.
...but you dodge and stall, reducing your usefulness in helping to develop higher integrity conclusions.
Refusing to be baited into accepting a reversed burden of proof is not disingenuous. You will learn integrity better by being compelled to confront the assumptions underlying your beliefs. That is not achieved by pretending everyone except you must supply rigor.
I think your dodging is a way of hiding that you aren't as knowledgeable as people here think.
If you say so. Or it may be a practiced response to people who habitually reverse the burden of proof as a way of avoiding accountability for their affirmative claims.
For example, you called "W&B and Inertia concepts" as "Utterly useless for the LM/AM". Yet it's utterly important... vital.
Asked and answered. I gave you a thorough explanation of why weight-and-balance is irrelevant to spaceships and exactly how moment of inertia (not just "inertia") factored into the compromise solution Apollo used. You didn't address it. You just complained that I had written so much instead of jumping through your hoops on a different point.
But to YOU, it's "Utterly Useless"
I made no such claim. Second time correcting you on that point. Weight-and-balance as they derive from aeronautics is irrelevant to spaceships. Moment of inertia is useful as an optimization to the basic solution, but it is not essential to solving the problem and does not achieve a damped solution under the auspices of the other sources of error.
this is revealing for someone who assures us of their unassailable knowledge of rocketry and such.
I made no such claim.
-
...
I'll present my math, model, and logic on this in a new thread, as this is a new topic, and it's quite involved, and currently only drafted... It needs another run through.
-
I'll present my math, model, and logic on this in a new thread, as this is a new topic...
No.
You raised the issue here as part of an established discussion on the operation of the LM guidance system. Your desire to continue the discussion in a different thread is hamstrung by the restriction currently upon you that you may not create any new threads until you answer the questions pending in your existing threads. This is a question pending in a current thread, so I will press you to answer it here and now.
If you lack confidence in your draft analysis, then withdraw the claim until you have something you're willing to stand by.
-
...
I'll present my math, model, and logic on this in a new thread, as this is a new topic, and it's quite involved, and currently only drafted... It needs another run through.
You will not be starting any new threads until we all agree that your existing threads have been resolved.
-
I'm not getting the sense that you know as much as everyone here thinks you do.
My "circle of friends" isn't the "MLH guys"... My circle are top-tier engineers, graduating from a near-MIT-caliber college, who are aerospace and mechanical engineers.
I'm the only "dumb one" among them willing to spend so much time on a thing that offers "no personal/financial payback". I'm here because I value "truth" and am convinced that Apollo didn't land men on the moon.
The cry of schoolyard bullies everywhere once finally confronted with the dawning realisation that they aren't the hardest guy in the yard "My dad is harder than all of you and I'll get him to beat you all up".
This isn't a schoolyard (I've said this before), but your claims will be tested. If you cannot defend them then at least have the good grace to admit it and try to learn from it.
-
This isn't a schoolyard (I've said this before), but your claims will be tested. If you cannot defend them then at least have the good grace to admit it and try to learn from it.
That's why I came here. Loving the resistance. And believe my defenses are valid, and the threads have wound down. They are now going in circles, so it's time to move on, and stop beating dead horses. We'll have to agree to disagree, and both sides have been presented, for readers to make their own minds up.
Time for a few new threads. Just waiting for the green light from the grandmaster overseer, @LunarOrbit.
-
My "circle of friends" isn't the "MLH guys"... My circle are top-tier engineers, graduating from a near-MIT-caliber college, who are aerospace and mechanical engineers.
I'm the only "dumb one" among them willing to spend so much time on a thing that offers "no personal/financial payback".
If you're the only person in a crowd of intellectuals and intelligent experts in relevant fields that believes the way you do, perhaps that should tell you something.
Everyone here is devoting their time to this topic for no financial reward. It costs me quite a lot of money to maintain a website and buy books and other material.
I'm here because I value "truth" and am convinced that Apollo didn't land men on the moon.
You don't have a monopoly on integrity and honesty. Everyone here values the truth. The truth is we landed on the moon. We dispute claims like yours not for financial gain, but to defend the truth against ignorance and stupidity.
-
They are now going in circles, so it's time to move on, and stop beating dead horses. We'll have to agree to disagree, and both sides have been presented, for readers to make their own minds up.
No. You're asking questions for which there are distinct right and wrong answers. Your inability to understand them and your unwillingness to learn them does not earn you the right to try something new. Your unwillingness to defend your claims in existing threads does not justify getting to shift topics and try again. There is every reason to believe you will be just as dishonest and evasive in new threads as you are in existing threads.
-
This isn't a schoolyard (I've said this before), but your claims will be tested. If you cannot defend them then at least have the good grace to admit it and try to learn from it.
That's why I came here. Loving the resistance. And believe my defenses are valid, and the threads have wound down. They are now going in circles, so it's time to move on, and stop beating dead horses. We'll have to agree to disagree, and both sides have been presented, for readers to make their own minds up.
Time for a few new threads. Just waiting for the green light from the grandmaster overseer, @LunarOrbit.
Not at all, and the gish-gallop is a well recognised trait around here. You aren't the first to try to hide your failure to grasp basic understanding with a flurry of threads.
Stand and show your work.
-
Not at all, and the gish-gallop is a well recognized trait around here. You aren't the first to try to hide your failure to grasp basic understanding with a flurry of threads.
Stand and show your work.
I've stood and showed my work. I stand by my work.
Each thread has come to an expected end. No more new ideas are being presented, and the ideas already presented have reached an impasse. We are now re-beating dead horses.
In every single heated debate, there are two sides -- each thinking the other side is wrong. We've both presented our cases, and have nothing more to present. Now is the time in the debate to close it out, and let the readers decide.
It's time to move on to other threads, and cover new ground, where I'm sure to be "destroyed" again - in the views of most (all others?) here.
-
You don't have a monopoly on integrity and honesty. Everyone here values the truth. The truth is we landed on the moon. We dispute claims like yours not for financial gain, but to defend the truth against ignorance and stupidity.
I appreciate this about you. I believe we all here are arguing in good faith. I have nothing to gain here by making false points -- but only loss. But my beliefs are sincere.
-
I've stood and showed my work. I stand by my work.
No.
In this thread alone you have refused to present your argument in favor of your claim for a minimal necessary RCS thrust resolution. You demand that a new thread be opened to contain it. You further conceded that your work along those lines is incomplete and untrustworthy, but you refuse to withdraw the claim based on it. You want a fresh start without bearing the consequences of your present failure. That's dishonest; so much for you desire for full integrity.
In the lunar module liftoff thread you assert that "many rocket scientists" and "most articles" support your beliefs. But when pressed you will not provide a single name or a single citation.
Each thread has come to an expected end. No more new ideas are being presented, and the ideas already presented have reached an impasse. We are now re-beating dead horses.
The impasse exists in most cases only because you are unwilling to take responsibility for your errors and misconceptions. That will not be solved by allowing you to change subjects and reset the debate. In the lunar module liftoff thread there is no impasse. You refuse to participate in the estimation of the factors that apply to your claims, but which you dispute. You simply declared your unwillingness to continue.
Now is the time in the debate to close it out, and let the readers decide.
Except that we're still confronted with your practice of selectively reporting the debate in a document you control, which we suspect you will present in lieu of the actual debate to convince readers that something else happened here than what actually happened. Where have we heard that before?
It's time to move on to other threads, and cover new ground, where I'm sure to be "destroyed" again - in the views of most (all others?) here.
Your unwillingness to continue the existing debates does not entitle you to open new ones.
-
I believe we all here are arguing in good faith.
You are not arguing in good faith.
I have nothing to gain here by making false points -- but only loss.
I disagree. Conspiracy theorists gain notoriety and respect among their peers by making false points that others are either unwilling or indisposed to dispute, and thereby establish the claimant as kind of icon or authority. You have made it plain that you believe you are engaged in an ideological conflict, which naturally provides the incentive to misrepresent the facts insofar as you think you can get away with it.
But my beliefs are sincere.
Irrelevant. Your behavior here is indistinguishable from those who deliberately intend to deceive.
-
.
.. Now is the time in the debate to close it out, and let the readers decide.
It's time to move on to other threads, and cover new ground, where I'm sure to be "destroyed" again - in the views of most (all others?) here.
I disagree.
It's also a well known trait of hoax believers to shut the conversation down as soon as it becomes apparent that they are on a sticky wicket.
Many also try to get banned so they can claim "they had to ban me as they couldn't answer my points". It's just another way of trying to limit and control the discussion. Not too dissimilar to your use of Google Docs where you present a one sided view of the points.
-
I've stood and showed my work. I stand by my work.
In this thread alone you have refused to present your argument in favor of your claim for a minimal necessary RCS thrust resolution. You demand that a new thread be opened to contain it. You further conceded that your work along those lines is incomplete and untrustworthy, but you refuse to withdraw the claim based on it.
I retracted the 1 msec as "Pending"-- it was based on rough estimates. I made the statement, you questioned it - I answered honestly and re-classified it as "needs more investigation".
You think this is not integrity?
I'd like to get some neutral voices to weigh in -- not just Apollogists whose religion I am offending. I am receiving the treatment of the Salem Witches on Trial.
I'll make another pass at each thread - to ensure each is tied up.
For the "Rocket thrust is usually lower during takeoff" - I'll give you some references. But then that thread is done... unless you want to make a proof that hasn't been shown before (that anyone seems to know of). Otherwise, demanding that I present the proof that no Apollogist has ever been able to supply -- is Salem Witch treatment -- it's fully unreasonable.
-
Feel free to explain how these scientists don't know what they're talking about, or accept that people collected those rocks from the surface of the Moon.
Thank you for responding. For me, you just illustrated that even the Apollogists here, do not see an issue with the hyperbole claims of the Apollogy.
The evidence that remains to substantiate these claims is miniscule. Honeysuckle has 67 second audio clip which simply matches... where is the chain-of-custody for this audio clip? And how do we know it was broadcast directly from the S-Band of the LM on the surface of the moon? - we don't.
Where are the S-Band transmission tapes themselves? Gone. With all of the rest of the source tapes.
The dirty details behind each claim are not noted... purposefully skewing the "claim" to make it seem far more substantial than it truly is.
Claim -- "thousands of Amateurs witnessed it" -- we have ONE -- Larry Baysinger and his friend, for 30 minutes. They CLAIM. Where are these recordings? How many witnesses claimed to hear these recordings? ZERO, AFAIK... This is ALL of the evidence that back up that BIG CLAIM.
I'll stop here. You confirmed for me that the basis upon which this Apollo Religion was founded, is a exaggerations with much less substantiation than most people know.
Apollogists are not motivated to be Truthful - they are motivated to be "Convincing" -- and so accept without question/concern - the skewed/exaggerations that support their beliefs/religion.
That's a lot of words to not address either the Soviets or the rocks.
If Apollo was faked, either: NASA fooled the Soviets, in which case you need to explain how; or the Soviets knew Apollo was fake and said nothing, in which case you need to explain why. Or maybe I'm wrong somehow, and there's a third alternative I've missed, in which case you need to explain what.
And as I've already pointed out, the scientists who've studied the Apollo rocks can explain how they know the rocks must be from the Moon, can't be fake, can't be from Earth, can't be lunar meteorites and can't have been collected by unmanned sample retriever missions. To that end, here is a link to an interview of Australian scientist Ross Taylor, who was invited by NASA to be involved in the study of the Apollo 11 rocks:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120905025108/http://www.science.org.au/scientists/interviews/t/rt.html
-
Feel free to explain how these scientists don't know what they're talking about, or accept that people collected those rocks from the surface of the Moon.
Thank you for responding. For me, you just illustrated that even the Apollogists here, do not see an issue with the hyperbole claims of the Apollogy.
The evidence that remains to substantiate these claims is miniscule. Honeysuckle has 67 second audio clip which simply matches... where is the chain-of-custody for this audio clip? And how do we know it was broadcast directly from the S-Band of the LM on the surface of the moon? - we don't.
Where are the S-Band transmission tapes themselves? Gone. With all of the rest of the source tapes.
The dirty details behind each claim are not noted... purposefully skewing the "claim" to make it seem far more substantial than it truly is.
Claim -- "thousands of Amateurs witnessed it" -- we have ONE -- Larry Baysinger and his friend, for 30 minutes. They CLAIM. Where are these recordings? How many witnesses claimed to hear these recordings? ZERO, AFAIK... This is ALL of the evidence that back up that BIG CLAIM.
I'll stop here. You confirmed for me that the basis upon which this Apollo Religion was founded, is a exaggerations with much less substantiation than most people know.
Apollogists are not motivated to be Truthful - they are motivated to be "Convincing" -- and so accept without question/concern - the skewed/exaggerations that support their beliefs/religion.
That's a lot of words to not address either the Soviets or the rocks.
If Apollo was faked, either: NASA fooled the Soviets, in which case you need to explain how; or the Soviets knew Apollo was fake and said nothing, in which case you need to explain why. Or maybe I'm wrong somehow, and there's a third alternative I've missed, in which case you need to explain what.
And as I've already pointed out, the scientists who've studied the Apollo rocks can explain how they know the rocks must be from the Moon, can't be fake, can't be from Earth, can't be lunar meteorites and can't have been collected by unmanned sample retriever missions. To that end, here is a link to an interview of Australian scientist Ross Taylor, who was invited by NASA to be involved in the study of the Apollo 11 rocks:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120905025108/http://www.science.org.au/scientists/interviews/t/rt.html
Russia validated our rocks, then we validated theirs -- "hey, they look the same". By May 1972, we were fully allied with Russia to collaborate moving forward on joint missions. Just because the "mainstream narrative says Cold War" doesn't mean this is the actual case. To presume you know what goes on behind closed doors at the top level -- is a stretch. "Cold War & Fear - Communism" - gives the govt the right to spend a lot more money to "Protect us" while giving out profitable contracts to their cronies ... Apollo was in part driven by this fear of Russia gaining airspace/missile dominance. I don't presume to "know" -- but instead admit "we don't really know".
Many moon rocks can be found at the South Pole, where Von Braun went in 1967... to gather moon rocks. Radiate them a bit, and poof, they "look like moon rocks" because they are.... How could you tell the difference? Especially when most of those to investigate were "chosen/selected". Do you think them saying "nah, this ain't a moon rock" would have been accepted any better than someone today saying "nah, look at that Rocket accelerating too fast -- this can't be real" - these guys get shat upon. And in their case, would likely lose their job. Aside from that -- using real moon rock from Antarctica where the cold freezes/preserves them better -- how could a scientist identify it as fake?
Moon Scientists all have one thing in common -- they are funded through grants, from the government. You don't bite the hand that feeds you. Just ask Thomas Baron.
-
And yet here you are, presuming to know what goes on behind closed doors.
-
I've stood and showed my work. I stand by my work.
In this thread alone you have refused to present your argument in favor of your claim for a minimal necessary RCS thrust resolution. You demand that a new thread be opened to contain it. You further conceded that your work along those lines is incomplete and untrustworthy, but you refuse to withdraw the claim based on it.
I retracted the 1 msec as "Pending"-- it was based on rough estimates. I made the statement, you questioned it - I answered honestly and re-classified it as "needs more investigation".
You think this is not integrity?
I'd like to get some neutral voices to weigh in -- not just Apollogists whose religion I am offending. I am receiving the treatment of the Salem Witches on Trial.
I'll make another pass at each thread - to ensure each is tied up.
For the "Rocket thrust is usually lower during takeoff" - I'll give you some references. But then that thread is done... unless you want to make a proof that hasn't been shown before (that anyone seems to know of). Otherwise, demanding that I present the proof that no Apollogist has ever been able to supply -- is Salem Witch treatment -- it's fully unreasonable.
Boohoo. Dry your eyes.
It is not enough to envoke the Galileo Defence....you must also be correct.
-
And yet here you are, presuming to know what goes on behind closed doors.
My focus is on what appears to me as "the impossible things" that Apollo did. You can draw your own conclusions.
I favor trusting in Physics over Politics. People lie and deceived, but Physics does not.
So my intent is to simply present all of these cases as accurately as I can, and thoroughly. As objections are raised here, I have been addressing them, inside the document even.
I still have a bit of work to do to catch up with a few objections/corrections - such I had Apollo 16 at 500' from the Lander at Launch, instead of 300'. And I need to also do some "Aspect Ratio Skew" analysis to see if might impact anything.
-
Boohoo. Dry your eyes.
It is not enough to envoke the Galileo Defence....you must also be correct.
Not crying but also accurately identifying the situation. The jury here (those in control of this forum) are biased against me. Neutral eyes could see that.
If you want to contribute to any of the threads -- offer up a hypothesis or evidence that what I'm concluding about the specific instance, please do. I want as many counter points to be raised as you can muster.
But since I'm "the witch" the predictable outcome is that everyone is going to jeer at me, and call me guilty and wrong -- no matter the actual reality.
I'd like to get some more neutral voices in here, who aren't so attached to the Apollogy.
Y'all seem to want an Echo Chamber here. Same as most Fundamentalist churches. "You are encouraged to be skeptical, so long as you come around to concluding the 'Right' answer -- the Bible is God's Only True Word." In this forum, I'm encouraged to debate, but if I don't conclude that "We Landed Humans on the moon" - then it's a guaranteed, automatic loss for me.
If you were in the MLH forum, -- it would be the OPPOSITE.
I disagree with BOTH mentalities. I hate it when they treat Apollogists in the same way you all have been treating me... I almost got banned from the MLH group for defending the Apollogists, calling them "goldmines" - because it's a RARE apollogist who will walk into the "den of lions" only to be abused unfairly - like a Witch in Salem. (or more correctly, a Quaker, which was a leading cause for being accused).
-
Feel free to explain how these scientists don't know what they're talking about, or accept that people collected those rocks from the surface of the Moon.
Thank you for responding. For me, you just illustrated that even the Apollogists here, do not see an issue with the hyperbole claims of the Apollogy.
The evidence that remains to substantiate these claims is miniscule. Honeysuckle has 67 second audio clip which simply matches... where is the chain-of-custody for this audio clip? And how do we know it was broadcast directly from the S-Band of the LM on the surface of the moon? - we don't.
Where are the S-Band transmission tapes themselves? Gone. With all of the rest of the source tapes.
The dirty details behind each claim are not noted... purposefully skewing the "claim" to make it seem far more substantial than it truly is.
Claim -- "thousands of Amateurs witnessed it" -- we have ONE -- Larry Baysinger and his friend, for 30 minutes. They CLAIM. Where are these recordings? How many witnesses claimed to hear these recordings? ZERO, AFAIK... This is ALL of the evidence that back up that BIG CLAIM.
I'll stop here. You confirmed for me that the basis upon which this Apollo Religion was founded, is a exaggerations with much less substantiation than most people know.
Apollogists are not motivated to be Truthful - they are motivated to be "Convincing" -- and so accept without question/concern - the skewed/exaggerations that support their beliefs/religion.
That's a lot of words to not address either the Soviets or the rocks.
If Apollo was faked, either: NASA fooled the Soviets, in which case you need to explain how; or the Soviets knew Apollo was fake and said nothing, in which case you need to explain why. Or maybe I'm wrong somehow, and there's a third alternative I've missed, in which case you need to explain what.
And as I've already pointed out, the scientists who've studied the Apollo rocks can explain how they know the rocks must be from the Moon, can't be fake, can't be from Earth, can't be lunar meteorites and can't have been collected by unmanned sample retriever missions. To that end, here is a link to an interview of Australian scientist Ross Taylor, who was invited by NASA to be involved in the study of the Apollo 11 rocks:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120905025108/http://www.science.org.au/scientists/interviews/t/rt.html
Russia validated our rocks, then we validated theirs -- "hey, they look the same". By May 1972, we were fully allied with Russia to collaborate moving forward on joint missions. Just because the "mainstream narrative says Cold War" doesn't mean this is the actual case. To presume you know what goes on behind closed doors at the top level -- is a stretch. "Cold War & Fear - Communism" - gives the govt the right to spend a lot more money to "Protect us" while giving out profitable contracts to their cronies ... Apollo was in part driven by this fear of Russia gaining airspace/missile dominance. I don't presume to "know" -- but instead admit "we don't really know".
Yes, I suspected you'd take the third option, and that it would be some version of the "Cold War is Fake" meme.
If you're serious about applying a "we don't really know" attitude to the historiography of the Cold War, then that suggests to me that you're comfortable with the idea of adding the entire history profession to the engineers and scientists you've so far challenged the integrity of.
But is that really the case? Do you seriously believe "we don't really know" about the nature of the Cold War? What about other events in history? World War Two? The Tunguska Event? Caesar's Conquest of Gaul?
Many moon rocks can be found at the South Pole,
I've already pointed out we can tell the difference between the Apollo rocks and lunar meteorites. The difference is so obvious that anyone with normal eyesight who is given a tray of five Apollo rocks and five lunar meteorites would be able to correctly sort them.
where Von Braun went in 1967... to gather moon rocks.
Why would you send a rocket engineer to gather moon rocks? Especially when lunar meteorites as a category weren't identified until more than 10 years later.
Radiate them a bit, and poof, they "look like moon rocks" because they are.... How could you tell the difference?
Saying this can only mean you're completely unaware of the differences between Earth rocks and Apollo rocks (and lacking in knowledge about radiation for that matter). Are you going to read the Taylor interview I linked for you? Or are you going to show some of that integrity you claim for yourself and admit that (a) it's possible for people to know of these differences, and (b) you don't actually know what those differences are?
"Especially when most of those to investigate were "chosen/selected". Do you think them saying "nah, this ain't a moon rock" would have been accepted any better than someone today saying "nah, look at that Rocket accelerating too fast -- this can't be real" - these guys get shat upon. And in their case, would likely lose their job.
If you'd bothered to read the Taylor interview, you'd know some of the differences between Earth rocks and the Apollo rocks, and you might have an inkling of just how fundamental they are. In that case, you'd realise why there'd be no need for a scientist to have to make a pretense that they were different.
Aside from that -- using real moon rock from Antarctica where the cold freezes/preserves them better -- how could a scientist identify it as fake?
I refer to my earlier statement about a tray of five lunar meteorites and five Apollo rocks. Have a think about the ways they might differ from each other.
Moon Scientists all have one thing in common -- they are funded through grants, from the government. You don't bite the hand that feeds you. Just ask Thomas Baron.
What exactly do you mean when you say "the government"? The US government? If so, do you seriously think that only USAnian scientists can study the Apollo rocks? If not, then how can the US government possibly affect what non-USAnian scientists say about the rocks?
https://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/sampreq/requests.cfm
That's the website to use when you want to request a lunar sample for research. Feel free to point out where "the government" has any say in it, especially for non-USAnian scientists.
-
I retracted the 1 msec as "Pending"-- it was based on rough estimates. I made the statement, you questioned it - I answered honestly and re-classified it as "needs more investigation".
I don't see where you retracted the claimed value. You were asked for the source of the 1 ms value, and you said you would present it only in a separate thread. Then you tried to shift the burden of proof to require a counterclaim, which you then went on to assume must be 10 ms and tried to make me supply an argument in favor of.
You think this is not integrity?
I'd like to get some neutral voices to weigh in -- not just Apollogists whose religion I am offending.
No. Dismissing people who find legitimate errors in your claims and legitimate questions about your methods as merely "religious" lacks integrity. Earlier you said you welcomed opposition, but now you've changed your tune. You don't seem to believe that there can be a reasonable opposition to your beliefs, and therefore the only reason someone would have for disagreeing with you is some dishonest form of ideological bias.
I am receiving the treatment of the Salem Witches on Trial.
No, you're being properly held to account. If you make a claim with no basis—as you did—you will be held accountable for it. That accounting took the form of asking for the basis and expressing the willingness to entertain it, whatever it may have been. If you are unwilling to cooperate in that fashion, then the proper approach is to categorically retract the claim, not perform a rhetorical or tactical tap dance to avoid responsibility.
For the "Rocket thrust is usually lower during takeoff" - I'll give you some references. But then that thread is done.
You may resign from any thread you wish. And no one can prevent you from lying elsewhere about what happened in it, but you certainly won't win prizes for integrity if you do so. Your demand that that thread, or any thread, entails others obeying your instructions for how they will formulate and present their responses is of little consequence.
-
My focus is on what appears to me as "the impossible things" that Apollo did. You can draw your own conclusions.
And when we do that, and cite our basis for doing so, your rejoinder is to accuse everyone of some irrational "religious" bias regardless of their stated rationale. Then you have the audacity to demand that you have or seek integrity.
So my intent is to simply present all of these cases as accurately as I can, and thoroughly.
That certainly did not extend to the computer code. You claimed on the basis of a lifetime of expertise as a software engineer that the computer code was not "capable." Your expertise is undemonstrated along those lines, but Mike Stewart's is not. He has copiously documented running the actual software on the actual hardware and demonstrating that it works. He has also presented his findings publicly before audiences of computer professionals. That is a vast amount of contravening evidence you need to overcome in order to establish a claim to the contrary. And when push came to shove, you simply declared the matter to be above the heads of your critics and insisted we move on. While you provide some rigor in parts of your presentation, you seem to rely equally on bluff and buster.
As objections are raised here, I have been addressing them, inside the document even.
I do not agree that you are accurately representing there the discussion that has occurred here.
You concede that some of the graphs you present relevant to ignition transients are for solid fuel rockets, but then you claim without justification that they remain relevant. That neither reflects the discussion in this thread nor the science. It appears instead to be what you want people to believe about your performance in the debate.
You took another graph from a general paper on combustion excursions and purported it to reflect actual data that shows less thrust during an ignition transient. You ignored the statement on the same page as your graph that engine performance and behavior cannot be generalized accurately and must be established by measurement for any particular engine. You have been presented with information specific to the ascent engine design and testing that anticipates a significant overpressure condition at ignition. But your version of this discussion suggests you successfully established that ignition transients uniformly reduce thrust.
Finally, your other graph is expressly not based on any data. In context, it merely serves to illustrate the difference between a numerical integration of impulse (such as occurs in actual flight) and the analytical integration of impulse, which would be more appropriate to the paper design stage where certain simplifying assumptions are in order.
Taken as a whole, your documentation creates the false impression that you have amassed a coherent set of published data disputing the notion that the LM ascent can have benefitted from an ignition transient. None of the discussion disputing the validity and applicability of those illustrations appears in your document. Thus it does not accurately reflect the debate you participated in.
-
And as I've already pointed out, the scientists who've studied the Apollo rocks can explain how they know the rocks must be from the Moon, can't be fake, can't be from Earth, can't be lunar meteorites and can't have been collected by unmanned sample retriever missions.
You are parroting the HB narrative without researching it properly.
https://sites.wustl.edu/meteoritesite/items/how-do-we-know-that-its-a-rock-from-the-moon/
"Any geoscientist (and there have been thousands from all over the world) who has studied Apollo lunar samples knows that anyone who thinks that the Apollo lunar samples were created on Earth as part of a government conspiracy does not know much about rocks. The Apollo samples are just too good. They tell a self-consistent story with a complexly interwoven plot that is better than any story that a conspirator could have conceived. I have studied lunar rocks and soils for 50+ years and I could not “make” even a poor imitation of a lunar breccia, lunar soil, or a mare basalt in the lab. And with all due respect to my clever colleagues in government labs, no one in “the Government” could do it either, even now that we know what lunar rocks are like. Lunar samples show evidence of formation in an extremely dry environment with essentially no free oxygen and little gravity. Some have impact craters on the surface and many display evidence for a suite of unanticipated and complicated chemical and physical effects associated with large and small meteorite impacts. Apollo rocks and soils contain gases (hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, neon, argon, krypton, and xenon) derived from the solar wind with isotope ratios different than Earth samples of the same gases. They contain crystal damage from cosmic rays. Apollo igneous rocks have crystallization ages, determined by techniques involving radioisotopes, that are older than any known Earth rocks. (Anyone who figures out how to fake that is worthy of a Nobel Prize.) It was easier and cheaper to go to the moon and bring back some rocks and soil than it would have been to create all these fascinating features on Earth.
Conspiracy theorists overlook an important obvious constraint: three Russian Luna missions (1970-1976) and the Chinese Change’e 5 mission (2020) have also collected and studied samples from the moon that have the same fascinating Moon-like properties as the Apollo samples. If the U. S. government had somehow cheated, our Russian and Chinese scientist friends certainly would have let us all know about it, but they have not. Scientists are just people who do, in fact, argue with each other. Some even delight in proving other scientists wrong."
There is a vast amount of rebuttal to your really uninformed simplistic statements. I'm not even scratching the surface.
Many moon rocks can be found at the South Pole, where Von Braun went in 1967... to gather moon rocks.
Yeah, NASA sends a rocket engineer to go on a rock hunting forage and makes sure that it is highly publicised!
Radiate them a bit, and poof, they "look like moon rocks" because they are..
Just so ignorant. The fusion crust wipes out things like zap-pits and stronger isotopes on the edges. The atmospheric entry burning cracks the rock in significant ways.
How could you tell the difference?
Terrestrial weathering for starters, significant atmospheric water absorption and interaction within. Then there's the isotope decay, no zap pits, no outer helium-3. Your crass suggestion they irradiated the rock and geologists wouldn't know the difference is based on nothing but your HB opinion.
Aside from that -- using real moon rock from Antarctica where the cold freezes/preserves them better -- how could a scientist identify it as fake?
The problem is that you don't know therefore you assume that experts with 20+ years geology experience also cannot know.
-
Feel free to explain how these scientists don't know what they're talking about, or accept that people collected those rocks from the surface of the Moon.
Thank you for responding. For me, you just illustrated that even the Apollogists here, do not see an issue with the hyperbole claims of the Apollogy.
The evidence that remains to substantiate these claims is miniscule. Honeysuckle has 67 second audio clip which simply matches... where is the chain-of-custody for this audio clip? And how do we know it was broadcast directly from the S-Band of the LM on the surface of the moon? - we don't.
Where are the S-Band transmission tapes themselves? Gone. With all of the rest of the source tapes.
The dirty details behind each claim are not noted... purposefully skewing the "claim" to make it seem far more substantial than it truly is.
Claim -- "thousands of Amateurs witnessed it" -- we have ONE -- Larry Baysinger and his friend, for 30 minutes. They CLAIM. Where are these recordings? How many witnesses claimed to hear these recordings? ZERO, AFAIK... This is ALL of the evidence that back up that BIG CLAIM.
I'll stop here. You confirmed for me that the basis upon which this Apollo Religion was founded, is a exaggerations with much less substantiation than most people know.
Apollogists are not motivated to be Truthful - they are motivated to be "Convincing" -- and so accept without question/concern - the skewed/exaggerations that support their beliefs/religion.
That's a lot of words to not address either the Soviets or the rocks.
If Apollo was faked, either: NASA fooled the Soviets, in which case you need to explain how; or the Soviets knew Apollo was fake and said nothing, in which case you need to explain why. Or maybe I'm wrong somehow, and there's a third alternative I've missed, in which case you need to explain what.
And as I've already pointed out, the scientists who've studied the Apollo rocks can explain how they know the rocks must be from the Moon, can't be fake, can't be from Earth, can't be lunar meteorites and can't have been collected by unmanned sample retriever missions. To that end, here is a link to an interview of Australian scientist Ross Taylor, who was invited by NASA to be involved in the study of the Apollo 11 rocks:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120905025108/http://www.science.org.au/scientists/interviews/t/rt.html
Russia validated our rocks, then we validated theirs -- "hey, they look the same". By May 1972, we were fully allied with Russia to collaborate moving forward on joint missions. Just because the "mainstream narrative says Cold War" doesn't mean this is the actual case. To presume you know what goes on behind closed doors at the top level -- is a stretch. "Cold War & Fear - Communism" - gives the govt the right to spend a lot more money to "Protect us" while giving out profitable contracts to their cronies ... Apollo was in part driven by this fear of Russia gaining airspace/missile dominance. I don't presume to "know" -- but instead admit "we don't really know".
Many moon rocks can be found at the South Pole, where Von Braun went in 1967... to gather moon rocks. Radiate them a bit, and poof, they "look like moon rocks" because they are.... How could you tell the difference? Especially when most of those to investigate were "chosen/selected". Do you think them saying "nah, this ain't a moon rock" would have been accepted any better than someone today saying "nah, look at that Rocket accelerating too fast -- this can't be real" - these guys get shat upon. And in their case, would likely lose their job. Aside from that -- using real moon rock from Antarctica where the cold freezes/preserves them better -- how could a scientist identify it as fake?
This is wrong on many levels. Firstly, the last time I check there were like a dozen Moon meteorites on the continent of Antartica. So there aren't 800 +-. I have one year in geology and I could tell the difference at a glance of the ones from Antartica and the Moon rocks in storage at NASA. It's not that difficult to anyone except of course you and you fellow HBs. Thomas Baron, yes the whistle blower, he presented and was given his due. NASA didn't/doesn't have any death squads, if they had the death toll would be much larger. His report basically described what he called a lack of safety procedure in subcontractors and was promptly fired by North American Aviation, IIRC. His subsequent report on the tragedy of Apollo 1. Did you know that all manned spacecraft were subjected to the same 100% O2 test prior to launch? Their luck ran out during the test of pollo 1. Did you know that your source Jarrah White accused NASA of killing those three astronauts? He has a 20 part video series on the subject. But he never mentioned what I told you in this series. After viewing them I left his website never to return. Yes, NASA was a bit careless, and carless again prior to the Challenger disaster. And you might think they learned their lesson, no it took the Columbia disaster to change the thinking of NAASA management. So, Thomas Barron although tragic was not related to Apollo. If you would spend as much time studying Apollo as looking for anomalies "that absolutely prove it was a hoax", perhaps you would learn more.
Moon Scientists all have one thing in common -- they are funded through grants, from the government. You don't bite the hand that feeds you. Just ask Thomas Baron.
You Jarrah tried to make the case that the Chinese retuned Moon sample looked much different than NASA, implying NASA rocks were bogus. Scientists that studied both didn't com to that conclusion.
-
You are parroting the HB narrative without researching it properly.
https://sites.wustl.edu/meteoritesite/items/how-do-we-know-that-its-a-rock-from-the-moon/
I had a short conversation via email with Dr Korotev earlier this year, seems quite happy to exchange with people who are genuinely interested in a subject, and gave me a few points that I wasn't aware of (not surprising when I'm starting from a position of "space rock go whooosshhhh" ::) ). I did like that some of them are blindingly obvious when pointed out, while others are in the intricate details. An example being the 4π vs 2π irradiation of lunar-meteorites vs lunar surface samples. (That symbol is supposed to be pi, doesn't look so good here)
-
Did you know that your source Jarrah White accused NASA of killing those three astronauts? He has a 20 part video series on the subject. But he never mentioned what I told you in this series. After viewing them I left his website never to return. Yes, NASA was a bit careless, and carless again prior to the Challenger disaster. And you might think they learned their lesson, no it took the Columbia disaster to change the thinking of NAASA management. So, Thomas Barron although tragic was not related to Apollo. If you would spend as much time studying Apollo as looking for anomalies "that absolutely prove it was a hoax", perhaps you would learn more.
Thanks for the info. It's never been my theory that Apollo 1 was on purpose... surrounding evidence, at a glance, didn't seem to support it. As such, I never investigate the MLH claim on this either. Send me a link to his 20-part presentation - and I'll watch it, and make a preliminary assessment. Perhaps we're in agreement here.
However for Thomas Baron - I think he was "offed" in association with him "stopping NASA progress" by EXPANDING the testimony to many others (named in his 500 page doc)... After his "tragic death" there were no more witnesses -- go figure.. AND the 500 page report he submitted went MISSING.
NASA's response to this tragedy? "Accelerate development even more!" -- Bean is on record calling it "Crazy! You can't do that." A year later Webb, the guy who helped start it all, the head of NASA -- resigned just prior to Apollo 8. My theory currently is that the determination of doing "Plan B" was put into effect. Failure was not an option. And the deception, at govt level, was justified under the cover of "DoD military operation" which is permitted to include deception.
For me, the breaking of development processes, the Baron exposure of what it was really like on the ground floor, and the era of Vietnam, Gulf of Tonkin, 2 Kennedy Assassinations, Johnson, Nixon -- all don't seem like an particularly "honest era for govt".
I'm still just a 9-week rookie - what do I know?
-
I had a short conversation via email with Dr Korotev earlier this year, seems quite happy to exchange with people who are genuinely interested in a subject, and gave me a few points that I wasn't aware of (not surprising when I'm starting from a position of "space rock go whooosshhhh" ::) ). I did like that some of them are blindingly obvious when pointed out, while others are in the intricate details. An example being the 4π vs 2π irradiation of lunar-meteorites vs lunar surface samples. (That symbol is supposed to be pi, doesn't look so good here)
I find it suspicious that the first moon rock they unsheathed, in Denmark, turned out to be an ABSOLUTE FAKE, 100%. Many other "moon rocks" are encased permanently such that you can't open them up to check them out. How many other "museum moon rocks" have been uncased to authenticate? Just wondering. All I know, at this point is the MLH viewpoint, which focuses on the "one big fake rock" that should shake us up a bit (but not you, I'm sure).
Care to share the Apollogist defense on this mini-topic? I currently hold no claim other than I was appropriated moved by the Denmark fakery of a rock given by Armstrong himself.
-
I had a short conversation via email with Dr Korotev earlier this year, seems quite happy to exchange with people who are genuinely interested in a subject, and gave me a few points that I wasn't aware of (not surprising when I'm starting from a position of "space rock go whooosshhhh" ::) ). I did like that some of them are blindingly obvious when pointed out, while others are in the intricate details. An example being the 4π vs 2π irradiation of lunar-meteorites vs lunar surface samples. (That symbol is supposed to be pi, doesn't look so good here)
I find it suspicious that the first moon rock they unsheathed, in Denmark, turned out to be an ABSOLUTE FAKE, 100%. Many other "moon rocks" are encased permanently such that you can't open them up to check them out. How many other "museum moon rocks" have been uncased to authenticate? Just wondering. All I know, at this point is the MLH viewpoint, which focuses on the "one big fake rock" that should shake us up a bit (but not you, I'm sure).
Care to share the Apollogist defense on this mini-topic? I currently hold no claim other than I was appropriated moved by the Denmark fakery of a rock given by Armstrong himself.
Sure, please provide the catalogue number for the rock that apparently Armstrong gave to the Rijksmuseum, all Apollo samples have an id number, so what is the number for this one?
The simple fact remains, the 'rock' wasn't given to the Rijksmuseum by Armstrong, or any other member of Apollo 11, let alone NASA, as NASA wasn't giving out any lunar samples in 1969, the first ones went out in 1970.
The 'rock' was found in the personal possessions of a former prime minister (who wasn't even prime minister in 1969, having been out of office for about 11 years), Willem Drees. Drees had provided many items to the Rijksmuseum before his passing. The 'rock' was found in his possessions, held by the Rijksmuseum, along with the note that gets associated with the 'rock', and the two were assumed to belong together (at which point, it must be pointed out that the people who found the 'rock' weren't scientists, but a pair of artists, setting up an exhibition). There is no evidence Drees even met the Apollo 11 crew, who were in the Netherlands for a handful of hours.
OneBigMonkey, on his website, and Paolo Attivissimo (I can't link his site from work), to name just two people, have looked into this in nice detail.
-
I find it suspicious that the first moon rock they unsheathed,
It wasn't "unsheathed" because it was never "sheathed".
in Denmark,
It was the Netherlands.
turned out to be an ABSOLUTE FAKE, 100%.
Finally, you got something sort-of right. It was identified by a geologist as petrified wood. However it was never labelled by the museum as a Moon rock, so it doesn't really count as fake anyway.
Many other "moon rocks" are encased permanently such that you can't open them up to check them out. How many other "museum moon rocks" have been uncased to authenticate? Just wondering.
Probably none, because that wasn't their purpose. Remember, the main objective of Apollo was to demonstrate the superiority of USAnian science and technology over that of the Soviets, so the gift rocks were essentially a physical reminder to each country that the USA had accomplished that mission.
All I know, at this point is the MLH viewpoint, which focuses on the "one big fake rock" that should shake us up a bit (but not you, I'm sure).
No it doesn't, because you're ignoring all the other samples which have been available for study by scientists from around the world. I've pointed you at the LPI website and how to find documents which summarise literally every lunar sample rock, including lists of scientific papers written based on the study of those samples.
Care to share the Apollogist defense on this mini-topic? I currently hold no claim other than I was appropriated moved by the Denmark fakery of a rock given by Armstrong himself.
It wasn't given by Armstrong. That's three errors in the course of your post, suggesting you've done pretty limited research into the issue.
So here's the story.
The rock in question, which is about the size of a matchbox, was presented to Netherlands former Prime Minister Willem Drees by the US Ambassador to the Netherlands J William Middendorf. After Drees's death, his family found the rock with other memorabilia in his desk, and gave it to the Rijksmuseum.
A Rijksmuseum staffer phoned NASA to ask if NASA ever gifted a Moon rock to the Netherlands, and the NASA staffer correctly answered 'Yes'. At this point the conversation ended, whereas the Rijksmuseum staffer should have asked for details about the gift rock. If that had been done, this issue would never have arisen as it would have been obvious that the Drees rock wasn't the gift rock.
The rock was put on display, and a geologist correctly identified the rock as petrified rock.
The actual gift rock was presented by the crew of Apollo 11, not the US Ambassador. The gift rock was presented to Queen Juliana as the head of state, not to a random former PM. The gift rock was the size of a grain of rice, not the size of a matchbox. And the gift rock was placed on display in the Science Museum in Leiden, where it's still on display.
Even without knowing those details, a moment's thought should be sufficient to make alarm bells ring. The total weight of rocks brought back by Apollo 11 was 21.55 kilograms, and the research teams selected to study the rocks were being provided with samples of a few grams. Therefore the idea that NASA would be willing to hand out a larger amount than that to a random former PM of a minor allied nation makes no sense.
Then there's the fact that every Apollo sample has its own unique number, and a bunch of photos of it. You're welcome to go through the LPI's list of samples and see if you can find the Drees rock among them.
In the meantime, thousands of scientists have studied far smaller samples of Apollo rocks, using that form I linked to request the samples.
-
Sure, please provide the catalogue number for the rock that apparently Armstrong gave to the Rijksmuseum, all Apollo samples have an id number, so what is the number for this one?
The simple fact remains, the 'rock' wasn't given to the Rijksmuseum by Armstrong, or any other member of Apollo 11, let alone NASA, as NASA wasn't giving out any lunar samples in 1969, the first ones went out in 1970.
The 'rock' was found in the personal possessions of a former prime minister (who wasn't even prime minister in 1969, having been out of office for about 11 years), Willem Drees. Drees had provided many items to the Rijksmuseum before his passing. The 'rock' was found in his possessions, held by the Rijksmuseum, along with the note that gets associated with the 'rock', and the two were assumed to belong together (at which point, it must be pointed out that the people who found the 'rock' weren't scientists, but a pair of artists, setting up an exhibition). There is no evidence Drees even met the Apollo 11 crew, who were in the Netherlands for a handful of hours.
OneBigMonkey, on his website, and Paolo Attivissimo (I can't link his site from work), to name just two people, have looked into this in nice detail.
Thanks for the info and correction. A key goal of my mission is integrity. I present things here, because here is my best shot for getting "the other side of the story". This does seem to take the steam out of the MLH claim. I won't take your rebuttal here as "gospel either", until I validate it more. I've created a pre-draft placeholder for "Moon Rock validations".
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tuw5zNJnbGJ5cJZfHJGomIwyXp2nKiTxcvSDk9VNBGE/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tuw5zNJnbGJ5cJZfHJGomIwyXp2nKiTxcvSDk9VNBGE/edit?usp=sharing)
-
It wasn't given by Armstrong. That's three errors in the course of your post, suggesting you've done pretty limited research into the issue.
Thanks for the explanation. And you are correct, I've done no research on this - so raised it here in this "generic thread" to gather the counter-story. I figured there was one.
-
It wasn't given by Armstrong. That's three errors in the course of your post, suggesting you've done pretty limited research into the issue.
Thanks for the explanation. And you are correct, I've done no research on this - so raised it here in this "generic thread" to gather the counter-story. I figured there was one.
Great. So now maybe you could address the issue of the Apollo rocks more generally, as well as the historiography of the Cold War.
-
Great. So now maybe you could address the issue of the Apollo rocks more generally, as well as the historiography of the Cold War.
I prefer "Physics" because it's unchangeable, provable, factual - in nature.
Once you talk about "history", the subjectivity becomes immense, and truth becomes hard to define. For example, even as of February 2020, half of all USA Americans couldn't agree upon whether or not the Election was rigged. But I assure you, "History" will record it as "not-rigged" and "January 6th as an Insurrection attempt by Trump" -- no matter the truth. Yet if Trump were in full control, History would say "it was rigged" -- and that would become "history".
If Daniel Ellsberg hadn't leaked the info about corruption associated with Vietnam reporting -- their original reports would have all been recorded as "History".. If no one leaked the info about "Gulf of Tonkin", this history too would have remained unchallenged.
So when we talk of the "Cold War" - it's hard to decipher the truth. How much of this narrative was "manufactured" to justify Apollo and Vietnam, and other profitable (for the politicians with kickbacks) government spending. It's an interesting topic, but not one in which I believe we can "know the truth" for much of it.
For now, I'll stick with Physics proofs/evidences.
-
Great. So now maybe you could address the issue of the Apollo rocks more generally, as well as the historiography of the Cold War.
One piece of evidence against the Cold War was JFK's attempt to establish a collaboration with Russia on the Moon Landing in 1963. This doesn't sound like "enemies" to me... They said "no thanks, but good luck with that" -- soon after JFK was assassinated. JFK wouldn't go into Vietnam? Was exhibiting doubts about Apollo's mission, possibly willing to pull the plug? Anti-Banks/CIA? Who knows -- why he was assassinated. BUT -- 1963 we see he doesn't seem to be too concerned by Cold War... maybe that was part of it... the DoD profiteers wanted the Cold War to be something that struck fear in Americans to justify govt spending to mitigate these fears.
I'm half-talking-from-my-ass here -- I'm sure. I haven't researched it thoroughly, but only enough to know there was a LOT of shady stuff going on. And I do not put much trust in govt feeding us fear narratives about "the enemy" - which then justifies spending. I'm leery at best.
-
It is not evidence against the cold war, it was a product of it. Kennedy's proposal was part of trying to make US-USSR relations less antagonistic after the Cuban Missile crisis. The Soviets did not dismiss it out of hand, but it died along with Kennedy thanks to the USSR's dislike and distrust of LBJ.
One tends to find that those who dispute the cold war did not live through it.
-
One tends to find that those who dispute the cold war did not live through it.
A war with no shots fired... just "scares" which were told to us by the government. Real or not - I suspect it was "based on truth" but spun from there.
If the government hadn't proclaimed it - not sure we would have been aware of it. It's not like "living through WW2 where German bombs are falling on London".
JFK trying to mend it, was not in the best interests of those wanting to profit from this scare. Wasn't the "Communism scare" part of the justification for our involvement in Vietnam -- to fight against the spread of evil Communism? Lots of profit and government spending for "war and fear". By default, I follow-the-money as a vital part of my assessments of history or present day situations.
-
One tends to find that those who dispute the cold war did not live through it.
I'd also not dismiss the Russian motivation for "an enemy too" - Cold War gave them a scare too. All governments need the support of the governed, and giving them a common enemy is a known effective means to raise this loyalty/support. They then translated it into an "Alliance" by 1972, which also gave them a good reason to spend more money. Then after a while - back to the Cold War antics again -- so up/down -- I'm not sure what degree of what history records is real vs. manufactured, especially on the world stage level. I think there's a considerable amount of spin and manufacturing of narratives at the top level.
The subjectivity of it all, makes it interesting to discuss and ponder -- but I'm not convinced of the reliability of our assessments.
-
A large number of shots were fired in Korea and Vietnam, inthe proxy wars it generated, and at the heads of people trying to escape East Berlin. The Soviet tanks in Prague and Budapest were not delivering cake.
The perceived motivations for it are irrelevant. It existed, and it motivated the policies and actions of the parties involved in it.
-
It wasn't given by Armstrong. That's three errors in the course of your post, suggesting you've done pretty limited research into the issue.
Thanks for the explanation. And you are correct, I've done no research on this - so raised it here in this "generic thread" to gather the counter-story. I figured there was one.
This is definitely an omission for the Bingo card.
-
The perceived motivations for it are irrelevant. It existed, and it motivated the policies and actions of the parties involved in it.
I wish this forums allowed the "Like" link. I would have liked your post here. I sense your heart/tone to be kind and full of grace, and that you seem to be very well read and informed and intelligent. I'm glad for your involvement here.
-
Thanks for the explanation. And you are correct, I've done no research on this - so raised it here in this "generic thread" to gather the counter-story. I figured there was one.
Why did you post something you've done no research on? Please don't insult everyone's intelligence by pretending you assumed there was more to the story that you were hoping to uncover. Here is your post from Reply#87:
I find it suspicious that the first moon rock they unsheathed, in Denmark, turned out to be an ABSOLUTE FAKE, 100%. Many other "moon rocks" are encased permanently such that you can't open them up to check them out. How many other "museum moon rocks" have been uncased to authenticate? Just wondering. All I know, at this point is the MLH viewpoint, which focuses on the "one big fake rock" that should shake us up a bit (but not you, I'm sure).
Care to share the Apollogist defense on this mini-topic? I currently hold no claim other than I was appropriated moved by the Denmark fakery of a rock given by Armstrong himself.
You are presenting all of this as fact, not as an open question that you'd like to have resolved. Up until it was dismantled, you accepted as truth, and passed it on as truth, that Armstrong himself gave a fake Moon rock to Denmark. Which leads us to...
This does seem to take the steam out of the MLH claim. I won't take your rebuttal here as "gospel either", until I validate it more.
Where was all of this validation when you heard and passed on the fabrications? You've compared your treatment here to the Salem Witch Trials, but the only thing being persecuted here is bad faith arguments, poor reasoning, and arrogant condescension. All you have to do to get the discourse you claim you want is to start behaving with integrity you claim to have.
A great start would be to stop passing on unvetted information as factual and only admitting that you didn't do the appropriate research after being corrected. Hold yourself to a higher standard and no one here will be required to do it for you.
-
The whole premise of the Netherlands Moon rock can be dismissed with a little application of logic.
The sample itself weighed a little under 2Kgs:- Why would a Dutch (Ex) Prime Minister, of no particular note, be afford the singular honour of being given a large sample of Lunar Rock (personally) by the Apollo 11 astronauts? He was not even in office at the time of the astronauts visit, indeed he last held office in the 1950’s. It makes no sense.
NASA fought against Nixon to give out ANY samples but did finally relent. However the samples given out weighed a little over 0.05g and were encased in Lucite. It was only in 1970 that NASA relented and gave out the initial Apollo 11 “Goodwill Rocks!” And 1973 when the later Apollo 17 samples were given out. There certainly was no distribution of rocks to anyone by the Apollo 11 astronauts during their 1969 tour.
Both the Netherlands “Goodwill Rocks” are still on display and can be viewed. Additionally, according to research done by Phil Webb and noted in his videos, “The moonstone of the Netherlands pts 1 and 2” the discovery of the nature of the Moon Rock was pointed out by an incredulous NASA employee visiting the museum while on holiday. He questioned the fact that no large moon rock distribution had EVER been sanctioned by NASA.
-
My apologies if this has been covered already, but why in heck would they use petrified wood to attempt to fake a moon rock?
That's literally a kind of rock that would be impossible to find on the moon. It's a fossil! Remains of life! Evidence of liquid water!
If you are going to fake a moon rock, that makes exactly zero sense to use. It's absolutely absurd.
-
It is not enough to imagine that something could happen- you have to show that it did happen. And if you can show that it did, your workings have to overcome the other vast mounds of independently verified corroborating evidence.
My approach is to show "what could NOT have happened." If I prove enough IMPOSSIBILITIES - even the Mighty Apollo cannot Break Physics. Once you show Physics being broken, it compels the physicists to open their minds to the likelihood that what they previously believed, may simply not be true.
You cannot prove a negative.
Here's the thing -- if you want to claim that lunar surface activities were filmed on a stage, that astronauts were suspended from wire rigs to fake lunar gravity, etc., then you have to provide positive evidence for those things -- pictures, drawings, invoices for materials and labor (there would have to be a paper trail), etc. You need to show us pictures from "backstage" showing these rigs to fake surface activities (and no, I'm not talking about simulators or trainers, I'm talking about stuff used during the missions).
If you want to claim the lunar samples aren't genuine, then you have to supply positive evidence for that position -- who made them, where were they made, how were they made, how have they managed to fool several generations of planetary scientists from around the world, etc. If you want to claim samples are genuine but were gathered by an unmanned system, again, you have to provide positive evidence for that unmanned system -- pictures, drawings, mission plans, etc.
If you want to claim the telemetry is fake, then you have to supply positive evidence for that position. What was the source, who programmed it, how was it transmitted in such a way that it appeared to come from the Moon, etc.
If you want to claim eyewitnesses lied about what they observed, then you have to supply positive evidence for that claim. If they were paid off, show us the money.
This is the kind of stuff you have to provide to make your case that the landings were faked. Everything else is simply gainsaying the published record, which doesn't prove anything except that you don't believe (or understand) it.
Otherwise this is just a waste of everyone's time.
Any idiot can tweak curves in Photoshop (on a heavily compressed JPEG, no less); whole legions of skeptics and deniers have repeatedly demonstrated that they don't understand anything about photography, or physics, or orbital mechanics, or rocket propulsion, or radio, etc. You're not "proving" anything; you're just regurgitating the same tired talking points which have been rebutted time and time and time and time again.
Find some positive evidence for your position.
-
You cannot prove a negative.
These aren't negatives. Proving "Apollo Broke Physics" is an absolute positive. Am I'm leaving my claims at "No one to date can provide a reasonable/viable hypothesis to the contrary, which leaves it open to future disproof." All positive evidence, not negative.
So I'm simply identifying which of the MLH specific claims truly are NOT DEBUNKED (... yet) - which runs contrary to Apollogetics saying "ALL have been debunked" - which is dishonest.
-
You cannot prove a negative.
These aren't negatives. Proving "Apollo Broke Physics" is an absolute positive. Am I'm leaving my claims at "No one to date can provide a reasonable/viable hypothesis to the contrary, which leaves it open to future disproof." All positive evidence, not negative.
So I'm simply identifying which of the MLH specific claims truly are NOT DEBUNKED (... yet) - which runs contrary to Apollogetics saying "ALL have been debunked" - which is dishonest.
To you a rather thin minority of the world and you haven't proved your contentions that NASA broke physics.
-
To you a rather thin minority of the world and you haven't proved your contentions that NASA broke physics.
I believe this proof is being made, without viable Apollogy for the specific instances I have presented.
It's only a "minority of the world" because Mainstream guides anyone "questioning Moon Landing" to places where only bad arguments are being made.. A few hours of "questioning" reliably ends with the guided conclusion of "Yep, MLH is stupid - they think the shadows should be parallel and that the earth is flat." Then return to believing the Apollogy, and all remains intact for their world views.
-
So I'm simply identifying which of the MLH specific claims truly are NOT DEBUNKED (... yet) - which runs contrary to Apollogetics saying "ALL have been debunked" - which is dishonest.
The more accurate statement would be which of your debunked claims are you unable to concede.
Let's start with "The sand falls too fast"!
Despite numerous attempts you cowardly refuse to acknowledge a whole host of key things. You claim things fall too fast on one clip - John Young's jump, but we see clearly synchronised soil ground impacts on 3 Gene Cernan jumps!
For Young, you ignore the visibility looking away from the observer, grey on grey and the film quality. You ignore clear shadows on the ground on the left of him and shaded discolouration of the soil on the right. You ignore examples given where it appears the same occurs on Earth, sand against sand. Kinetic energy, rapid chaotic dispersal, poor visibility.
That is just dishonest! We're not even covering the 3 clips provided which are all proving they are on the Moon in low gravity. Time up = time down and your replies have been an exercise in anti-physics, with magic suction-cups, debunked with simple experiments given and ignored, adhesion which you claim is some sort of propelling force and systematic ignoring significant events within each of the 3 clips.
Now you've just run away from the thread - if you think I'm just going to let you do that, think again!
https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2019.msg58354#msg58354
-
It's only a "minority of the world" because Mainstream guides...
Yeah, there's a vast conspiracy to make hoax claimants look stupid... ::)
-
Yeah, there's a vast conspiracy to make hoax claimants look stupid... ::)
Conspiracy? No - the people doing it are under the impression, just like you, that they are "soft censoring misinformation." They do it in good conscience. Just as Christians, in good conscience, will consistently justify whatever is in the Bible... they do it in good conscience. It's not conspiracy.
-
They do it in good conscience. Just as Christians, in good conscience, will...
No. This has nothing to do with religion. There are people in the world who simply know more about these things than you do, and they have arrived at different conclusions than you have. No matter how much you want to think that the only reason to believe the Apollo missions actually happened is some sort of religious or ideological mindset, it is a rational conclusion based on evidence. You are not really equipped to deal with that evidence.
-
Now you've just run away from the thread - if you think I'm just going to let you do that, think again!
Your grasp on physics is weak. You still cannot understand that "adhesion forces" act on the dust on-the-way-up... The adhesive bonding takes 0.3 second to break free.... during that 0.3 second the boot rises to it's apex, and the sand with it. Until the adhesive bonding is broken - the upward force applies.
Your "time up = time down" only applies to a pure projectile launched from the ground, and then goes into a free-fly mode where only gravity is acting on it. But with the dust, there are adhesive forces at work, AFTER launch.
I've said this DOZENS of times - and you simply have no ability to understand it.
Arguing with you on this is like arguing with a pigeon.
Does ANYONE ELSE HERE, like you, NOT understand what I am saying. I think you might be ALONE on this. I find it shameful that if others see your bad arguments and do not correct them - that they remain "quiet" -- showing that they "Value narrative more than truth".
I'd being chased by a Pigeon who wants to continue arguing with me on the same repeated points. Your understanding is wrong. I'll include your bad logic into the doc, so that others can witness "the bad logic employed by Apollogists to try and defend their Faith." So your words will live on.
No reason to keep repeating them here forever and ever and ever and ever... Agree to Disagree, like an adult.
-
There are people in the world who simply [THINK THEY] know more about these...
... and then use that power for soft-censorship - which is highly effective and suppressing the voice of opposition. You are on the side of this censorship, and support it without issue. And even within this forum - support it.
-
... and then use that power for soft-censorship - which is highly effective and suppressing the voice of opposition. You are on the side of this censorship, and support it without issue. And even within this forum - support it.
Conspiratorial gobbledygook. I think we're done here.
-
... and then use that power for soft-censorship - which is highly effective and suppressing the voice of opposition. You are on the side of this censorship, and support it without issue. And even within this forum - support it.
Conspiratorial gobbledygook. I think we're done here.
You think that soft-censorship is "conspiratorial gobbledygook". I'd like to know what others here think about this.
I'm generally liberal as are most of lifelong friends, but if you talk to many conservatives, they understand this truth pretty well. But to YOU, it's "conspiratorial gobbledygook" - a silly myth.
-
Now you've just run away from the thread - if you think I'm just going to let you do that, think again!
Your grasp on physics is weak. You still cannot understand that "adhesion forces" act on the dust on-the-way-up... The adhesive bonding takes 0.3 second to break free.... during that 0.3 second the boot rises to it's apex, and the sand with it. Until the adhesive bonding is broken - the upward force applies.
Your "time up = time down" only applies to a pure projectile launched from the ground, and then goes into a free-fly mode where only gravity is acting on it. But with the dust, there are adhesive forces at work, AFTER launch.
I've said this DOZENS of times - and you simply have no ability to understand it.
Arguing with you on this is like arguing with a pigeon.
Does ANYONE ELSE HERE, like you, NOT understand what I am saying. I think you might be ALONE on this. I find it shameful that if others see your bad arguments and do not correct them - that they remain "quiet" -- showing that they "Value narrative more than truth".
I'd being chased by a Pigeon who wants to continue arguing with me on the same repeated points. Your understanding is wrong. I'll include your bad logic into the doc, so that others can witness "the bad logic employed by Apollogists to try and defend their Faith." So your words will live on.
No reason to keep repeating them here forever and ever and ever and ever... Agree to Disagree, like an adult.
I haven't much time for dishonest people. Clearly the little parabola is between his boots....in free flight.
I laugh at you telling me about my grasp of physics, with your very ignorant "suction cup" crap and your continued insistence about adhesion..
For the umpteenth time you once again cowardly avoid all the other raised points. You aren't "disagreeing" you are playing the standard HB card of evasion and making up ludicrous explanations.
-
But tdo YOU, it's "conspiratorial gobbledygook" - a silly myth.]
No. What is "conspiratorial gobbledygook" is the standard conspiracy-theorist ploy of resorting to accusing people of ideological activism when it becomes evident that those people simply have a better grasp of the facts.
Your claims fail because they lack merit and are predicted on willful ignorance, not because someone else is misbehaving.
-
It seems we have a new term for "pointing out someone is incorrect"...
-
Great. So now maybe you could address the issue of the Apollo rocks more generally, as well as the historiography of the Cold War.
One piece of evidence against the Cold War was JFK's attempt to establish a collaboration with Russia on the Moon Landing in 1963. This doesn't sound like "enemies" to me... They said "no thanks, but good luck with that" -- soon after JFK was assassinated. JFK wouldn't go into Vietnam? Was exhibiting doubts about Apollo's mission, possibly willing to pull the plug? Anti-Banks/CIA? Who knows -- why he was assassinated. BUT -- 1963 we see he doesn't seem to be too concerned by Cold War... maybe that was part of it... the DoD profiteers wanted the Cold War to be something that struck fear in Americans to justify govt spending to mitigate these fears.
The existence of the ideological conflict is undeniable, as it was argued out by people in many countries across the world, whether at the ballot box, in universities, or down the barrel of a gun. The same for the officers and men of the military forces of the USA and the USSR - fervently believing in the rightness of capitalism or communism.
Yet according to you the clique in charge of each country consisted of people who knew it was all for show. How did people psychologically handle that transition? "Congratulations on your appointment. There's something important you need to know about this job..."
Take General Colin Powell: involved in combat in the Vietnam War, so definitely in the former category; but also National Security Adviser to President Reagan, so definitely also in the latter category.
I'm half-talking-from-my-ass here -- I'm sure.
Not half.
I haven't researched it thoroughly, but only enough to know there was a LOT of shady stuff going on. And I do not put much trust in govt feeding us fear narratives about "the enemy" - which then justifies spending. I'm leery at best.
Yes there was shady stuff going on. But not only have you admitted you don't know what you're talking about, you haven't even started to address the issue of historiography.
Do yourself a favour and learn something about the Cold War. And maybe learn what historiography is too - it's how we can rely on mainstream views about any subject, like the Cold War...or Apollo.
But that's not all, is it. There's the issue of the Apollo rocks. I told you the four simple points scientists make about the Apollo rocks: 1. They can't be from the Earth. 2. They can't be fake. 3. They can't be lunar meteorites. 4. They can't have been collected by unmanned sample retriever missions. Sure, you had a go at point 3 with von Braun's trip to Antarctica, at point 2 with a handwave about radiation, and at point 1 with the Danish Dutch rock. Do you accept you're wrong on all three points? If not, what's your objection? If so, what about point 4?
-
#1: ...it's how we can rely on mainstream views about any subject, like the Cold War...or Apollo.
#2:
a. They can't be from the Earth.
b. They can't be fake.
c. They can't be lunar meteorites.
d. They can't have been collected by unmanned sample retriever missions.
#1: If we didn't land men on the moon, what will you do then? (Say Aldrin finally spills the beans...)
#2:
a-c: "So they say"... Moon-rock science has not much commercial value... it's govt grant funded. Them declaring Apollo is Real is a given. All of these seem to have viable methods to produce seemingly authentic moon rocks from those gathered in Antarctica. Unfortunately, our only source of information is from govt' funded scientists, possibly hand-selected by NASA.
What is more telling to me is something that I CAN VALIDATE, such as physics.
d: I agree. I don't think we gathered moon rocks with unmanned vehicles. We're in agreement here, right?
-
This is the bottom shelf of one of my bookcases. It contains conference proceedings dealing with Apollo material, held after each mission. It is incomplete. There are lots of papers there.
All of the scientists in there, and they come from a wide range of countries and institutions, are happy that the Apollo samples and other experimental data, are genuine. They are scientists that have validated data. They were not vetted by NASA. All that was required for them to get a lunar sample was to say what they wanted to do with it so that it didn't waste a very limited resource. Other data were made available freely.
Not all research is government funded. Even if it was, that funding does not dictate the outcomes. False reporting would not survive peer review. Claims that scientists are forced to produce pro-Apollo reports to keep their jobs and funding is delusional paranoia. It shows a lack of understanding of how academia works.
Apollo data is still used internationally to validate readings from modern probes, because it is genuine.
In terms of the realities of the cold war, I suggest you look at the career of Apollo 10 astronaut Tom Stafford.
-
This is the bottom shelf of one of my bookcases. It contains conference proceedings dealing with Apollo material, held after each mission. It is incomplete. There are lots of papers there.
All of the scientists in there, and they come from a wide range of countries and institutions, are happy that the Apollo samples and other experimental data, are genuine. They are scientists that have validated data. They were not vetted by NASA. All that was required for them to get a lunar sample was to say what they wanted to do with it so that it didn't waste a very limited resource. Other data were made available freely.
Not all research is government funded. Even if it was, that funding does not dictate the outcomes. False reporting would not survive peer review. Claims that scientists are forced to produce pro-Apollo reports to keep their jobs and funding is delusional paranoia. It shows a lack of understanding of how academia works.
Apollo data is still used internationally to validate readings from modern probes, because it is genuine.
In terms of the realities of the cold war, I suggest you look at the career of Apollo 10 astronaut Tom Stafford.
Sheesh, all I've got (in the way of old books) is the Apollo 16 PSR (soon to take a nerve inducing trip), and a reprint of the Apollo 11 flight plan, although I think I have PDFs of some of those on your shelf.
-
#1: If we didn't land men on the moon, what will you do then? (Say Aldrin finally spills the beans...)
A deathbed confession from one individual does not topple all the rest of the vast piles of material evidence of the reality of Apollo. It isn't a house of cards.
#2:
a-c: "So they say"... Moon-rock science has not much commercial value... it's govt grant funded. Them declaring Apollo is Real is a given. All of these seem to have viable methods to produce seemingly authentic moon rocks from those gathered in Antarctica. Unfortunately, our only source of information is from govt' funded scientists, possibly hand-selected by NASA.
How wonderfully predictable. All the science must be fake because it doesn't agree with your ideas. And you really have no idea how academia works if you think reporting outcomes can be guaranteed, especially over more than half a century.
What is more telling to me is something that I CAN VALIDATE, such as physics.
Except you keep demonstrating you don't have the foundation to validate it. Moreover you have said that the people arguing with you here have no understanding of physics, which is an absurd assertion to level at a group of people including aerospace engineers.
-
This is the bottom shelf of one of my bookcases. It contains conference proceedings dealing with Apollo material, held after each mission. It is incomplete. There are lots of papers there.
All of the scientists in there, and they come from a wide range of countries and institutions, are happy that the Apollo samples and other experimental data, are genuine. They are scientists that have validated data. They were not vetted by NASA. All that was required for them to get a lunar sample was to say what they wanted to do with it so that it didn't waste a very limited resource. Other data were made available freely.
Not all research is government funded. Even if it was, that funding does not dictate the outcomes. False reporting would not survive peer review. Claims that scientists are forced to produce pro-Apollo reports to keep their jobs and funding is delusional paranoia. It shows a lack of understanding of how academia works.
Apollo data is still used internationally to validate readings from modern probes, because it is genuine.
In terms of the realities of the cold war, I suggest you look at the career of Apollo 10 astronaut Tom Stafford.
Sheesh, all I've got (in the way of old books) is the Apollo 16 PSR (soon to take a nerve inducing trip), and a reprint of the Apollo 11 flight plan, although I think I have PDFs of some of those on your shelf.
Oh there's more, much more! I have the PSRs for Apollo 14-17, quite a few of the Surveyor reports, the photography compilations from Apollo 8, 10 and 12, and a collection of the original meteorological satellite data publications. I like to collect the original material - it removes the "oh it was secret/altered post facto/insert dumbass claim here" arguments, but finding them within budget isn't easy.
I compiled this list of title pages from the conference proceedings, and collated the abstracts of all the Soviet authors from those to prove a point to someone else a while ago, but they seem appropriate here:
https://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/ephemera/procs/confprocs.pdf
https://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/ephemera/procs/sovs.pdf
-
.
d: I agree. I don't think we gathered moon rocks with unmanned vehicles. We're in agreement here, right?
Go on then...so how WERE they gathered?
-
Go on then...so how WERE they gathered?
MLH theory is that they were gathered from Antarctica, and radiated to give them a fresh "I've been in no atmosphere" quality.
I've looked up where these rocks/samples have GONE -- and it seems that most were examined at Johnson space center... not by 3rd parties. Hundreds of rocks simply "went missing" for which NASA said "we didn't keep receipts/records so we have no idea"... I'm not seeing the actual evidence of these rocks being studied by a lot of independent labs around the world - do you have this evidence somewhere, I'd like to see it.
Last time I saw this "catalog of rocks" - these were all from NASA, classified by NASA -- not 3rd parties. That's not so compelling to me.
I'm open to evidence on this - it's not something I've spent much time on yet.
-
#1: ...it's how we can rely on mainstream views about any subject, like the Cold War...or Apollo.
#2:
a. They can't be from the Earth.
b. They can't be fake.
c. They can't be lunar meteorites.
d. They can't have been collected by unmanned sample retriever missions.
#1: If we didn't land men on the moon, what will you do then? (Say Aldrin finally spills the beans...)
You've already been told that the historical record relies on more than the say-so of any single person. It would be no more believable than if Magnus Carlsen stepped up and said he's received instructions from computers for every game of chess he's played in the last 20 years - he can say it all he likes, but there's no supporting evidence.
#2:
a-c: "So they say"... Moon-rock science has not much commercial value... it's govt grant funded.
Funded by which government? Evidence please.
Them declaring Apollo is Real is a given. All of these seem to have viable methods to produce seemingly authentic moon rocks from those gathered in Antarctica.
We've already explained to you that the differences between lunar meteorites and Apollo rocks are so obvious that even non-scientists could tell them apart. Mag40 specifically told you some of those differences. Do you acknowledge this information was given?
Unfortunately, our only source of information is from govt' funded scientists, possibly hand-selected by NASA.
Evidence please that non-USAnian scientists are funded by the US government.
What is more telling to me is something that I CAN VALIDATE, such as physics.
What is more telling to me is that you clearly haven't followed any of the links I've provided: Honeysuckle Creek, Sven Grahn, the Lunar and Planetary Institute, the Ross Taylor interview, and the lunar sample request form. I can understand why - because then you don't have to confront the extent of evidence which contradicts you.
d: I agree. I don't think we gathered moon rocks with unmanned vehicles. We're in agreement here, right?
So, do you think the Soviets collected any lunar samples with their unmanned sample retriever missions?
-
Go on then...so how WERE they gathered?
MLH theory is that they were gathered from Antarctica, and radiated to give them a fresh "I've been in no atmosphere" quality.
I've looked up where these rocks/samples have GONE -- and it seems that most were examined at Johnson space center... not by 3rd parties. Hundreds of rocks simply "went missing" for which NASA said "we didn't keep receipts/records so we have no idea"... I'm not seeing the actual evidence of these rocks being studied by a lot of independent labs around the world - do you have this evidence somewhere, I'd like to see it.
Last time I saw this "catalog of rocks" - these were all from NASA, classified by NASA -- not 3rd parties. That's not so compelling to me.
I'm open to evidence on this - it's not something I've spent much time on yet.
What a load of utter drivel and nonsense.
Apollo samples have been studied for decades by universities and professionals all over the world. You are handwaving all of that away just because you believe differently with no evidence.
Show me ANY evidence that you can "irradiate" a meteorite and make it indistinguishable from the rock that has never been in an atmosphere, that has been exposed to water and has not passed through an atmosphere at meteor speeds. Show me where this has been tested and passed. I"ll be waiting over there...
Account for hundreds of Kgs of rocks please. Compare that to the quantities mechanically recoverd by the Russians.
You have zero interest in the truth. You have just shown that be dismissing the Lunar samples without doing any research, as you have just admitted.
Pathetic.
-
MLH theory is that they were gathered from Antarctica, and radiated to give them a fresh "I've been in no atmosphere" quality.
How did they know which ones were from the moon and which ones were 'regular' meteorites? Remember, no lunar samples had been returned by any agency at that point in time. For the record, the first recognised lunar meteorite is Alan Hills A81005, discovered in 1982. Having spoken with one of the scientist who studied it, they dismiss your idea that lunar meteorites, or any meteorite, could be 'converted' into believable surface samples, there's a lot more to it than just radiation, for starters, how do you REMOVE radiation markers?
I've looked up where these rocks/samples have GONE -- and it seems that most were examined at Johnson space center... not by 3rd parties. Hundreds of rocks simply "went missing" for which NASA said "we didn't keep receipts/records so we have no idea"... I'm not seeing the actual evidence of these rocks being studied by a lot of independent labs around the world - do you have this evidence somewhere, I'd like to see it.
Yes, because that's where the Apollo program was having their lunar surface samples stored. From there, sites all over the globe could request samples, many of which are sent out every year, and to date, no one has said "hey, this isn't a lunar surface sample!!"
Last time I saw this "catalog of rocks" - these were all from NASA, classified by NASA -- not 3rd parties. That's not so compelling to me.
Again, yes, because NASA, via Apollo, collected them, so of course they catalogued them. Just like Roscosmos catalogued the Lunokhod samples, and CNSA the Chang'e samples.
Some light reading for you then;
https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1970GeCAS...1.1213H%3E
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X20304945
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016703798001343
-
Go on then...so how WERE they gathered?
MLH theory is that they were gathered from Antarctica, and radiated to give them a fresh "I've been in no atmosphere" quality.
How many lunar meteorites have been collected from Antarctica, and how do they know they are lunar in origin? And no, von Braun didn't collect them. His well publicised visit there was not to collect rocks.
I've looked up where these rocks/samples have GONE -- and it seems that most were examined at Johnson space center... not by 3rd parties.
See the list of conference proceedings I posted.
Hundreds of rocks simply "went missing" for which NASA said "we didn't keep receipts/records so we have no idea"..
What has gone missing are the many goodwill rocks donated to governments. It does not amount to hundreds, and how other people look after them once NASA gave them away is nothing to do with NASA. Also, make your mind up: does NASA have rigid control over these rocks or not?
. I'm not seeing the actual evidence of these rocks being studied by a lot of independent labs around the world - do you have this evidence somewhere, I'd like to see it.
Because you haven't looked generally, or at the links already posted.
Past time I saw this "catalog of rocks" - these were all from NASA, classified by NASA -- not 3rd parties. That's not so compelling to me.
Who else do you think would have them? You're not in charge of this zoo either.
I'm open to evidence on this
No, you really aren't.
- it's not something I've spent much time on yet.
Evidently.
-
Go on then...so how WERE they gathered?
MLH theory is that they were gathered from Antarctica, and radiated to give them a fresh "I've been in no atmosphere" quality.
What sort of radiation? What amount?
I've looked up where these rocks/samples have GONE -- and it seems that most were examined at Johnson space center... not by 3rd parties. Hundreds of rocks simply "went missing" for which NASA said "we didn't keep receipts/records so we have no idea"...
What's your source for this? And seeing as you put words in quotes, do you mean they're exact quotes of what someone said?
I'm not seeing the actual evidence of these rocks being studied by a lot of independent labs around the world - do you have this evidence somewhere, I'd like to see it.
I've already given you place to look: the Lunar and Planetary Institute website. Seeing as you're such a brilliant code wrangler, do you think you can navigate the website yourself, or would you like some instructions?
Last time I saw this "catalog of rocks" - these were all from NASA, classified by NASA -- not 3rd parties. That's not so compelling to me.
Cut out the misdirection. The scientific papers written about the Apollo rocks are published in science journals, not by NASA.
I'm open to evidence on this - it's not something I've spent much time on yet.
No you're not. You've clearly not followed links provided, and you've repeated claims after we've pointed out how they're wrong.
-
Great. So now maybe you could address the issue of the Apollo rocks more generally, as well as the historiography of the Cold War.
One piece of evidence against the Cold War was JFK's attempt to establish a collaboration with Russia on the Moon Landing in 1963. This doesn't sound like "enemies" to me... They said "no thanks, but good luck with that" -- soon after JFK was assassinated. JFK wouldn't go into Vietnam? Was exhibiting doubts about Apollo's mission, possibly willing to pull the plug? Anti-Banks/CIA? Who knows -- why he was assassinated. BUT -- 1963 we see he doesn't seem to be too concerned by Cold War... maybe that was part of it... the DoD profiteers wanted the Cold War to be something that struck fear in Americans to justify govt spending to mitigate these fears.
I'm half-talking-from-my-ass here -- I'm sure. I haven't researched it thoroughly, but only enough to know there was a LOT of shady stuff going on. And I do not put much trust in govt feeding us fear narratives about "the enemy" - which then justifies spending. I'm leery at best.
The X Files was not a documentary.
You know, some of us were born before 1980 and have first-hand memories of all of this. When she was in high school my wife got chased through East Berlin by a bunch of soldiers after taking pictures of a monument. We saw the news stories out of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan as they happened. We saw the reports from Vietnam on the news every night.
To think all of that was fake or staged requires an exceptionally shallow mind.
The Cold War was very real and very scary. I winced every time Reagan joked about bombing Moscow on a hot mic. Tornado drills in elementary school served double duty as nuke drills. Every day carried the very real possibility of nuclear flaming death from over the horizon. I am not exaggerating.
We knew this. Why do you think every other sci-fi movie in the '70s and '80s was set in a post-apocalyptic radioactive wasteland? Why were movies like "Wargames" and "Red Dawn" and "Threads" such huge hits? Even the Aussies were getting in on the act:
We literally came this >< close to all-out nuclear exchanges with the Soviet Union on multiple occasions. Look up the names Vasilli Arkhipov and Stanislav Petrov, men who literally, single-handedly prevented nuclear war on two different occasions (at great personal cost in Arkhipov's case).
I lived in San Antonio, which, with multiple Air Force bases (including a logistics wing at Kelly) and Army posts, was actually a high-value target.
There were occasional diplomatic overtures and joint ventures to keep it from turning it into a hot war (with nukes), but that didn't make it any less real. Southeast Asia was a total cluster both because the Best and the Brightest ... weren't, and because the Soviet and Chinese proxies were especially brutal; Hitler was third-rate on the mass-murder scale compared to Stalin and Mao, but none of them could touch Pol Pot on percentage.
Apollo only happened because there was real, genuine, pants-wetting fear of the Soviets gaining the high ground (literally). The Saturn V was as much a statement of how much nuclear flaming death we could drop on Moscow as it was anything else.
You are not anywhere near as smart or clever or well-informed as you think you are. You've basically spent an afternoon skimming through "Chess for Dummies" and are confident you could beat Kasparov or Fischer in less than 20 moves.
Son, you are about as sharp as a sack of wet mice. You might as well claim the Holocaust was fake, too.
-
I guarantee that najak will not give meaningful replies to any of the above posts including mine, that has specific data related rebuttal. He has proven himself to be just like every other HB who has ever turned up, a great big time waster who is just not going to concede irrefutable things. He will just run away, supply ludicrous replies or continue yelling his claims unabated.
Lets be really generous here and say that 1% of all discovered meteorites turn out to be from the Moon. Now Apollo didn't just bring back rock samples, they also brought back regolith and 3m hammered in core samples - I'm guessing that nobody is dumb enough to suggest they got them from Antarctica.
With me so far Najak? Now it takes time to process rocks to find out their source, certainly not something they would do in the short time they were there.
Apollo brought back a catalogued total of 842lbs of samples. Let's say 800lbs are rocks.
Now to find that amount of rocks from the Moon (and it is by no means guaranteed!), multiply that 800lb amount by 100 (1% are from the Moon) meaning they need to bring back 80,000lbs, all to be verified.
So, send a damn rocket engineer, publicise it, photograph it and tell him he needs to go find 400 tons of rocks on the ground.
No worries though as they can (solve the bloody energy crisis!) by magically irradiating rocks with amongst other isotopes, helium-3! They can also magically impregnate many on the surface with microscopic zap-pits that leave no trace to even basic geologists!
Somewhere along the line they will magically remove the "impossible to miss or remove" terrestrial weathering that alters minerals within the rock. They will magically remove all fusion crusts that are certainly going to be present in arctic conditions and whilst they invisibly do that, remove all signs of internal cracking and heating that are completely and unmissably obvious.
Once this absurd list of things has been done they will send them out to thousands of geologists over 50 years and not one of them will find any fault with any of this.
How many people to do all that totally impossible shite?
-
- Go to Antarctica
- Grab some rocks
- "Irradiate" half of those rocks (how and with what forms of radiation and at what energies are left as an exercise for the reader)
- Submit all the rocks to a lab for the same kind of analysis that was done on the lunar samples
- Compare with analyses of Apollo samples
This will at least tell us if faking samples in this manner is even possible. I don't think it is (Antarctic rocks are subject to physical weathering processes that lunar rocks aren't), but we won't know until someone wastes the money to find out.
-
- Go to Antarctica
- Grab some rocks
- "Irradiate" half of those rocks (how and with what forms of radiation and at what energies are left as an exercise for the reader)
- Submit all the rocks to a lab for the same kind of analysis that was done on the lunar samples
- Compare with analyses of Apollo samples
This will at least tell us if faking samples in this manner is even possible. I don't think it is (Antarctic rocks are subject to physical weathering processes that lunar rocks aren't), but we won't know until someone wastes the money to find out.
Maybe we should get Dave McKeegan to do it while he's down in Antarctica for The Final Experiment (it's explained on YouTube if you'd like to know more).
-
So, do you think the Soviets collected any lunar samples with their unmanned sample retriever missions?
MLH theory is that we simply shared our samples with them, so that "they'd match" - that was part of the "homerun" verification - "they matched!" Surely they weren't in cahoots.
Then May 1972, our alliance with Russia was signed. For how long before that was this alliance planned?
As far as the evidence of "who all validated the rocks" - I looked once, and seemed like most were done in-house... until 2019 - where NASA has started sending out "stored samples" (so they say), in mass-- but NOW these samples show average particle size of 35 microns instead of 80!!!... Hmmm,.... maybe it's because China's samples that are real showed this... Next we'll just claim that our measurement process in 1970's was flawed... off by 55%.
-
...
Peter, were you aware of this recent finding:
https://www.space.com/30450-apollo-moon-soil-samples-disintegrating.html
"The differences between the two datasets are stark. For example, the median particle diameter has decreased from 78 microns (0.0031 inches) to 33 microns (0.0013 inches). And in the original sieve data, 44 percent of soil particles were between 90 and 1,000 microns (0.0035 to 0.039 inches) wide; today, just 17 percent of the particles are that large."
===
What's so odd about this MAJOR DEGRADATION is the nature of it changing so SUDDENLY. I thought we'd been studying samples throughout the decades? Why wasn't ANY degradation noted earlier?
This alone seems like a smoking gun to me. This simply makes no sense that they'd have NO CLUE ABOUT THIS until 2012.
-
Why wasn't ANY degradation noted earlier?
This alone seems like a smoking gun to me. This simply makes no sense that they'd have NO CLUE ABOUT THIS until 2012.
Why wasn't it noted earlier? The five year study you have linked to ran from 2007 to 2012, so it finished twelve years ago as it is. Do you think they are just measuring and remeasuring the samples everyday, to see if they have changed size? The study was specifically performed on samples that have been repeatedly exposed to an environment in which they did not form, and you're surprised this has had an effect on them? At this point, I can only ask that if your post is going to include the line 'I haven't looked into this yet' then it would be a good idea to just not make the post in the first place.
-
So, do you think the Soviets collected any lunar samples with their unmanned sample retriever missions?
MLH theory is that we simply shared our samples with them, so that "they'd match" - that was part of the "homerun" verification - "they matched!" Surely they weren't in cahoots.
So, despite positive evidence that the Luna sample retriever missions actually happened, you think they didn't?
Okay, a couple of questions then:
1. What was the purpose of the N-1 rocket the Soviets designed and attempted to launch four times?
2. If it was all faked, why didn't the Soviets fake a landing before the Americans?
3. If the Space Race was agreed to be faked by the USA and the USSR, what did the USSR gain from it?
Then May 1972, our alliance with Russia was signed. For how long before that was this alliance planned?
What was the name of the alliance as described in the document the two countries signed?
As far as the evidence of "who all validated the rocks" - I looked once,
Only once? Where did you look?
and seemed like most were done in-house... until 2019
Just to clarify, because on the face of it this statement is so stupidly wrong that I have to assume you made a mistake, are you claiming that up to 2019, most analysis of the Apollo rocks was performed by NASA staff?
- where NASA has started sending out "stored samples" (so they say), in mass--
So who say? Please provide a source.
but NOW these samples show average particle size of 35 microns instead of 80!!!... Hmmm,.... maybe it's because China's samples that are real showed this... Next we'll just claim that our measurement process in 1970's was flawed... off by 55%.
Okay, just to clarify again, are you saying that the only analysis performed on the Apollo rocks was to measure average particle size?
And also, how did you ascertain that the Chinese samples are real? What problems did the Chinese solve that the Yanks and Russkies couldn't?
-
...
Peter, were you aware of this recent finding:
https://www.space.com/30450-apollo-moon-soil-samples-disintegrating.html
"The differences between the two datasets are stark. For example, the median particle diameter has decreased from 78 microns (0.0031 inches) to 33 microns (0.0013 inches). And in the original sieve data, 44 percent of soil particles were between 90 and 1,000 microns (0.0035 to 0.039 inches) wide; today, just 17 percent of the particles are that large."
===
What's so odd about this MAJOR DEGRADATION is the nature of it changing so SUDDENLY. I thought we'd been studying samples throughout the decades? Why wasn't ANY degradation noted earlier?
Yes, scientists have been studying the Apollo samples through the decades. Of course, most of the Apollo samples are rocks, and this particular test is a study of soil samples. Do you understand the difference?
Second, just because scientists study samples doesn't mean that every sample is subjected to every possible scientific test. Scientists are specialists, so the tests they conduct on a sample are going to be related to their specialisation. Then they send the sample back to NASA so other scientists can conduct other tests related to their specialisation. If no scientists are interested in performing a certain test on any lunar samples, then that test doesn't get performed.
Therefore, we have two data points for average soil particle size - one collected in 1969 and one in 2012. And that means we have no idea of the shape of the curve between those two years. Therefore, your assertion that the "DEGRADATION" happened "SUDDENLY" isn't supported. (And sorry, but putting those words in caps doesn't give any additional strength to your assertion.)
This alone seems like a smoking gun to me. This simply makes no sense that they'd have NO CLUE ABOUT THIS until 2012.
Well of course you'd consider it a smoking gun.
The average researcher would dig up the scientific paper the linked article was based on, learn some context and conduct further research based on that. But not you - instead of researching, you leap straight to the conspiratorial conclusion in the expectation that because we also don't know the context you're somehow right. I don't think you'll bother to look for the paper, but here's your chance to prove me wrong.
And as a test of that, here's a question based on something said in the Ross Taylor interview: what significant finding did scientists make about the lack of a particular group of metals in the Apollo rock samples?
As I said, if no scientists are interested in performing a certain test, then that test doesn't get performed. It's as simple as that. Presumably in the years between 1969 and 2007 no scientists were interested in testing average soil particle size.
But in the meantime here are some questions:
1. What is it a smoking gun of? In other words, according to you, what does it prove?
2. What is your logic process to back this up? And I don't mean (a) the samples degraded, therefore (b) the samples are fake. I'd like you to explain how the degradation is a smoking gun of whatever you think it's a smoking gun of.
-
Naturally he's ignored two things: the suggested cause of the change and the different methodologies.
-
And when you look carefully at the study you get to the truth of it.
The implication of the study cited by Najak was that samples already released from storage for experimentation were deteriorating thanks to exposure to Earth's atmosphere.
Studies by other workers showed no such change.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/maps.13060
-
The SMART-1 spacecraft, an ESA, not NASA, probe, was able to see some of the chemical composition of lunar material from lunar orbit, thanks to them measuring the X-ray emissions after a massive solar event. X-ray spectrometers work broadly the same way, just with a local supply of x-rays. They were able to compare ground truth of the sites of both the Apollo and Russian Luna sample sites and elsewhere. This being over a decade before the Chinese sample return mission.
Even if NASA was able to doctor lunar meteorites to the point they would pass muster to be being from the moon, a massive 'if', there's no way they could have them come from specific spots on the moon, and things would simply not match up, especially when compared the USSR's efforts and elsewhere on the moon.
I don't have the expertise of many of the fine folks here. I do not deny that, I am not a rocket scientist, an engineer or a scientist, I'm just a space geek with a passion for learning stuff about a special interest.
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/SMART-1/SMART-1_on_the_trail_of_the_Moon_s_beginnings
-
I guarantee that najak will not give meaningful replies to any of the above posts including mine, that has specific data related rebuttal. He has proven himself to be just like every other HB who has ever turned up, a great big time waster who is just not going to concede irrefutable things. He will just run away, supply ludicrous replies or continue yelling his claims unabated.
Lets be really generous here and say that 1% of all discovered meteorites turn out to be from the Moon. Now Apollo didn't just bring back rock samples, they also brought back regolith and 3m hammered in core samples - I'm guessing that nobody is dumb enough to suggest they got them from Antarctica.
With me so far Najak? Now it takes time to process rocks to find out their source, certainly not something they would do in the short time they were there.
Apollo brought back a catalogued total of 842lbs of samples. Let's say 800lbs are rocks.
Now to find that amount of rocks from the Moon (and it is by no means guaranteed!), multiply that 800lb amount by 100 (1% are from the Moon) meaning they need to bring back 80,000lbs, all to be verified.
So, send a damn rocket engineer, publicise it, photograph it and tell him he needs to go find 400 tons of rocks on the ground.
No worries though as they can (solve the bloody energy crisis!) by magically irradiating rocks with amongst other isotopes, helium-3! They can also magically impregnate many on the surface with microscopic zap-pits that leave no trace to even basic geologists!
Somewhere along the line they will magically remove the "impossible to miss or remove" terrestrial weathering that alters minerals within the rock. They will magically remove all fusion crusts that are certainly going to be present in arctic conditions and whilst they invisibly do that, remove all signs of internal cracking and heating that are completely and unmissably obvious.
Once this absurd list of things has been done they will send them out to thousands of geologists over 50 years and not one of them will find any fault with any of this.
How many people to do all that totally impossible shite?
Why won't he answer?
-
Why won't he answer?
I'm an admitted rookie on all of this. Although I've covered a breadth of things, my deeper focus has been mostly on Newtonian physics, because this is an area of professional experience for me, as well as they seem to break this Physics many times -- provably. So when I hear Apollogists say "We've debunked ALL MLH Claims" -- I'm simply challenging that statement. And for me, when they Break Physics - this is very meaningful.
===
Here's my response to the above:
This ESA reference only mentions cross-comparing SMART-1's D-CIXS data with the Soviet samples, not the Apollo samples.
When SMART-1 crashed into the lunar surface and kicked up dust plumes for analysis with ground-based radio telescopes, ABC News in Hobart who were covering Mt Pleasant Observatory's observation of the crash reported that "the probe has uncovered minerals different to the rocks gathered on the surface during moon rocks."
It should also be noted that the Soviet lunar samples differ from the Apollo samples. Whereas the Apollo samples contain up to 6,000ppm of water and ferric iron oxide associated with that water (the Apollo 16 rocks contain the most ferric iron), the Luna 16 and 20 contain none of this. Only Luna 24 contains 1,000ppm of water and it was found by drilling ~1.5meters under the lunar surface.
===
At this point, I'm working on the physics parts in depth, creating a 3D real-time Physics simulation as we speak.. so I will be engaging less rampantly here for a while as I do this work.
-
A space probe crashing into the lunar surface would uncover minerals deeper than the surface samples and regolith samples Apollo astronauts could collect. Are you really that surprised things in different conditions are different?
Also! So try again.
https://spaceref.com/status-report/smart-1-birthday-postcard-of-apollo-11-landing-site/
-
Although I've covered a breadth of things, my deeper focus has been mostly on Newtonian physics, because this is an area of professional experience for me
Clearly it isn't.
Here's my response to the above:
Are you serious?
That ignores every single line written in "the above" that you quoted. If you are a bloody rookie, you've no business even coming out with the bilge you've so far posted on the subject.
-
Why won't he answer?
I'm an admitted rookie on all of this. Although I've covered a breadth of things, my deeper focus has been mostly on Newtonian physics, because this is an area of professional experience for me, as well as they seem to break this Physics many times -- provably. So when I hear Apollogists say "We've debunked ALL MLH Claims" -- I'm simply challenging that statement. And for me, when they Break Physics - this is very meaningful.
===
Here's my response to the above:
This ESA reference only mentions cross-comparing SMART-1's D-CIXS data with the Soviet samples, not the Apollo samples.
When SMART-1 crashed into the lunar surface and kicked up dust plumes for analysis with ground-based radio telescopes, ABC News in Hobart who were covering Mt Pleasant Observatory's observation of the crash reported that "the probe has uncovered minerals different to the rocks gathered on the surface during moon rocks."
It should also be noted that the Soviet lunar samples differ from the Apollo samples. Whereas the Apollo samples contain up to 6,000ppm of water and ferric iron oxide associated with that water (the Apollo 16 rocks contain the most ferric iron), the Luna 16 and 20 contain none of this. Only Luna 24 contains 1,000ppm of water and it was found by drilling ~1.5meters under the lunar surface.
===
At this point, I'm working on the physics parts in depth, creating a 3D real-time Physics simulation as we speak.. so I will be engaging less rampantly here for a while as I do this work.
If you're going to copy Jarrah, at least provide the source for it:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/15/moon-rock-mineralogy-qedirt/
Otherwise it would look like you're jsut parroting other people's work without any understanding of it, and that would never do now, would it.
-
A space probe crashing into the lunar surface would uncover minerals deeper than the surface samples and regolith samples Apollo astronauts could collect. Are you really that surprised things in different conditions are different? Also! So try again.
https://spaceref.com/status-report/smart-1-birthday-postcard-of-apollo-11-landing-site/
Didn't one of you argue earlier that the astronauts collected drill samples from underground? To my knowledge, the deepest Apollo samples were attributed to depths of 3meters. ESA estimated the SMART-1 crater depth to be only 1m deep. So shallower than the Apollo drill samples. Therefore, there should be no discrepancy in mineralogy.
And your spaceref article concerns a photo of the Apollo 11 landing site taken by SMART-1 at 159m/pixel. The only mentions of remote sensing are vague and in passing. It says nothing specifically about SMART-1 confirming Apollo 11. The Bernard Foing quote therein is literally his same statements regarding the SMART-1's January 2006 cross comparison of their D-CIXS data with Luna 20 and 24.
-
You haven't supplied a link to the news report where you claim it says they differ from surface samples.
The article you did link to makes no such claim.
-
Why won't he answer?
I'm an admitted rookie on all of this. Although I've covered a breadth of things, my deeper focus has been mostly on Newtonian physics, because this is an area of professional experience for me, as well as they seem to break this Physics many times -- provably. So when I hear Apollogists say "We've debunked ALL MLH Claims" -- I'm simply challenging that statement. And for me, when they Break Physics - this is very meaningful.
===
Here's my response to the above:
This ESA reference only mentions cross-comparing SMART-1's D-CIXS data with the Soviet samples, not the Apollo samples.
When SMART-1 crashed into the lunar surface and kicked up dust plumes for analysis with ground-based radio telescopes, ABC News in Hobart who were covering Mt Pleasant Observatory's observation of the crash reported that "the probe has uncovered minerals different to the rocks gathered on the surface during moon rocks."
It should also be noted that the Soviet lunar samples differ from the Apollo samples. Whereas the Apollo samples contain up to 6,000ppm of water and ferric iron oxide associated with that water (the Apollo 16 rocks contain the most ferric iron), the Luna 16 and 20 contain none of this. Only Luna 24 contains 1,000ppm of water and it was found by drilling ~1.5meters under the lunar surface.
===
At this point, I'm working on the physics parts in depth, creating a 3D real-time Physics simulation as we speak.. so I will be engaging less rampantly here for a while as I do this work.
This is nothing but gish gallop and obfuscatory word salad.
You haven't answered any of Mag40's questions
NOTE:
LunarOrbit must be getting very close to putting you on moderated status, where you won't be able get any post approved unless it contains satisfactory answers to questions you have been asked. If you don't want that happening, I suggest you start either answering questions, or admitting (unconditionally) that you cannot.
-
To my knowledge, the deepest Apollo samples were attributed to depths of 3meters. ESA estimated the SMART-1 crater depth to be only 1m deep. So shallower than the Apollo drill samples. Therefore, there should be no discrepancy in mineralogy.
Explain why that is? Probably best you forget about this subject, the absolute real irrefutable proof of a landing.
-
NOTE:
LunarOrbit must be getting very close to putting you on moderated status, where you won't be able get any post approved unless it contains satisfactory answers to questions you have been asked. If you don't want that happening, I suggest you start either answering questions, or admitting (unconditionally) that you cannot.
Is Jarrah White banned from posting here? When it comes to geology, I'm only relying on his answers. This isn't MY THING.
So if you want to discuss this deeper, allow Jarrah to make a new thread, and discuss it fully and completely. This is how forums are designed, to have threads that are not splintered, but remain narrow in scope. For each off-topic item you want to discuss, create a thread. And let Jarrah post/answer - and he just might.
I, however, am only prepared to post on the things that are my specific domain knowledge.
So for things that are off-topic - "I can't adequately answer at this time, if ever" is a fine way to categorize me, for these side topics.
I've agreed to withdraw my assertions that "Apparently Broken/unexplained Physics" does NOT equate to "we didn't land men on the moon" - because THAT is a much bigger court case.
I am presenting proofs that I find to be compelling evidence, and want to find out what is the "best rebuttal for each".
I started out believing MOST MLH claims - but have dropped 90% of them as "dumb things to claim as proof", because they are stretched or omitting key points. I'm trying to discover, of all the MLH claims, which ones are the strongest.
I have more of these to present, for scrutiny.
-
NOTE:
LunarOrbit must be getting very close to putting you on moderated status, where you won't be able get any post approved unless it contains satisfactory answers to questions you have been asked. If you don't want that happening, I suggest you start either answering questions, or admitting (unconditionally) that you cannot.
Is Jarrah White banned from posting here? When it comes to geology, I'm only relying on his answers. This isn't MY THING.
So if you want to discuss this deeper, allow Jarrah to make a new thread, and discuss it fully and completely. This is how forums are designed, to have threads that are not splintered, but remain narrow in scope. For each off-topic item you want to discuss, create a thread. And let Jarrah post/answer - and he just might.
I, however, am only prepared to post on the things that are my specific domain knowledge.
So for things that are off-topic - "I can't adequately answer at this time, if ever" is a fine way to categorize me, for these side topics.
I've agreed to withdraw my assertions that "Apparently Broken/unexplained Physics" does NOT equate to "we didn't land men on the moon" - because THAT is a much bigger court case.
I am presenting proofs that I find to be compelling evidence, and want to find out what is the "best rebuttal for each".
I started out believing MOST MLH claims - but have dropped 90% of them as "dumb things to claim as proof", because they are stretched or omitting key points. I'm trying to discover, of all the MLH claims, which ones are the strongest.
I have more of these to present, for scrutiny.
Non sequitur. Your reply is unrelated to my post.
No, The Blunder is not banned from here, but he knows that if he does post here will be handed his arse... again (in the same way you are being handed yours) by people who KNOW this subject inside out, back to front and upside down. Credibility is not like a boomerang.... if you throw it away, it ain't coming back - you'll have to go get it yourself. When you keep running away from questions, when you keep hand-waving facts, and when you keep ignoring counter-claims, you throw away your credibility.
You are obviously new to this, and are unaware of the history, but The Blunder has been handed his arse by Jay and others a number of times previously in other debates. That's why he spat the dummy, took his toys and ran away.
Jarrah White is an intellectual coward. He has been challenged to live debates many times, and has always turned them down. Why? Because he knows he's on very shaky ground with his moon hoax grift, so he needs to control the process, and can't do anything to control a live debate... there is no opportunity to delete or rewrite posts when he gets found out. He's only interested in having written debates on platforms that allow him to control the process, and since that won't be allowed here, he is too afraid to come here.
-
You are obviously new to this, and are unaware of the history, but The Blunder has been handed his arse by Jay and others a number of times previously in other debates. That's why he spat the dummy, took his toys and ran away.
I've witnessed firsthand the treatment you give MLH here, and the basis upon which you think someone was "handed their arse".
When it comes to geology questions - I defer to Jarrah. I don't base my own beliefs about MLH on the geology (not yet, at least).
It seems many here confuse "not AGREEING with logic" equates to "running away from facts".
Or that "identifying something as out-of-scope for the current thesis of a thread" is "running".
Every thread is not "the whole MLH/Apollogist" argument. Each thread is a specific piece. In examining evidence, you take each piece as it comes in.
I've already agreed NOT to claim "because this piece of evidence remains unexplained" that this means "therefore we didn't land on the moon". I've conceded to NOT draw this conclusion.
If you have issues with anything directly related to my specific posts - lets keep those discussions scoped to the right thread accordingly.
-
I've witnessed firsthand the treatment you give MLH here, and the basis upon which you think someone was "handed their arse".
First hand? You come in here with obnoxious and snide remarks, offer some meaningless apology then continue with your posturing - you may be getting less than "bestest friend" replies but so what! You don't know what you are doing.
When it comes to geology questions - I defer to Jarrah.
Why's that?
It seems many here confuse "not AGREEING with logic" equates to "running away from facts".
Bollocks. I equate it to you running away from a whole host of things that you cannot explain and resort to dumb obfuscation.
Every thread is not "the whole MLH/Apollogist" argument.
As stated - the former is "the eejit pulling his teeth out with a door" the latter the "professor of dentistry". Don't you dare suggest the two "opponents" are equal here. There's a reason we have a Bingo Card and it could be double that size.
-
Don't you dare suggest the two "opponents" are equal here.
And THIS sums up the whole mode of this forum -- "don't you DARE..."
I was presumed an idiot and guilty from the moment I said "I believe we didn't land men on the moon." From that point forward, this forum has generally operated like a Salem Witch Trial, from where I'm sitting.
-
And THIS sums up the whole mode of this forum -- "don't you DARE..."
Nope. It sums up a frustrated individual. You make sweeping generalisations without cause. It's also 100% accurate and that's with 100% integrity. You don't get to suggest the two "sides" are balanced in what they present.
I was presumed an idiot and guilty from the moment I said "I believe we didn't land men on the moon." From that point forward, this forum has generally operated like a Salem Witch Trial, from where I'm sitting.
Quit with the whingeing and answer posts properly. I posted a half dozen of your snide remarks I can fetch another dozen if you wish.
-
Don't you dare suggest the two "opponents" are equal here.
And THIS sums up the whole mode of this forum -- "don't you DARE..."
I was presumed an idiot and guilty from the moment I said "I believe we didn't land men on the moon." From that point forward, this forum has generally operated like a Salem Witch Trial, from where I'm sitting.
What you did was turn up here with obsequious (and frankly a little creepy) begging for engagement whilst simultaneously claiming your intellectual superiority. You've shed real tiny baby tears over how horrid we've been to you poor brave little soldier while calling people here liars and dishonest.
You've dipped liberally into the logical fallacies grab bag when you could have been doing some actual research.
You've claimed expertise you don't have, are obviously ill-informed about really basic things, and copied material from other sources (without referencing them) in an effort to sound look you understand a topic when you clearly don't.
Your modus operandi is one that's been displayed here many times, and it impresses no-one.
-
#1: You've shed real tiny baby tears over how horrid we've been to you poor brave little soldier while calling people here liars and dishonest.
My "Salem Witch Trial" analogy is with regards to the "Administrative Powers" - "do this, this, and that - or we'll ban you. You cannot raise any more topics. You cannot conclude this thread until you CONCEDE (as anything but concession will always be viewed as "ignoring facts")."
All of this done by "force of admin powers". That's what made the Salem Witch Trials horrid - before the trials they were outcast, shunned... that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the Administrative powers being exerted unevenly - with bias.
It's also similar to the "Central Park 5" treatment by the cops - kept in interrogation until they made their predetermined confession. They couldn't be done, until they did.
I get that EVERYONE ELSE here is biased against me. No tears or gripes about that. Not one bit.
The gripe is only that in order to continue posting well-researched theses, I have to concede that my prior ones are FAILED.
Then the admin made up a "Scarlet Letter" style "Report Card" just for me... where, like the Salem Magistrates - he alone got to decide what my grades were -- stuck to the top of this supposedly "non-echo-chamber unbiased forum". This report card should be removed -- as it employs administrative powers of Bias.
My first four points were well researched... and the debate here helped them to mature. But now, the topics are stale. Everyone has gotten to address these narrow theses completely. And I've promised to represent these counter arguments in the associated documents for my own readers to see.
I've asked everyone and anyone to give me their final "summation" for me to include in my document, to properly close these out. A Trial ends with "Closing statements", and that's the point we've reached with 3 of these. "Launch Too Fast" is still moving now, with NEW information being presented -- and IN SCOPE. The other 3 need to be paused, until someone has something NEW to bring to the debate.
I wish I could undo how I started out, and eliminate those verbal insults. It was inappropriate and unconstructive. I've tolerated a LOT of ongoing insults, and think I've paid my dues by now - regarding the "pay back for how you started out".
-
Your modus operandi is one that's been displayed here many times, and it impresses no-one.
In short, I fully appreciate those who are coming here to debate Apollo (with exception for the continuance of repeated points, to no end or benefit). I am thankful for you, and the others. I hold you in high regard, even though I don't agree with your Human Moon Landing conclusions.
I'm not here to impress - just to find truth by examining in detail, both sides of the debate for each piece of "MLH Evidence" which seems compelling to me, based on my own research and analysis.
-
Why won't he answer?
I'm an admitted rookie on all of this.
I'll say it again -- you spent an afternoon skimming through "Chess for Dummies" and are now convinced you could beat Kasparov in less than 20 moves. You don't know what you don't know, and son, you don't know a lot.
You're arguing with subject matter experts in fields of aerospace engineering, telecommunications, geology, photography, computer programming, etc., but somehow your 10 minutes of skimming the internet gives you an advantage over decades of study and practice.
-
No, The Blunder is not banned from here, but he knows that if he does post here will be handed his arse... again (in the same way you are being handed yours) by people who KNOW this subject inside out, back to front and upside down. Credibility is not like a boomerang.... if you throw it away, it ain't coming back - you'll have to go get it yourself. When you keep running away from questions, when you keep hand-waving facts, and when you keep ignoring counter-claims, you throw away your credibility.
Your continued use of "Blunder" gives this forum the appearance of being "back in high school". I don't know past Jarrah, but Jarrah today seems to show more maturity, intelligence, and civility than you. You are left holding this bag, stuck in high school.
Jarrah's article here seems representative of his work, and also alludes the "dishonest propagandist" nature of Clavius and Bad Astronomy. Granted Clavius "introduces it without being so disingenuous" (e.g. calling Gemini's orbit "Deep into the Van Allen Belts") simply gives the wrong connotation.. given that per the Van Allen Belts, which would be considered VERY SHALLOW with low radiation compared to the heart. But then Bad Astronomy runs with it and claims "and STAYED THERE". The total time Gemini spent in these belts was well under an hour, right?
So I'm finding more intelligence and fact-checked statements coming from Jarrah, vs. here.
https://www.aulis.com/j_white_10.htm (https://www.aulis.com/j_white_10.htm)
Check it out and see if you can muster an honest assessment.
==
Jarrah White is an intellectual coward. He has been challenged to live debates many times, and has always turned them down.
And yet, we have this video debate in which Jarrah White debated an ASTRONAUT, and said debate was hosted by Danielle Roosa - daughter of Apollo 14 astronaut Stu Roosa.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNup94ewxk8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNup94ewxk8)
Jarrah seemed to handle himself well in that debate, as also indicated by the comments.
[Jarrah] is only interested in having written debates on platforms that allow him to control the process, and since that won't be allowed here, he is too afraid to come here.
Written debates are more meaningful, as it permits the responses to be more well-thought-out, researched, and sourced -- vs. witty off-the-cuff responses done in the moment. The written debates are more meaningful, by far. This is intellectual debate, not WWF.
-
You're arguing with subject matter experts in fields of aerospace engineering, telecommunications, geology, photography, computer programming, etc., but somehow your 10 minutes of skimming the internet gives you an advantage over decades of study and practice.
You've grossly mischaracterized my research and analysis, and the veracity of the theses, some of which still stand strong.
-
TBFDU cheer-leading club on full alert. Seriously what the hell is he even doing bringing this up. "My mate Jarrah says", blah-de, blah-de, blah.
-
TBFDU cheer-leading club on full alert. Seriously what the hell is he even doing bringing this up. "My mate Jarrah says", blah-de, blah-de, blah.
Are you still in high school?
Objectively, from what I have seen so far, I find Jarrah's intelligence, skillset, maturity and intellectual integrity to be well above the average of that which I find here in these forums.
-
Are you still in high school?
They don't have them in Blighty. Still the snide remarks eh?
Objectively
Nope. You are as far away from objective as you can get.
, from what I have seen so far, I find Jarrah's intelligence, skillset, maturity and intellectual integrity to be well above the average of that which I find here in these forums.
Awww bless you and your loyalty. I won't laugh at your gullibility.
-
You're arguing with subject matter experts in fields of aerospace engineering, telecommunications, geology, photography, computer programming, etc., but somehow your 10 minutes of skimming the internet gives you an advantage over decades of study and practice.
You've grossly mischaracterized my research and analysis, and the veracity of the theses, some of which still stand strong.
Nothing you have demonstrated could accurately be characterized as research or analysis. Your theses stand strong only in your own mind. They aren't holding up to any scrutiny whatsoever.
You are continually being caught sharing false information (fake rock from "Denmark"), making egregious errors in modeling (the heat issue in the LM ascent), or making absurd assertions ("the proof is the feasibility"). Whenever you actually admit to the error, you plead making a "rookie" mistake. You demand a rigor in any answer to your claims that you haven't applied to the claims themselves or their sources.
If you are even remotely serious about your intentions stop what you're doing and start over. Wipe your prejudiced conclusion out of your mind and start with no assumptions. Do actual research and go wherever all of the facts take you, instead of choosing only the ones that support the conclusion you seem to so desperately want right now.
-
You are continually being caught sharing false information (fake rock from "Denmark"), making egregious errors in modeling (the heat issue in the LM ascent), or making absurd assertions ("the proof is the feasibility"). Whenever you actually admit to the error, you plead making a "rookie" mistake. You demand a rigor in any answer to your claims that you haven't applied to the claims themselves or their sources.
Not "continually" - but where I am corrected, I correct my thinking IMMEDIATELY, with gratitude. I want this correction, and once corrected, I won't revert. I HATE that lies exist, no matter their bias. I want to believe only True statements.... so that I can base my conclusions on those.
Part of the reason I'm here, is that many of these things I think will NOT be corrected within the confines of an MLH echo chamber. I hate this about echo chambers.
If I'm corrected on enough things, then my current views may start to waver, change, or reverse directions. It happens.
You say nothing I've presented has stood the scrutiny. If you believe this, please provide for me the a complete scientifically viable hypothesis which explains the 8 flag movements. Show me that my claim here has been adequately debunked.
I also want to leave a trail in my wake, of the Truth & Lies about various claims... along with the evidence that substantiates it. Thus I'm creating documents so that this knowledge won't just be "in my head" at the end, but within a suite of folders, documents, images, MP4's, links, and spreadsheets.
-
You're arguing with subject matter experts in fields of aerospace engineering, telecommunications, geology, photography, computer programming, etc., but somehow your 10 minutes of skimming the internet gives you an advantage over decades of study and practice.
You've grossly mischaracterized my research and analysis, and the veracity of the theses, some of which still stand strong.
No I haven't, because you haven't done any actual research. Oh, sure, you've read stuff, you've watched videos, you may have taken a few steps into some basic modeling, but that's not research.
You don't confirm a hypothesis by looking for evidence that supports it; you look for evidence that refutes it. You have to throw rocks at it to see how well it stands up. If your hypothesis is that the landings were faked, then you have to acknowledge and evaluate all the evidence that supports the landings as genuine and see how well your hypothesis stands up to it. You can't just immediately dismiss it as fabricated in support of some conspiracy -- that's not research, that's crankery.
You have to read the trade studies, the mission reports, the scientific papers generated from both instruments left on the Moon and samples returned to Earth, you have to get into the weeds on thermodynamics, orbital mechanics, rocket propulsion, telecommunications, guidance and control, all of it. If nothing else the volume of information will quickly show that the level of effort required to fake everything is on par, if not higher than, the level of effort to do it for real.
I have seen these same kinds of arguments against evolution, or general relativity, or quantum mechanics, or germ theory, or what have you, for literally decades -- "I have this one weird observation that disproves all of xxx."
Or, to boil it down to my particular corner of the universe, "my code looks right, therefore the compiler has to be wrong."
Not how it works. Not how any of it works.
-
I HATE that lies exist, no matter their bias. I want to believe only True statements.... so that I can base my conclusions on those.
What you're saying here doesn't match my experience with you on this forum. You have repeatedly presented information as facts, only to have it revealed as false. I'm not talking about differences of opinion; I'm not talking about things that you should have verified before presenting it to anyone. I personally take great pains to vet and verify anything I say in a discussion like this, specifically to avoid propagating misinformation, and because we all carry the burden of being our own fact checkers. Will mistakes be made? Obviously, we're all human. But your mea culpas aren't nearly as valuable as taking your own time to verify your own information before passing it on. Especially with your self proclaimed value on truth. You are too careless with facts, and seem to expect that everyone here has a duty to provide you with whatever proof you're asking for, regardless of how poorly you've researched your thesis.
As JFB indicated, you should be trying to thoroughly refute everything you present yourself first, and only when you can't find an explanation, to ask if other people have a perspective you haven't considered. You've put the conclusion at the front, and it should be the very last step of the process, after examining all of the data.
-
@LunarOrbit, you concluded the "Flag Waving" thread with 100% inaccurate claim. I ended this thread asking for anyone to present a comprehensive hypothesis which explains all 8 flag motions. No one responded with such a hypothesis. My thesis, remains undebunked - "there exists no known viable comprehensive hypothesis to explain the 8 flag motions"
If anyone wants to put forth such a hypothesis and defend it - -the floor should be theirs. But they haven't, because they can't.
===
Given that no one can -- the thread splinters as you've witnessed. Yes, this thread should be frozen but not because of your very inaccurate assessment used to forcibly insert your summation at the very end.
This is another example of you running this show like the Salem Witch trial -- forcing a biased, and inaccurate summation at the end... "the verdict".. which was predetermined from the start -- "Apollo was 100% real, and anyone who says otherwise is either stupid, willfully ignorant, or a liar".
Please allow me to insert my own defense to this conclusion... which is that no one can present a comprehensive viable hypothesis to explain those 8 flag movements.
If you have to use Admin powers to bias things to your favor -- this doesn't look good for the cause which you are defending.
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2001.0;attach=1280)
-
@LunarOrbit - I'd also like to start a new thread for this one specific example brought to light in the last day - where Duke spends 1.5 minutes picking up a hammer, because he cannot bend down to get it without use of tongs. We have MANY examples of astronauts bending down, or just falling down and getting back up, very easily.
As shown here:
These do not match the physics we see at work with this specific Duke example where this feat seems undoable by him. The MLH explanation is simply that for this specific scene, the upward force of the cable here simply doesn't match either the amount-of-force or the "location of the attachment point(s)" as used for other scenes. If the cable is attached too high, this explains why he can't just "fall face first, pick up the hammer, then push himself back up" as is done DOZENS of times elsewhere.
Here is the focus footage, where this incident starts at 1:45 and ends at 3:15.
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/a16v.1464821.mpg (https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/a16v.1464821.mpg)
This one deserves it's own thread.
-
@LunarOrbit, you concluded the "Flag Waving" thread with 100% inaccurate claim. I ended this thread asking for anyone to present a comprehensive hypothesis which explains all 8 flag motions. No one responded with such a hypothesis. My thesis, remains undebunked - "there exists no known viable comprehensive hypothesis to explain the 8 flag motions"
You failed to make your case. Other members responded to your claim, you rejected their responses for no reason other than that you feel you are smarter than everyone else. Your claim was not proven, therefore there is no reason to throw out all of our history books.
You had your chance. You threw it away by not participating in an honest debate.
-
@LunarOrbit - I'd also like to start a new thread
You will not be starting any new threads until you can prove that you can participate in an honest debate by responding satisfactorily to the responses from the other members.
And if you continue to try to circumvent this restriction by taking other threads off topic, I will put you on moderation and your posts will require my approval before they will be visible to others.
-
You will not be starting any new threads until you can prove that you can participate in an honest debate by responding satisfactorily to the responses from the other members.
Please indicate for me what points I left unaddressed for the flag?
Who presented to us a single comprehensive viable hypothesis to explain all 8 flag movements?
Show me, and I'll congratulate them and concede. Where is this hypothesis that you claim I am ignoring?
-
You will not be starting any new threads until you can prove that you can participate in an honest debate by responding satisfactorily to the responses from the other members.
Please indicate for me what points I left unaddressed for the flag?
I'll let anyone reading the forum to be the judge of that. The topic is closed.
-
I'll let anyone reading the forum to be the judge of that. The topic is closed.
But you didn't let that be the case - you ended it with a "verdict from you".
I'm asking you to support this clear-cut verdict that you've rendered against me, or to remove it, and then let us each make our "closing statements" - as is appropriate for an "end of debate". Then freeze it.
-
I'll let anyone reading the forum to be the judge of that. The topic is closed.
But you didn't let that be the case - you ended it with a "verdict from you".
People are still free to read the thread and form their own opinion. They are even free to start a new thread, if they want.
My personal opinion is that you failed to make your case. You did not convince me.
-
You will not be starting any new threads until you can prove that you can participate in an honest debate by responding satisfactorily to the responses from the other members.
Please indicate for me what points I left unaddressed for the flag?
Who presented to us a single comprehensive viable hypothesis to explain all 8 flag movements?
Show me, and I'll congratulate them and concede. Where is this hypothesis that you claim I am ignoring?
You won't congratulate anyone and you won't concede. Depressurisation moved the flag. Your claim it was a 180 degree movement was bollocks. It was a few degrees, proven by the flag position just before the camera was knocked over by cable being snagged.
-
People are still free to read the thread and form their own opinion. They are even free to start a new thread, if they want.
My personal opinion is that you failed to make your case. You did not convince me.
The closing statement holds special power - like a headline. It's one of the most-read things - the "summary" which you made INACCURATELY and with bias.
I made a strong case. If it didn't convince you, that's fine. But your conclusion was that I "didn't address the points" -- which is false.
There were 8 flag movements in 175 seconds. STILL, no one has put forth a viable scientific hypothesis to explain these all.
This specific 175 second incident is problematic for Apollogists. I get it -- it doesn't convince you. I didn't expect it to convince anyone here.
But for you to close it out with a dishonest summation - is an abuse of your power, and associates dishonesty with Apollogy.
Your sticky thread accuses the HB's of dishonesty - and it's true, MUCH dishonesty reins among the HB's. But with your abuse of power with a dishonest summation - you are simply the pot calling the kettle black.
I'd like you to undo this summation -- and open it up for a few closing statements, and then freeze it. I agree, it's best to not let it splinter. I reached "completion several days ago" - and would have been better to stop it then.
But in the absence of being able to create new threads -- there is NO OTHER PLACE TO TALK ABOUT OTHER STUFF. My preference is that when someone brings up something new -- create a new post specifically for that one thing... Keep threads as clean and narrow-scoped as possible -- with exception of a thread like this -- which is intended to be generalized.
Please do the world a service, and make your forums into a place that doesn't operate like the Salem Witch Trials for HB's. The world will be a better place for it.
-
You won't congratulate anyone and you won't concede. Depressurisation moved the flag. Your claim it was a 180 degree movement was bollocks. It was a few degrees, proven by the flag position just before the camera was knocked over by cable being snagged.
I would LOVE to congratulate someone for this hypothesis - because it would be a truly astonishing accomplishment.
You wrote: "Depressurisation moved the flag."
This is far from viable or comprehensive. You have to establish a viable scenario where it could cause all 8 movements over a 175 second time period. Otherwise, it's non-viable.
You wrote: "proven by the flag position just before the camera was knocked over by cable being snagged."
Are you saying that during these 175 seconds of 8 motions, that a camera toppled and it's cable was responsible for some of these 8 movements?
If you have a comprehensive viable hypothesis - please present it with specifics including the timing, for EACH movement - to show that you have a viable story.
-
People are still free to read the thread and form their own opinion. They are even free to start a new thread, if they want.
My personal opinion is that you failed to make your case. You did not convince me.
The closing statement holds special power - like a headline. It's one of the most-read things - the "summary" which you made INACCURATELY and with bias.
In your opinion.
I made a strong case. If it didn't convince you, that's fine. But your conclusion was that I "didn't address the points" -- which is false.
In your opinion.
There were 8 flag movements in 175 seconds. STILL, no one has put forth a viable scientific hypothesis to explain these all.
Your error is seeing it as 8 separate movements, rather than one continuous movement that the camera position only allows you to see small fractions of. You have repeatedly been given a perfectly reasonable explanation that fits all the available facts.
This specific 175 second incident is problematic for Apollogists.
No. It isn't.
I get it -- it doesn't convince you. I didn't expect it to convince anyone here.
But for you to close it out with a dishonest summation - is an abuse of your power, and associates dishonesty with Apollogy.
Again, you're assuming you have some form of editorial input to someone else's site.
Your sticky thread accuses the HB's of dishonesty - and it's true, MUCH dishonesty reins among the HB's. But with your abuse of power with a dishonest summation - you are simply the pot calling the kettle black.
I'd like you to undo this summation -- and open it up for a few closing statements, and then freeze it. I agree, it's best to not let it splinter. I reached "completion several days ago" - and would have been better to stop it then.
But in the absence of being able to create new threads -- there is NO OTHER PLACE TO TALK ABOUT OTHER STUFF. My preference is that when someone brings up something new -- create a new post specifically for that one thing... Keep threads as clean and narrow-scoped as possible -- with exception of a thread like this -- which is intended to be generalized.
Please do the world a service, and make your forums into a place that doesn't operate like the Salem Witch Trials for HB's. The world will be a better place for it.
If you spent as much time making your points and answering the rebuttals made to you as you do whining about zoo policy and drenching threads with hyperbolic self-aggrandisement and hubris, you might get more sympathy. You've had this advice before: get over yourself. Deal with people's criticisms of your arguments. That's what this place is for, not a soap box for adolescent tub thumping.
-
Your error is seeing it as 8 separate movements, rather than one continuous movement that the camera position only allows you to see small fractions of. You have repeatedly been given a perfectly reasonable explanation that fits all the available facts.
The dishonesty built into your own site, presenting a photo that lacks relevance (from 25 yrs earlier) as though it's relevant without indicating the 25 yrs separation - indicates your motivations and values. You care more about narrative than honesty/integrity. It seems to me that proving Apollo as real - is your first, middle, last, and only objective. This doesn't bode well for your cause - why do you need to make use of deception if you are standing on the unabated truth?
If you think you have a viable comprehensive hypothesis for the flags -- spell it out, and be specific. We witnessed 8 distinct movements, where the top of the flag was always slanted OFF SCREEN, indicating pressure pushing the flag TOWARDS the LM.
So explain it all.. in detail with timing... and then we can include this into the "Apollogist Closing Statement". So if someone wants "the scoop" on how this all turned out - they can read the summations contained in the final few posts.
Your explanations so far have lacked specificity... They are vague and generalized. It's only a short few minute incident -- so this shouldn't take much work. So let's hear it...
-
Your explanations so far have lacked specificity... They are vague and generalized. It's only a short few minute incident -- so this shouldn't take much work. So let's hear it...
Hmmm, can you remind us all here of your specific details on how the flag movement was caused?
-
Hmmm, can you remind us all here of your specific details on how the flag movement was caused?
Hypothetically, if there were an atmosphere, the causes are abundant and viable. For example, if it were inside of a hangar, then Heat/AC could cause a draft. The Hangar itself may simply not be fully insulated/air-tight, and leaks allow an outside breeze to cause a draft. Or if doors were opened. Or if it were filmed outdoors on a calm night, unexpected breezes still happen.
But if it were on the moon, we currently do not have a hypothesis that viably explains all 8 movements witnessed on film.
That's all I am noting here.
-
Hmmm, can you remind us all here of your specific details on how the flag movement was caused?
Hypothetically, if there were an atmosphere, the causes are abundant and viable. For example, if it were inside of a hangar, then Heat/AC could cause a draft. The Hangar itself may simply not be fully insulated/air-tight, and leaks allow an outside breeze to cause a draft. Or if doors were opened. Or if it were filmed outdoors on a calm night, unexpected breezes still happen.
Right, let's flip that around then. If you were planning on faking a mission that everyone knows is supposed to be taking place in a vacuum, would you include a huge lightweight piece of fabric that was susceptible to the slightest breeze and make it a prominent part of all the missions? Why not use an alternative, rigid flag, or just consider the flag on the LM sufficient for the patriotic aspect of saluting old glory?
The whole notion fails on logic, which is something you purported to test us on earlier.
But if it were on the moon, we currently do not have a hypothesis that viably explains all 8 movements witnessed on film.
That's all I am noting here.
No, YOU do not have a hypothesis, and you are resistant to any and all attempts to explain. Your failure to understand is not evidence of fakery.
-
#1: Right, let's flip that around then. .... The whole notion fails on logic, which is something you purported to test us on earlier.
#2: ... you are resistant to any and all attempts to explain.
#1: Imagine it was faked, and that this "flag waving" was a mistake. But you witnessed FIRST HAND that these mistakes "didn't hold back 100% mainstream acceptance of Apollo". Which means your criticisms are wrong -- "it worked". Clearly they didn't have to worry about being perfect. When you have a narrative with enough-proof-of-validity (e.g. 90% of Apollo was real), and everyone is celebrating the grand success of mankind, which served as the springboard for "World Peace and Unity" -- who's going to even WANT to be the party-pooper?
It would be like showing up to a funeral, and arguing with the minister when he says that the deceased is "in a better place now". Nobody wants to do this - and if they did, would anyone say "great point, thank you"?
Back in 1970's there was no internet, no ONLINE social groups, no way to reach out to like-minded folks, nor any way to do easy image/video analysis as we can now. They didn't plan for the tech that became prevalent post-2000.. It was a "1 showing and done" deal. No reason to be perfect.
#2: Please show me ANY VIABLE HYPOTHESIS which explains how these 8 movements could have happened on the moon? Be specific for the entire 175 seconds.
-
#1: Imagine it was faked, and that this "flag waving" was a mistake.
No, this is my point. You want to suggest it was a mistake, but it's a mistake that anyone with a basic level of education could anticipate and avoid. If I want to fake a scene in a vacuum I would not put a flag in there at all. Your argument requires NASA to be simultaneously so clever they can pull off a fraud that hoodwinked the world for decades and so inept they make basic errors like even including a flag, a thing know for 'fluttering in a breeze'.
It was a "1 showing and done" deal.
Except they stuck the flag in all six missions.
-
Except they stuck the flag in all six missions.
But the flag was only in a small fraction of the video footage. They could also have a starched version of the flag which is in use for most of the time. Of all the technical issues, this would have been one of the easier ones to deal with. In all 6 missions, there was only a few mess-ups.... AND, most importantly - and predictably -- it didn't stop 100% acceptance of Mainstream...
When Christians believe the Bible, there are inconsistencies that are irreconcilable between the 4 Gospels -- and Mark 16:9-20 - was "added later" (how could it be God's word if it was amended?) - BUT None of this stop Evangelicals from proclaiming the "sweet Gospel of Jesus along with the Inerrant Word of God" -- there's no talking them out of this. Apollo is a Universalist religion without Hell, that brings Pride, Unity, and Peace to the World -- that's how Nixon sold it off. At that time -- we really needed this win.
When my dad died of cancer, I was 23 yrs old, and under a lot of stress from every direction. In this context, I converted to Christian Fundamentalism.... for 6 years, I was a Crazy Head-over-heels Jesus and Bible lover... Smart as I think I am -- I swallowed the errors of this Book, because there was sweetness in the church that really worked for us. After 6 years, I fell away, as the weight of "telling people who don't believe as I do are going to Hell" -- really wore on me.... so we fell away, and largely reverted back to Atheism.
Humans are wired to be "Tribal" and also "to believe myths that benefit them". There's no shame -- it's biology.
In short -- the DoD leaders seemed to realize that this was doable - and that the KEY to success didn't lie in "Perfection of emulating physics" but rather in making sure that Apollo delivered a message and momentum that people really really wanted (and needed?)... And there was enough "real stuff" to provide the proof, and for the fake parts -- just need to have it be good enough. Mission accomplished... It worked 100% .... with the exact same effect as if we had really landed men on the moon. 100% of the Benefits achieved -- money well spent. Mission success. Kudos to the Patriots who did this for us, and protected the legacy by not becoming Traitors.
-
But the flag was only in a small fraction of the video footage.
The flags are in several hours of video footage over six missions and a fair bit of DAC film as well.
They could also have a starched version of the flag which is in use for most of the time.
Ah, so a hypothetical extra bit of complexity. And just when was this 'starched flag' supposed to be switched in?
Of all the technical issues, this would have been one of the easier ones to deal with.
And by far the easiest would be to not have the flag there in the first place. There was a flag on the LM. Erecting the flag took up significant time in every mission. It wasn't necessary and given its extremely high likelihood of giving away the presence of air any halfway competent planner would have abandoned it.
Apollo is a Universalist religion without Hell
Bollocks. It's an extensively documented historical event that has left physical hardware behind, and that is still within living memory of a significant chunk of the population. It does not compare to religious texts in any way, shape or form.
At that time -- we really needed this win.
This is another bingo tick, thank you. It fails as a motivator because we get that win by actually going as well. So unless you can prove that going was actually not a possibility, you have no basis for assuming this as motivation for faking it.
When my dad died of cancer, I was 23 yrs old, and under a lot of stress from every direction.
I am sorry to hear of this, and you have my sympathies for your loss.
It worked 100% .... with the exact same effect as if we had really landed men on the moon.
Putting the conclusion first again. The effect would have been achieved by actually going, so why didn't they? Why stage a huge lie when the reality was achievable?
-
When Christians believe the Bible...
You've been told several times that the comparison to religion is a bad one, but I'm going to try again, because in actual fact, your hoax ideas have a lot more in common with faith based thought than the Apollo project.
Just as you've concluded that Apollo was faked and have sought evidence to support this idea, faith starts with the conclusion that whatever is in the belief system is true, and accepts anything that supports the beliefs and dismisses anything that doesn't. Believing without proof is seen as a virtue rather than an imperfection, and considered a sign of strong faith to have confidence in spite of no physical evidence.
The Apollo program doesn't rely on faith. There is hard physical evidence, and exhaustive documentation at every step of the way, created and verified by millions of credible witnesses. While there are certainly people who believe it is true because it's what they've learned and not because of any intensive interrogation of the available evidence, the fact is the evidence is available for anyone that wants to see it. This is very different from any religion. No religious leader can provide evidence on demand. They can only tell you the truth as they see it and ask for your trust.
The hoax ideas you have presented are the same. You don't have actual evidence. You have things that don't look right to you. You have have arguments based on asking people to imagine if it were faked. You present places where you speculate that it could have been faked without considering what evidence would be left behind to confirm the hypothesis. You've actually said the words, "the proof is the feasibility", as though the fact that it could have been faked (in your estimation), then that is evidence that it must have been faked. It shouldn't need to be mentioned just how absurd that logic is. You consistently use a tactic common to religious proselytizers, of trying to shift the burden of proof to everyone else. "My religion is real and you can't find anything to prove me wrong." This is the essential nature of all of your threads. You identify some minor piece of minutiae that you believe supports your foregone conclusion and challenge the world to prove it false. Any legitimate challenge to the authenticity of Apollo will present affirmative evidence of fakery.
When my dad died of cancer, I was 23 yrs old, and under a lot of stress from every direction. In this context, I converted to Christian Fundamentalism.... for 6 years, I was a Crazy Head-over-heels Jesus and Bible lover... Smart as I think I am -- I swallowed the errors of this Book, because there was sweetness in the church that really worked for us.
My condolences on your loss, but can you recognize how your history of being logically compromised is potentially a pattern that is being repeated?
Humans are wired to be "Tribal" and also "to believe myths that benefit them". There's no shame -- it's biology.
If you understand there is no shame, then perhaps now is the time to swallow your pride and acknowledge that you've been hoodwinked again. Being a member of a small intellectual elite capable of unraveling the most elaborate hoax in human history must certainly be an attractive position for someone who thinks so highly of his intellectual prowess. Are you capable of rising above that benefit and joining the rest of us in the real world?
This is why good science places the conclusion at the end of the process instead of the beginning. It minimizes these human tendencies and better allows people to follow all of the facts to wherever they go, instead of just the ones that confirm their preconceived notions.
In short -- the DoD leaders seemed to realize that this was doable - and that the KEY to success didn't lie in "Perfection of emulating physics" but rather in making sure that Apollo delivered a message and momentum that people really really wanted (and needed?)... And there was enough "real stuff" to provide the proof, and for the fake parts -- just need to have it be good enough. Mission accomplished... It worked 100% .... with the exact same effect as if we had really landed men on the moon. 100% of the Benefits achieved -- money well spent. Mission success. Kudos to the Patriots who did this for us, and protected the legacy by not becoming Traitors.
This is a great example of the wild speculation that you continue to use without a shred of evidence. Which DoD leaders? Seems to who? How did they realize it without relying on people with expertise to research it for them? Where is the evidence of these feasibility studies? Where was it filmed (not where might it have been filmed, or where do people say it was filmed)? Why 6 missions and dozens of hours of lunar video? If the point was to win the race, why not just fake the winning landing? How did they fake 800+ lbs. of lunar rocks and regolith? If it's the nonsense about "irradiating earth rocks or meteorites", then please duplicate the process to demonstrate.
You don't have evidence, you have a story. A story that you believe without evidence is a lot nearer to religion than people who can construct the story of Apollo on literally millions of data points of evidence.
-
#1: The flags are in several hours of video footage over six missions and a fair bit of DAC film as well.
#2: Ah, so a hypothetical extra bit of complexity. And just when was this 'starched flag' supposed to be switched in?
#3: And by far the easiest would be to not have the flag there in the first place.
#4: I am sorry to hear of this, and you have my sympathies for your loss.
#5: Putting the conclusion first again.
#6: The effect would have been achieved by actually going, so why didn't they? Why stage a huge lie when the reality was achievable?
#1-#3:
Was it 80 hrs of total footage, and only several hours with the flag? Some MLH theory put the studio all inside, so chance of Draft is minimal... A11/12 small hanger... A15-17 - bigger for the rover.
The flag itself was already a bit starchy - some images have it "statically wrinkled" -- stuck in a wrinkled state... so not as flappy as a traditional flag.
Also, Apollo's central theme/motivator was Nationalism -- "America!" -- having the flag was worth this minor worry. And spending time assembling it was part of what filled the time.
In the end, I'm not seeing it as "unreasonable that they'd include a flag, despite nominal risks of flapping" - which only happened badly this once. And it had 0% impact on the success of Apollo.
#4: Thank you. You seem very nice and genuine. Thank you for that. It seems in short supply here; and I realize that my entrance set a bad tone.
#5: "Conclusion First" - yes, this is how a Hypothesis works - as part of the process, you test it, to see if it "holds any water". My hypothesis objective is "testing the viability of the MLH claims" - and my first things to focus on, are the things where, if they faked it -- looks like these might be strong indicators. In the end, compare the two Hypotheses -- Apollogy vs. MLH - then decide. Since I currently favor MLH - I'm starting with this top level hypothesis.
#6: I believe the Landing and Ascent to Docking were not possible to do anywhere close to safely. Very very fragile operations where so many small failures would spell certain death... You'll note that Apollo's "docking operations" were performed in a matter of minutes -- compared to the hours it takes for the ISS. This will be the topic of my next Thread, if @LunarOrbit musters up the courage to let me post about it.
Do the members of this forum really value "truth", or only "their truth", while employing administrative powers to enforce their bias? So far, this place seems like quite the echo chamber. I'd like to see that change.
-
#1: as though the fact that it could have been faked (in your estimation), then that is evidence that it must have been faked
#2: If you understand there is no shame, then perhaps now is the time to swallow your pride and acknowledge that you've been hoodwinked again. Are you capable of rising above that benefit and joining the rest of us in the real world?
#3: This is why good science places the conclusion at the end of the process instead of the beginning. It minimizes these human tendencies and better allows people to follow all of the facts to wherever they go, instead of just the ones that confirm their preconceived notions.
#4: You don't have evidence, you have a story...
#1: "could be faked == must have been faked". NOPE. Not a bit. The "evidence of fakery is supported by "Apollo breaking physics". If it were faked, then it means "the films were a magic show" of sorts-- and thus "how they did things" is similar to trying to figure out "how David Copperfield did his tricks"... We might never know. But we can be sure he didn't make the Statue of Liberty disappear EVEN if we don't have a good theory for "how he did it". If any evidence proves "Apollo Broke Physics" -- this is very meaningful to me.
I have a list -- but @LunarOrbit won't let me finish this list.
#2: I won't be shamed if I get hook-winked, just as I feel no shame about my 6 years of fundamentalism. We're human -- If I feel shame, then I'd be simultaneously telling others to be shamed -- and this is just wrong/bad. Same for Apollo - I am "annoyed" by Apollo -- I would much rather "everyone just know the truth" - I honestly have things I'd rather be doing -- but my personality is addictive in nature, and I can't get this wild hair out of my butt. If I'm wrong, I want to know QUICKLY. I don't really care much about Apollo otherwise... just that if it were faked, then I HATE what Google, YT, FB, etc have done to soft-suppress the truth, by classifying this Lie as "Truth" and suppressing every effort to expose it. This part pisses me off (and IMO, should piss off everyone, because Google shouldn't be soft-censoring, acting like a "tool for defining truth" - this is dangerously useful to govt). Plus I believe my efforts might be honoring the memory of Thomas Baron, and the other whistleblowers who were dismissed and became "nobodies".
#3: "Good Science" has MANY steps. One of them is to "Test your hypotheses" -- see if it holds water. So I'm trying to dig through all of the things that I believe might be "smoking guns evidence that Apollo Broke Physics", as well as the Circumstantial evidence. And toss out the Crap arguments... In order to decipher good arguments from crap ones -- they've got to be tested.
For example, I used to think that the "LM couldn't have taken off any faster because that would break the Law of Conservation of Energy" -- had I not presented this argument here, I'd have remained under this erroneous belief.
#4: "No evidence just a story.." -- I believe the 8 Unexplained Flag motions are significant evidence. As well as the A12 Flinging dish. And maybe (verdict still out) --- the Lunar Ascent being 2x+ too fast....
At any point, these each could be debunked. So far, I personally am not seeing it.
-
But if it were on the moon, we currently do not have a hypothesis that viably explains all 8 movements witnessed on film.
Yes we do, you refuse to entertain it.
The purge valve was on the front of the LM, the flag was in front of the LM, the interior atmosphere being purged caused the flag to move.
A lot easier to understand then the multi-government, multi-country, multi-decade, evidence free conspiracy you seem to think happened.
-
Some MLH theory put the studio all inside, so chance of Draft is minimal... A11/12 small hanger... A15-17 - bigger for the rover.
The 'shot in a hangar' notion fails due to the size required (how do you make Hadley rille in a hangar?!) and the abundant evidence that they are indeed in a vacuum. Dust, sealed plastic bags, mylar thermal blankets, even the hammer and feather drop of Apollo 15 show this.
The flag itself was already a bit starchy - some images have it "statically wrinkled" -- stuck in a wrinkled state... so not as flappy as a traditional flag.
It IS a traditional flag. It's behaving as expected for a sheet of fabric that's been bundled up for days.
#6: I believe the Landing and Ascent to Docking were not possible to do anywhere close to safely.
Given your lack of expertise in spacecraft engineering, why should your lack of belief matter? Plenty of actual aerospace engineers over the last half century disagree with you, and I'll accept their assurances over your incredulity thank you.
-
But if it were on the moon, we currently do not have a hypothesis that viably explains all 8 movements witnessed on film.
The purge valve was on the front of the LM, the flag was in front of the LM, the interior atmosphere being purged caused the flag to move.
Let's test your hypothesis for viability, by adding specifics:
1. Why could it have been offscreen for 10 minutes prior to the first time it showed up.
2. What could have caused it's first visible motion to show up. (move TOWARDS LM) It stays on screen for 14 seconds... how?
3. Then it moves off screen for 22 seconds.. What options could explain this?
4. Then comes back on for 33 seconds... How?
5. Then back off for 92 seconds... how?
6. Then back on slightly for 5 seconds.
7. Then back on even more for 6 seconds.
8. Then back off for 2 seconds.
9. Then back On for 1 second.
10. Then back off - not to be seen again on this footage.
11. The final Off/On/Off - was quick and a bit wild. Much more than other movements.
For each movement in this sequence, need to provide ANY VIABLE explanation... just to show that one could feasibly exist, while also giving due consideration for the notes below.
Note: Decompression of the cabin went like this for EVA1:
1. 28 seconds => PSI 5.0 to 2.0 (1 PSI per 9 seconds) (100%)
2. 23 seconds => PSI 2.0 to 1.0 (1 PSI per 23 seconds) (40% rate)
3. 30 seconds => PSI 1.0 to 0.4 (1 PSI per 50 seconds) (18% rate)
4. 30 seconds => PSI 0.4 to ~0.1, near zero (1 PSI 100 seconds) (9% rate)
5. DONE
Also to note the 30 degree distinct Top Slant of the Flag AWAY from LM - indicating stress on the flag - that it's being PUSH TOWARDS THE LM (no explanation of this on the moon).
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2017.0;attach=1182)
-
#1: ...even the hammer and feather drop of Apollo 15 show this.
#2: It IS a traditional flag.
#3: ...I'll accept their assurances over your incredulity thank you.
#1: The fact that the feather/hammer drop appears as "proof" to you is telling. This is the EASIEST TO EXPLAIN ... the feather was weighted, and they slowed down the replay to 2.4x for this bit. QED.
#2: So they claim. How can this be validated?
#3: I'd like to MEET one of them, and have them answer my concerns/questions regarding the math. I am preparing to bring this up as a new thread, once LunarOrbit overcomes his fear of it.
-
#1: The fact that the feather/hammer drop appears as "proof" to you is telling. This is the EASIEST TO EXPLAIN ... the feather was weighted, and they slowed down the replay to 2.4x for this bit. QED.
Oh yet more stuff to be fabricated for a hoax. Occam's razor isn't a thing for you, is it? It can also be explained by that experiment being carried out on the Moon as described. The difference is you have no evidence for a weighted feather other than it must be there in order for this to have been faked.
This also does not address the mylar blankets. There's one instance at least on a mission I can't recall right now, where one of the astronauts setting up the ALSEP flips a mylar blanket around and it very much behaves like it's in a vacuum. You cannot simply pick and choose the methods used to fake specific incidents. It has to work for the whole record.
#2: So they claim. How can this be validated?
There's a paper trail for it, and the words of the people who prepared and set it up, and we can see how it behaves when it's being erected on the Moon. How many of those have to exist for you to consider it 'validated' against your suggestion of some alternative you have created as an ass-pull explanation for an 'anomaly'?
#3: I'd like to MEET one of them, and have them answer my concerns/questions regarding the math. I am preparing to bring this up as a new thread, once LunarOrbit overcomes his fear of it.
Once again, in 50 years a whole body of relevant expertise has not produced one single qualified person who agrees that the engineering was not there to safely dock the spacecraft or land on the Moon. You shouldn't need to meet one of them to begin to think 'maybe I might not have the right idea here'. There's nothing wrong with wanting to understand in more depth, but to assume it couldn't be done because you don't know how to do it is utterly wrong-headed.
-
Also to note the 30 degree distinct Top Slant of the Flag AWAY from LM - indicating stress on the flag - that it's being PUSH TOWARDS THE LM (no explanation of this on the moon).
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2017.0;attach=1182)
Gibberish.
Add 'perspective' to the list of things apparently beyond you.
-
#1: ...even the hammer and feather drop of Apollo 15 show this.
#2: It IS a traditional flag.
#3: ...I'll accept their assurances over your incredulity thank you.
#1: The fact that the feather/hammer drop appears as "proof" to you is telling. This is the EASIEST TO EXPLAIN ... the feather was weighted, and they slowed down the replay to 2.4x for this bit. QED.
#2: So they claim. How can this be validated?
#3: I'd like to MEET one of them, and have them answer my concerns/questions regarding the math. I am preparing to bring this up as a new thread, once LunarOrbit overcomes his fear of it.
If you put some effort into it, you could meet the person holding the hammer and feather and ask him how he might have faked the live TV broadcast.
-
#5: "Conclusion First" - yes, this is how a Hypothesis works - as part of the process, you test it, to see if it "holds any water". My hypothesis objective is "testing the viability of the MLH claims" - and my first things to focus on, are the things where, if they faked it -- looks like these might be strong indicators. In the end, compare the two Hypotheses -- Apollogy vs. MLH - then decide. Since I currently favor MLH - I'm starting with this top level hypothesis.
Conclusions and Hypotheses are two different things. Conclusion first is not at all how hypothesis works. You have already decided Apollo was faked and have gathered what you think is evidence to support it, and you seem to think that declaring it to be a settled issue unless someone comes along to disprove your evidence is testing a hypothesis.
If you were actually testing the hypothesis that the Moon landings were faked, you would need to hold off on any conclusion until you've gathered all of the data and done a comprehensive analysis to see what it shows. If you believe that all of the available data, not just the minutiae that you've cherry picked, indicates a hoax, then you could present your findings. Those findings should include all of the data and the analysis you used, in detail, to reach your conclusion, so people can attempt to either replicate your results or find any specific errors you've made along the way.
#6: I believe the Landing and Ascent to Docking were not possible to do anywhere close to safely. Very very fragile operations where so many small failures would spell certain death... You'll note that Apollo's "docking operations" were performed in a matter of minutes -- compared to the hours it takes for the ISS. This will be the topic of my next Thread, if @LunarOrbit musters up the courage to let me post about it.
What is your definition of "safely"? Sending people a quarter of a million miles away to land a spacecraft in an unprecedented manner in a hostile and unfamiliar environment is going to assume a level of risk. This is why hundreds of thousands of people spend billions of dollars on engineering, training, and simulation preparing for the missions, to mitigate the risk as much as possible and try to prevent simple problems from compounding into fatal situations.
There is a good reason for the disparity in docking times between Apollo and the ISS. I'm not a science professional and I'm aware of it, which means it is plenty accessible to anyone with an actual motivation to find it. Before you waste one of your thread opportunities on something like this, I would suggest you look into it independently first, as you should have done with almost everything you've posted.
I would also recommend that if you get an opportunity to start a new thread that you use it to present your most well researched, thoroughly vetted, slam dunk evidence of the hoax instead of minutiae you find personally suggestive but that carries little weight.
-
Also to note the 30 degree distinct Top Slant of the Flag AWAY from LM - indicating stress on the flag - that it's being PUSH TOWARDS THE LM (no explanation of this on the moon).
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2017.0;attach=1182)
The orientation of the flag, just before ingress and camera being tugged over shows the flag pointing towards the LM. When the camera was repositioned the flag is right on the cusp of the right hand edge.
(https://i.ibb.co/dJwYtZ5/Screenshot-2024-12-11-at-16-45-42.png)
The lines in the centre of your image show the angle. Your 30 degree claim is cobblers unless they used a special "fake-proof" stretchy flag - they match the last known orientation on my image.
-
People are still free to read the thread and form their own opinion. They are even free to start a new thread, if they want.
My personal opinion is that you failed to make your case. You did not convince me.
The closing statement holds special power - like a headline. It's one of the most-read things - the "summary" which you made INACCURATELY and with bias.
I made a strong case.
The other members made a stronger case. You didn't disprove their claims, you merely ignored and dismissed them.
And when people have tried to lead you to discover the answers for yourself you have attacked and insulted them.
If it didn't convince you, that's fine. But your conclusion was that I "didn't address the points" -- which is false.
It's 100% true and available for anyone to see.
There were 8 flag movements in 175 seconds. STILL, no one has put forth a viable scientific hypothesis to explain these all.
They provided very reasonable explanations for the movements of the flag. You didn't disprove those explanations, you merely declared them wrong. That isn't satisfactory. You failed to make your case.
I'd like you to undo this summation
And I'd like you to acknowledge the explanations that disprove your claims. But we don't always get what we want, right?
But in the absence of being able to create new threads
I have explained why that restriction was imposed on you, and provided a way for you to get it lifted. It's up to you.
My preference is that when someone brings up something new -- create a new post specifically for that one thing... Keep threads as clean and narrow-scoped as possible
And yet you repeatedly try to circumvent my moderation by taking other threads off topic.
Please do the world a service, and make your forums into a place that doesn't operate like the Salem Witch Trials for HB's. The world will be a better place for it.
This is how it works: you make a claim, and we hold you responsible for defending that claim. If you are unable to make your case you should be honest enough to admit it.
#1: Right, let's flip that around then. .... The whole notion fails on logic, which is something you purported to test us on earlier.
#2: ... you are resistant to any and all attempts to explain.
#1: Imagine it was faked, and that this "flag waving" was a mistake.
You have no idea how ridiculous this sounds.
It makes absolutely zero sense for NASA to make a stupid mistake like that... and then continue to proudly show those videos to the public 50+ years later. It's far more reasonable to believe that your interpretation of the information is wrong.
Back in 1970's there was no internet, no ONLINE social groups, no way to reach out to like-minded folks, nor any way to do easy image/video analysis as we can now. They didn't plan for the tech that became prevalent post-2000.. It was a "1 showing and done" deal. No reason to be perfect.
As I have said before, this is why the hoax fails logically.
NASA would have known they could not maintain the hoax forever and that there would be major consequences WHEN (not if) they were exposed. It doesn't make sense to believe they would commit an entirely unnecessary fraud when they knew they would fail.
#2: Please show me ANY VIABLE HYPOTHESIS which explains how these 8 movements could have happened on the moon? Be specific for the entire 175 seconds.
This has been provided. You have merely declared it wrong without providing any satisfactory explanation for why.
I have a list -- but @LunarOrbit won't let me finish this list.
The only one holding you back is you. The restrictions I placed on you are intended to keep you focused so that your threads can be properly resolved. Defend you claims if you want to move on.
-
At 94, Buzz Aldrin Finally Reveals EVERYTHING In A Shocking Interview ;D
-
#1: Oh yet more stuff to be fabricated for a hoax. Occam's razor isn't a thing for you, is it?
#2: This also does not address the mylar blankets.
#3: There's a paper trail for it.
#4: Once again, in 50 years a whole body of relevant expertise has not produced one single qualified person who agrees that the engineering was not there to safely dock the spacecraft...
#1: For me, the engineering feat was near impossible, and shady evidence surrounding this development of the impossible - wasn't adequate to produce the end product. For me, Occam's razor is "they invented another mini-Religion that was sure to catch fire... an easy sell. And failure wasn't an option in their mind."
#2: PLEASE - Start a NEW THREAD - that specifically addresses the ONE SLAM DUNK that you have... Pick ONE. Then I'll Pick ONE -- we can start two threads...one for each of us. No Gish Gallop for the Apollogists... just tell me the ONE THING that couldn't have been faked. I'd be happy to take this approach. Not a Gish Gallop, but just pick your favorite ONE item, and I'll give you mine.
#3: ... and paper can't lie.
#4: This Industry itself is largely tied to Govt grants/funding! There's little-to-no real commercial value in going to space or the moon, or studying the moon etc. And so NO ONE IS PAID TO DO SUCH A THING... in fact, if they did, they might get fired, as it would "officially make their whole organization look bad" -- like NASA could say "what kind of pseudo-science whackos are you hiring?"
In this industry, there might even be fine print that harmlessly prohibits them from talking about their work, or even matters of NASA/Apollo, outside of work. I worked under one of these contracts, for 4 years initially with Lockheed-Martin (originally GE Aerospace)... and then for two more years starting in 2009... So these "experts" would risk lawsuit of breaking their simply "non-disclosure" statements, all for no pay, and to fight against a whole mainstream.
==
So please start a new thread and give me your best slam dunk. See if you can prove Impossibility. If you can, it would sway me.
-
#1: There is a good reason for the disparity in docking times between Apollo and the ISS.
#2: I would also recommend that if you get an opportunity to start a new thread that you use it to present your most well researched, thoroughly vetted, slam dunk evidence of the hoax.
#1: And that "good reason" might be because A11/A12 simply weren't the "real deal", and the Boomer generation was easily faked.
#2: Yes, would love to address BOTH my concerns and yours -- one at a time.
-
#2: Please show me ANY VIABLE HYPOTHESIS which explains how these 8 movements could have happened on the moon? Be specific for the entire 175 seconds.
This has been provided. You have merely declared it wrong without providing any satisfactory explanation for why.
Please show me ANY hypothesis that can explain all 8 flag movements. My conclusion here is that no one has. So please prove me wrong by showing me the one argument that I missed.
For reference it goes like this:
Let's test your hypothesis for viability, by adding specifics:
1. Why could it have been offscreen for 10 minutes prior to the first time it showed up.
2. What could have caused it's first visible motion to show up. (move TOWARDS LM) It stays on screen for 14 seconds... how?
3. Then it moves off screen for 22 seconds.. What options could explain this?
4. Then comes back on for 33 seconds... How?
5. Then back off for 92 seconds... how?
6. Then back on slightly for 5 seconds.
7. Then back on even more for 6 seconds.
8. Then back off for 2 seconds.
9. Then back On for 1 second.
10. Then back off - not to be seen again on this footage.
11. The final Off/On/Off - was quick and a bit wild. Much more than other movements.
For each movement in this sequence, need to provide ANY VIABLE explanation... just to show that one could feasibly exist, while also giving due consideration for the notes below.
Note: Decompression of the cabin went like this for EVA1:
1. 28 seconds => PSI 5.0 to 2.0 (1 PSI per 9 seconds) (100%)
2. 23 seconds => PSI 2.0 to 1.0 (1 PSI per 23 seconds) (40% rate)
3. 30 seconds => PSI 1.0 to 0.4 (1 PSI per 50 seconds) (18% rate)
4. 30 seconds => PSI 0.4 to ~0.1, near zero (1 PSI 100 seconds) (9% rate)
5. DONE
===
For each point, it does not need to be "likely" -- just "feasible/viable". Give me your best, so that we can assess the full viability.
You've made the claim that such a hypothesis exists - so show me.
-
At 94, Buzz Aldrin Finally Reveals EVERYTHING In A Shocking Interview ;D
Thanks for the entertainment. The first 20 minutes was quite educational. The last part is an attempt to equate Moon Landing Denial with "alien life evidence" of which this obelisk doesn't even look unnatural... I'm sure this who theme will catch a fair number of non-scientific minds who love Hoax theories, and hate govt. I'm not a Hoax lover, nor a govt' hater - despite my beliefs that the best explanation for Apollo, doesn't match the mainstream narrative.
-
The lines in the centre of your image show the angle. Your 30 degree claim is cobblers unless they used a special "fake-proof" stretchy flag - they match the last known orientation on my image.
Note that in all 4 instances where the flag is blown on-screen, the top white stripe is almost entirely missing -- because it's part of this slant.... just the top stripe of the flag...
This is how non-stretch flag behave... the force of a draft gently pushed them, but since it's attached to the horizontal pole-- the top part cannot move... so we see this slant.
-
Please show me ANY hypothesis that can explain all 8 flag movements.
I'm not going to waste my time rehashing things that you ignored when other people said it.
You haven't explained why NASA makes this footage available to the public if it's proof of a massive crime. That tells me that you haven't really thought this through logically and haven't considered the possibily that you're wrong.
My conclusion here is that no one has.
Which is why it's a waste of time to discuss this with you. The responses exist, you're just choosing to ignore them, and will do the same with anything I say.
It's all in the other thread for anyone to see. You merely dismissed it and declared it wrong.
-
The lines in the centre of your image show the angle. Your 30 degree claim is cobblers unless they used a special "fake-proof" stretchy flag - they match the last known orientation on my image.
Note that in all 4 instances where the flag is blown on-screen, the top white stripe is almost entirely missing -- because it's part of this slant.... just the top stripe of the flag...
This is how non-stretch flag behave... the force of a draft gently pushed them, but since it's attached to the horizontal pole-- the top part cannot move... so we see this slant.
So your "expert" photogrammetry skills say that instead of a crap TV picture distorting an image at the edge. It's a weirdly distorted flag that only you, once again, have the true explanation for!
You are a time waster extraordinaire. Every single thing you argue is tinged with absurd confirmation bias!!
The flag is stiff. The stripes show direction and you are again talking out of your backside.
-
#1: I'm not going to waste my time rehashing things that you ignored when other people said it.
#2: You haven't explained why NASA makes this footage available to the public if it's proof of a massive crime. That tells me that you haven't really thought this through logically and haven't considered the possibly that you're wrong.
#1: Just "paste it" -- you can't because this hypothesis does not exist. If it does, SOMEONE here can surely find it and paste it. Get me your best. You simply "claim the hypothesis exists" without anyone here having actually presenting it. Prove me wrong, please.
#2: "massive crime..." -- Nope, not a crime, if it was tied to "national security"... our govt' has the "license to lie" and Patriotic military men in leadership positions understand this very clearly. Sometimes, in order to deceive the enemy, you have to also deceive your own citizens. But it was done "for the good of America" - so that makes it "fully forgiven" - not a crime. Anyone granted Top Secret clearance who defies this clearance and reveals national secrets, is by contract, a Traitor committing treason. They "did their duty" - "failure was not an option, and Gene Kranz played a key role in ensuring American success." And as you can clearly see - it was a success, having achieved the FULL BENEFIT of actually having landed men on the moon, despite us not having the capability of doing this at the time (nor even now -- not yet, 2027 now?? 7 years delay from original plan, and may delay even more).
===
I've made a thesis about the 8 flag motions, that there is no comprehensive viable hypothesis which can explain all 8 movements.
Present it, and I'll address it. If no one can - this narrow thesis stands, and your posted summation is dishonest.
-
#1: .. instead of a crap TV picture distorting an image at the edge.
#2: It's a weirdly distorted flag that only you, once again, have the true explanation for!
#3: You are a time waster extraordinaire. Every single thing you argue is tinged with absurd confirmation bias!!
#1: Please outline your theory for how edge distortion explains it ONLY impacted the flag, but nothing else. Then see if you can find anyone here to agree with your theory.
#2: Not "weird" but rather "expected". Cloth is flexible, no stretching required here.
#3: Of all the people commenting, "ditto". Maybe you should consider saving your time then. I would appreciate this as well. Others here seem more qualified to give responses, so rely on them.
-
I've made a thesis about the 8 flag motions, that there is no comprehensive viable hypothesis which can explain all 8 movements.
Present it, and I'll address it. If no one can - this narrow thesis stands, and your posted summation is dishonest.
No, you haven't made a "thesis". All you have done is reject any hypothesis thrown at you (remember, a hypothesis doesn't need much in the way of details, that's what the testing is for), and the only counter you have boils down to, essentially, you don't like it.
And what's your explanation again? Oh, that's right, the mythical studio, that no one has ever provided any evidence for it's existence, including you. So if you're going to complain about people not providing you the intricate details you think are necessary to explain the movements, when are you going to get around to providing the same level of detail for your studio?
So, again, the purge valve is on the front of the LM, the flag is in front of the LM. The idea that the flag could be affected by purged oxygen is quote acceptable, especially when we have the additional details from the experiment package 180m away that also registered the purges. To this, we can add the flag, being a fairly typical nylon flag, only had the resistance of gravity and its own 'stiffness' to stop any movement, the top of the flag poles could rotate, the pole wasn't 90° vertical, and the poles themselves had a certain level of 'springiness' to them, and I find it quite acceptable that the purge covers the movement of the flag. Definitely a damn site more believable than the worlds longest running, evidence free, perfectly secure conspiracy.
And on the side, oh noes, people have signed NDAs, so would never be able to talk about what they worked on........*cough* *deepthroat* *cough*
And the person who brought actual, repeat, actual, verifiable evidence that Apollo was faked? They would become an instant celebrity, news studios around the world would be paying them big bucks for exclusives to the point that their very existence in the public eye would keep them safe.
Oh, and you know TimberWolfAu isn't my real name, right? I can tell you all about the confidential things I do for my work, and I seriously doubt they'd ever find out. Or perhaps I could use a different name, and speak about all my *secret* work with CNSA, because China doesn't monitor FaceBook *wink wink*
-
All you have done is reject any hypothesis thrown at you (remember, a hypothesis doesn't need much in the way of details, that's what the testing is for), and the only counter you have boils down to, essentially, you don't like it.
Correct. Hypotheses are weak-theories. The first step is to address if the hypothesis "fails" the impossibility test. Such as if it implies "1 + 1 = 3"... then it fails, making it NON-VIABLE.
Please present to me a comprehensive viable theory that explains all 8 flag motions. And show that the failures I'm claiming are not failures.
I like hypotheses that do not fail simple tests. So far, for this - have you seen one??? If so, please show it to me.
-
And the person who brought actual, repeat, actual, verifiable evidence that Apollo was faked? They would become an instant celebrity, news studios around the world would be paying them big bucks for exclusives to the point that their very existence in the public eye would keep them safe.
Breaking a Top Secret clearance can qualify as Treason. Breaking most other NDA's are "Civil offenses"... Big difference. For Treason, you are now classified as "enemy of the nation" for which a military is now ordained. In order to have credibility in your anti-Apollo claims, you'd have to have irrefutable proof of your credentials - a clear traitor to your top secret clearance, revealing National secrets to the world.
Snowden did this. A traitor. Treason. Want to trade shoes with him? If they could have known ahead that he'd do this -- he might have simply become "disappeared" and no one would have ever known his name. For each "traitor" that becomes famous and survives into the spotlight -- how many others "tried, failed, and were simply never known to the public".
The DoD IS the Law in the USA. So long as they justify that their actions are "to benefit America" while tied remotely to "National security" -- their actions are legal/justified -- no matter how insidious or ethical they might seem.
-
So, again, the purge valve is on the front of the LM, the flag is in front of the LM. The idea that the flag could be affected by purged oxygen is quote acceptable, especially when we have the additional details from the experiment package 180m away that also registered the purges. To this, we can add the flag, being a fairly typical nylon flag, only had the resistance of gravity and its own 'stiffness' to stop any movement, the top of the flag poles could rotate, the pole wasn't 90° vertical, and the poles themselves had a certain level of 'springiness' to them, and I find it quite acceptable that the purge covers the movement of the flag. Definitely a damn site more believable than the worlds longest running, evidence free, perfectly secure conspiracy.
So lay this out in a detailed sequence. Break it down to explain each of the 8 movements, along with the consistent top-slant indicating pressure coming TOWARDS the LM, with due consideration for the amount of actual cabin pressure available.
Do you have the readout for the 180m away package? I'd like to include this reference, as it's an important detail for your case.
If a car has a 10 gallon tank, and 50 mpg efficiency -- you can't just say "he drove 1000 miles non-stop because it's clear that this man can drive a car", ignoring the shortage in gas. Because the math has to add up, or the hypothesis fails.
-
#1: There is a good reason for the disparity in docking times between Apollo and the ISS.
#2: I would also recommend that if you get an opportunity to start a new thread that you use it to present your most well researched, thoroughly vetted, slam dunk evidence of the hoax.
#1: And that "good reason" might be because A11/A12 simply weren't the "real deal", and the Boomer generation was easily faked.
No, you clearly don't know the actual reason if you'd speculate something so ridiculous to explain it. The reason is not especially difficult to find or understand, so this is just more evidence of you winging it with bizarre hypotheses to explain things you haven't looked into at all.
-
No, you clearly don't know the actual reason if you'd speculate something so ridiculous to explain it. The reason is not especially difficult to find or understand, so this is just more evidence of you winging it with bizarre hypotheses to explain things you haven't looked into at all.
Please enlighten me. See if I can learn this one.
-
So lay this out in a detailed sequence.
Sure, right after you break down the detailed sequence on how it was faked. No speculation, no 'it could be this', provide the very details you are demanding everyone else provide for you. As it seems with all your 'smoking guns' so far, you are conclusion shopping your hypothesis. The simple point remains, that over 50 years later, it is highly unlikely anyone could provide the intricate details you seem to think are required. But we don't need to provide the exact forces that created the exact movements seen, all we need to do is present the plausible possibility, and that's been done.
along with the consistent top-slant indicating pressure coming TOWARDS the LM
Have you considered you're reading too much into what can easily be attributed to barrel distortion from the lens, seeing how it's right on the edge of the fov? Incidentally, can you do a quick drawing (MSPaint is fine) of how you think the entire flag appears, based on your 30° claim?
Do you have the readout for the 180m away package? I'd like to include this reference, as it's an important detail for your case.
?? You mean the details you provided with your very first post on the flag topic?
If a car has a 10 gallon tank, and 50 mpg efficiency -- you can't just say "he drove 1000 miles non-stop because it's clear that this man can drive a car", ignoring the shortage in gas. Because the math has to add up, or the hypothesis fails.
Has anyone ever mentioned you suck at analogies? The world record for a non-stop flight was in a Cessna 172, which has a range of 1,200km. The total distance flown was about 240,000km, without landing. The very first thing that came to mind with your analogy was, 'easy, just refuel without stopping'.
-
So lay this out in a detailed sequence.
Sure, right after you break down the detailed sequence on how it was faked. No speculation, no 'it could be this', provide the very details you are demanding everyone else provide for you. As it seems with all your 'smoking guns' so far, you are conclusion shopping your hypothesis. The simple point remains, that over 50 years later, it is highly unlikely anyone could provide the intricate details you seem to think are required. But we don't need to provide the exact forces that created the exact movements seen, all we need to do is present the plausible possibility, and that's been done.
along with the consistent top-slant indicating pressure coming TOWARDS the LM
Have you considered you're reading too much into what can easily be attributed to barrel distortion from the lens, seeing how it's right on the edge of the fov? Incidentally, can you do a quick drawing (MSPaint is fine) of how you think the entire flag appears, based on your 30° claim?
Do you have the readout for the 180m away package? I'd like to include this reference, as it's an important detail for your case.
?? You mean the details you provided with your very first post on the flag topic?
If a car has a 10 gallon tank, and 50 mpg efficiency -- you can't just say "he drove 1000 miles non-stop because it's clear that this man can drive a car", ignoring the shortage in gas. Because the math has to add up, or the hypothesis fails.
Has anyone ever mentioned you suck at analogies? The world record for a non-stop flight was in a Cessna 172, which has a range of 1,200km. The total distance flown was about 240,000km, without landing. The very first thing that came to mind with your analogy was, 'easy, just refuel without stopping'.
This sent me down the rabbit hole to find out more about this extraordinary achievement which I had not heard of previously. Read more here:
Compared to this marathon, 14 days in a Gemini seems nothing!
-
#1: For me, the engineering feat was near impossible
And your qualifications to judge that are what, exactly?
#2: PLEASE - Start a NEW THREAD - that specifically addresses the ONE SLAM DUNK that you have... Pick ONE.
No, because that's not how this works. Apollo is not a matter of a single irrefutable proof that renders it either all fake or all inviolable truth. It's not about single arguments, it's about the weight of available evidence.
#3: ... and paper can't lie.
And here is why it's pointless. Paperwork might lie, the feather might be weighted, the flag might be starched. You simply dismiss evidence as faked and invent explanations out of thin air to explain it away. Why exactly are you here?
In this industry, there might even be fine print that harmlessly prohibits them from talking about their work,
More speculation to explain away the absence of any person involved actually providing evidence of the fakery you say they were involved in. So basically the evidence that does exist supporting Apollo 'might be' faked, while the absence of any conclusive proof from anyone involved in the fakery 'might be' because they have an NDA.
See if you can prove Impossibility.
And you're starting position makes your proposal impossible. You have started from the position it was impossible. Not that you don't understand how it was possible, but that it was impossible. Those two are not the same, and you have demonstrated an unwillingness to accept any argument to the contrary, handwaving them all away with speculation and fabrication. I have better things to do with my time, thank you.
-
So lay this out in a detailed sequence.
#1: Sure, right after you break down the detailed sequence on how it was faked. No speculation, no 'it could be this', ...
#2: Have you considered you're reading too much into what can easily be attributed to barrel distortion from the lens.
#1: The MLH theory is that the footage we saw was pre-filmed, with chief objective of making it seem like it was "on the moon". Therefore, we have "human ingenuity with a high budget" at work here. Just as you might not be able to ever know how David Copperfield did ALL of his magic - that doesn't mean "well then you must conclude he is magic." Instead, you simply conclude that "the things he's done break physics (or biology)" -- therefore the assumption is "he's found a way to make it LOOK real", not that the magician actually broke physics.
MLH primary burden of proof is to "show things that were NOT possible" or a "string of circumstantial evidence". The "impossible things" are the best meat for this argument. Not matter how much you love Apollo, they aren't allowed to Break Physics. Can't be done... If your Apollogy involves the breaking of physics -- it means your Apollogy isn't what you thought it was.
MLH is not asking Apollogists to say "how we KNOW the flags moved", but simply "how COULD they have been moved!"... In response, Apollogists are permitted to speculate... your ONLY burden of defense here is to show "feasibility"... that it wasn't "Impossible".
And the same burden rests on MLH - for the best Apollogist claims, we only need to show it was "feasible". Likewise, this involved speculation.
So whichever side can prove their hypothesis involves the LEAST amount of Impossibilities - has a strong, non-dismissible case.
I'm going down the route of seeing what all claims of MLH can be qualified as "Impossible" or "Irrefutable" (at least, so far).
This is not Gish Gallop, but spending DAYS on each major proof. For the 8 flag motions - we have no viable Apollogist hypothesis (yet).
You can do the same-- instead of using the flimsy "Gish Gallop" approach of "abundant stuff" -show us your Best Argument - the one thing that couldn't possibly be refuted as "feasible to have faked".
I get that you don't want to go down this path -- because MLH just may win then.
====
#2: Barrel distortion doesn't happen that suddenly/sharply. The flags entire edge is very straight, except for the very top, where it folds back to obscure the top white stripe. Barrel distortion is more gradual, not sudden, and not "just one small well-defined part".
Yes, it could be a wrinkle, but for it to be at-the-top - is particularly troubling, because that's the last place it should occur, plus we don't see this in the other photos of this flag. So this [barrel-distortion] too seems to be a non-feasible claim to try and excuse the evidence "pressure against the flag from the other side".
It behaves JUST LIKE something being push on screen by wind... when the wind subsides, the flag returns off screen -- where it's been for ALL but 59 seconds total in this continuous footage.
-
You have started from the position it was impossible. Not that you don't understand how it was possible, but that it was impossible.
This is how the best work between minds is done -- Iron-sharpens-Iron. Echo Chambers produce much less fruit.
We we have a wonderful dynamic here -- I'm proposing "this particular event has no viable explanation", and the rest of you can say "you are wrong -- here's a viable explanation".
I encourage you to do the same -- pick your best argument that you claim is "not possible to have faked", and we can delve into it. Just as I did, when you make this proposal, you will start with the presumption that your overall theory of Apollo is correct -- and I'll take the opposite stance.
Iron-sharpens-Iron. Resistance provides lift.
-
#1: .. instead of a crap TV picture distorting an image at the edge.
#2: It's a weirdly distorted flag that only you, once again, have the true explanation for!
#3: You are a time waster extraordinaire. Every single thing you argue is tinged with absurd confirmation bias!!
#1: Please outline your theory for how edge distortion explains it ONLY impacted the flag, but nothing else. Then see if you can find anyone here to agree with your theory.
#2: Not "weird" but rather "expected". Cloth is flexible, no stretching required here.
#3: Of all the people commenting, "ditto". Maybe you should consider saving your time then. I would appreciate this as well. Others here seem more qualified to give responses, so rely on them.
But you said you understood photogrammetry - was that a bit of an exaggeration? You don't get to present a flag as pointing in the direction you want, when the bloody stripes say it is pointing in the same direction it was before the camera fell over. Lenses on their far edges distort. It's not much on some and more on others.
(https://i.ibb.co/G290CyW/Screenshot-2024-12-12-at-11-25-06.png)
Why is your screenshot so useless? The flag is moving more at the bottom, twisting. Oxygen exiting the LM will mingle in atmosphere. In a vacuum, the molecules have mass and will head towards the ground. That would make it more likely to swing the lower half of the flag.
-
MLH is not asking Apollogists to say "how we KNOW the flags moved", but simply "how COULD they have been moved!"..
No, you are completely incorrect on this point. Belief in conspiracy has many motivators, often driven by a psychological need to feel superior and to be the holder of some secret "special truth" to which only a select few are party to. It fulfills a need within the person that makes them think that they are somehow superior to others (witness your earlier posts about how advanced you reckoned your abilities were).
As someone far cleverer than me said "conspiracism is a shortcut to the illusion of erudition". Your own self-declared history aligns with this.....it wasn't enough to just believe in Christianity, you were compelled to fundementalism*.
You're probably far better served by investing your time in some good therapy than investing your time trying to prove black is white in places like this. You need to address the root cause flaws in your own personality. Far better for you in the long term.
*Putting the "mental" into "fundementalism" since 1643.....
-
....
Well, that was a lot to say, 'no, I cannot provide any evidence for my claim of a studio, so please stop asking me to provide positive evidence for my claims'.
Since you keep asking everyone for their single best item, when are you going to provide yours? Personally, I would have started with that.
Myself, I prefer the entire Apollo program, the works. You see, you can't boil a multi year project down to a single item, it just doesn't work that way.
You could also play with these;
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a11/a11psr.html
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a12/a12psr.html
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a14/a14psr.html
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a15/a15psr.html
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a16/a16psr.html
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a17/a17psr.html
I'd be interested to hear how you explain away all the data, research, and reports that have come from Apollo, details that are still used today, and so far, no one of any worth (you know, actual people who work in relevant fields) has had any problem with the data. Where are all the scientists and researchers, using data from Apollo, showing that the Apollo data doesn't line up with their research. Oh, that's right, they must be involved in the secret as well, otherwise they would have told someone.
So, just quickly, how many of these people are liars, and how many just don't know how to do their jobs? It's far more interesting to put names and faces to all those nameless 'them' that are keeping the secret.
Apollo 8
Frank Borman, William Anders, James Lovell
Apollo 10
Tom Stafford, Gene Cernan, John young
Apollo 11
Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, Michael Collins
Apollo 12
Pete Conrad, Alan Bean, Dick Gordon
Apollo 13
James Lovell, Fred Haise, John Swigert
Apollo 14
Alan Shepherd, Edgar Mitchell, Stuart Roosa
Apollo 15
David Scott, James Irwin, Alfred Worden
Apollo 16
John Young, Charles Duke, Kenneth Mattingly
Apollo 17
Gene Cernan, Harrison Schmitt, Ron Evans
NASA Manned Spacecraft Center
George M Low, D H Anderson, P R Bell, D D Bogard, Robin Brett, W D Carrier, D A Flory, W R Greenwood, G H Heiken, W N Hess, Elbert A King, D A Morrison, A H Schmitt, Ernest Schonfeld, Jeff Warner, Roy Christoffersen, Joseph J Kosmo,
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
H H Plotkin, Walter Carrion, Tom Johnson, Paul Spadin, James MacFarlane, Bill Schaefer, Richard Chabot, James Hitt, Robert Anderson, W Williams, Jim Poland, Peter Minott, Cal Rossey, Jim Fitzgerald, Mike Fitzmaurice, Herb Richard
NASA Glenn Research Centre
Thomas B Miller, Mary Ann Meador, Terry McCue
NASA Langley Research Center
M Munk
Marshall Space Flight Center
Wernher von Braun
NASA (Generic)
Bevan M French, Sarah K Noble, Edward I Fendell
Lyndon B Johnson Space Centre
Mark H Holly, Amir A Bahadori, Edward J Semones, Gary Lofgren
Manned Space Flight Network
Bill Wood
US Geological Survey
W R Muehlberger, D Stuart-Alexander, H G Wilshire, E D Jackson, E C T Chao, D H Dahlem, G B Dalrymple, R Doell, Maurice Grolier, C S Gromme, G G Schaber, D Schleicher, R L Smith, R L Sutton, Ray E Wilcox
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company
Judith Haley Allton
Lockheed Martin Information Systems and Global Solutions
Ramona Gaza, Martin Kroupa, Ryan R Rios, Nicholas N Stoffle
Rocketdyne (now Aerojet Rocketdyne)
George P Sutton
Naval Postgraduate School
Oscar Biblarz
University of Cambridge
S Agrell
Washington State University
R Fryxell, R M Walker
Arizona State University
C F Lewis
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
J S Eldridge, K L Northcutt, G D O'Kelley
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory
W D Felix, R W Perkins, L A Rancitelli, N A Wogman
Washington University in St Louis
Randy L. Korotev, B L Jolliff
Photographic Technology Laboratory at NASA’s Manned Spacecraft Center
John Holland, Andrew M. Sea Ill
Precision Photographic Laboratory at the Manned Space Center in Houston
Richard Underwood, Terry Slezak
Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Centre
Mike Dinn, John Saxon
Brown and Root-Northrop
E E Anderson, P H Johnson
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Klaus Bieman, N Mancuso, R Murphy, M G Simmons
University of California at Berkeley
A L Burlingame, J K Mitchell, B R Simoneit, D H Smith, F C Walls
University of California at Los Angeles
J W Schopf, W M Kaula
University of California at San Diego
J R Arnold, Tom Murphy
University of California at Santa Barbara
G J F MacDonald
California Institute of Technology, California
Gerald J Wasserburg
Marshall Space Flight Centre
N C Costes
Marshall University, West Virginia
J Anneliese Lawrence
Ames Research Centre
C C Davis, Richard D Johnson, L P Zill
United States Department of Agriculture
M S Favaro, J D Menzies
Harvard University
Clifford Frondel, Christopher Stubbs
State University of New York, Stony Brook
John Funkhouser, O A Schaeffer
Columbia University
P W Gast
California Institute of Technology
R F Scott, E M Shoemaker, G J Wasserburg
Australian National University
S R Taylor
Max-Plack Institute, Heidelberg, Germany
J Zähringer
University of Bristol, England
G Eglinton
University of Maryland
C O Alley, R F Chang, D G Currie, S K Poultney, E Silverberg, C Steggerda, J Mullendore, J Rayner, Faust Meraldi, Norris Baldwin, Charles Whitetd, Harry Kriemelmeyer, D P Moriarty
National Bureau of Standards
P L Bender
Princeton University
R H Dicke, D T Wilkinson, Robert Stengel
Wesleyan University
James E Faller, Irwin Winer, Barry Turnrose, Steve Moody, Tom Giuffrida, Dick Plumb, Tuck Stebbins
Lick Observatory, University of California
Lloyd Robinson, E Joseph Wampler, Donald Wieber, Harold Adams, Raymond Greeby, Neal Jern, Terrance Ricketts, William Stine
Berkeley Space Science Laboratory
Norman Anderson
McDonald Observatory
Brian Warner, Harvey Richardson, B Bopp, Harlan Smith, Charles Jenkins, Johnny Floyd, Dave Dittmar, Mike McCants, Don Wells
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
J D Mulholland
Westinghouse Defence and Space Centre
Stanley Lebar
Grumman
Philip Jacknis, Mike Lisa, Edward Lee, Alan Contessa, Ross Bracco, Anthony Cacioppo, Sam Koeppel, Joe Gavin
University of North Dakota
Lindsay Kathleen Anderson
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Grant H Heiken, David T Vaniman
James Madison University
Jamey Robert Szalay
The Lunar and Planetary Institute, Texas
John F Lindsay
Library of Congress
Lynn Brostoff
Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC
Amanda Young
Indian Space Research Organization
Prakash Chauhan, A.S. Kirankumar
Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur
Arun K Chinnappan, Rakesh Kumar, Vaibhav K Arghode
Planetary Science Institute, Arizona
R N Watkins
University of Central Florida
Philip T Metzger, A Dove
San Antonio Mountain Consulting, Texas
D Eppler
Airborne Systems North America, California
Matthew L Zwicker, Robert J Sinclair
USAF Arnold Engineering Development Complex
N S Dougherty
University of Western Ontario, Canada
P J Stooke
University of Iowa
James Van Allen
University of Houston
Thomas Campbell-Ricketts, Lawrence S Pinsky, Daniel Turecek
University of Wisconsin
Larry A Haskin, Ralph O Allen, Philip A Helmke, Theodore P Paster, Michael R Anderson, Kathleen A Zweifel
University of Pretoria, South Africa
Cilence Munghemezulu, Ludwig Combrinck
South African Weather Service
Joel O Botai
Unaffiliated at time of publishing
Richard W Orloff, Jacob Smith, John E Lane, Paolo Attivissimo, Yaqiong Wang, Huan Xie, Chao Wang, Xiaohua Tong, Sicong Liu, Xiong Xu, Bernard J Crowe
-
#1: You don't get to present a flag as pointing in the direction you want, when the bloody stripes say it is pointing in the same direction it was before the camera fell over. Lenses on their far edges distort. It's not much on some and more on others.
#2: Why is your screenshot so useless? The flag is moving more at the bottom, twisting. Oxygen exiting the LM will mingle in atmosphere. In a vacuum, the molecules have mass and will head towards the ground. That would make it more likely to swing the lower half of the flag.
#1: You've misunderstood (or I stated it poorly). NONE of MY CLAIM has anything to do with the "horizontal pole relative angle to the LM" -- other than it was "towards it - -could be any angle of the 180 degrees available". My "30 degree estimate" is the VERTICAL ANGLE of the top of this flag edge. It's going vertically along a straight path, then makes a 30 degree turn towards off screen. It could be 20 degrees -- but it's enough to demonstrate "stress/push"...
To be clear -- I AM NOT claiming a "30 degree relative angle of the flag's horizontal orientation compared to the LM". If I communicated this, it was full unintended. Perhaps my writing was ambiguous.
#2: I can agree that in the context of the moon, the air pressure exerted on the flag might be a bit more towards the bottom... But does this make any meaningful difference here? What we see is the bottom of the flag being pushed TOWARDS the LM -- the TOP is attached to the pole -- so this "SLANT" indicates this... pressure TOWARDS the LM... for 59 seconds total.
My point has nothing to do with vertical distribution of the air force -- but MAINLY that the force is exerted TOWARDS THE LM, for 59 seconds total. How does this happen on the Moon?
-
What we see is the bottom of the flag being pushed TOWARDS the LM
That is not possible if the flag is starched as you came up with a few pages ago. It can't be both.
-
... GISH GALLOP of sources....
To make this manageable, start a new thread on this topic, and state your "top 3" from this list. And we can examine them in more detail.
Many of the names you listed are ex-military... Patriots -- who simply understand how to Patriotically NOT reveal National Secrets to the world, that might weaken America. They've lied for OUR BENEFIT... not malicious.
Other names/institutions - You might want to look at funding and "hiring of graduates" -- when it comes to Moon Studies and outer-space - nearly all funding originates with governments. You don't bite the hands that feed you, and there is no money in Atheism.
When it comes to "using data from Apollo" - if 90% of Apollo was real - then this makes perfect sense. Lots of it is usable. The stuff I think was faked, evidence has been discarded to the point of making it all obscured -- such as the LM itself. How it managed these maneuvers for Landing and Ascent, without tragedy.
LOTS of rocket, orbit, and computer science was progressed here.
When it comes to Apollo's account of the Moon's Surface and Dust --- THIS deserves it's own thread. Let's examine the differences...
-
My point has nothing to do with vertical distribution of the air force -- but MAINLY that the force is exerted TOWARDS THE LM, for 59 seconds total. How does this happen on the Moon?
It doesn't. What you're claiming is happening isn't happening.
-
That is not possible if the flag is starched as you came up with a few pages ago. It can't be both.
I am suggesting that it could be just "slightly starched" to resist motion for their "most expected drafts".. The wrinkles we see in the flag for most photos, indicate a level of starchiness here.... why doesn't it just hang fully flat like a sheet hung out to dry? Instead it holds wrinkles...
But even a slightly-starched material still bends and contorts when pushed on. It just adds a bit more resistance.
-
It doesn't. What you're claiming is happening isn't happening.
I hear you.
So can anyone offer a comprehensive viable hypothesis to explain all of these movements?
Otherwise it remains "unexplained" by the Apollogy.
-
I am suggesting that it could be just "slightly starched" to resist motion for their "most expected drafts"..
And again that also doesn't make sense, they would expect the flag not to react to any draft at all, so your "slightly starched" doesn't make sense.
Then the draft you're talking about wasn't expected and must have been quite a tough one, being able to blow a starched flag this way in earth atmosphere. They simply could have cut it out by doing a zoom in. Oh wait, it just had to be 'good enough' and it would cost to much money?
Come on you logic is failing....
-
#1: No, you are completely incorrect on this point. Belief in conspiracy has many motivators, often driven by a psychological need to feel superior...
#2: Your own self-declared history aligns with this.....it wasn't enough to just believe in Christianity, you were compelled to fundamentalism*.
#1: Sorry, not for me. I have enough on my resume already, that I struggle with pride enough. I'm not here for narcissism, nor to put anyone down. I just like "truth" and hate the idea of govt' controlling "mainstream truth" so easily. I'd much prefer a world with people more scientifically smart.
#2: These were very hard times, with a ton of stress. My wife was drawn in, not me. But she got baptized, and things in our marriage got better... so I "saw the light" and joined the party. It worked well for us for about 4 years... then started to falter. Since I was raised atheist, I didn't have any idea about the Biblical origins... I did learn a LOT about Love and Community as a Christian, that I'd never have learned otherwise (so well). Thus, even "Lies bring benefits".... just as did Apollo.
My wife and I left Fundamentalism and returned the general Agnosticism/Atheism again -- TOGETHER. As part of my falling-away, the process I conducted was that I became a student of "Biblical History" and within about 3 months, I had disassembled it's foundation to demonstrate that "we're WRONG to declare with certainty that THIS is the Inerrant Word of God", and that "Hell was added to the New Testament; wasn't mentioned in the Old". Since these were the CORE tenants of Fundamentalism - we left the church, and took a few others with us.
So I CHANGE SIDES happily. I'm not one who "digs their heels in".. Nor do I need validation from others.
My last project was to take down, DECA, a $20 million dollar unethical Debt Collection agency, that was abusing our Judicial system to support an unethical racket. I got support from no one... no gratitude... but I was doing the right thing, so my validation came from within.
Here's my video from 10 yrs ago. This CEO ended up with a 4 year jail sentence, and this racket was stopped. It took me about 300 hrs of work, and ended up facing down ALL 3 of their lawyers in court, by myself with no representation but me. The part that did it best, was when I contacted all 6 hospital Emergency Rooms who were being represented by the same business office that was employing these unethical/racketeering tactics:
Hospitals were unaware of these deceptive tactics, and helped put a stop to it.
Apollo is simply my next (and hopefully last) unpaid Mission of Truth/Justice.
The Justice part for Apollo, is in how I'm seeing Google/YT/FB "soft-suppress" the true/good MLH arguments - and guides everyone ONLY to links that are JUNK, and strawman the MLH argument. Also, I'm doing it for Thomas Baron and his family, RIP.
-
Then the draft you're talking about wasn't expected and must have been quite a tough one, being able to blow a starched flag this way in earth atmosphere. They simply could have cut it out by doing a zoom in. Oh wait, it just had to be 'good enough' and it would cost to much money?
Clearly it was "good enough". As Trump has indicated, the key to lying is to repeat a message your audience wants to hear, and to do it confidently. Doesn't matter if your statements are false or have obvious holes -- it will be digested by his audience as truth.
Apollo was pushed onto the world at a time pre-internet. To be seen once, by some, then never again. The men involved weren't worried about "forever"... same as politics works today. "Kick the can" is the default normal mode of operation.
So yes, it was clearly "good enough" and they were right. 100%.
-
That is not possible if the flag is starched as you came up with a few pages ago. It can't be both.
I am suggesting that it could be just "slightly starched" to resist motion for their "most expected drafts".. The wrinkles we see in the flag for most photos, indicate a level of starchiness here.... why doesn't it just hang fully flat like a sheet hung out to dry? Instead it holds wrinkles...
But even a slightly-starched material still bends and contorts when pushed on. It just adds a bit more resistance.
PMSL.
So which is it Goldilocks? Papa Bears' flag is too starched. Mama Bears' flag is totally unstarched and far too floppy. Lo and behold, Baby Bears flag is starched just enough.
Take a step back and realise the absurdity of the words that you have just thought of and typed.
I wonder if hidden in the deepest, darkest bowels of NASA there is an army of Little Old Ladies not weaving core rope memory, but instead are wrangling with the complexities of starching flags to just to right level of stiffness to almost, but not entirely, wave in the hanger air conditioning.....
-
Tedious bollocks snipped
Good for you. Pick any cuddly toy from the middle shelf. You've been a great contestant, thanks for playing.
-
So yes, it was clearly "good enough" and they were right. 100%.
Again playing the hindsight card because your logic fails you. This 'good enough' isn't the magic wand you think it is....
-
Take a step back and realise the absurdity of the words that you have just thought of and typed.
The flag was wrinkled. Starch is just a suggestion. Whatever they did to prevent it from being "too sensitive to air motions" also cause those unexplained wrinkles. It should have "hung flat", but it didn't... So it was stiffened to some degree by some method...
Do we have any other examples of a wrinkly flag? I'd be happy to be proven wrong that "it's normal for the flag to be wrinkled like this". It's not a major point for me, just a general observation.
-
Again playing the hindsight card because your logic fails you. This 'good enough' isn't the magic wand you think it is....
How so? Was this footage shown on live TV? Perhaps from the get-go, rather than reshooting it, they simply said "we were depressurizing the cabin at this time-- that'll explain it well enough" -- EVEN TODAY -- this explanation still suffices for Apollogists. No issues at all.
-
And you really don't see the hindsight? Come on...
"we were depressurizing the cabin at this time-- that'll explain it well enough"
Where did NASA say this?
-
Take a step back and realise the absurdity of the words that you have just thought of and typed.
The flag was wrinkled. Starch is just a suggestion. Whatever they did to prevent it from being "too sensitive to air motions" also cause those unexplained wrinkles. It should have "hung flat", but it didn't... So it was stiffened to some degree by some method...
Do we have any other examples of a wrinkly flag? I'd be happy to be proven wrong that "it's normal for the flag to be wrinkled like this". It's not a major point for me, just a general observation.
Or, it is acting exactly how a common-or-garden flag acts in a vacuum.
You are so far down the rabbit hole that you have lost all touch with just how absurd and irrational your words sound. You have lost all sense of perspective, which appears to be a trait in your life.
-
No, you clearly don't know the actual reason if you'd speculate something so ridiculous to explain it. The reason is not especially difficult to find or understand, so this is just more evidence of you winging it with bizarre hypotheses to explain things you haven't looked into at all.
Please enlighten me. See if I can learn this one.
Look. It. Up. Enlighten yourself. This is something you should already have investigated thoroughly before trotting out the claim that a disparity between the two is some kind of evidence for an Apollo hoax. It's not my job to do your homework for you.
I am a music teacher with no formal science background whatsoever, and I knew the answer to your perceived anomaly off the top of my head, without needing to be told or needing to search for the information. Surely an intelligent person with a STEM background can get to the bottom of this without begging to be spoon fed.
-
And you really don't see the hindsight? Come on...
See it like this. The MLH perspective is that "this was faked" (i.e. a magic show). So the "believer" says to me "well smarty pants, how did he trick us?" And so I suggest something - then the believer says "but that wouldn't work because of XYZ" -- and so then I respond ... "well them maybe it was ABC..."... and so on.
If deliberate trickery is happening - we can only guess at what they might have done or said.
Given that there STILL exists no viable comprehensive hypothesis for the 8 flag motions -- I'm guessing at "how they might have faked it" and am allowed to change my guesses as they are challenged. Without a challenger, I'd be in a fruitless boring echo chamber.
You can't say "but you changed your guess!" - as any form of proof. It just means "I adjusted it based upon your feedback"... etc. This is how it's supposed to work. We are trying to figure out how the magician might have done his trick as he "apparently broke physics".
-
Or, it is acting exactly how a common-or-garden flag acts in a vacuum.
Myth-Busters showed a flag in a vacuum, and there was no "vertical wrinkling"...
Here's a shot from the moon, that seems to show unnatural wrinkling, with some vertical components.
(https://images.axios.com/lx_r-qrLs0nnXDLaGrJtW_-3jvs=/0x251:4634x2858/1920x1080/2024/07/18/1721320938042.jpg?w=2048)
-
Look. It. Up. Enlighten yourself.
I looked it up - there is no good reason, other than Apollo's rendezvous weren't real. What's the reason you think is so obvious?
-
Ironically, here's Myth Busters addressing flag motions, and they end it by saying:
"unless someone can find a shot of the flag waving without someone touching it... it's myth-busted..."
Hmmm., someone should have told them the news.... oh wait -- Google hides this from us on purpose, so we cannot blame them for not knowing.
-
And you really don't see the hindsight? Come on...
See it like this. The MLH perspective is that "this was faked" (i.e. a magic show). So the "believer" says to me "well smarty pants, how did he trick us?"
No all your comments you make about " that'll explain it well enough" is well before the your so called magic show has ever happened.
-
Or, it is acting exactly how a common-or-garden flag acts in a vacuum.
Myth-Busters showed a flag in a vacuum, and there was no "vertical wrinkling"...
Here's a shot from the moon, that seems to show unnatural wrinkling, with some vertical components.
(https://images.axios.com/lx_r-qrLs0nnXDLaGrJtW_-3jvs=/0x251:4634x2858/1920x1080/2024/07/18/1721320938042.jpg?w=2048)
Uh-huh...
-
No all your comments you make about " that'll explain it well enough" is well before the your so called magic show has ever happened.
Most things go like this -- you "try to get it right". Sometimes you miss a mistake, and sometimes you see it, but say "good enough". Sometimes you see it later, and say "we need to redo this!" or "that's good enough". Perfectionists weren't in charge here - this was a pragmatic military-run operation. And their judgement seems to have worked 100%. 55 years later, Apollogists can see their mess-ups and STILL overlook them, even though they cannot be explained.
-
Here's a shot from the moon, that seems to show unnatural wrinkling, with some vertical components.
Gee, what more differs between the earth and the moon besides the vacuum?
-
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2001.0;attach=1283)
Uh-huh...
That's horizontal wrinkling, like curtains due to a bit of scrunching. What we don't see here is "vertical wrinkling"-- because gravity pulls these wrinkles out... Unless the cloth is "stiff".
-
No all your comments you make about " that'll explain it well enough" is well before the your so called magic show has ever happened.
Most things go like this -- you "try to get it right". Sometimes you miss a mistake, and sometimes you see it, but say "good enough".
For the biggest scam in the world? Even David Copperfield wouldn't settle with that; Again your logic fails.
-
Look. It. Up. Enlighten yourself.
I looked it up - there is no good reason, other than Apollo's rendezvous weren't real. What's the reason you think is so obvious?
You obviously either didn't look it up at all, or you're an incompetent person. I just confirmed my answer within 15 seconds on Google.
If you can't handle something this easy then I'm questioning everything you've said about your intellect and your professional qualifications. I don't find it credible that someone with a STEM background and military level contracts could be this incompetent.
-
Gee, what more differs between the earth and the moon besides the vacuum?
If the flag doesn't extend straight down, even in 1/6th gravity, then "stiffness" prevents it. Should a flag have enough stiffness to prevent this?
This isn't a big point for me... but to me, doesn't look natural. I don't think normal flags are stiff AT ALL - and thus should be hanging down straight.
This could be a sign that they "stiffened it" a bit - on purpose, to minimize the motion that might result from very subtle atmospheric disturbances.
-
You obviously either didn't look it up at all, or you're an incompetent person. I just confirmed my answer within 15 seconds on Google.
If you can't handle something this easy then I'm questioning everything you've said about your intellect and your professional qualifications. I don't find it credible that someone with a STEM background and military level contracts could be this incompetent.
You could tell me quickly what it is that you are getting at -- or not. I'm not going to play this game of "guessing which aspect/difference" you had in mind. There are many. Say it, and we can discuss it. Or if you think your point sucks, don't say it, so that you won't be exposed. :)
-
For the biggest scam in the world? Even David Copperfield wouldn't settle with that; Again your logic fails.
Amazing, huh? And Yes, David Copperfield had to do a better job, because in his case EVERYONE KNOWS it was a trick, and are scrutinizing it.
For Apollo, no one hardly suspected, and everyone felt great about the achievement and believed it was true. At that time, to poop on Apollo was to poop on "World Peace and Unity", which is how Nixon was framing it.
Clearly, a lot more mistakes were forgiven and overlooked. This is human-wiring. Group-think dynamics. Especially for a message that everyone loves to believe. Plus it lead to a USA-Russian Space Alliance by April of 1972... how long was this "in-the-works"? Why poop on this goodness if you might be a skeptic? This is the guy who doesn't get invited to the parties.
-
Amazing, huh?
No they didn't know if it was good enough; they only knew afterwards; so why would they take the risk if all the had to do was simply do it again. Time or money wasn't an issue.
-
You obviously either didn't look it up at all, or you're an incompetent person. I just confirmed my answer within 15 seconds on Google.
If you can't handle something this easy then I'm questioning everything you've said about your intellect and your professional qualifications. I don't find it credible that someone with a STEM background and military level contracts could be this incompetent.
You could tell me quickly what it is that you are getting at -- or not. I'm not going to play this game of "guessing which aspect/difference" you had in mind. There are many. Say it, and we can discuss it. Or if you think your point sucks, don't say it, so that you won't be exposed. :)
I'm not playing this game with you. This is something you should have been aware of before mentioning it as a possible evidence. That fact that you weren't aware is evidence of your sloppy and lazy approach. The fact that you still don't understand after being told there is an obvious explanation is evidence of incompetence.
If you don't know the differences between the Apollo docking and ISS docking situations then you shouldn't be drawing comparisons between them as evidence of anything. If you are aware of the differences and somehow still believe this is evidence, then cite those differences and why you somehow believe they are immaterial. Failing to do this is you exposing the weakness of your claim. Me refusing to spoon feed you readily available information that you should already have investigated prior to any discussion about it isn't evidence of anything other than the fact that you aren't prepared. Do your own homework for a change. I'm done doing it for you.
-
No they didn't know if it was good enough; they only knew afterwards; so why would they take the risk if all the had to do was simply do it again. Time or money wasn't an issue.
NASAX - time and money was an issue. Tax payer money is not free, and they were under immense pressure to cancel Apollo after Apollo 1. And they had time deadlines too. Plus a touch of laziness. Once Apollo 11 was a flaming success -- there was much less worry. Sorta how Trump (correctly) declared "I could shoot someone on 5th avenue and not lose any voters"... (of course this was hyperbole, but generally proves to be true).
I intend to address this sloppiness and mistakes in new threads... but no one here wants to address these.
-
I intend to address this sloppiness and mistakes in new threads... but no one here wants to address these.
One moment you have a whole team of people working out the exact starchness needed for the flag, but then the next moment when the flag comes into sight when it isn't supposed to you claim "oh it is good enough'.
Again you can't wave your magic wand and make it sound like an logic argument; it isn't.
-
I'm not playing this game with you. This is something you should have been aware of before mentioning it as a possible evidence. That fact that you weren't aware is evidence of your sloppy and lazy approach.
Aware of what? You are the one playing a game -- writing lots of words, wasting time, when you could just say something quickly that is more specific. Is this some form of teaching technique?
-
One moment you have a whole team of people working out the exact starchness needed for the flag, but then the next moment when the flag comes into sight when it isn't supposed to you claim "oh it is good enough'. Again you can't wave your magic wand and make it sound like an logic argument; it isn't.
I have them saying "we need to stiff the flag slightly to reduce the potential issue of draft motion, but not too much that it looks unnatural" - so they do it. When things mess up a little bit, either they didn't notice, or simply weren't worried - because you know, "group think" -- people aren't looking for mistakes - and even if they see them -- NO IMPACT. This is how it works.
Try showing Biblical errors to a Fundamentalist.. See if they alter their beliefs. It's human wiring. Well-known. Once they got past Apollo 11 - they were "in the clear".
You are seeing this FULLY UNEXPLAINED 8 MOTIONS today -- and it's not changing your beliefs at all.
The DoD has big budgets for studying/learning human psychology - as it's vital to use of a primary tool of War/defense -- deception.
-
Again this is a agree to disagree. I see you wave your wooden stick; you think it is a magic wand.
You are seeing this FULLY UNEXPLAINED 8 MOTIONS today -- and it's not changing your beliefs at all.
No I'm not ; stop making stupid assumptions.
The explanation by depressurisation has been given multiple times to you. Especially if you know the depressurisation took 3 times before it succeeded.
-
The explanation by depressurisation has been given multiple times to you. Especially if you know the depressurisation took 3 times before it succeeded.
That's a start.
Let's test your hypothesis for viability, by adding specifics:
1. Why could it have been offscreen for 10 minutes prior to the first time it showed up.
2. What could have caused it's first visible motion to show up. (move TOWARDS LM) It stays on screen for 14 seconds... how?
3. Then it moves off screen for 22 seconds.. What options could explain this?
4. Then comes back on for 33 seconds... How?
5. Then back off for 92 seconds... how?
6. Then back on slightly for 5 seconds.
7. Then back on even more for 6 seconds.
8. Then back off for 2 seconds.
9. Then back On for 1 second.
10. Then back off - not to be seen again on this footage.
11. The final Off/On/Off - was quick and a bit wild. Much more than other movements.
For each movement in this sequence, need to provide ANY VIABLE explanation... just to show that one could feasibly exist, while also giving due consideration for the notes below.
Note: Decompression of the cabin went like this for EVA1:
1. 28 seconds => PSI 5.0 to 2.0 (1 PSI per 9 seconds) (100%)
2. 23 seconds => PSI 2.0 to 1.0 (1 PSI per 23 seconds) (40% rate)
3. 30 seconds => PSI 1.0 to 0.4 (1 PSI per 50 seconds) (18% rate)
4. 30 seconds => PSI 0.4 to ~0.1, near zero (1 PSI 100 seconds) (9% rate)
5. DONE
-
Or, it is acting exactly how a common-or-garden flag acts in a vacuum.
Myth-Busters showed a flag in a vacuum, and there was no "vertical wrinkling"...
Here's a shot from the moon, that seems to show unnatural wrinkling, with some vertical components.
(https://images.axios.com/lx_r-qrLs0nnXDLaGrJtW_-3jvs=/0x251:4634x2858/1920x1080/2024/07/18/1721320938042.jpg?w=2048)
Oh for crap's sake...
It's a cheap-ass nylon flag, it spent several days tightly rolled up in a tube (unlike the Mythbusters flag), anyone who's unpacked a tent knows it takes time for nylon fabric to "relax", and since it's in 1/6 gravity that takes a little longer than a similar flag on Earth.
Dude.
If there was any wind blowing hard enough to create that level of flappage there would be highly visible amounts of dust in the air.
-
For each movement in this sequence, need to provide ANY VIABLE explanation... just to show that one could feasibly exist, while also giving due consideration for the notes below.
Easy. A mass of gas hits the flag. The flag, suspended by a horizontal cross bar, and attached to the flag pole on one side vertically, only has a single corner that is free to move. The mass moves the flag, which can now swing back and forth, since there is no air resistance to slow it down, only gravity and the structure of the flag itself, resulting in longer movement than we would expect to see on Earth, even in a vacuum chamber. As the venting happens in stages, this allows for multiple mass' of gas to strike the flag.
There we go, and no stupidly complicated conspiracy is required. And before you ask, no, I'm not going to give any more details than that, since you have already set the bar of acceptability at 'claims without evidence'.
Note: Decompression of the cabin went like this for EVA1:
1. 28 seconds => PSI 5.0 to 2.0 (1 PSI per 9 seconds) (100%)
2. 23 seconds => PSI 2.0 to 1.0 (1 PSI per 23 seconds) (40% rate)
3. 30 seconds => PSI 1.0 to 0.4 (1 PSI per 50 seconds) (18% rate)
4. 30 seconds => PSI 0.4 to ~0.1, near zero (1 PSI 100 seconds) (9% rate)
5. DONE
... Why are you using details from post EVA 1, when the video you are referring to is post EVA 2?
Many of the names you listed are ex-military... Patriots -- who simply understand how to Patriotically NOT reveal National Secrets to the world, that might weaken America. They've lied for OUR BENEFIT... not malicious.
Other names/institutions - You might want to look at funding and "hiring of graduates" -- when it comes to Moon Studies and outer-space - nearly all funding originates with governments. You don't bite the hands that feed you, and there is no money in Atheism.
Probably about 90% of the people on the list are civilians, but still, I love that HB's can only ever play the 'they lied for a good cause' card, or 'they're all paid shills'. Oh, if only everyone was as honest and open as you, hey? The absurd amount of people that would have been required to pull off nine manned flights to the moon, including six manned landings, boggles the mind. I will quite happily state that there is no way, what so ever, that such a secret could be kept, by so many people, for over 50 years.
-
If there was any wind blowing hard enough to create that level of flappage there would be highly visible amounts of dust in the air.
I'm not claiming "flappage" here at all. Just noticing some stiffness that seems unnatural. You say "rolled up tightly" - but not WADDED UP... If rolled and deformed from a tight roll, does this explain the random crinkles that pull it UPWARDS, in random spots.
I'll seen "roll deformity" -- carpets have this... but this doesn't look at all like we see this flag.
This isn't a sticking point for me, especially if someone can demonstrate a normal nylon flag that was tightly rolled up - exhibit these type of wrinkles that keep it from hanging down straight, for so long.
In which direction was it "rolled up"?
-
Easy. A mass of gas hits the flag. The flag, suspended by a horizontal cross bar, and attached to the flag pole on one side vertically, only has a single corner that is free to move. The mass moves the flag, which can now swing back and forth, since there is no air resistance to slow it down, only gravity and the structure of the flag itself, resulting in longer movement than we would expect to see on Earth, even in a vacuum chamber. As the venting happens in stages, this allows for multiple mass' of gas to strike the flag.
You mention "swinging back/forth" - the pendulum period on the moon is simply 2.4x more than on earth. Other than the final finale before it goes off screen (at the end of 175 seconds) where do you see any signs of "pendulum" action? Yet your hypothesis is entirely dependent upon it...
We see it nearly "stationary" for many seconds at a time, with no sign of "swinging".
In your hypothesis here too - you have "the flag is on screen when not being pushed away", which has two critical flaws:
1. How do you explain MINUTES offscreen before the first time it shows?
2. How do you explain 116 seconds of off screen time during this 175 seconds? The decompression doesn't have that much air to spare. To hold it off for the 90 seconds-continuous in the middle of this excerpt, would require 92 seconds straight of relentless decompression, following the first 22 seconds. And the issue of how it wasn't visible for many minutes prior to the first appearance.
There's just not enough air to accomplish this.
Your hypothesis is proven to be unviable. If I'm mistaken - then add the appropriate amount of detail to show where I'm wrong.
Is this the BEST explanation that Apollogists can offer?
-
In which direction was it "rolled up"?
Why, this way.
-
I'm not playing this game with you. This is something you should have been aware of before mentioning it as a possible evidence. That fact that you weren't aware is evidence of your sloppy and lazy approach.
Aware of what? You are the one playing a game -- writing lots of words, wasting time, when you could just say something quickly that is more specific. Is this some form of teaching technique?
Yes, I'm trying to teach you to be accountable for your words. You've made an accusation that the docking disparities between A11/12 shouldn't exist and are evidence of a hoax. I happen to know that your accusation is false, and that the disparities have a good explanation. I also happen to know that the explanation is very easy to find and to understand, which means I also know that you have made this accusation without doing even the minimum amount of work to verify it before presenting it. That is unacceptable.
Before you make these types of accusations you have an obligation to vet them yourself. You have claimed something and you haven't bothered to substantiate it. I'm telling you you're wrong and I have no burden to provide evidence if you can't even bother to do a 15 second Google search that would show you that you're wrong.
The way you discuss and debate is lazy and discourteous. Do better.
-
Why, this way.
THANKS!! Mystery solved well enough.
-
Before you make these types of accusations you have an obligation to vet them yourself. You have claimed something and you haven't bothered to substantiate it. I'm telling you you're wrong and I have no burden to provide evidence if you can't even bother to do a 15 second Google search that would show you that you're wrong.
The way you discuss and debate is lazy and discourteous. Do better.
You are unfamiliar with science collaboration methods. You may have one thing in mind, thinking "it can only be one thing" but there are many. Instead of just saying what's on your mind, you posture it, and make me guess. Just say it -- as you spend far more time not saying it...
I will take a "guess" here at what I think you MIGHT have in mind. But this is a dumb way to work together and collaborate.
Here's the Google AI response:
"The Apollo missions were able to perform lunar rendezvous much faster than ISS rendezvous primarily because of the significantly higher orbital velocities around the Moon compared to Earth's low Earth orbit, allowing for quicker "catch-up" maneuvers, combined with the specific "Lunar Orbit Rendezvous" technique which optimized the spacecraft's trajectory for a rapid rendezvous with the lunar lander; whereas the ISS operates in a much lower, slower orbit requiring more gradual maneuvers for docking with visiting spacecraft."
Is this what you have in mind?
-
Before you make these types of accusations you have an obligation to vet them yourself. You have claimed something and you haven't bothered to substantiate it. I'm telling you you're wrong and I have no burden to provide evidence if you can't even bother to do a 15 second Google search that would show you that you're wrong.
The way you discuss and debate is lazy and discourteous. Do better.
You are unfamiliar with science debate methods.
One of us is, that's for sure, but I'm trying to help you learn about the responsibilities that you've shirked to this point.
You may have one thing in mind, thinking "it can only be one thing" but there are many. Instead of just saying what's on your mind, you posture it, and make me guess. Just say it -- as you spend far more time not saying it...
You shouldn't need to guess. You should be versed enough in the content to have this conversation intelligently, instead of blindly flailing through ridiculous ideas and then expecting people to provide the proof that your your ideas are ridiculous when you could have found that yourself with a tiny amount of initiative. You are the one wasting time by not being properly prepared to discuss these issues.
I will take a "guess" here at what I think you MIGHT have in mind. But this is a dumb way to work together and collaborate.
It sure is a dumb way, so maybe you'll prepare yourself better so that you know the things you need to know before trying to make your accusations.
Here's the Google AI response:
"The Apollo missions were able to perform lunar rendezvous much faster than ISS rendezvous primarily because of the significantly higher orbital velocities around the Moon compared to Earth's low Earth orbit, allowing for quicker "catch-up" maneuvers, combined with the specific "Lunar Orbit Rendezvous" technique which optimized the spacecraft's trajectory for a rapid rendezvous with the lunar lander; whereas the ISS operates in a much lower, slower orbit requiring more gradual maneuvers for docking with visiting spacecraft."
Is this what you have in mind?
Not at all. As we've established in other threads, AI is not reliable. Did you bother fact checking any of this? It's laughably wrong, and again, I'm a music teacher with no formal science background. How can you believe you're prepared to discuss anything space travel related when you don't see at a glance how ridiculous this passage is?
-
You are unfamiliar with science debate methods.
(https://i.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExdDFremM3MnlzOGIyNHZ3MnI2OGZ5ZGZlMTFwanRhdHMyeDNvanBrZyZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/10JhviFuU2gWD6/giphy.gif)
-
Not at all. As we've established in other threads, AI is not reliable. Did you bother fact checking any of this? It's laughably wrong, and again, I'm a music teacher with no formal science background. How can you believe you're prepared to discuss anything space travel related when you don't see at a glance how ridiculous this passage is?
I didn't think it was a good point at all. Given that you are a music teacher, I assumed you might think this was it.
This isn't how science collaboration works. You are treating me like an adversary, not a collaborator. You are purposefully hindering progress here.
The most popular retort I've heard is that the AM was lighter (3000 kg at docking) compared to the CST-100, which is more like 15,000 kg. Is this what you had in mind?
This is how people behave when they have weak stances; slow down the process.
-
You mention "swinging back/forth" - the pendulum period on the moon is simply 2.4x more than on earth. Other than the final finale before it goes off screen (at the end of 175 seconds) where do you see any signs of "pendulum" action? Yet your hypothesis is entirely dependent upon it...
We see it nearly "stationary" for many seconds at a time, with no sign of "swinging".
In your hypothesis here too - you have "the flag is on screen when not being pushed away", which has two critical flaws:
1. How do you explain MINUTES offscreen before the first time it shows?
2. How do you explain 116 seconds of off screen time during this 175 seconds? The decompression doesn't have that much air to spare. To hold it off for the 90 seconds-continuous in the middle of this excerpt, would require 92 seconds straight of relentless decompression, following the first 22 seconds. And the issue of how it wasn't visible for many minutes prior to the first appearance.
There's just not enough air to accomplish this.
Consider this. We know that in this timeframe it is where there is depressurisation of the cabin. It occurs during the whole of this period of time. It stops. Then they begin to toss things out.
Now why are you attributing the flag as pendulum/swinging when all that could have occurred is the oxygen current mainly struck the base of the pole housing and very little of the fabric. AFAIK, The vertical upright pole is not held tightly in the ground housing. Oxygen going to ground could simply be hitting the lower support and causing the flag pole itself to just shift its orientation very slightly. I looked at the patch of ground behind the flag and how that same patch aligns post camera position change, and it's bang on the right edge of the video.
Yes, of course that is speculation, but then again what the hell explanation are you offering? They left the bloody door open? Then someone noticed and shut it, Nobody yelled "CUT" because they were lax and didn't know what they were doing?
Pre EVA2 cabin depressurisation:
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a14/a14.eva2prep.html
131:06:21
Video Time stamp of - 5:18:40
That footage is way too grainy and glitchy to see any movement, but right at the end the flag shifts orientation.
131:09:46 on the ALSJ transcript.
Another time the flag moves and it's depressurisation.
Is this the BEST explanation that Apollogists can offer?
Your incredulity means sweet FA. Depressurisation works fine since you have absolutely no idea of the discharge path and what was being struck.
Leaving a bloody door open right at the end? And at the exact time they are depressurising! Is that the best crap you can come up with, when every scrap of both Apollo 14 EVAs with the flag in, shows no movement at all?
I have loads of little things I have bookmarked over the years that show "attention to detail" that your "careless NASAX" bollocks doesn't gel with:
-
Not at all. As we've established in other threads, AI is not reliable. Did you bother fact checking any of this? It's laughably wrong, and again, I'm a music teacher with no formal science background. How can you believe you're prepared to discuss anything space travel related when you don't see at a glance how ridiculous this passage is?
I didn't think it was a good point at all. Given that you are a music teacher, I assumed you might think this was it.
Don't try to anticipate what I may or may not find convincing. Just find the actual facts and present them. What you posted is so bad that I'm embarrassed for you, honestly.
This isn't how science collaboration works. You are treating me like an adversary, not a collaborator. You are purposefully hindering progress here.
It sure isn't how science collaboration works. You are an adversary until you bring your working knowledge of the material up to a level that is respectful of the people you're trying to have a discussion with. Would you take me seriously if I told you I could program software by typing what I wanted to happen in plain text and then converting that to wing dings font so the computer would understand? I would hope you would tell me to stop wasting your time. You are hindering progress by not being adequately prepared.
The most popular retort I've heard is that the AM was lighter (3000 kg at docking) compared to the CST-100, which is more like 15,000 kg. Is this what you had in mind?
Nope. Maybe don't rely on "what you've heard" and actually find some solid information.
This is how people behave when they have weak stances; slow down the process.
You're "slowing down the process" by presenting factually wrong information that you are responsible for vetting. I'm tired of engaging with you (and seeing others engaging with you) on points that you should have already studied before posting.
Why did someone have to provide evidence that your "fake moon rock from Denmark" was riddled with flaws? Why did someone have to show you how the flag was folded when you asked? What makes you so incapable of finding even simple information? Why do you not know why docking at the ISS takes longer than during Apollo before making a claim about it? How do you not know that the ISS orbital velocity is higher than lunar orbital velocities, not lower? You are so far out of your depth it's not even funny. You claim to have integrity and intellect, and yet you're unable or unwilling to find even the easiest information required to have an intelligent discussion.
-
#1: of course that is speculation, but then again what the hell explanation are you offering?
#2: oxygen current mainly struck the base of the pole housing and very little of the fabric. AFAIK, The vertical upright pole is not held tightly in the ground housing. Oxygen going to ground could simply be hitting the lower support and causing the flag pole itself to just shift its orientation very slightly.
#1: Feasibility speculation is all you NEED to do here... just show that there exists a feasible/viable hypothesis that explains all 8 motions.
#2: Is this the most viable hypothesis you can come up with, to cover the entire 175 seconds period.
Strengths:
1. Both EVA2 prep and Launch Prep show a flag big motion upon opening the hatch, when PSI was about 0.1. At least they are consistent.
Potential weaknesses:
1. Does the Pole have enough profile area catching this wind to make it shift in a way that would take the flag off screen?
a. Are you suggesting that it rotates it off? Or Tilts it off?
b. What force then brings it back on screen? 4X
2. Is PSI 0.01 on opening the hatch going to cause this type of flag motion?
3. What caused the 4 movements which began 161 seconds earlier? Including the force of bringing in screen.
4. What explains the top slant of the flag itself... why is it slanting off screen?
As you derive your answers, make note of the expected PSI inside the cabin after each depressurization. Also to note, 1 PSI of cabin pressure weighs 1 lb each. (7 lbs total, at 5 PSI)
Calculate the surface area of the pole, along with a simple model to estimate the pole's aerodynamic profile, and the mass of the flag... just estimates to work with for now -- see if even a generous model can justify flag motion based upon oxygen hitting it.
-
#1: of course that is speculation, but then again what the hell explanation are you offering?
#2: oxygen current mainly struck the base of the pole housing and very little of the fabric. AFAIK, The vertical upright pole is not held tightly in the ground housing. Oxygen going to ground could simply be hitting the lower support and causing the flag pole itself to just shift its orientation very slightly.
#1: Feasibility speculation is all you NEED to do here... just show that there exists a feasible/viable hypothesis that explains all 8 motions.
#2: Is this the most viable hypothesis you can come up with, to cover the entire 175 seconds period.
Strengths:
1. Both EVA2 prep and Launch Prep show a flag big motion upon opening the hatch, when PSI was about 0.1. At least they are consistent.
Potential weaknesses:
1. Does the Pole have enough profile area catching this wind to make it shift in a way that would take the flag off screen?
a. Are you suggesting that it rotates it off? Or Tilts it off?
b. What force then brings it back on screen? 4X
2. Is PSI 0.01 on opening the hatch going to cause this type of flag motion?
3. What caused the 4 movements which began 161 seconds earlier? Including the force of bringing in screen.
4. What explains the top slant of the flag itself... why is it slanting off screen?
As you derive your answers, make note of the expected PSI inside the cabin after each depressurization. Also to note, 1 PSI of cabin pressure weighs 1 lb each. (7 lbs total, at 5 PSI)
Calculate the surface area of the pole, along with a simple model to estimate the pole's aerodynamic profile, and the mass of the flag... just estimates to work with for now -- see if even a generous model can justify flag motion based upon oxygen hitting it.
What? Dude, that's your job. All you've done here is offered incredulity. Your understanding of what would happen is nil. Your ability to offload confirmation bias is also nil.
It's all speculation but it beats the hell out of "whoops we let the bloody door open"!
-
All in all the flag was on the Moon, shown conclusively that najak hand waved away. Film IRT + transmission delay of ~1.25 seconds. So no, it was not filmed and shown at 40% speed. It was live the pendulum was not on the Earth, it was on a surface with gravity less than Earth's, and the only place I could envision is on the Moon. It is not in orbit unless you want to orbit a stage complete with the LM. najak, all your handwaving con't rid the fact that physics blows your scenario out of the water, give it up. I proclaim victory, again, for those tat know Apollo happened as history tells us.
Go back and rethink your positions, they are weak.
-
As you derive your answers, make note of the expected PSI inside the cabin after each depressurization. Also to note, 1 PSI of cabin pressure weighs 1 lb each. (7 lbs total, at 5 PSI)
What? Dude, that's your job. All you've done here is offered incredulity. Your understanding of what would happen is nil. Your ability to offload confirmation bias is also nil.
[/quote]
You made a hypothesis of "air hitting the pole itself" having an impact. All along you've been trying to delve into the physics/logic as though you are qualified. So figured you might like to give a shot at doing some of the math. In this case, I gave you the steps... calculate the ability of this pole to be impacted by the oxygen breeze.
If you cannot do this, I'll do it for you - to determine the feasibility.
Is this the best hypothesis that the Apollogists can muster?
-
You made a hypothesis of "air hitting the pole itself" having an impact.
And was happy enough for it to remain speculation.
All along you've been trying to delve into the physics/logic as though you are qualified.
Like you? With your "suction cup" or "vacuum boots" or adhesion being a propelling force? Or you thinking a sideways boot flick on Earth gets up to 1.25m high and at 7.22m per second?
So figured you might like to give a shot at doing some of the math. In this case, I gave you the steps... calculate the ability of this pole to be impacted by the oxygen breeze.
Why? You think you know the force needed to nudge it enough to move the flag?
If you cannot do this, I'll do it for you - to determine the feasibility.
Nope. You will fudge and blur. You do not know even close to all necessary variables. Hence speculation.
Is this the best hypothesis that the Apollogists can muster?
Stop using that word - you are using it as a passive insult.
Is "they were incompetent and left the bloody door open" your best hypothesis?
To repeat. We see two instances where there is flag movement. Both during depressurisation. You have the logic of a toaster.
-
You have the logic of a toaster.
I'm rubber, you're glue.
I noticed something very interesting tonight as I was investigating the details of the CCGE readings, found in the A14 Science Report PDF:
file:///C:/Users/bknox/Downloads/a14-PrelimScienceReport-CCGE-Pressure-Flag.pdf (http://file:///C:/Users/bknox/Downloads/a14-PrelimScienceReport-CCGE-Pressure-Flag.pdf)
Page 192 and 193 show Figures 9-4 and 9-5. What is peculiar here is that 9-5 shows a total Torr pressure of 1/10th of the EVA2 prep (Fig 9-4).
-
For each movement in this sequence, need to provide ANY VIABLE explanation...
No we don't need that; During the depressurisation the flag moves a few times a tiny bit.
Now for your story:
At the exact minute NASA has scripped the depressurisation stage a person opens the door of the studio, not once, not twice, but three times in a row. This makes the very precisely starched flag move. Instead of redoing the scene, or even more simple; just cut it out, they will go by the "it is good enough" magic wand.
-
@JayUTAH, I've got a Fluid Dynamics question for you..
What happens to 70 degF (294K) oxygen when it gets released into the vacuum at 5 PSI on the sunny-side of the moon?
1. At what average speed do these particles spread out?
2. What does the average temperature of particle drop to, and how quickly?
3. Do particles launched with upward slant, mostly just follow the standard trajectory path?
My guess is that the temperature of the oxygen quickly translates into straight line kinetic energy, mostly. But not sure how fast/complete is this transfer between Heat to Kinetic energy within a vacuum.
If you can provide some generalized answers, I'll research and build on that.
-
#1: No we don't need that; During the depressurisation the flag moves a few times a tiny bit.
#2: Now for your story:
At the exact minute NASA has scripped the depressurisation stage a person opens the door of the studio, not once, not twice, but three times in a row. This makes the very precisely starched flag move. Instead of redoing the scene, or even more simple; just cut it out, they will go by the "it is good enough" magic wand.
#1: Yes, it's needed because the "pulling it onscreen" is highly problematic, along with the SLANT offscreen showing pressure.
#2: You WIN the award for the best counter-argument yet -- which would be the unlikely timing of this mistake happening during the depressurization, making the MLH hypothesis less feasible, which reduces the weight of this MLH argument overall.
So congrats on that, and am embarrassed that I didn't think of this myself. This is what bias does to us all - makes us blind. Even a good many Christians and Muslims are very smart -- yet blind to the evidence that their religion is false... (at least ONE of these groups has to be wrong, if not both)... Same happens with me -- good counters hide in plain site. And that's why I prefer opposition - you have better sight on this. Iron sharpens Iron.
Thanks for the counter. I'll have to digest this more, and you can count on me to respond with an "adjustment" - but in the end, I don't think I can FULLY recover from such a blow. This does detract from the MLH argument considerably, because it was "specifically timed during the Decompression", not just "some other random time."
Thank you, thank you. Sincerely.
-
#2: You WIN the award for the best counter-argument yet
It wasn't a counter-argument just a summarisation of your own words.
For the rest it is your default religion gibberish again completed with a lot of assumptions.
But I'm glad I could make you're day; you're welcome.
-
It wasn't a counter-argument just a summarisation of your own words.
How do you not consider this a "counter-argument".. it most certainly is... why the current hypothesis for MLH is weaker than I was presenting. I have to factor in the "coincidence of timing" with the "mistakes"... I'll be thinking on it, and will revise.
The Apollogists are still without a viable explanation for the 8 movements.
Currently am analyzing the fluid dynamics of oxygen released into a vacuum, to see what potential there is here for flag movements.
-
It wasn't a counter-argument just a summarisation of your own words.
How do you not consider this a "counter-argument"..
Miss Vocalcord already explained the answer to this question. It was all of your ideas put together. Nothing was added. It was just phrased in such a way to make you see how bad your position was. Your own argument is, in fact, the "counter-argument" here...
-
It wasn't a counter-argument just a summarisation of your own words.
How do you not consider this a "counter-argument"..
Miss Vocalcord already explained the answer to this question. It was all of your ideas put together. Nothing was added. It was just phrased in such a way to make you see how bad your position was. Your own argument is, in fact, the "counter-argument" here...
As a matter of my previous stated opinion of him(?), all he has is speculation, poor understanding of physics, and mis-represented physics.
-
So congrats on that, and am embarrassed that I didn't think of this myself. This is what bias does to us all - makes us blind.
Really! Look at the top of the page where I said you had the logic of a toaster. I have made this point a number of times, it is absurdly obvious to anyone honest enough to look at evidence properly.
Have you looked at the footage before Cernan comes hopping in? He and Schmitt are quite far away hopping around in an unbroken sequence and moving around each other. Their motion is identical.
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a17/a17.sta5.html
So are these tangle proof wires? And tell me something else. These "wires" are not visible, which is possible on short clips but the more they move around the higher the chance of reflection - but - how do they achieve fluid motion without the centre of gravity changing due to the astronaut moving and the wire dragging back slightly? Are you saying they had a system that could cater for random direction changes and follow in perfect sync with perfect offset?
Mythbusters did an episode on this and Adam Savage in his wire-supported suit is visibly jerking along.
-
The Apollogists are still without a viable explanation for the 8 movements.
Stuck record. Your understanding of cabin gas dumps from a Lunar Module in vacuum and lower gravity are nil! You keep repeating this idiotic statement and nobody here is impressed with your stubbornness - all HBs are the same.
-
What makes you so incapable of finding even simple information?
He's too busy doing "research".
-
Hi Najak, over the last couple of weeks I’ve asked you a number of questions. Some you’ve replied to. Others you haven’t. I’d like you to reply to these unanswered questions please. Some of these questions I'm going to paraphrase to save space. I've provided the thread reply #s so you can check the context or background of the questions.
Reply #33:
this hoax required the work of a few hundred - military men who firmly understand the nature of Top Secret and Treason).
You suggest the LM was real but couldn't be made to land on the Moon. According to that hypothesis there must have been teams of engineers who couldn't make the component they were working on function as intended. Yet somehow they were able to interact with related teams of engineers as described in the preceding paragraph without arousing any suspicions. That sounds implausible. What is your evidence for the existence of such non-functional components?
Reply #80:
Just because the "mainstream narrative says Cold War" doesn't mean this is the actual case. To presume you know what goes on behind closed doors at the top level -- is a stretch...I don't presume to "know" -- but instead admit "we don't really know".
Do you seriously believe "we don't really know" about the nature of the Cold War? What about other events in history? World War Two? The Tunguska Event? Caesar's Conquest of Gaul?
Many moon rocks can be found at the South Pole, where Von Braun went in 1967...to gather moon rocks.
Why would you send a rocket engineer to gather moon rocks?
Radiate them a bit, and poof, they "look like moon rocks" because they are.... How could you tell the difference?
Are you going to read the Taylor interview I linked for you (https://web.archive.org/web/20120905025108/http://www.science.org.au/scientists/interviews/t/rt.html)? Or are you going to show some of that integrity you claim for yourself and admit that (a) it's possible for people to know of these differences, and (b) you don't actually know what those differences are?
Moon Scientists all have one thing in common -- they are funded through grants, from the government. You don't bite the hand that feeds you. Just ask Thomas Baron.
What exactly do you mean when you say "the government"? The US government? If so, do you seriously think that only USAnian scientists can study the Apollo rocks? If not, then how can the US government possibly affect what non-USAnian scientists say about the rocks?
https://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/sampreq/requests.cfm
That's the website to use when you want to request a lunar sample for research. Where does it say that "the government" has any say in it, especially for non-USAnian scientists?
Reply #119:
One piece of evidence against the Cold War was JFK's attempt to establish a collaboration with Russia on the Moon Landing in 1963. This doesn't sound like "enemies" to me... They said "no thanks, but good luck with that" -- soon after JFK was assassinated. JFK wouldn't go into Vietnam? Was exhibiting doubts about Apollo's mission, possibly willing to pull the plug? Anti-Banks/CIA? Who knows -- why he was assassinated. BUT -- 1963 we see he doesn't seem to be too concerned by Cold War... maybe that was part of it... the DoD profiteers wanted the Cold War to be something that struck fear in Americans to justify govt spending to mitigate these fears.
The existence of the ideological conflict is undeniable, as it was argued out by people in many countries across the world, whether at the ballot box, in universities, or down the barrel of a gun. The same for the officers and men of the military forces of the USA and the USSR - fervently believing in the rightness of capitalism or communism.
Yet according to you the clique in charge of each country consisted of people who knew it was all for show. How did people promoted to that clique psychologically handle that transition?
Reply #127:
#2: a-c: "So they say"... Moon-rock science has not much commercial value... it's govt grant funded.
Funded by which government? Evidence please.
Them declaring Apollo is Real is a given. All of these seem to have viable methods to produce seemingly authentic moon rocks from those gathered in Antarctica.
We've already explained to you that the differences between lunar meteorites and Apollo rocks are so obvious that even non-scientists could tell them apart. Mag40 specifically told you some of those differences. Do you acknowledge this information was given?
Unfortunately, our only source of information is from govt' funded scientists, possibly hand-selected by NASA.
Evidence please that non-USAnian scientists are funded by the US government.
MLH theory is that they were gathered from Antarctica, and radiated to give them a fresh "I've been in no atmosphere" quality.
What sort of radiation? What amount?
I've looked up where these rocks/samples have GONE -- and it seems that most were examined at Johnson space center... not by 3rd parties. Hundreds of rocks simply "went missing" for which NASA said "we didn't keep receipts/records so we have no idea"...
What's your source for this? And seeing as you put words in quotes, do you mean they're exact quotes of what someone said?
I'm not seeing the actual evidence of these rocks being studied by a lot of independent labs around the world - do you have this evidence somewhere, I'd like to see it.
I've already given you place to look: the Lunar and Planetary Institute website. Do you need instructions to navigate the site?
Last time I saw this "catalog of rocks" - these were all from NASA, classified by NASA -- not 3rd parties. That's not so compelling to me.
The scientific papers written about the Apollo rocks are published in science journals, not by NASA. Do you accept I am correct when I say this?
Reply #139:
MLH theory is that we simply shared our samples with them, so that "they'd match" - that was part of the "homerun" verification - "they matched!" Surely they weren't in cahoots.
1. What was the purpose of the N-1 rocket the Soviets designed and attempted to launch four times?
2. If it was all faked, why didn't the Soviets fake a landing before the Americans?
3. If the Space Race was agreed to be faked by the USA and the USSR, what did the USSR gain from it?
Then May 1972, our alliance with Russia was signed. For how long before that was this alliance planned?
What was the name of the alliance as described in the document the two countries signed?
As far as the evidence of "who all validated the rocks" - I looked once,
Only once? Where did you look?
and seemed like most were done in-house... until 2019
Just to clarify, because on the face of it this statement is so stupidly wrong that I have to assume you made a mistake, are you claiming that up to 2019, most analysis of the Apollo rocks was performed by NASA staff?
- where NASA has started sending out "stored samples" (so they say), in mass—
So who say? Please provide a source.
but NOW these samples show average particle size of 35 microns instead of 80!!!... Hmmm,.... maybe it's because China's samples that are real showed this... Next we'll just claim that our measurement process in 1970's was flawed... off by 55%.
Okay, just to clarify again, are you saying that the only analysis performed on the Apollo rocks was to measure average particle size?
And also, how did you ascertain that the Chinese samples are real? What problems did the Chinese solve that the Yanks and Russkies couldn't?
Reply #140:
Peter, were you aware of this recent finding:
https://www.space.com/30450-apollo-moon-soil-samples-disintegrating.html
"The differences between the two datasets are stark. For example, the median particle diameter has decreased from 78 microns (0.0031 inches) to 33 microns (0.0013 inches). And in the original sieve data, 44 percent of soil particles were between 90 and 1,000 microns (0.0035 to 0.039 inches) wide; today, just 17 percent of the particles are that large."
This alone seems like a smoking gun to me. This simply makes no sense that they'd have NO CLUE ABOUT THIS until 2012.
In the Ross Taylor interview, what significant finding did scientists make about the lack of a particular group of metals in the Apollo rock samples?
Referring to your comment above:
1. What is it a smoking gun of? In other words, according to you, what does it prove?
2. What is your logic process to back this up? And I don't mean (a) the samples degraded, therefore (b) the samples are fake. I'd like you to explain how the degradation is a smoking gun of whatever you think it's a smoking gun of.
-
Many moon rocks can be found at the South Pole, where Von Braun went in 1967...to gather moon rocks.
Why would you send a rocket engineer to gather moon rocks?
You know the bit I love about this that seems to be overlooked; how did they know, at the time in 1967, which rocks were from the moon? There where no lunar samples in 1967, so how could they tell which ones were 'general' meteorites, and which were lunar-meteorites? They'd need to know, because at some point in the future, other countries would also be returning samples from the moon, such as the Soviet Union, so they would need to match the future samples.
And, at this point, I should probably mention Alan Hills AH81005, the first identified lunar-meteorite, from 1982. (Technically, Yamato 791197 was the first one found, but it wasn't verified until after Alan Hills).
-
Many moon rocks can be found at the South Pole, where Von Braun went in 1967...to gather moon rocks.
Why would you send a rocket engineer to gather moon rocks?
You know the bit I love about this that seems to be overlooked; how did they know, at the time in 1967, which rocks were from the moon? There where no lunar samples in 1967, so how could they tell which ones were 'general' meteorites, and which were lunar-meteorites? They'd need to know, because at some point in the future, other countries would also be returning samples from the moon, such as the Soviet Union, so they would need to match the future samples.
And, at this point, I should probably mention Alan Hills AH81005, the first identified lunar-meteorite, from 1982. (Technically, Yamato 791197 was the first one found, but it wasn't verified until after Alan Hills).
I think the total number of meteorites found in Antarctica prior to the first manned lunar landing was four, and they were chondrites and stony iron meteorites. As Phil Webb pointed out in his excellent video series, if you worked in Houston in 1967 and you wanted some meteorites you'd just drive to the Arizona desert.
-
You suggest the LM was real but couldn't be made to land on the Moon. According to that hypothesis there must have been teams of engineers who couldn't make the component they were working on function as intended. Yet somehow they were able to interact with related teams of engineers as described in the preceding paragraph without arousing any suspicions. That sounds implausible. What is your evidence for the existence of such non-functional components?
Familiar with Theranos? They pulled off a CRIMINAL scam, where the employees had no idea that their product didn't work... for years.. And this was as criminals, with "Need to Know"/NDA's that were only enforceable by Criminals as Civil lawsuits. NASAX employees, military men, Patriots - conducting an operation of deception to BENEFIT the USA. Non-Criminals. Licensed for this type of lie... and their only end deliverable was Perception... A religion. Example: Perception of Heaven is a win for religion. It doesn't have to be real.
So yes, employees doing their best to make something work, hand it off to Integration testing, also real, then onto Systems work -- also real -- but then in the end, those doing "Acceptance testing" just fudge it.. change the "expected results to match the actual results" where they couldn't get it right. Do some recycle -- TRY to get it right.... in the end... it wasn't going to be used for Landing. Doesn't mean they didn't try, and 99% think they succeeded.
I worked for Lockheed-Martin on Sonar detection algorithms -- I have NO IDEA who did System/Acceptance testing... none. Why? Because I didn't have a "Need to Know".. if the entire Seawolf Submarine was faulty -- we didn't know. For Military -- "perception" is key -- and deception is their tool.
Do you seriously believe "we don't really know" about the nature of the Cold War? What about other events in history? World War Two? The Tunguska Event? Caesar's Conquest of Gaul?
We know half-truths, and details -- they didn't just "make it up" - they use "evidence" -- but the end narrative is easily spun. Having "an enemy for a nation" fosters citizen loyalty, and reduces criticisms of govt' spending. So, the "perception of danger/war" is even BETTER than the real deal.... because govt gets the benefits without the real risks.
To presume that the narratives we're told are accurate -- is presumptuous.
Why would you send a rocket engineer to gather moon rocks?
He went to get rocks... this is known. So why did they claim to send him to get rocks?
Are you going to read the Taylor interview I linked for you (https://web.archive.org/web/20120905025108/http://www.science.org.au/scientists/interviews/t/rt.html)? Or are you going to show some of that integrity you claim for yourself and admit that (a) it's possible for people to know of these differences, and (b) you don't actually know what those differences are?
If you don't have a real sample, how will you know a real specimen? It's just "different". And Moon Rock scientists have no commercial value - their paychecks come from govt. I don't even buy the fact that world leaders from "antagonizing nations" are necessarily enemies... We only know what they "present". To presume you know what's going on behind closed doors at the tippy top, is presumptuous. So I don't lend this much weight as considering the stuff they feed us as "fact".
Unfortunately, our only source of information is from govt' funded scientists, possibly hand-selected by NASA.
Government leaders may collude, just as CEO's of competitor companies also try to price-collude... But they are competitors... yet discussions happen behind closed doors.
The scientific papers written about the Apollo rocks are published in science journals, not by NASA. Do you accept I am correct when I say this?
Can you show me where to look? I'd like to see names and institutions. When I looked at the catalog, I wasn't seeing any evidence of "this rock was studied and catalogued by {this 3rd party}." If I'm missing something, please do show.
1. What was the purpose of the N-1 rocket the Soviets designed and attempted to launch four times?
2. If it was all faked, why didn't the Soviets fake a landing before the Americans?
3. If the Space Race was agreed to be faked by the USA and the USSR, what did the USSR gain from it?
1. Rocket science is good. Also relates to military. Maybe they wanted to see if they could succeed, where we had only faked it. (for example, today's largest rocket, SLS, with more umpf than the SaturnV can only lift 59,000 lbs out of earth's orbit... maybe the N1 theoretically was CAPABLE of doing more than our rockets can today - but failed)
2. Not sure the ACTUAL dynamics between Soviets and USA -- or if there was any puppets in USSR. We only know "what they presented" -- the truth can be something else. But we DID validate their rocks -- so that Luna missions were declared a success... that's a small win.
3. If we really did Land and USSR knew it -- what did they gain from Acknowledgement? They control their OWN MEDIA (Not free press there) - so they could have easily told all of their own citizens "The Americans are Liars" -- Instead they publish America's Apollo victory, via govt controlled press.
This is NOT how you respond to enemies in a war.
Just to clarify, because on the face of it this statement is so stupidly wrong that I have to assume you made a mistake, are you claiming that up to 2019, most analysis of the Apollo rocks was performed by NASA staff?
The signs I see show that there was a huge surge of Regolith samples given out recently, around 2019 and later. Prior to that, not seeing them distributed much to 3rd party labs ... where is this evidence?
but NOW these samples show average particle size of 35 microns instead of 80!!!... Hmmm,.... maybe it's because China's samples that are real showed this... Next we'll just claim that our measurement process in 1970's was flawed... off by 55%.
https://www.space.com/30450-apollo-moon-soil-samples-disintegrating.html
"The differences between the two datasets are stark. For example, the median particle diameter has decreased from 78 microns (0.0031 inches) to 33 microns (0.0013 inches). And in the original sieve data, 44 percent of soil particles were between 90 and 1,000 microns (0.0035 to 0.039 inches) wide; today, just 17 percent of the particles are that large."
This alone seems like a smoking gun to me. This simply makes no sense that they'd have NO CLUE ABOUT THIS until 2012.
1. What is it a smoking gun of? In other words, according to you, what does it prove?
2. What is your logic process to back this up? And I don't mean (a) the samples degraded, therefore (b) the samples are fake. I'd like you to explain how the degradation is a smoking gun of whatever you think it's a smoking gun of.
When Bush announced "We're going back to the moon" this started an "oh shit campaign" of trying to figure out how to reconcile "Apollo reports" with the more modern studies and conclusions.
I believe the real regolith average size is 35 micron, not 80.. So they can now measure them and say "it's 35! not sure what happened".
As you seem to believe that samples/rocks have been studied each decade-- why on earth didn't we see this "degradation process" at all? Instead we have 1/5th sized particles! (by mass) -- all in one fell swoop.
-
You know the bit I love about this that seems to be overlooked; how did they know, at the time in 1967, which rocks were from the moon? There where no lunar samples in 1967, so how could they tell which ones were 'general' meteorites, and which were lunar-meteorites? They'd need to know, because at some point in the future, other countries would also be returning samples from the moon, such as the Soviet Union, so they would need to match the future samples.
Until around 2010, we may have had zero samples from the moon.... although rovers (unmanned stuff) may have given us a better idea. So they can just make up what is believable... and if any "moon scientists" want suggest "these are fake" - they'll be out of job. This is the industry -- it's not commercialized.
Of all the non-earth rocks found in Antarctica -- the moon rocks would be, by far, the most numerous. So they could tell... simply by "quantity prevalence" and get an idea. Over the last 5 billion years, with volcanic activity on the moon, shooting lava that hardens and comes to earth -- or when craters are formed - much debris from each of these, also comes to earth. So the rocks of lunar origin would FAR outnumber the rest.... The moon STARTS in our orbit... So stuff that barely escapes the moons gravity -- comes to earth.
-
I think the total number of meteorites found in Antarctica prior to the first manned lunar landing was four, and they were chondrites and stony iron meteorites. As Phil Webb pointed out in his excellent video series, if you worked in Houston in 1967 and you wanted some meteorites you'd just drive to the Arizona desert.
Spending money to "find moon rocks already on earth for commercial purposes" isn't profitable, or it would be more common. But finding rocks with a budget where "profit isn't a concern" - you can find a lot more. Von Braun went on an expedition to find some-- and did. It's expensive and not cost-effective to go to Antarctica ... at least for commercial reasons.
-
He went to get rocks... this is known.
No, he didn't.
-
Von Braun went on an expedition to find some-- and did.
No, he didn't.
-
Of all the non-earth rocks found in Antarctica -- the moon rocks would be, by far, the most numerous.
Nope. Not even close.
BTW - it is not until quite recently that the total mass of lunar meteorites found on Earth has exceeded the mass of the samples returned by Apollo.
-
You suggest the LM was real but couldn't be made to land on the Moon. According to that hypothesis there must have been teams of engineers who couldn't make the component they were working on function as intended. Yet somehow they were able to interact with related teams of engineers as described in the preceding paragraph without arousing any suspicions. That sounds implausible. What is your evidence for the existence of such non-functional components?
Familiar with Theranos? They pulled off a CRIMINAL scam, where the employees had no idea that their product didn't work... for years.. And this was as criminals, with "Need to Know"/NDA's that were only enforceable by Criminals as Civil lawsuits. NASAX employees, military men, Patriots - conducting an operation of deception to BENEFIT the USA. Non-Criminals. Licensed for this type of lie... and their only end deliverable was Perception... A religion. Example: Perception of Heaven is a win for religion. It doesn't have to be real.
I am pretty familiar with Theranos, but I'm guessing that you aren't. If you were you wouldn't have used this analogy for these simple reasons. Even with heavy hitters supporting them, Theranos imploded after a few years. They had abot 400 employees at the peak and despite setting a rabid dog lawyer on any leavers and whistle-blowers (and there were whistle blowers) the truth rapidly came out. Expert investors smelled a rat and refused to fund them. The leaders are now in prison.
Yet you, with a straight face, believe that 400,000 employees, contractors, experts have all been silenced for over 60 years. Not one verified whistle blower. Not one trial let alone a conviction. Not one expert has EVER found a shred of evidence that contradicts the historical canon. And that includes experts in myriads of fields in other countries, some of which are in regimes inimitable to the US.
Hell, Bill Clinton couldn't keep his affair with Lewinski covered up and there was only two of them involved (one of which was the most powerful person on the planet).
Which is why conspiracy theorists are simply nuts. It doesn't stand up to a minutes serious critical thinking, never mind your daft pearl clutching over wavy flags and shadows.
-
You suggest the LM was real but couldn't be made to land on the Moon. According to that hypothesis there must have been teams of engineers who couldn't make the component they were working on function as intended. Yet somehow they were able to interact with related teams of engineers as described in the preceding paragraph without arousing any suspicions. That sounds implausible. What is your evidence for the existence of such non-functional components?
Familiar with Theranos? They pulled off a CRIMINAL scam, where the employees had no idea that their product didn't work... for years.. And this was as criminals, with "Need to Know"/NDA's that were only enforceable by Criminals as Civil lawsuits. NASAX employees, military men, Patriots - conducting an operation of deception to BENEFIT the USA. Non-Criminals. Licensed for this type of lie... and their only end deliverable was Perception... A religion. Example: Perception of Heaven is a win for religion. It doesn't have to be real.
So yes, employees doing their best to make something work, hand it off to Integration testing, also real, then onto Systems work -- also real -- but then in the end, those doing "Acceptance testing" just fudge it.. change the "expected results to match the actual results" where they couldn't get it right. Do some recycle -- TRY to get it right.... in the end... it wasn't going to be used for Landing. Doesn't mean they didn't try, and 99% think they succeeded.
Theranos was uncovered in short order when people found out that there no actual results from the equipment. Apollo scientists and engineers can see the results of their work, as have people who had nothing to do with the program.
I worked for Lockheed-Martin on Sonar detection algorithms -- I have NO IDEA who did System/Acceptance testing... none. Why? Because I didn't have a "Need to Know".. if the entire Seawolf Submarine was faulty -- we didn't know. For Military -- "perception" is key -- and deception is their tool.
Do you seriously believe "we don't really know" about the nature of the Cold War? What about other events in history? World War Two? The Tunguska Event? Caesar's Conquest of Gaul?
We know half-truths, and details -- they didn't just "make it up" - they use "evidence" -- but the end narrative is easily spun. Having "an enemy for a nation" fosters citizen loyalty, and reduces criticisms of govt' spending. So, the "perception of danger/war" is even BETTER than the real deal.... because govt gets the benefits without the real risks.
To presume that the narratives we're told are accurate -- is presumptuous.
To presume the narravtives are inaccurate is presumptuous. There are many dead people that are testament to the reality of the cold war. You worked, or claim to have worked, for a company that will have made a not inconsiderable amounf of money from it.
Why would you send a rocket engineer to gather moon rocks?
He went to get rocks... this is known. So why did they claim to send him to get rocks?
As has been pointed out to you, they didn't.
Are you going to read the Taylor interview I linked for you (https://web.archive.org/web/20120905025108/http://www.science.org.au/scientists/interviews/t/rt.html)? Or are you going to show some of that integrity you claim for yourself and admit that (a) it's possible for people to know of these differences, and (b) you don't actually know what those differences are?
If you don't have a real sample, how will you know a real specimen? It's just "different". And Moon Rock scientists have no commercial value - their paychecks come from govt. I don't even buy the fact that world leaders from "antagonizing nations" are necessarily enemies... We only know what they "present". To presume you know what's going on behind closed doors at the tippy top, is presumptuous. So I don't lend this much weight as considering the stuff they feed us as "fact".
And yet here you are, claiming to know what went on behind closed doors. Scientists with a lunar sample know what features it should exhibit in comparison with a terrestrial equivalent, or even a lunar equivalent gathered from Earth. Not all science is government funded. Not all Apollo samples were analysed by scientists from 'friendly' countries.
Unfortunately, our only source of information is from govt' funded scientists, possibly hand-selected by NASA.
Government leaders may collude, just as CEO's of competitor companies also try to price-collude... But they are competitors... yet discussions happen behind closed doors.
That doesn't mean that what they are doing isn't exactly as presented to the outside world.
The scientific papers written about the Apollo rocks are published in science journals, not by NASA. Do you accept I am correct when I say this?
Can you show me where to look? I'd like to see names and institutions. When I looked at the catalog, I wasn't seeing any evidence of "this rock was studied and catalogued by {this 3rd party}." If I'm missing something, please do show.
NASA paid for, and collected, the rocks. Who else do you think would catalog them? As for who studied them, you have already been given a list of authors from early conference papers. Many of teh samples have been studied since those conferences. Google Scholar is your friend (something else that was pointed out to you).
1. What was the purpose of the N-1 rocket the Soviets designed and attempted to launch four times?
2. If it was all faked, why didn't the Soviets fake a landing before the Americans?
3. If the Space Race was agreed to be faked by the USA and the USSR, what did the USSR gain from it?
1. Rocket science is good. Also relates to military. Maybe they wanted to see if they could succeed, where we had only faked it. (for example, today's largest rocket, SLS, with more umpf than the SaturnV can only lift 59,000 lbs out of earth's orbit... maybe the N1 theoretically was CAPABLE of doing more than our rockets can today - but failed)
Apples and oranges. Later iterations of the SLS will lift more. The facvt that one rockety works differently compared with another doesn't mean any of them don't work.
2. Not sure the ACTUAL dynamics between Soviets and USA
Hasn't stopped you pronouncing on it though. Maybe read some history books.
-- or if there was any puppets in USSR. We only know "what they presented" -- the truth can be something else. But we DID validate their rocks -- so that Luna missions were declared a success... that's a small win.
3. If we really did Land and USSR knew it -- what did they gain from Acknowledgement? They control their OWN MEDIA (Not free press there) - so they could have easily told all of their own citizens "The Americans are Liars" -- Instead they publish America's Apollo victory, via govt controlled press.
They presented it as fact because it was fact. They could control their own media but they did not control other peoples. Their own scientists and engineers knew exactly what was going on, as did members of the public. They could habe told their public that the US was lying, but they would immediately have exposed the fact that they were lying.
See my discussion on the Soviets here:
https://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/CATM2/ch5/7/zond.html
This is NOT how you respond to enemies in a war.
"If I ran the zoo". Again.
Just to clarify, because on the face of it this statement is so stupidly wrong that I have to assume you made a mistake, are you claiming that up to 2019, most analysis of the Apollo rocks was performed by NASA staff?
The signs I see show that there was a huge surge of Regolith samples given out recently, around 2019 and later. Prior to that, not seeing them distributed much to 3rd party labs ... where is this evidence?
You've already been shown ths.
but NOW these samples show average particle size of 35 microns instead of 80!!!... Hmmm,.... maybe it's because China's samples that are real showed this... Next we'll just claim that our measurement process in 1970's was flawed... off by 55%.
https://www.space.com/30450-apollo-moon-soil-samples-disintegrating.html
"The differences between the two datasets are stark. For example, the median particle diameter has decreased from 78 microns (0.0031 inches) to 33 microns (0.0013 inches). And in the original sieve data, 44 percent of soil particles were between 90 and 1,000 microns (0.0035 to 0.039 inches) wide; today, just 17 percent of the particles are that large."
This alone seems like a smoking gun to me. This simply makes no sense that they'd have NO CLUE ABOUT THIS until 2012.
You've already had this explained to you. One set of researchers suggested that samples already released from storage were degrading thanks to contamination with Earth's atmosphere. Not the samples in storage, ones already released. Other researchers found no such degradation.
1. What is it a smoking gun of? In other words, according to you, what does it prove?
2. What is your logic process to back this up? And I don't mean (a) the samples degraded, therefore (b) the samples are fake. I'd like you to explain how the degradation is a smoking gun of whatever you think it's a smoking gun of.
When Bush announced "We're going back to the moon" this started an "oh shit campaign" of trying to figure out how to reconcile "Apollo reports" with the more modern studies and conclusions.
No. It did not.
I believe the real regolith average size is 35 micron, not 80.. So they can now measure them and say "it's 35! not sure what happened".
You can believe what you like, that doesn't make it true.
As you seem to believe that samples/rocks have been studied each decade-- why on earth didn't we see this "degradation process" at all? Instead we have 1/5th sized particles! (by mass) -- all in one fell swoop.
Again, the degradation was one research project on already studied samples.
You are, yet again, repeating the same claims despite having already had those claims already explainted to you. Your beliefs and biased views on things does not automatically invalidate established reality, no matter how many times you repeat them.
-
....
You know what I like about HB's, and you're a shining example of it, the casual hand-wave dismissal of all of history that doesn't fit your world view.
Soviets confirmed Apollo? Doesn't matter, they were clearly in on it.
Lunar rocks exists? Nah, they clearly just found some in Antarctica (despite not having any idea what a lunar sample would look like), and magically irradiated them (how? Who cares)
Thousands of people, mostly non-military, worked on the equipment and certified it as meeting requirements? Doesn't matter, some unnamed and unknown person just changed everything. Who? Doesn't matter, stop asking for details, it interrupts my story.
Oh, and do you remember that list of names I gave you? They were almost entirely non-military, and a lot of them worked on various parts of the mission equipment; from IVA and EVA suits, to the Command and Service module, and even the Lunar Module. Then there were others who studied the samples in the years since Apollo, studied the data from the various scientific equipment that was deployed (and often returned), even tracked and spoke with astronauts while they were in flight. But according to you, either they are all in on the hoax, or none of them know how to do their job.
Was Terry Slezak, basically the first non-astronaut to be 'contaminated' with lunar dust, inept or paid off?
What about Thomas J Kelly? Was he lying when he signed off that the LM was mission ready?
And what about Nelson Wyatt, Bill Ayrey, Iona Allen, Evelyn Kibler, and Thelma Breeding? Where they incapable of performing their tasks or was the EVA suit fit for purpose?
Or Mike Dinn? Who was he speaking with when pointing his satellite dish towards the moon? Were they not the Apollo crews?
How about Randy Korotev? Is he so terrible at his job that he can't tell the difference between meteorites and surface samples?
A small sample of the people you are claiming either participated in a hoax, or were inept at their jobs/tasks, yet couldn't tell that the missions they were participating in were faked.
-
Hi Najak, thank you for answering some of my questions. I’ll deal with those answers in separate posts. In the meantime, here are the questions which still haven’t been answered.
Reply #80:
Moon Scientists all have one thing in common -- they are funded through grants, from the government. You don't bite the hand that feeds you. Just ask Thomas Baron.
What exactly do you mean when you say "the government"? The US government? If so, do you seriously think that only USAnian scientists can study the Apollo rocks? If not, then how can the US government possibly affect what non-USAnian scientists say about the rocks?
https://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/sampreq/requests.cfm
That's the website to use when you want to request a lunar sample for research. Where does it say that "the government" has any say in it, especially for non-USAnian scientists?
Reply #119:
One piece of evidence against the Cold War was JFK's attempt to establish a collaboration with Russia on the Moon Landing in 1963. This doesn't sound like "enemies" to me... They said "no thanks, but good luck with that" -- soon after JFK was assassinated. JFK wouldn't go into Vietnam? Was exhibiting doubts about Apollo's mission, possibly willing to pull the plug? Anti-Banks/CIA? Who knows -- why he was assassinated. BUT -- 1963 we see he doesn't seem to be too concerned by Cold War... maybe that was part of it... the DoD profiteers wanted the Cold War to be something that struck fear in Americans to justify govt spending to mitigate these fears.
The existence of the ideological conflict is undeniable, as it was argued out by people in many countries across the world, whether at the ballot box, in universities, or down the barrel of a gun. The same for the officers and men of the military forces of the USA and the USSR - fervently believing in the rightness of capitalism or communism.
Yet according to you the clique in charge of each country consisted of people who knew it was all for show. How did people promoted to that clique psychologically handle that transition?
Reply #127:
#2: a-c: "So they say"... Moon-rock science has not much commercial value... it's govt grant funded.
Funded by which government? Evidence please.
Them declaring Apollo is Real is a given. All of these seem to have viable methods to produce seemingly authentic moon rocks from those gathered in Antarctica.
We've already explained to you that the differences between lunar meteorites and Apollo rocks are so obvious that even non-scientists could tell them apart. Mag40 specifically told you some of those differences. Do you acknowledge this information was given?
MLH theory is that they were gathered from Antarctica, and radiated to give them a fresh "I've been in no atmosphere" quality.
What sort of radiation? What amount?
I've looked up where these rocks/samples have GONE -- and it seems that most were examined at Johnson space center... not by 3rd parties. Hundreds of rocks simply "went missing" for which NASA said "we didn't keep receipts/records so we have no idea"...
What's your source for this? And seeing as you put words in quotes, do you mean they're exact quotes of what someone said?
I'm not seeing the actual evidence of these rocks being studied by a lot of independent labs around the world - do you have this evidence somewhere, I'd like to see it.
I've already given you place to look: the Lunar and Planetary Institute website. Do you need instructions to navigate the site?
Reply #139:
Then May 1972, our alliance with Russia was signed. For how long before that was this alliance planned?
What was the name of the alliance as described in the document the two countries signed?
As far as the evidence of "who all validated the rocks" - I looked once,
Only once? Where did you look?
- where NASA has started sending out "stored samples" (so they say), in mass—
So who say? Please provide a source.
but NOW these samples show average particle size of 35 microns instead of 80!!!... Hmmm,.... maybe it's because China's samples that are real showed this... Next we'll just claim that our measurement process in 1970's was flawed... off by 55%.
Okay, just to clarify again, are you saying that the only analysis performed on the Apollo rocks was to measure average particle size?
And also, how did you ascertain that the Chinese samples are real? What problems did the Chinese solve that the Yanks and Russkies couldn't?
Reply #140:
Peter, were you aware of this recent finding:
https://www.space.com/30450-apollo-moon-soil-samples-disintegrating.html
"The differences between the two datasets are stark. For example, the median particle diameter has decreased from 78 microns (0.0031 inches) to 33 microns (0.0013 inches). And in the original sieve data, 44 percent of soil particles were between 90 and 1,000 microns (0.0035 to 0.039 inches) wide; today, just 17 percent of the particles are that large."
This alone seems like a smoking gun to me. This simply makes no sense that they'd have NO CLUE ABOUT THIS until 2012.
In the Ross Taylor interview, what significant finding did scientists make about the lack of a particular group of metals in the Apollo rock samples?
-
Yet you, with a straight face, believe that 400,000 employees, contractors, ...
And you with a straight face still think 400,000 employees should have known. They did their job. Median age of the engineers was around 25... mostly fresh outs. First job. They applied what they knew, and were told that it worked. I worked at Lockheed Martin for 4 years - under similar context -- I was told it worked. Mainstream believes it worked. This is how it always works out.
DoD IS THE LAW. They had NO VICTIMS .. they were helping the USA. Patriots. Primary deliverable was "perception of landing". Victory. Whether full real or not -- 100% success on this delivery.
Theranos was a CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION, with medical victims, building. Actual medical result deliverables. Actual people losing their ass on investment. Actual company being defrauded. ACTUAL LAWS BEING BROKEN. Thousands of medical results incorrect. Ways to validate. All enforced via "Civil Law" by criminals. It was CLEAR they were doing something wrong - not Patriotic.. Not Good for Society. Not Good for America. Very very very damaging.
DoD lying to benefit Americans is Patriotic Nationalism. We needed this win. I don't think at the top this was truly a "case of winning a war" - but that's how they packaged it for the team.. the team of NASAX believed they were "winning a war, without firing a shot, through deception" -- the rest of NASA was working full tilt. Had no clue that their tech wasn't really going to be tested on the moon. But they were told that it worked-- and that they were a vital part of "Man's Greatest Achievement" -- who's going to poop on their own parade, and destroy their own resume?
Nobody. And if anyone did - they were scant and fully rejected.
Even today -- the same syndrome applies.
-
What exactly do you mean when you say "the government"? The US government? If so, do you seriously think that only USAnian scientists can study the Apollo rocks? If not, then how can the US government possibly affect what non-USAnian scientists say about the rocks?
https://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/sampreq/requests.cfm
That's the website to use when you want to request a lunar sample for research. Where does it say that "the government" has any say in it, especially for non-USAnian scientists?
This is the request form. Where do you see the database/evidence of SATISFIED REQUESTS? This is the only thing that matters.
How requests are approved -- where are the docs for this process? NASA is govt' owned -- so they effectively ARE the USA govt.
Reply #119:
One piece of evidence against the Cold War was JFK's attempt to establish a collaboration with Russia on the Moon Landing in 1963. This doesn't sound like "enemies" to me... They said "no thanks, but good luck with that" -- soon after JFK was assassinated. JFK wouldn't go into Vietnam? Was exhibiting doubts about Apollo's mission, possibly willing to pull the plug? Anti-Banks/CIA? Who knows -- why he was assassinated. BUT -- 1963 we see he doesn't seem to be too concerned by Cold War... maybe that was part of it... the DoD profiteers wanted the Cold War to be something that struck fear in Americans to justify govt spending to mitigate these fears.
The existence of the ideological conflict is undeniable, as it was argued out by people in many countries across the world, whether at the ballot box, in universities, or down the barrel of a gun. The same for the officers and men of the military forces of the USA and the USSR - fervently believing in the rightness of capitalism or communism.
Yet according to you the clique in charge of each country consisted of people who knew it was all for show. How did people promoted to that clique psychologically handle that transition?
[/quote]
I don't believe the "elected figureheads" are the ones really running the show. The unelected unknowns are likely pulling more powerful strings. The "figureheads" is who they want us to look at... Who pulls the strings at CIA? DIA? DoD? I think more power resides in these organizations. Much of what we see in Congress/etc - is a charade.
This is above my pay grade. So I'm speculating on a narrative... which makes more sense to me.
But if YOU think you KNOW truth at this much higher level and behind the veils/curtains, because it's how it's presented to us -- then I believe you are way way over confident.
It's why I tend to rely on "the basics" for truth... and look for the "holes in their story" to realize "things aren't what they are telling us here."
#2: a-c: "So they say"... Moon-rock science has not much commercial value... it's govt grant funded.
Funded by which government? Evidence please.
I think many govt's have collaborations. I think we may more leverage on certain nation's leaders than we'll ever announce. It's almost in no one's best interest to "reveal dirt" when you can more smartly "use that dirt for leverage". .. reveal it, and the leverage is gone. And we're all-in-this-together, to a point... so if you cause damage, it can cut both ways with backlash.
So "govt" is enough. USA govt has influence in many places.
Since there is no "private profitable commercial value to moon rocks or studies" - this gets funded by govt. If the USA wanted to establish validation from another nation, it wouldn't take much money to do so - nor obvious corruption. "Hey we'd like you to take a look at our rocks." Answer: "Why? What's in it for us? Expense without benefit?" -- USA -- "here's some money for your troubles to pay those salaries to do this work"... the hand that feeds them is USA. Not much, not corrupt.
Or if not direct -- then indirect. Either way, these guys aren't hired to "call USA liars"... their findings were pre-determined, mostly. It's moon studies -- so they may have been fed suggested methodologies, known to produce the results we wanted.
Without commercial profits - and only a small select set of people involved -- ultimately funded by govt (USA as the source, in some fashion) -- I don't hold this form of "Scientific Consensus" at the same level as I would for most other concepts. Follow the money -- and it leads back to govt's -- which are influenced by the USA, motivated to do right by them.
Them declaring Apollo is Real is a given. All of these seem to have viable methods to produce seemingly authentic moon rocks from those gathered in Antarctica.
Please provide me your best link(s) for this claim. I'll will check it out in more detail.
What's your source for this? And seeing as you put words in quotes, do you mean they're exact quotes of what someone said?
My use of quotes is for clarity of a term to group words together more clearly. Since we aren't speaking, it's hard to convey inflection. If I'm making a real quote, I'll put it on a separate line with a ":" to clarify, "this is an actual quote".
I've already given you place to look: the Lunar and Planetary Institute website. Do you need instructions to navigate the site?
Sure give me a lowdown. And show me an example of rocks that were studied by non-govt-funded entities, or other nations. I believe the vast majority were simply inspected and catalogued by NASA... not others. Please show me some evidence that my conclusions here are notably wrong, and I'll investigate it further.
As a rookie, my focus hasn't been on the "rocks/samples" so I've only spent a few hours on this topic so far. I tried searches to figure out "who got and studied these rocks/samples?"...etc... and only got a few obscure hits... But MOST of the hits came back were for 2019 and more recent... there was a sudden surge of samples released. Prior to 2019 -- not seeing the evidence of this.
2012 - finding the "particle size by weight to be 1/8th of what they were in 1970's" -- discovered all-of-a-sudden (not gradual) -- seems to me like a gaping hole-in-their-story - indicating that things are not what we've been told.
Then May 1972, our alliance with Russia was signed. For how long before that was this alliance planned?
What was the name of the alliance as described in the document the two countries signed?[/quote]
https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/events/centennials/nixon/exhibit/nixon-online-exhibit-agreement.html#:~:text=On%20May%2024%2C%201972%2C%20President,with%20a%20Soyuz%20command%20module.
How long was this in-the-works, prior to May 1972? (did they know they were planning to have it play out like this as of 1969?)
but NOW these samples show average particle size of 35 microns instead of 80!!!... Hmmm,.... maybe it's because China's samples that are real showed this... Next we'll just claim that our measurement process in 1970's was flawed... off by 55%.
Okay, just to clarify again, are you saying that the only analysis performed on the Apollo rocks was to measure average particle size?
Nope. But particle weight dropped to under 1/8th, without anyone noticing degradation of size in the prior decades - is a highly suspect occurrence.
And also, how did you ascertain that the Chinese samples are real? What problems did the Chinese solve that the Yanks and Russkies couldn't?
Yes, because it was decades later with 1000x+ the electronic/sensor capabilities. Not done in a rush, and NOT carrying humans. We don't know it's true, but it's 100x more believable than the feats claimed by Apollo.
In the Ross Taylor interview, what significant finding did scientists make about the lack of a particular group of metals in the Apollo rock samples?
I don't think I'm familiar with the claim. Please state it, give a reference, and we'll go from there.
-
You know what I like about HB's, and you're a shining example of it, the casual hand-wave dismissal of all of history that doesn't fit your world view.
I put much less weight on this "history" than I do physics, and the surrounding mounds of circumstantial evidence. Mind-blowing I know.
Even Mountains of "documented history" is not permitted to "Break Physics". So if Physics is Broken -- it's time to question how this history was created. That's how I view it.
So I'm on a quest to determine which parts of the Apollo counter-evidence are substantial, and how substantial. I trust Physics more than mountains of "Pro-USA History tied to something accomplished by the government 55 years ago." Perpetrated in the 1960's - amongst a series of other known conspiracies/Lies (Bay of Pigs, Gulf of Tonkin, Daniel Ellsberg, and I suspect JFK/RFK).
-
Mind-blowing I know.
There's something blowing but not your mind.
Even Mountains of "documented history" is not permitted to "Break Physics".
Documented evidence.
So if Physics is Broken
It isn’t.
So I'm on a quest to determine which parts of the Apollo counter-evidence are substantial, and how substantial. I trust Physics more than mountains of "Pro-USA History tied to something accomplished by the government 55 years ago." Perpetrated in the 1960's - amongst a series of other known conspiracies/Lies (Bay of Pigs, Gulf of Tonkin, Daniel Ellsberg, and I suspect JFK/RFK).
That's another tick on HB Bingo. "The evil gubment lies". This quest is a big trollfest with posturing and denial. You've already shown how you run away from even simple stuff.
-
This article looks interesting:
https://min.news/en/science/a5eeff93e43b8e66ecdf0fadb70bf6eb.html (https://min.news/en/science/a5eeff93e43b8e66ecdf0fadb70bf6eb.html)
QUOTE:
"The first results of the Chang'e 5 lunar soil research have been released, which are very different from the samples donated by Apollo in the United States
2024-12-15 08:42"
-
Is there something factually wrong with this "Russian hoax/prank" -- did this really happen?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClpbzHiY1DA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClpbzHiY1DA)
-
@TimberWolfAU - you gave me a Gish Gallop of evidence, but as I dig into it -- each fails to be what you claim.
Here's an article that reference Koratev's findings:
https://sites.wustl.edu/meteoritesite/items/how-do-we-know-that-its-a-rock-from-the-moon/ (https://sites.wustl.edu/meteoritesite/items/how-do-we-know-that-its-a-rock-from-the-moon/)
Quote:
"Lunar mare basalts, as well as basaltic meteorites from Mars, bear a strong resemblance to basalts from Earth. In the absence of a fusion crust, there is little about a lunar mare basalt that would provoke much interest in a geologist who was handed the rock by someone asking, “What is this?” Careful examination under the microscope might reveal some suspicious features"
==
China's latest results, and these words here, etc... don't seem to support your narrative of "it was impossible to fake Moon rocks".
-
@TimberWolfAU - you gave me a Gish Gallop of evidence, but as I dig into it -- each fails to be what you claim.
Here's an article that reference Koratev's findings:
https://sites.wustl.edu/meteoritesite/items/how-do-we-know-that-its-a-rock-from-the-moon/ (https://sites.wustl.edu/meteoritesite/items/how-do-we-know-that-its-a-rock-from-the-moon/)
Quote:
"Lunar mare basalts, as well as basaltic meteorites from Mars, bear a strong resemblance to basalts from Earth. In the absence of a fusion crust, there is little about a lunar mare basalt that would provoke much interest in a geologist who was handed the rock by someone asking, “What is this?” Careful examination under the microscope might reveal some suspicious features"
And here is the whole paragraph which you only quoted the first half of:
"Lunar mare basalts, as well as basaltic meteorites from Mars, bear a strong resemblance to basalts from Earth. In the absence of a fusion crust, there is little about a lunar mare basalt that would provoke much interest in a geologist who was handed the rock by someone asking, “What is this?” Careful examination under the microscope might reveal some suspicious features – the scarcity of certain minerals (quartz, orthoclase) and abundance of others (ilmenite) or the low sodium and potassium contents of the feldspar. The mineral grains would show signs of shock and fracturing from meteorite impacts. However, chemical tests would be required to prove a lunar or martian origin."
-
@TimberWolfAU - you gave me a Gish Gallop of evidence, but as I dig into it -- each fails to be what you claim.
Here's an article that reference Koratev's findings:
https://sites.wustl.edu/meteoritesite/items/how-do-we-know-that-its-a-rock-from-the-moon/ (https://sites.wustl.edu/meteoritesite/items/how-do-we-know-that-its-a-rock-from-the-moon/)
Quote:
"Lunar mare basalts, as well as basaltic meteorites from Mars, bear a strong resemblance to basalts from Earth. In the absence of a fusion crust, there is little about a lunar mare basalt that would provoke much interest in a geologist who was handed the rock by someone asking, “What is this?” Careful examination under the microscope might reveal some suspicious features"
==
China's latest results, and these words here, etc... don't seem to support your narrative of "it was impossible to fake Moon rocks".
You continue to post cherry-picked crap and ignore detailed posts (from me in particular). Why is this - rookie?
Lunar basalts frequently have glass spherules within them that show formation in low gravity.
-
"....Careful examination under the microscope might reveal some suspicious features"
Key word here "might", and the generics of "chemical tests" - so point here is that "they are very much alike" -- even looking under the microscope often DOES NOT show any differences!... so they look the same, even under a microscope -- but if you do "chemical tests" - then you can prove -- but on what basis?
It's not as NASA wants us to believe -- that there are "big differences" -- but only a chemist, using their standards, could find differences... so they claim.
"Slight differences" is NOT what NASA tells us to believe here. They want us to believe the differences are major -- but they aren't.
-
This article looks interesting:
https://min.news/en/science/a5eeff93e43b8e66ecdf0fadb70bf6eb.html (https://min.news/en/science/a5eeff93e43b8e66ecdf0fadb70bf6eb.html)
QUOTE:
"The first results of the Chang'e 5 lunar soil research have been released, which are very different from the samples donated by Apollo in the United States
2024-12-15 08:42"
So, let's be clear on this point, you do consider this article to be reliable and factual?
-
So, let's be clear on this point, you do consider this article to be reliable and factual?
When it comes most of this stuff - not sure what is factual or to what degree. Things aren't binary.
Except maybe Physics and Math -- in these contexts you can't break either one -- something is awry.
So when people use "written claims" as their "facts" - this doesn't hold as much weight for me, as when I see Physics being broken... or things that are physically near impossible, be done 6x in a row without significant issue. Along with "holes in the story" - to indicate that the "story doesn't seem to have integrity".
-
....
What do you think happened to the 500-page Baron report? Why did it go missing, when he submitted it publicly to Congress just 6 days prior, which contained the names of more witnesses to corroborate the specifics contained in this report?
Does nothing smell fishy to you?
-
More on the Chinese Findings -- that DO NOT MATCH APOLLO -- way different.
Reference article here:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435122001787 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435122001787)
(https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S2542435122001787-gr1_lrg.jpg)
-
@TimberWolfAU - thanks for the Korotev reference!
===
More from the Korotev article:
Quote: "We have no reason to suspect, based on data obtained from orbit that any region of the moon is rich in types of rocks significantly different from those we that know about or postulate might exist. [...] It is highly unlikely that any yet-unfound lunar meteorite will differ substantially from the Apollo lunar rocks and known lunar meteorites in the minerals it contains or in its geochemical character."
===
Basically, if I was to go to the moon and collect a rock sample from the moon and send a probe up to either analyze it in situ or retrieve some more rocks for analysis, I'd expect to get the same results. Especially considering that the moon is atmosphereless and not geologically active.
…And yet, here we are. Chang'e 3 and 5 detected/retrieved rocks that differ in mineralogy.
-
More on the Chinese Findings -- that DO NOT MATCH APOLLO -- way different.
Could you quantify how much different? I'm not understanding the value of "way different".
Do you believe I could credibly claim the Earth has been faked if I were able to show that rock samples from one part of the world are measurably different from rock samples taken hundreds of miles away?
-
#1: Could you quantify how much different? I'm not understanding the value of "way different".
#2: Do you believe I could credibly claim the Earth has been faked if I were able to show that rock samples from one part of the world are measurably different from rock samples taken hundreds of miles away?
#1: Did you not see the pie graphs in the chart I posted from that Chinese paper? One is for Apollo, the other is for Chang'e 5.
#2: Apples-to-oranges. The Earth has a great diversity because it is both geologically active (plate tectonics and the like) and has an atmosphere that subjects everything to weathering and oxidation events. As said above, the moon is geologically inactive and lacks an atmosphere. On the moon, we should not expect such diversity. It is for the same reasons we should not expect to find rust in those Apollo samples, yet we do.
(https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/samples/atlas/images/hires/66095/S72-48424.jpg)
-
The geology of the rocks/samples - deserves a thread here.. But it's too scary - because it doesn't support the Apollogy.
-
So, let's be clear on this point, you do consider this article to be reliable and factual?
When it comes most of this stuff - not sure what is factual or to what degree. Things aren't binary.
Except maybe Physics and Math -- in these contexts you can't break either one -- something is awry.
So when people use "written claims" as their "facts" - this doesn't hold as much weight for me, as when I see Physics being broken... or things that are physically near impossible, be done 6x in a row without significant issue. Along with "holes in the story" - to indicate that the "story doesn't seem to have integrity".
So why link to the article and use it to prop up your claim if you are unable to verify the veracity of it?
-
More on the Chinese Findings -- that DO NOT MATCH APOLLO -- way different.
Reference article here:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435122001787 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435122001787)
(https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S2542435122001787-gr1_lrg.jpg)
Things aren't binary.
-
....
What do you think happened to the 500-page Baron report? Why did it go missing, when he submitted it publicly to Congress just 6 days prior, which contained the names of more witnesses to corroborate the specifics contained in this report?
Does nothing smell fishy to you?
Why do you think it was 500 pages? What did the report contain? Were his reports considered?
-
Is there something factually wrong with this "Russian hoax/prank" -- did this really happen?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClpbzHiY1DA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClpbzHiY1DA)
They tested their comms to a Zond probe. It's often interpreted as a deliberate attempt to fool people. People weren't fooled.
-
Why do you think it was 500 pages? What did the report contain? Were his reports considered?
It's clear from his congressional testimony, found here:
https://www.nasa.gov/history/Apollo204/baron.htm (https://www.nasa.gov/history/Apollo204/baron.htm)
Quote from this testimony
===
Mr. BARON. I have sent to the chairman of this committee a more through report which includes all the names.
Mr. FULTON. I have all the names, but I read them and said to myself, who should we call?
Mr. BARON. No, sir. You are talking about the 55-page report. I am talking about the 500-page report.
Mr. TEAGUE. Your report went to the chairman of the full committee, not to me. He told me he received it.
Mr. BARON. I have a 500-page report. I have an opening statement which I wanted to read, which described this 500-page report, and in this
I think you can get all the possible names that there are, the times, the dates, the tests that were being run and the internal letters of the company, proper specifications, especially in regard to flamability of materials. All this is in this new report.
Thomas Baron is a hero.
Dead w/family 6-days later, by 1-car-train, late at night with no witnesses. 500-page report missing, and never mentioned again... NASA responded to this incident by increasing the rate of development about 50% by cutting more corners, and eliminating multiple previously planned test flights. Yeah, that makes sense.
This doesn't smell fishy to you at all?
-
They tested their comms to a Zond probe. It's often interpreted as a deliberate attempt to fool people. People weren't fooled.
What about these communications "gave it away"?
Are you saying that it wasn't believed at all, by anyone? They were just pretending to be flustered?
-
So why link to the article and use it to prop up your claim if you are unable to verify the veracity of it?
Because it looks accurate/neutral/factual so I present it. If it's wrong, then it gets challenged, and we reassess. Do you want to challenge it? I will accept your challenges if you have them. If I were to stake my claim ahead, "I KNOW THIS ARTICLE IS FACTUAL" - that would be quite dumb of me. So I don't. This is how honest debates go - sometimes you think a claim/source is credible, but later find out it is not.
-
Reference article here:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435122001787 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435122001787)
(https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S2542435122001787-gr1_lrg.jpg)
Things aren't binary.
Correct. But this one looks pretty CLEAR.
It drastically undermines the emphasis Apollogist argument that "We couldn't have faked Moon Rocks!"
In fact - this Chinese evidence makes it look pretty obvious that "We DID fake moon rocks, and we did it wrongly."
The Moon Rock argument has now become a fairly strong MLH claim. This graph shows it.
-
Why do you think it was 500 pages? What did the report contain? Were his reports considered?
It's clear from his congressional testimony, found here:
https://www.nasa.gov/history/Apollo204/baron.htm (https://www.nasa.gov/history/Apollo204/baron.htm)
Quote from this testimony
===
Mr. BARON. I have sent to the chairman of this committee a more through report which includes all the names.
Mr. FULTON. I have all the names, but I read them and said to myself, who should we call?
Mr. BARON. No, sir. You are talking about the 55-page report. I am talking about the 500-page report.
Mr. TEAGUE. Your report went to the chairman of the full committee, not to me. He told me he received it.
Mr. BARON. I have a 500-page report. I have an opening statement which I wanted to read, which described this 500-page report, and in this
I think you can get all the possible names that there are, the times, the dates, the tests that were being run and the internal letters of the company, proper specifications, especially in regard to flamability of materials. All this is in this new report.
Thomas Baron is a hero.
Dead w/family 6-days later, by 1-car-train, late at night with no witnesses. 500-page report missing, and never mentioned again... NASA responded to this incident by increasing the rate of development about 50% by cutting more corners, and eliminating multiple previously planned test flights. Yeah, that makes sense.
This doesn't smell fishy to you at all?
So your evidence that a man was murdered to suppress his reports of failings at North American Aviation is his public (and still freely svailable) testimony before a Gouse Committee? You not seeing the contradiction here?
-
They tested their comms to a Zond probe. It's often interpreted as a deliberate attempt to fool people. People weren't fooled.
What about these communications "gave it away"?
Are you saying that it wasn't believed at all, by anyone? They were just pretending to be flustered?
What evidence do you have that anyone was flustered?
-
Reference article here:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435122001787 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435122001787)
(https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S2542435122001787-gr1_lrg.jpg)
Things aren't binary.
Correct. But this one looks pretty CLEAR.
It drastically undermines the emphasis Apollogist argument that "We couldn't have faked Moon Rocks!"
No it doesn't.
In fact - this Chinese evidence makes it look pretty obvious that "We DID fake moon rocks, and we did it wrongly."
No it doesn't. The Moon Rock argument has now become a fairly strong MLH claim. This graph shows it.
No it doesn't. It merely shows that Apollo samples differ from those collected in a completely different location.
The fact is that Apollo samples are still used by China (and others) to ground truth their data
Find us one report from China anywhere that doubts the veracity of the Apollo samples, or indeed any other Apollo data.
-
So your evidence that a man was murdered to suppress his reports of failings at North American Aviation is his public (and still freely svailable) testimony before a Gouse Committee? You not seeing the contradiction here?
One would think this should be obvious to people -- but the higher ups simply know society. Most people don't even know of Baron. And most of those that do, simply don't connect the dots. The overriding dynamic here is Apollo was the religion of World Peace and Unity - and a wonderful achievement -- we needed that Win. So, Baron's death must have been just an accident.
Baron's investigation was about to turn into "more witnesses" to corroborate. This was a huge setback for NASA on account of one man. They didn't have much choice.
Similarly -- Epstein's "suicide" was VERY OBVIOUS -- yet they did it anyways.
-
What evidence do you have that anyone was flustered?
That's how the story was TOLD by an APOLLOGIST. Watch the clip -- he doesn't suspect we didn't Land on the Moon. So he's not motivated to Lie for MLH.
It just so happens that this occurrence provides a feasible refute for some Apollogist claims that "it couldn't have been faked because we heard comms from the moon."
-
It merely shows that Apollo samples differ from those collected in a completely different location.
Your own Apollogist expert, Korotev, says this:
"We have no reason to suspect, based on data obtained from orbit that any region of the moon is rich in types of rocks significantly different from those we that know about or postulate might exist. [...] It is highly unlikely that any yet-unfound lunar meteorite will differ substantially from the Apollo lunar rocks and known lunar meteorites in the minerals it contains or in its geochemical character."
ALSO: Chinese Regolith particle average weight is 1/4th that of the Apollo regolith. (5/8ths diameter--- cubed).
China and USA are interdependent for trade and economy. It shouldn't surprise you that China isn't dumb enough to do something that may have backlash to themselves.
Or if China does know this "dirt" - is it better to "leverage your dirt?" (get something from it) - or to expose it, lose your leverage and cause damage likely to cut both ways?? NASA wants you to believe as you do -- so keep on believing.
-
So why link to the article and use it to prop up your claim if you are unable to verify the veracity of it?
Because it looks accurate/neutral/factual so I present it. If it's wrong, then it gets challenged, and we reassess. Do you want to challenge it? I will accept your challenges if you have them. If I were to stake my claim ahead, "I KNOW THIS ARTICLE IS FACTUAL" - that would be quite dumb of me. So I don't. This is how honest debates go - sometimes you think a claim/source is credible, but later find out it is not.
Weasel words.
You cherry-picked the little bits that appeals to your fallacious narrative but conveniently ignored the bita where the author said that the landings were not on doubt or questioned.
Why is that?
-
So your evidence that a man was murdered to suppress his reports of failings at North American Aviation is his public (and still freely svailable) testimony before a Gouse Committee? You not seeing the contradiction here?
One would think this should be obvious to people -- but the higher ups simply know society. Most people don't even know of Baron. And most of those that do, simply don't connect the dots. The overriding dynamic here is Apollo was the religion of World Peace and Unity - and a wonderful achievement -- we needed that Win. So, Baron's death must have been just an accident.
Baron's investigation was about to turn into "more witnesses" to corroborate. This was a huge setback for NASA on account of one man. They didn't have much choice.
Similarly -- Epstein's "suicide" was VERY OBVIOUS -- yet they did it anyways.
The huge setback for NASA was three dead astronauts, not Baron's very public account of NAA's failings.
-
What evidence do you have that anyone was flustered?
That's how the story was TOLD by an APOLLOGIST. Watch the clip -- he doesn't suspect we didn't Land on the Moon. So he's not motivated to Lie for MLH.
It just so happens that this occurrence provides a feasible refute for some Apollogist claims that "it couldn't have been faked because we heard comms from the moon."
Yes, you posted this already. It was never reported as being "OMG, there are cosmonauts in lunar orbit.". The only fluster was that they had carried out a lunar orbit ans return in a potentially human rated craft containing live cargo. It doesn't provide a feasible refutation at all - the voices they heard were clearly from a craft in lunar orbit, not transmitted from Earth.
-
Deleted
-
It merely shows that Apollo samples differ from those collected in a completely different location.
Your own Apollogist expert, Korotev, says this:
"We have no reason to suspect, based on data obtained from orbit that any region of the moon is rich in types of rocks significantly different from those we that know about or postulate might exist. [...] It is highly unlikely that any yet-unfound lunar meteorite will differ substantially from the Apollo lunar rocks and known lunar meteorites in the minerals it contains or in its geochemical character."
You fail to understand what Korotev says. He does not say Apollo samples represent every possible sample. He is saying that they have a very good idea about what's there thanks to all of the work done by many nations onthe ground and in orbit.
ALSO: Chinese Regolith particle average weight is 1/4th that of the Apollo regolith. (5/8ths diameter--- cubed).
And therefore statistically less representative.
China and USA are interdependent for trade and economy. It shouldn't surprise you that China isn't dumb enough to do something that may have backlash to themselves.
Hasn't stopped the USA imposing tariffs and legal restrictions on them.
Or if China does know this "dirt" - is it better to "leverage your dirt?" (get something from it) - or to expose it, lose your leverage and cause damage likely to cut both ways?? NASA wants you to believe as you do -- so keep on believing.
NASA doesn't care what you believe.
China knows Apollo happened, it uses Apollo data all the time. China's probes have photographed the Apollo landing sites and seen the evidence of human activity there.
-
I refer to this 2019 article.
I suggest you run along and "refer" to more articles instead of this moronic cherry-picking.
So the 2-3" deep dust reported by Apollo, followed by an ABRUPT hardness -- doesn't seem to match this description.
Why didn't you follow the source of the citation? Was that too hard for you? Page 286:
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/lunar_sourcebook/pdf/Chapter07.pdf
"Since about 4 b.y. ago, the impact flux on the lunar surface has been relatively low, and a regolith only a few meters thick is adequate to shield the underlying bedrock almost indefinitely. For this reason, the regolith thickness rarely exceeds 10 to 20 m. Regolith thicknesses on the maria are typically only a few meters (Langevin and Arnold, 1977; Taylor, 1982). Astronauts have drilled to a depth of approximately 3 m in the regoliths at Apollo sites, and estimates based on grain-size distributions suggest that the maximum thickness of the regolith may not exceed 20 m, at least in these locations (McKay et al., 1974). Early estimates of regolith thicknesses by Oberbeck and Quaide (1968), based on crater-shape models, ranged from 3.3 m on Oceanus Procellarum to 16 m for the inner wall of the crater Hipparchus. At the four Surveyor mare sites, apparent regolith thicknesses range from 1 to 10 m (Shoemaker et al, 1968).
The current consensus is that the regolith is generally about 4–5 m thick in the mare areas but may average about 10–15 m in older highland regions. Beneath this true regolith is a complex zone that probably consists of large-scale ejecta and mpactfractured, brecciated bedrock (based on orbital radar data and modeling; Peeples et al., 1978; Langevin, 1982). This layer of fractured bedrock has been called the megaregolith and may consist of large (>1 m) blocks. Some of the inferred properties of this megaregolith are different from those of the unconsolidated surficial material that has been sampled (see Fig. 4.22). However, the detailed properties of the megaregolith are essentially unknown, and we shall not consider it further in this section.
The formation and evolution of the lunar regolith is a complex process. At any given spot, the nature and history of the regolith is determined by two completely random mechanisms. One is destructive—the excavation of existing regolith by impact craters. The
other is constructive—the addition of layers of new material (either from bedrock or older regolith) that is excavated from either near (small) or distant (large) impact craters. Superimposed on these mechanical processes are the effects of solar and cosmic particles that strike the lunar surface. At the very surface, dust particles form microcraters, and solar-wind atomic particles are trapped in the outer layers of regolith grains, while high-energy particles produce distinctive nuclear reactions to depths of several meters."
So the source has no problem reconciling Apollo with what you see as a contradiction! Perhaps, and this is just a wild guess, you haven't a clue what you are talking about!
"These simultaneous processes combine to produce a regolith whose structure, stratigraphy, and history may vary widely, even between locations only a few meters apart. Surface layers can be buried and then reexposed. Single layers, or slabs containing multiple layers, can be transported, overturned, or buried. Deciphering these complications is a major challenge that requires the application of a wide range of analytical techniques—petrologic studies, gas analyses, measurements of radioactivity, stable isotope studies, trace element geochemistry, magnetic measurements, and statistical modeling—to have any hope of success. "
Why would there be an abrupt "hardness?" What hardened it all of a sudden at 2-3" deep? Do you know? I don't.
Therefore people should educate you because you must be right in your ignorant claims? There is a heating/freezing, compression/compaction and friction. All over billions of years.
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/lunar_sourcebook/pdf/Chapter09.pdf
-
Weasel words.
You cherry-picked the little bits that appeals to your fallacious narrative but conveniently ignored the bita where the author said that the landings were not on doubt or questioned.
Why is that?
I see it like this, he said "I showed up and saw the him holding the smoking gun looking at the dead man lying on the floor, but I'm not saying he killed him."
So I shared the first part - "he was holding a smoking gun standing in front of a man freshly shot and bleeding out." And shout "cherry-picking". I'm sharing the pertinent evidence of the article.
-
The huge setback for NASA was three dead astronauts, not Baron's very public account of NAA's failings.
Baron was exposing how widespread were the QA issues, that despite all his efforts to report them -- got no response. This investigation needed to stop before more people came forward -- funny thing though - no one ever did after Baron tragically died. AND his 500-page report went missing!! This is not fishy to you??
I'm sad for the astronauts too. Grissom's last words -- "Jesus Christ, if we can't even talk between 3 buildings, how are we going to get to the moon?"
Answer: Accelerate development by 50% cutting more corners, and cutting out test flights... that seems like the best response.
Bean was right -- "That's crazy! You can't do that!".... but they did -- and magically, it all worked out like a fairytale after that.. No more deaths, after Baron.
-
Yes, you posted this already. It was never reported as being "OMG, there are cosmonauts in lunar orbit.". The only fluster was that they had carried out a lunar orbit ans return in a potentially human rated craft containing live cargo. It doesn't provide a feasible refutation at all - the voices they heard were clearly from a craft in lunar orbit, not transmitted from Earth.
If NASA wanted to fake it, in a similar fashion - they could drop some equipment on the moon... similar to Surveyors. Or use two lunar orbiting satellites -- to produce the effect that they were "on the moon" with continuous comms. It would appear legit, no?
-
ALSO: Chinese Regolith particle average weight is 1/4th that of the Apollo regolith. (5/8ths diameter--- cubed).
And therefore statistically less representative.
The average size of regolith particles is only 1/4th the mass reported by Apollo. This is significantly different and unexpected, and without a good hypothesis to support it.
Their individual size does not make this "size differential" any less vital.
And they did gather enough samples to make it fully "statistically representative". There was no shortage on samples here.
-
Baron was exposing how widespread were the QA issues, that despite all his efforts to report them -- got no response. This investigation needed to stop before more people came forward -- funny thing though - no one ever did after Baron tragically died. AND his 500-page report went missing!! This is not fishy to you??
Begging the question. What's fishy is how you seem to know what was in it.
I'm sad for the astronauts too. Grissom's last words -- "Jesus Christ, if we can't even talk between 3 buildings, how are we going to get to the moon?"
Bollocks! You're not sad, you're playing the troll game. Frustration at early development problems spilled over with simple comms errors.
Answer: Accelerate development by 50% cutting more corners, and cutting out test flights... that seems like the best response.
You know absolutely nothing about this do you? Clearly the bloody Command Module worked in space.
Bean was right
"On Earth, I weighed 150 pounds; my suit and backpack weighed another 150. 300 pounds. Up there, I weighed only 50. So I could prance around on my toes. It was quite easy to do."
Alan Bean
-
The average size of regolith particles is only 1/4th the mass reported by Apollo. This is significantly different and unexpected, and without a good hypothesis to support it.
What the hell would you know?
Their individual size does not make this "size differential" any less vital.
Listen "rookie", you know nothing about this.
And they did gather enough samples to make it fully "statistically representative". There was no shortage on samples here.
Obvious troll is obvious.
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/lunar_sourcebook/pdf/Chapter07.pdf
The formation and evolution of the lunar regolith is a complex process. At any given spot, the nature and history of the regolith is determined by two completely random mechanisms. One is destructive—the excavation of existing regolith by impact craters. "
-
Therefore people should educate you because you must be right in your ignorant claims? There is a heating/freezing, compression/compaction and friction. All over billions of years.
What do you think is "freezing"? That requires water. And heating these materials to 200 F -- what does this accomplish?
With 1 meter of small dust adding every million years ... do you find it odd that the dust layer they reported is only 2-3" thick on average? Followed by a cemented/solid underlayer? I do.
What would cause it to "suddenly harden" so consistently?
Also - this belief that "it would vary greatly" from that paper, doesn't seem to match Apollo either.
No one writing Moon paper dare question Apollo. These professionals need to collect a paycheck, so they simply don't let it cross their mind.
Think about Christian Ministers, who may know of the Biblical flaws -- but they don't talk to their congregation about it. They have a paycheck to worry about.
If a "Moon Studies" guy loses his "credibility" (as they'd term it) - and thus his job -- He's going to be working fast food after that.
So I take their "evidence" more seriously than I do their "Apollo Affirmations" (which are a given).
-
If NASA wanted to fake it, in a similar fashion - they could drop some equipment on the moon... similar to Surveyors. Or use two lunar orbiting satellites -- to produce the effect that they were "on the moon" with continuous comms. It would appear legit, no?
Derrrr - no it wouldn't. The Input signal feeding the lunar response has to be fed in by someone from Earth.
-
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/lunar_sourcebook/pdf/Chapter07.pdf
The formation and evolution of the lunar regolith is a complex process. At any given spot, the nature and history of the regolith is determined by two completely random mechanisms. One is destructive—the excavation of existing regolith by impact craters. "
That randomness is not "geography specific" - it's saying the same randomness exists all over uniformly. Yet our 6 Lunar Mission samples, from many geographies, all had a LOT more in common with each other, by far, than they did with China's samples. Huge discrepancy here, serves as evidence to support MLH.
-
What do you think is "freezing"?
Figure of speech. But, hey, you jump on it.
With 1 meter of small dust adding every million years ... do you find it odd that the dust layer they reported is only 2-3" thick on average? Followed by a cemented/solid underlayer? I do.
You find it odd do you, therefore your complete ignorance on the matter builds an immovable conclusion? I've seen Dunning and Kruger in the past, but you've got it real bad.
What would cause it to "suddenly harden" so consistently?
Define consistently!
Also - this belief that "it would vary greatly" from that paper, doesn't seem to match Apollo either.
Explain thoroughly.
-
Derrrr - no it wouldn't. The Input signal feeding the lunar response has to be fed in by someone from Earth.
That's now how the Russian prank worked. They used the satellite as a "relay". Similar trick could help NASA in their faking efforts, if they would dare to fake it.
-
Derrrr - no it wouldn't. The Input signal feeding the lunar response has to be fed in by someone from Earth.
That's now how the Russian prank worked. They used the satellite as a "relay". Similar trick could help NASA in their faking efforts, if they would dare to fake it.
God, I'm so close now, that ticked another box on HB bingo.
-
Weasel words.
You cherry-picked the little bits that appeals to your fallacious narrative but conveniently ignored the bita where the author said that the landings were not on doubt or questioned.
Why is that?
I see it like this, he said "I showed up and saw the him holding the smoking gun looking at the dead man lying on the floor, but I'm not saying he killed him."
So I shared the first part - "he was holding a smoking gun standing in front of a man freshly shot and bleeding out." And shout "cherry-picking". I'm sharing the pertinent evidence of the article.
More weaselly than a weasel that's just graduated from the University of Weaselling.
You shared the article because you thought it supported your daft claims. Now you are trying to walk it back because part of the article says
we do not doubt the authenticity of the US moon landing,
and
the United States has successfully landed on the moon 6 times, and the landing sites are all over the moon, bringing back a total of 381.7 kg of lunar soil and Moon rock
.
Cherry-picking words is a very common hoax-believers trait. Your ilk has been seen here before and contrary to your exaggerated opinion of your abilities you really are nothing that hasn't been seen a hundred times before.
"Sharing the pertinent parts of the article" is nothing more than saying "I liked these bits but let's not talk about those bits". A common trait amongst the religiously inclined too, I might add.
-
Correct. But this one looks pretty CLEAR.
It drastically undermines the emphasis Apollogist argument that "We couldn't have faked Moon Rocks!"
I explained this to you and you cowardly didn't reply to it.
In fact - this Chinese evidence makes it look pretty obvious that "We DID fake moon rocks, and we did it wrongly."
The Moon Rock argument has now become a fairly strong MLH claim. This graph shows it.
Your ignorance on this matter is showing badly. Your trolling has leapt up a gear. On a subject you clearly have no idea about, you post a pretty picture and suddenly out of your ignorance you conclude that the hoax theory is now "fairly strong"?
I guarantee that najak will not give meaningful replies to any of the above posts including mine, that has specific data related rebuttal. He has proven himself to be just like every other HB who has ever turned up, a great big time waster who is just not going to concede irrefutable things. He will just run away, supply ludicrous replies or continue yelling his claims unabated.
Lets be really generous here and say that 1% of all discovered meteorites turn out to be from the Moon. Now Apollo didn't just bring back rock samples, they also brought back regolith and 3m hammered in core samples - I'm guessing that nobody is dumb enough to suggest they got them from Antarctica.
With me so far Najak? Now it takes time to process rocks to find out their source, certainly not something they would do in the short time they were there.
Apollo brought back a catalogued total of 842lbs of samples. Let's say 800lbs are rocks.
Now to find that amount of rocks from the Moon (and it is by no means guaranteed!), multiply that 800lb amount by 100 (1% are from the Moon) meaning they need to bring back 80,000lbs, all to be verified.
So, send a damn rocket engineer, publicise it, photograph it and tell him he needs to go find 40 tons of rocks on the ground.
No worries though as they can (solve the bloody energy crisis!) by magically irradiating rocks with amongst other isotopes, helium-3! They can also magically impregnate many on the surface with microscopic zap-pits that leave no trace to even basic geologists!
Somewhere along the line they will magically remove the "impossible to miss or remove" terrestrial weathering that alters minerals within the rock. They will magically remove all fusion crusts that are certainly going to be present in arctic conditions and whilst they invisibly do that, remove all signs of internal cracking and heating that are completely and unmissably obvious.
Once this absurd list of things has been done they will send them out to thousands of geologists over 50 years and not one of them will find any fault with any of this.
How many people to do all that totally impossible shite?
As I said in bold.
-
Grissom's last words -- "Jesus Christ, if we can't even talk between 3 buildings, how are we going to get to the moon?"
What do you think is the significance of those words?
You know Grissom had already been to space twice and communicated adequately with mission control on both occasions, right? NASA was developing a completely new unified S-band comms system for Apollo.
Your hoaxnut bingo card is surely nearing completion.
-
Derrrr - no it wouldn't. The Input signal feeding the lunar response has to be fed in by someone from Earth.
That's now how the Russian prank worked. They used the satellite as a "relay". Similar trick could help NASA in their faking efforts, if they would dare to fake it.
No, they did not, and no, it would not.
-
Wow, turning into quite the polymath now, aren't you?
Thomas Baron is a hero.
What happened to his report? It was taken up;
"Mr. WYDLER. Could I suggest that if Mr. Baron has some concluding remarks, or if he would like to submit a statement for the record, that he may be afforded an opportunity? I see you have something before you, and perhaps you would like to put it in.
Mr. BARON. I think I have covered most of it. I have the report that I would like to be submitted as a part of the record, the 500-page report.
Mr. WYDLER. That means printing it. That is something we should leave to the committee, something of that length, whether we want to print it as part of the public documents. We can take it as an exhibit. Whether we will print it as part of the public record is something we should decide after we see it. Is that all right with you?
Mr. BARON. Yes."
It's more than likely in a box somewhere.
As for his witness' that didn't come forward, how about the one he named during his testimony?
"Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Holmburg, are you in the room? (Whereupon, Mervin Holmurg was called before the committee, and, being first duly sworn, was examined and replied as follows:)
Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Holmburg, did you come here of your own free will?
Mr. HOLMBURG. Yes, sir.
...
Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Holmburg, Mr. Baron has testified, as I am sure you know, that you told him that you knew what caused the accident and all about it. Did you ever tell in anything of that nature?
Mr. Holmburg. no, sir.
...
Mr. TEAGUE. Did you ever discuss the cause of the accident in a drugstore with Mr. Baron?
Mr. HOLMBURG. No. I talked to him many times in the drugstore, but that is about it.
Mr. TEAGUE. But you did not say that you and other people know what caused the fire?
Mr. HOLMBURG. No, sir.
Mr. DADDARIO. What was the nature of your conversation with him on those occasions in the drugstore?
Mr. HOLMBURG. Well, Most of them was about his report, why he wrote it and when he wrote it and so forth. Whether he was making progress on it.
Mr. DADDARIO. Did you in any instance while he was relating this to you agree with him as to the difficulties which the Apollo spacecraft had run into and the tragedy that had occurred which would give him any indication that you did have the answer to the problem which caused the fire?
Mr. HOLMBURG. Never.
Mr. DADDARIO. Can you say that with as clear a recollection as possible of the conversation you had with Mr. Baron?
Mr. HOLMBURG. Yes, sir. I bumped into him accidentally almost every time I met him. I told him I shouldn't even be talking with him because of the report he is writing, and he is probably being watched. He gets all his information from anonymous phone calls, people calling him and people dropping him a word here and there. That is what he tells me.
Mr. DADDARIO. What caused you to come here today? We had not scheduled you as a witness. I had no idea; in fact, I can't recall that I ever heard your name before today. What brought you here?
Mr. HOLMBURG. Well, I work right outside the door here, and it is my time to come to work now.
Mr. DADDARIO. Why would you have asked that you might be allowed to testify?
Mr. HOLMBURG. Well, Mr. Baron had brought my name up a couple of times in here, and I thought I should come in here to defend it.
Mr. DADDARIO. You come here for that purpose?
Mr. HOLMBURG. Yes, sir.
Mr. WYDEN. Who told you that?
Mr. HOLMBURG. I can't recall who that was now.
Mr. WYDLER. You mean you can't recall who told you that?
Mr. HOLMBURG. There were several people right outside the door and I overheard it being mentioned.
Mr. SMART. I am Mr. Robert Smart, Assistant to the President of North American Aviation. When Mr. Holmburg's name was injected into this testimony in the manner in which all of you know, I did not feel that we could leave it unanswered at this time, if there was an answer to it, therefore I asked one of our employees here to see if he could find him. He did find him. He asked him to come out in the hall. I told him the accusations which had been made by Mr. Baron. If he wanted to appear and testify under oath, to tell the truth, that he would have an opportunity, and I then came in -- and he said he did want to so testify -- I came in, and I sent that word to Mr. Teague, and you know what has happened from that point to now.
Mr. WYDLER. I do.
...
Mr. WYDLER. Did you ever speak with Mr. Baron about the 012 fire?
Mr. HOLMBURG. Casually, yes.
Mr. WYDLER. What does that mean, "casually?"
Mr. HOLMBURG. He has ideas of what caused the fire. He did most of the talking about it and I listened to speculations on that thing. I never made any comments about what caused it or I never told him exactly what caused it. I was never near the accident when it happened.
Mr. FULTON. Mr. Chairman
Mr. TEAGUE. One question.
Mr. FULTON. You are certain at no time you gave any statement that you had knowledge of the cause of the Apollo 204 accident that killed three astronauts, that you at no time said that they were in the capsule for 5 minutes without getting out, nor that there had been 9 minutes' noticed of a fire and nothing was done about it?
Mr. HOLMBURG. No, sir.
Mr. FULTON. You are absolutely sure?
Mr. HOLMBURG. Yes, sir.
Mr. FULTON. Thank you.
That is all."
Seems like Baron wasn't such a reliable person after all.
China....
Stop listening to Rasa.
Rocks...
Seems like you're an expert on stellar and planetary formation now? I find it amusing that so many of your comments are peppered with 'it doesn't make sense to me' and that your automatic response is 'it must have been a hoax' rather than, what I would expect to be a reasonable response of, 'I guess I don't know everything about everything'.
And as for Professor Korotev, he doesn't agree that we can't tell lunar surface samples from lunar meteorites, for example (source is my personal communication with Professor Korotev);
"The meteorite will also contain some "cosmogenic radionuclides" consistent with being a small body in space that interacted with cosmic rays."
"Cosmic ray people talk about "2-pi" and "4-pi" irradiation. Samples at the surface of a planet experience 2-pi irradiation because it's all from the top down. A small rock in space experiences 4-pi irradiation because it comes from all directions. They can often tell the difference."
-
"Sharing the pertinent parts of the article" is nothing more than saying "I liked these bits but let's not talk about those bits". A common trait amongst the religiously inclined too, I might add.
Shared the facts, but omitted the unsupported opinion. Nothing in that article indicated USA landed; if anything this evidence indicates the opposite.
-
"Sharing the pertinent parts of the article" is nothing more than saying "I liked these bits but let's not talk about those bits". A common trait amongst the religiously inclined too, I might add.
Shared the facts, but omitted the unsupported opinion. Nothing in that article indicated USA landed; if anything this evidence indicates the opposite.
And, of course, you have decided what bits are facts.and what bits aren't ( the bits that don't support your pre-concieced position).
You, Sir, are an intellectual coward
-
What do you think is the significance of those words?
Indicates that as of 1967, we couldn't even do simple things for Apollo. Things had changed. Grissom knew it. Baron knew it. Both said it. Both died. NASA accelerated development by 50% after that, cutting corners and flight tests -- and magically it all worked after that, while they were reducing budget. James Webb and Seamans - two very dominant figures of Apollo, both resigned just before Apollo 8.... they didn't want to be a part of this... stunning that you don't smell any fish here.
-
No, they did not, and no, it would not.
There's no way for those on the ground listening to moon to tell that it's not a relay. How do you think they could tell the difference?
-
Seems like Baron wasn't such a reliable person after all.
Can you smell this damage control. Here is NASA's summation of Baron now.
https://www.nasa.gov/history/Apollo204/barron.html (https://www.nasa.gov/history/Apollo204/barron.html)
Quote: "When the tragedy occurred, Baron was apparently in the process of expanding his 55-page paper into a 500-page report."
This is NASA's Summary. They act like this report had not ever been created. Clearly a lie, as it doesn't match the testimony.
And you don't smell anything fishy...
-
...What is your evidence for the existence of such non-functional components?
Familiar with Theranos? They pulled off a CRIMINAL scam, where the employees had no idea that their product didn't work... for years.. And this was as criminals, with "Need to Know"/NDA's that were only enforceable by Criminals as Civil lawsuits. NASAX employees, military men, Patriots - conducting an operation of deception to BENEFIT the USA. Non-Criminals. Licensed for this type of lie... and their only end deliverable was Perception... A religion. Example: Perception of Heaven is a win for religion. It doesn't have to be real.
So yes, employees doing their best to make something work, hand it off to Integration testing, also real, then onto Systems work -- also real -- but then in the end, those doing "Acceptance testing" just fudge it.. change the "expected results to match the actual results" where they couldn't get it right. Do some recycle -- TRY to get it right.... in the end... it wasn't going to be used for Landing. Doesn't mean they didn't try, and 99% think they succeeded.
I worked for Lockheed-Martin on Sonar detection algorithms -- I have NO IDEA who did System/Acceptance testing... none. Why? Because I didn't have a "Need to Know".. if the entire Seawolf Submarine was faulty -- we didn't know. For Military -- "perception" is key -- and deception is their tool.
So you don't actually have any evidence, you just assert it so your theory can work. Or have you provided evidence in another thread about what was deficient in the LM?
Anyway, according to you the Apollo spacecraft orbited the Moon and never landed. Yet the telemetry indicates they did. Do you know how telemetry determined that the Command Module and Lunar Module weren't together?
Do you seriously believe "we don't really know" about the nature of the Cold War? What about other events in history? World War Two? The Tunguska Event? Caesar's Conquest of Gaul?
We know half-truths, and details -- they didn't just "make it up" - they use "evidence" -- but the end narrative is easily spun. Having "an enemy for a nation" fosters citizen loyalty, and reduces criticisms of govt' spending. So, the "perception of danger/war" is even BETTER than the real deal.... because govt gets the benefits without the real risks.
To presume that the narratives we're told are accurate -- is presumptuous.
Would you call 50,000 dead American soldiers in the Vietnam War merely a "perception of danger/war"? Or is the government lying about that too?
Why would you send a rocket engineer to gather moon rocks?
He went to get rocks... this is known.
You know the deal: evidence please.
Are you going to read the Taylor interview I linked for you (https://web.archive.org/web/20120905025108/http://www.science.org.au/scientists/interviews/t/rt.html)? Or are you going to show some of that integrity you claim for yourself and admit that (a) it's possible for people to know of these differences, and (b) you don't actually know what those differences are?
If you don't have a real sample, how will you know a real specimen? It's just "different". And Moon Rock scientists have no commercial value - their paychecks come from govt. I don't even buy the fact that world leaders from "antagonizing nations" are necessarily enemies... We only know what they "present". To presume you know what's going on behind closed doors at the tippy top, is presumptuous. So I don't lend this much weight as considering the stuff they feed us as "fact".
If you read the Ross Taylor interview I've pointed you towards several times now, you'd be able to answer your own first question (as well as the other question I've asked you from that interview).
I might as well ask another question here: pre-1950, what were the three main hypotheses for the origin of the Moon?
Unfortunately, our only source of information is from govt' funded scientists, possibly hand-selected by NASA.
Government leaders may collude, just as CEO's of competitor companies also try to price-collude... But they are competitors... yet discussions happen behind closed doors.
You're quoting yourself here, not my question. Please answer my question: Evidence please that non-USAnian scientists are funded by the US government.
The scientific papers written about the Apollo rocks are published in science journals, not by NASA. Do you accept I am correct when I say this?
Can you show me where to look? I'd like to see names and institutions. When I looked at the catalog, I wasn't seeing any evidence of "this rock was studied and catalogued by {this 3rd party}." If I'm missing something, please do show.
I've already provided you the link to the Lunar and Planetary Institute website. Very well, here it is:
Go to www.lpi.usra.edu/ > Menu > Resources > Lunar Science and Exploration > Lunar Sample Atlas; scroll down and click on any of the five digit sample numbers; scroll down, and under "Other Information", click on "Lunar Sample Compendium, XXXXX.pdf" (if it's present, not all samples have such a document); open the PDF; scroll down to the end of the PDF where it says "References for XXXXX" to see the scientific articles relating to that sample.
Now, just to be sure, I checked 11 separate samples from all landing missions, and 10 of them had compendiums. I checked the compendiums, and they had between 12 and 30 scientific papers listed on them. Notably, all the compendiums dated between 2009 and 2012, and obviously the papers all pre-date the compendiums. You said: "The signs I see show that there was a huge surge of Regolith samples given out recently, around 2019 and later. Prior to that, not seeing them distributed much to 3rd party labs". Well, read the reference list, and it shows you who the authors were (so you can check where they were working at the time) and where the papers were published.
Do you stand by the claim that I just quoted above? Or do you accept that (a) Apollo samples were tested outside of NASA, (b) Apollo samples were studied in large amounts prior to 2019, and (c) scientific papers relating to the samples were published in journals that were nothing to do with NASA?
1. What was the purpose of the N-1 rocket the Soviets designed and attempted to launch four times?
2. If it was all faked, why didn't the Soviets fake a landing before the Americans?
3. If the Space Race was agreed to be faked by the USA and the USSR, what did the USSR gain from it?
1. Rocket science is good. Also relates to military. Maybe they wanted to see if they could succeed, where we had only faked it. (for example, today's largest rocket, SLS, with more umpf than the SaturnV can only lift 59,000 lbs out of earth's orbit... maybe the N1 theoretically was CAPABLE of doing more than our rockets can today - but failed)
Can you pick a hoax hypothesis and stick to it, please? Your hypothesis up to now was that Apollo could do everything except land on the Moon. Are you now saying the Saturn V was incapable of putting a manned spacecraft into lunar orbit?
2. Not sure the ACTUAL dynamics between Soviets and USA -- or if there was any puppets in USSR. We only know "what they presented" -- the truth can be something else. But we DID validate their rocks -- so that Luna missions were declared a success... that's a small win.
Now how about you answer my actual question: If it was all faked, why didn't the Soviets fake a landing before the Americans?
3. If we really did Land and USSR knew it -- what did they gain from Acknowledgement? They control their OWN MEDIA (Not free press there) - so they could have easily told all of their own citizens "The Americans are Liars" -- Instead they publish America's Apollo victory, via govt controlled press.
This is NOT how you respond to enemies in a war.
You haven't accurately described how the USSR reacted to Apollo 11. First, they acknowledged the success of Apollo 11. Second, they pointed out that manned lunar missions were more expensive and dangerous compared to the USSR's own unmanned sample retriever missions. Third, they said that they didn't have a manned lunar landing program of their own, so the USA was only racing against itself.
The second statement is accurate - manned lunar landings are more expensive and dangerous than unmanned sample retriever missions. However the third statement is inaccurate - the Soviets had a manned lunar landing program, but they couldn't get it to work; and its existence has been public knowledge since the days of Glasnost...if you're old enough to remember that.
In other words, the Soviets knew they couldn't claim Apollo 11 was fake, so they did the next best thing: they used a mixture of truth and lies to downplay the American accomplishment. Propaganda 101.
Just to clarify, because on the face of it this statement is so stupidly wrong that I have to assume you made a mistake, are you claiming that up to 2019, most analysis of the Apollo rocks was performed by NASA staff?
The signs I see show that there was a huge surge of Regolith samples given out recently, around 2019 and later. Prior to that, not seeing them distributed much to 3rd party labs ... where is this evidence?
What signs do you see? Come on, you know how this works: when you make a claim you provide the supporting evidence.
but NOW these samples show average particle size of 35 microns instead of 80!!!... Hmmm,.... maybe it's because China's samples that are real showed this... Next we'll just claim that our measurement process in 1970's was flawed... off by 55%.
https://www.space.com/30450-apollo-moon-soil-samples-disintegrating.html
"The differences between the two datasets are stark. For example, the median particle diameter has decreased from 78 microns (0.0031 inches) to 33 microns (0.0013 inches). And in the original sieve data, 44 percent of soil particles were between 90 and 1,000 microns (0.0035 to 0.039 inches) wide; today, just 17 percent of the particles are that large."
This alone seems like a smoking gun to me. This simply makes no sense that they'd have NO CLUE ABOUT THIS until 2012.
1. What is it a smoking gun of? In other words, according to you, what does it prove?
2. What is your logic process to back this up? And I don't mean (a) the samples degraded, therefore (b) the samples are fake. I'd like you to explain how the degradation is a smoking gun of whatever you think it's a smoking gun of.
When Bush announced "We're going back to the moon" this started an "oh shit campaign" of trying to figure out how to reconcile "Apollo reports" with the more modern studies and conclusions.
I believe the real regolith average size is 35 micron, not 80.. So they can now measure them and say "it's 35! not sure what happened".
So why do you think the original report said 80 microns? Where do you think they got that figure from?
As you seem to believe that samples/rocks have been studied each decade-- why on earth didn't we see this "degradation process" at all? Instead we have 1/5th sized particles! (by mass) -- all in one fell swoop.
I already answered that question in reply #140. Here it is again:
Yes, scientists have been studying the Apollo samples through the decades. Of course, most of the Apollo samples are rocks, and this particular test is a study of soil samples. Do you understand the difference?
Second, just because scientists study samples doesn't mean that every sample is subjected to every possible scientific test. Scientists are specialists, so the tests they conduct on a sample are going to be related to their specialisation. Then they send the sample back to NASA so other scientists can conduct other tests related to their specialisation. If no scientists are interested in performing a certain test on any lunar samples, then that test doesn't get performed.
Therefore, we have two data points for average soil particle size - one collected in 1969 and one in 2012. And that means we have no idea of the shape of the curve between those two years. Therefore, your assertion that the "DEGRADATION" happened "SUDDENLY" isn't supported. (And sorry, but putting those words in caps doesn't give any additional strength to your assertion.)
-
For a start, the delay in transmission. Conversations coming from Earth go twice as far and take twice as long as conversations originating from the moon.
How about you give everyone a precise methodology for the process. My methodology involves launching astronauts to the moon, for which there is a large amount of evidence. You have...?
-
What do you think is the significance of those words?
Indicates that as of 1967, we couldn't even do simple things for Apollo. Things had changed. Grissom knew it. Baron knew it. Both said it. Both died. NASA accelerated development by 50% after that, cutting corners and flight tests -- and magically it all worked after that, while they were reducing budget. James Webb and Seamans - two very dominant figures of Apollo, both resigned just before Apollo 8.... they didn't want to be a part of this... stunning that you don't smell any fish here.
Seamans resigned because (a) he was seven years into a job he intended to take for two years, and (b) his working relationship with Jim Webb broke down in the months after the Apollo 1 fire. You'd know that if you read his biography instead of watching that ridiculous Italian "documentary".
Webb resigned because he was a close associate of Lyndon Johnson, and Johnson wasn't standing in the 1968 election. Neither Humphrey or Nixon would have wanted Webb as NASA Administrator. Again, you'd know this if you paid the slightest attention to actual evidence.
-
No, they did not, and no, it would not.
There's no way for those on the ground listening to moon to tell that it's not a relay. How do you think they could tell the difference?
You seriously reckon the people at Honeysuckle Creek had no idea where the signals came from that they picked up and sent on to Houston? You're going to claim that with a straight face?
-
No, they did not, and no, it would not.
There's no way for those on the ground listening to moon to tell that it's not a relay. How do you think they could tell the difference?
"...as I was the Australian citizen employed by the Australian government responsible for running the operations at the prime Australian tracking site here near Canberra I can vouch for the scientific/engineering fact that we pointed our antenna at the trajectory to, at and from the moon and transmitted and received radio signals containing commands, telemetry, television together with navigation info from antenna angles, Doppler frequencies and two way range delays. Impossible to fake."
– interview with Mike Dinn by Steven Dutch
Tell us all again how you know better than the people doing the actual work.
-
Tell us all again how you know better than the people doing the actual work.
He's definitely paid to speak for NASA. What else could he say (and keep his job)?
What I do know is - a bunch of other stuff that looks very very bad for Apollo. The list is long.
And even Apollo can't make a Flag blow towards the LM with no atmosphere. It's impossible. Something is awry.
-
Tell us all again how you know better than the people doing the actual work.
He's definitely paid to speak for NASA. What else could he say (and keep his job)?
Then present the evidence for this. At the moment, all you've done is claim something that needs to be true in order for you to reconcile what he said with your hoax hypothesis.
-
He's definitely paid to speak for NASA. What else could he say (and keep his job)?
The circular reasoning of a committed HB.
What I do know is
Not an awful lot.
a bunch of other stuff that looks very very bad for Apollo. The list is long.
The list is on HB Bingo.
And even Apollo can't make a Flag blow towards the LM with no atmosphere. It's impossible.
The left edge of the flag is right on the right edge of the TV picture.
Something is awry.
Your troll-like repetition and ignoring:
1. All events occur during depressurisation - you said you were embarrassed not to notice.
2. You have no understanding of how gas is ejected from the LM.
3. You have no understanding of flow in low gravity vacuum.
-
There's no way for those on the ground listening to moon to tell that it's not a relay. How do you think they could tell the difference?
Time delays. Takes time to send the replies up to the Moon.
What exactly are you even claiming here? The EVAs lasted hours, are you saying they voice sync'd them? From where? How did they add current events into this process? IIRC - Geologists interacted with Schmitt on the surface with back and forth dialogue.
Then prove a single thing. The HB bible, "I reckon they did it like this, therefore fake".
-
Tell us all again how you know better than the people doing the actual work.
He's definitely paid to speak for NASA. What else could he say (and keep his job)?
Oh, and once again, how about you pick a hoax hypothesis and stick to it? Remember how earlier you said:
There's no way for those on the ground listening to moon to tell that it's not a relay.
So which is it? They can't tell, or they can but they're lying?
You're just a conclusion in search of supporting evidence.
-
Then present the evidence for this. At the moment, all you've done is claim something that needs to be true in order for you to reconcile what he said with your hoax hypothesis.
When it comes to claims by people with vested interest - we should NOT consider their claims as particularly meaningful. Your theory rests on this guy's claim. My doesn't. I claim "uncertainty" as should you and others.
And so I stick look at the things where it doesn't involve a person with vested interest making statements.
To me, the substantial difference in Chinese samples (1/4th the size-in-weight of Apollo's average particle size, and the immense difference in composition) - is more meaningful than the words of various spoke people, who of course are going to proclaim NASA's truth. Just like every Christian minister will tell you Jesus rose from the Dead and is the Only Way to Heaven -- even though this is provably problematic at best.
So I look for the dull facts.... and the instances of breaking physics -- like Flags blowing towards the LM with no atmosphere, and no physical way for this to happen, among a LIST OF THINGS - of which LunarOrbit will not let me talk about... because he doesn't like to see these "non-debunked" points.
-
There's no way for those on the ground listening to moon to tell that it's not a relay. How do you think they could tell the difference?
Time delays. Takes time to send the replies up to the Moon.
If the Astronauts are hearing CAPCOM in real-time, they could respond immediately -- which approximates the delay perfectly. No?
-
Oh, and once again, how about you pick a hoax hypothesis and stick to it? Remember how earlier you said:
There's no way for those on the ground listening to moon to tell that it's not a relay.
So which is it? They can't tell, or they can but they're lying?
You're just a conclusion in search of supporting evidence.
When you see Apollo Break Physics, along with other damning evidence--- and notice something is awry -- all you can do is hypothesize.
So we start with "Apollo cannot break physics", along with MUCH OTHER STUFF that I am not allowed to go into here in a meaningful way -- one topic per thread....
Then you look for a way to make this puzzle fit together.... where physics is not being broken, and 500-page reports go missing for good reason, not just "oops, ... it's in a box."
-
Oh, and once again, how about you pick a hoax hypothesis and stick to it? Remember how earlier you said:
There's no way for those on the ground listening to moon to tell that it's not a relay.
So which is it? They can't tell, or they can but they're lying?
You're just a conclusion in search of supporting evidence.
When you see Apollo Break Physics, along with other damning evidence--- and notice something is awry -- all you can do is hypothesize.
So we start with "Apollo cannot break physics", along with MUCH OTHER STUFF that I am not allowed to go into here in a meaningful way -- one topic per thread....
Then you look for a way to make this puzzle fit together.... where physics is not being broken, and 500-page reports go missing for good reason, not just "oops, ... it's in a box."
PHYSICS IS NOT BEING BROKEN.
-
There's no way for those on the ground listening to moon to tell that it's not a relay. How do you think they could tell the difference?
Time delays. Takes time to send the replies up to the Moon.
If the Astronauts are hearing CAPCOM in real-time, they could respond immediately -- which approximates the delay perfectly. No?
In order for that to work you would need to break physics.
-
Oh, and once again, how about you pick a hoax hypothesis and stick to it? Remember how earlier you said:
There's no way for those on the ground listening to moon to tell that it's not a relay.
So which is it? They can't tell, or they can but they're lying?
You're just a conclusion in search of supporting evidence.
When you see Apollo Break Physics, along with other damning evidence--- and notice something is awry -- all you can do is hypothesize.
So we start with "Apollo cannot break physics", along with MUCH OTHER STUFF that I am not allowed to go into here in a meaningful way -- one topic per thread....
Then you look for a way to make this puzzle fit together.... where physics is not being broken, and 500-page reports go missing for good reason, not just "oops, ... it's in a box."
Chinese scientists have a vested interest in their results. Find us one that says "...therefore Apollo is fake".
-
What do you think is the significance of those words?
Indicates that as of 1967, we couldn't even do simple things for Apollo. Things had changed. Grissom knew it. Baron knew it. Both said it. Both died. NASA accelerated development by 50% after that, cutting corners and flight tests -- and magically it all worked after that, while they were reducing budget. James Webb and Seamans - two very dominant figures of Apollo, both resigned just before Apollo 8.... they didn't want to be a part of this... stunning that you don't smell any fish here.
Why did Webb decide to step down from NASA? I'll leave you to find out.
BTW - it was after Webb had authorised re-designating Apollo 8 as a circumlunar mission.
And, yeah, a lot of the development for Apollo had already occurred. That's why the cost of the program fell after 1966. The Saturn V first flew in November 1967. NASA spending from 1967-1972 was still huge compared to what they spend now.
-
Then present the evidence for this. At the moment, all you've done is claim something that needs to be true in order for you to reconcile what he said with your hoax hypothesis.
When it comes to claims by people with vested interest - we should NOT consider their claims as particularly meaningful. Your theory rests on this guy's claim. My doesn't. I claim "uncertainty" as should you and others.
And so I stick look at the things where it doesn't involve a person with vested interest making statements.
To me, the substantial difference in Chinese samples (1/4th the size-in-weight of Apollo's average particle size, and the immense difference in composition) - is more meaningful than the words of various spoke people, who of course are going to proclaim NASA's truth. Just like every Christian minister will tell you Jesus rose from the Dead and is the Only Way to Heaven -- even though this is provably problematic at best.
So I look for the dull facts.... and the instances of breaking physics -- like Flags blowing towards the LM with no atmosphere, and no physical way for this to happen, among a LIST OF THINGS - of which LunarOrbit will not let me talk about... because he doesn't like to see these "non-debunked" points.
Even if you prove you're right about the flag (and I haven't seen that), all you've done is prove that piece of video alone was fake. That doesn't prove all of Apollo was fake. A Photoshopped wedding photo isn't proof the wedding was fake.
Finally, I'd remind you to read the Taylor interview, but I suppose now you've settled on the explanation that everyone who has ever provided verbal evidence in support of Apollo is lying?
-
#1: Even if you prove you're right about the flag (and I haven't seen that), all you've done is prove that piece of video alone was fake. That doesn't prove all of Apollo was fake. A Photoshopped wedding photo isn't proof the wedding was fake.
#2: Finally, I'd remind you to read the Taylor interview, but I suppose now you've settled on the explanation that everyone who has ever provided verbal evidence in support of Apollo is lying?
#1: Correct - it only proves that they faked this footage. Here it's a simple setup - with no explanations for the behavior. Nothing can PULL this flag towards the LM in the ways that it was done, for the timing and subtle/steady nature of it all -- there was no "chaos factor" possible because of the steadiness and duration of it's appearances.
#2: I take interviews and claims of lone people in the spotlight with huge grains of salt - esp. when it comes to Apollo.
I've seen too much contrary evidence. The 8-flags is the SIMPLEST OF THOSE - to help others SEE IT...
The missing 500-page Baron report - which they pretend now "never existed", is very damning. Why would they pretend now that it did not exist?
Quote: “When the tragedy occurred, Baron was apparently in the process of expanding his 55-page paper into a 500-page report.”
-
it was after Webb had authorised re-designating Apollo 8 as a circumlunar mission.
You assumption is that Webb approved of this sudden last-minute change without compulsion?
He also quit just a few months after RFK was shot -- who likely would have won the election. RFK was honest though - this is a problem. JFK was too... also a problem. Webb was done with it. Same for Seamans. They "documented excuses" can't say "because they were faking Apollo, and killing off Kennedys, throwing away 500-page reports, and I was done with it... "
Nothing fishy here?
Nixon was a good liar - perfect candidate. Same for Johnson (who approved the knowingly false Gulf of Tonkin lie to send 2 million young men off to war - to satisfy our war machine).
I look at a bigger picture here, and smell fish.
-
PHYSICS IS NOT BEING BROKEN.
Except it is. 8-flag motions in very simple context. The 4 pushes towards the LM -- unexplained -- in simple context. Physics broken.
-
#1: Even if you prove you're right about the flag (and I haven't seen that), all you've done is prove that piece of video alone was fake. That doesn't prove all of Apollo was fake. A Photoshopped wedding photo isn't proof the wedding was fake.
#2: Finally, I'd remind you to read the Taylor interview, but I suppose now you've settled on the explanation that everyone who has ever provided verbal evidence in support of Apollo is lying?
#1: Correct - it only proves that they faked this footage. Here it's a simple setup - with no explanations for the behavior. Nothing can PULL this flag towards the LM in the ways that it was done, for the timing and subtle/steady nature of it all -- there was no "chaos factor" possible because of the steadiness and duration of it's appearances.
Well, I can think of a pretty straightforward explanation. But I'm going to read the relevant thread first and do some research to see if it works in the circumstances.
#2: I take interviews and claims of lone people in the spotlight with huge grains of salt - esp. when it comes to Apollo.
Well, that's why I asked you to state what the three pre-Apollo hypotheses were for the formation of the Moon, and why I've specifically asked you to answer a question from the Taylor interview. Trust me, they're relevant.
I've seen too much contrary evidence. The 8-flags is the SIMPLEST OF THOSE - to help others SEE IT...
The missing 500-page Baron report - which they pretend now "never existed", is very damning. Why would they pretend now that it did not exist?
Quote: “When the tragedy occurred, Baron was apparently in the process of expanding his 55-page paper into a 500-page report.”
Who is "they"?
-
PHYSICS IS NOT BEING BROKEN.
Except it is. 8-flag motions in very simple context. The 4 pushes towards the LM -- unexplained -- in simple context. Physics broken.
The simplest explanation is that it is your interpretation that is broken, not physics. Even if the other members were unable to explain it, that doesn't mean there is no reasonable explanation at all.
-
The simplest explanation is that it is your interpretation that is broken, not physics. Even if the other members were unable to explain it, that doesn't mean there is no reasonable explanation at all.
Given the simple setup here - no atmosphere, nothing to push it towards the LM. This is a very simple physics context.
I'll happily reduce this to "seemingly breaks physics, with no existing viable physics hypothesis to explain these movements".
Please let me post more items for discussion. Maybe some of the stuff still-in-my-head can justifiably be contested.
-
#1: Well, I can think of a pretty straightforward explanation. But I'm going to read the relevant thread first and do some research to see if it works in the circumstances.
#2: Well, that's why I asked you to state what the three pre-Apollo hypotheses were for the formation of the Moon, and why I've specifically asked you to answer a question from the Taylor interview. Trust me, they're relevant.
#3: Who is "they"?
#1: Awesome, I can't wait to hear your response. Maybe you can ask LunarOrbit to re-open this thread, and remove his damning/inaccurate final statements about me not being willing to address the counter claims.
#2: I'll put this on my list.. Please send me the link, and maybe give me a couple highlights, so that I can maximize the value I get from this time spent.
#3: "They" is NASA.
Here is the NASA summation of Baron:
https://www.nasa.gov/history/Apollo204/barron.html (https://www.nasa.gov/history/Apollo204/barron.html)
And here is the congressional testimony transcript, look for "500":
https://www.nasa.gov/history/Apollo204/baron.htm (https://www.nasa.gov/history/Apollo204/baron.htm)
Near the end.
I find this to be horrific, that NASA is pretending that this 500-page report never existed!... It's perhaps one of the more damaging pieces of evidence against them, and the corruption involved with Apollo.
1960's was a very corrupt period in time for USA Politics.
1. Two Kennedy's assassinated - the most honest of candidates.
2. Bay of Pigs
3. Gulk of Tonkin -> fake evidence, known to be fake - justifying 2 million drafted, and 250K dead, others screwed up for life -- for Military Machine profits?
4. Vietnam - reporting total sham -- Daniel Ellsberg leaks it, else we may have never known.
5. Apollo... yeah, this one was 100% real.
-
I find this to be horrific, that NASA is pretending that this 500-page report never existed!... It's perhaps one of the more damaging pieces of evidence against them, and the corruption involved with Apollo.
First you will need to demonstrate that any "pretending" is taking place. Did the person who wrote the description on the page read the testimony? Were they working off notes given to them?
Better yet, have you tried emailing the link at the bottom of the page and advising of the error? This group has shown several times that people are quite often ready to receive updated information and make changes when needed (per other threads where people have contaced other webpages and/or magazines)
-
I find this to be horrific, that NASA is pretending that this 500-page report never existed!... It's perhaps one of the more damaging pieces of evidence against them, and the corruption involved with Apollo.
1960's was a very corrupt period in time for USA Politics.
Irrelevant nonsense snipped
How do you know this? Have you seen this report? On what basis do you make this claim?
-
First you will need to demonstrate that any "pretending" is taking place. Did the person who wrote the description on the page read the testimony? Were they working off notes given to them?
Better yet, have you tried emailing the link at the bottom of the page and advising of the error? This group has shown several times that people are quite often ready to receive updated information and make changes when needed (per other threads where people have contaced other webpages and/or magazines)
Give it a shot -- see if you can get it changed -- or more likely, they'll just remove the "conflicting testimony" which looks very bad for Apollo.
-
How do you know this? Have you seen this report? On what basis do you make this claim?
Read the transcript. He SUBMITTED IT TO THEM, and they said they'd review it. None of his source materials or other copies ever found. Totally gone.
And nothing smells fishy to anyone else here but me?
-
Read the transcript. He SUBMITTED IT TO THEM, and they said they'd review it. None of his source materials or other copies ever found. Totally gone.
And nothing smells fishy to anyone else here but me?
Your claim was -
I find this to be horrific, that NASA is pretending that this 500-page report never existed!... It's perhaps one of the more damaging pieces of evidence against them, and the corruption involved with Apollo.
Would you mind showing Baron's testimony about the "corruption involved with Apollo"? My recollection is that the report was based on activities at NAA (and remember, most of this information was received via 'tips' and anonymously, rarely witnessed by Baron himself), not NASA, given Baron was an employee of NAA. In addition, don't forget that the reports were mentioned by the committee, which acknowledgement that NAA agreed with some of the findings, seems a strange way to hide something.
And, on the side, you're the one taking issue with how a page, last updated in 2003 apparently, describes events almost 40 years earlier, so it would be on you to contact them with the appropriate details, don't you agree?
-
Read the transcript. He SUBMITTED IT TO THEM, and they said they'd review it. None of his source materials or other copies ever found. Totally gone.
And nothing smells fishy to anyone else here but me?
Something smells and it's bovine orientated.
https://www.clavius.org/baron.html
"Thomas Baron's report was especially damning to NASA?
If anything it was especially damning to North American, not to NASA. The 58-page report (which has survived) does not bring any allegations against NASA, therefore it's unsupportable to assume the longer report (which has not survived) necessarily would have.
The investigation after the fire pitted North American against NASA. If either one of them appeared clearly at fault, the other would likely be exonerated. NASA charged that NAA had been negligent in building the spacecraft and filling it with flammable items. NAA charged that NASA demanded far too many changes in the design without giving NAA time to accommodate them, and unsafely operated the spacecraft with a high-pressure oxygen environment, and that the flammable items had been demanded by NASA's astronauts and therefore could not be easily refused.
If anything, NASA would have wanted Baron's report to be given special attention because it outlined lax safety procedures on the part of North American alone, exonerating NASA. NASA had previously questioned the effectiveness of North American's development program. Although this seems callous to think this way, NASA would have been motivated to pin the blame on North American, and Baron's report would have helped that."
-
How do you know this? Have you seen this report? On what basis do you make this claim?
Read the transcript. He SUBMITTED IT TO THEM, and they said they'd review it. None of his source materials or other copies ever found. Totally gone.
And nothing smells fishy to anyone else here but me?
So you have never seen this report?
So how exactly did you reach the conclusion that this "report" was one of the more damaging pieces of evidence against them, and the corruption involved with Apollo.
?
Surely you didn't just pull this outrageous claim out of your arse did you? Surely not?
-
#1: so it would be on you to contact them with the appropriate details, don't you agree?
#2: Would you mind showing Baron's testimony about the "corruption involved with Apollo"?
#1: These are your kinsmen, you should police your own.
No matter, I sent them an email. See if they respond.
#2: Baron reported the "corruption of QA" within NASA -- even so poorly done at the "end of the pipeline" for the CSM itself.. So the QA/QC of Apollo was highly corrupted. And we have no record of any attempts to contact any names listed in his 500-page report -- which remains missing, and never mentioned again... as though it had never existed -- SAME as reported by the NASA site summary.
=== Corruptions he reported - because many of these are inexcusable for the mission they were claiming to be doing =====
Lack of coordination between people in responsible positions.
Lack of communication between almost everyone.
The fact that people in responsible positions did not take many of the problems seriously.
Engineers operating equipment instead of technical people.
Many technicians do not know their job. This is partly due to the fact that they are constantly shifted from one job to another.
People are lax when it comes to safety.
People are lax when it comes to maintaining cleanliness levels.
We do not make a large enough effort to enforce the PQCP.
People do not get an official tie-in time period.
We do not maintain proper work and systems records.
NAA does not give the working force a feeling of accomplishment.
There is not one procedure that I can remember that was completed without a deviation, either written or oral.
Allowing ill practices to continue when the Company is aware of them.
The constant transfer of QC and technical types of people to different types of tasks. Many of the techs will tell the QC man that they have never done that type of job before, or used that type of equipment before. This is one of the most prevalent problems NAA has.
-
#1: So you have never seen this report?
#2: Surely you didn't just pull this outrageous claim out of your arse did you? Surely not?
#1: Thanks to govt/NASA and Baron's freak accident death - NO ONE got to see this report, nor ever will.
#2: It's clear from his summation of it:
Mr. BARON. I have a 500-page report. I have an opening statement which I wanted to read, which described this 500-page report, and in this I think you can get all the possible names that there are, the times, the dates, the tests that were being run and the internal letters of the company, proper specifications, especially in regard to flamability of materials. All this is in this new report.
===
You are denigrating someone whom you should probably be honoring.
-
If anything, NASA would have wanted Baron's report to be given special attention because it outlined lax safety procedures on the part of North American alone, exonerating NASA.
I AGREE - this is how it SHOULD have been. But NASA made no deal of it, nor did anyone. Their response was to accelerate development 50%... not slow down, or figure out how to fix these very deep-rooted issues at the bottom levels.
Smell the fish?
-
#1: So you have never seen this report?
#2: Surely you didn't just pull this outrageous claim out of your arse did you? Surely not?
#1: Thanks to govt/NASA and Baron's freak accident death - NO ONE got to see this report, nor ever will.
#2: It's clear from his summation of it:
Mr. BARON. I have a 500-page report. I have an opening statement which I wanted to read, which described this 500-page report, and in this I think you can get all the possible names that there are, the times, the dates, the tests that were being run and the internal letters of the company, proper specifications, especially in regard to flamability of materials. All this is in this new report.
===
You are denigrating someone whom you should probably be honoring.
So you made your outrageous claim based on nothing other than a sentence from the reports author? I find it so predictable that you demand a high standard of proof from others yet you are willing to blindly accept a narrative as verbatim as long as it aligns with your belief.
You do know what confirmation bias is, don't you?
You simply have no idea what this so-called report contains. It could be nothing more than pages of rantings and nonsense (much like the increasingly tedious threads of yours). You cannot claim ANYTHING about it other than it was claimed to have been submitted.
Again, standard hoax-believers nonsense. Fabricating a claim out of whole cloth. You should be embarrassed, but I know that you won't.
-
So you made your outrageous claim based on nothing other than a sentence from the reports author?
Seems you haven't read any of this.. Please do, before commenting more.
Here's his shorter-report which contains MANY details to start with. He said the 500-page report is simply more specific. Once Apollo 1 happened, it emboldened more people still on the inside to provide him "specifics", since he had been fired and no longer had this access.
58 page, 1st report:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uqfadpD3mprmLyWdXV8R4izOEbkcJabM/view?usp=drive_link (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uqfadpD3mprmLyWdXV8R4izOEbkcJabM/view?usp=drive_link)
Summation -- read to the bottom - gives a summation of hwat was in his 59 page report:
https://www.nasa.gov/history/Apollo204/barron.html (https://www.nasa.gov/history/Apollo204/barron.html)
And the transcript from the hearing:
https://www.nasa.gov/history/Apollo204/baron.htm (https://www.nasa.gov/history/Apollo204/baron.htm)
This guy deserves some honor and respect.
And his convenient freak accident -- smells more than just fishy.
(and the 500-page report - gone missing. NASA didn't even seem interested...)
No other signs of his research from his home were recovered... Do you think he gave them his only copy?? Yet his own copy and source materials -- also gone.
List of names -- never mentioned again. He tried to read them into the hearing transcript - but never got to.
Fishy, fishy, fishy, -- no?
-
So you made your outrageous claim based on nothing other than a sentence from the reports author?
Seems you haven't read any of this.. Please do, before commenting more.
Here's his shorter-report which contains MANY details to start with. He said the 500-page report is simply more specific. Once Apollo 1 happened, it emboldened more people still on the inside to provide him "specifics", since he had been fired and no longer had this access.
58 page, 1st report:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uqfadpD3mprmLyWdXV8R4izOEbkcJabM/view?usp=drive_link (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uqfadpD3mprmLyWdXV8R4izOEbkcJabM/view?usp=drive_link)
Summation -- read to the bottom - gives a summation of hwat was in his 59 page report:
https://www.nasa.gov/history/Apollo204/barron.html (https://www.nasa.gov/history/Apollo204/barron.html)
And the transcript from the hearing:
https://www.nasa.gov/history/Apollo204/baron.htm (https://www.nasa.gov/history/Apollo204/baron.htm)
This guy deserves some honor and respect.
And his convenient freak accident -- smells more than just fishy.
(and the 500-page report - gone missing. NASA didn't even seem interested...)
No other signs of his research from his home were recovered... Do you think he gave them his only copy?? Yet his own copy and source materials -- also gone.
List of names -- never mentioned again. He tried to read them into the hearing transcript - but never got to.
Fishy, fishy, fishy, -- no?
I'm not talking about Baron, I'm talking about YOU.
You are making a claim based on a report that you freely admit that you haven't seen. In other words your opinion is based on nothing ore than a desire that the report contains something.
That is called, at best, wishful thinking. You don't have the intellectual honesty to say as much.
-
I'm not talking about Baron, I'm talking about YOU.
You are making a claim based on a report that you freely admit that you haven't seen. In other words your opinion is based on nothing ore than a desire that the report contains something.
That is called, at best, wishful thinking. You don't have the intellectual honesty to say as much.
Have you read this testimony or 59-page report, or summation?
From the testimony - the nature of the 500-page report is CLEARLY described by Baron:
Mr. BARON. I have sent to the chairman of this committee a more thorough report which includes all the names.
...
Mr. BARON. No, sir. You are talking about the 55-page report. I am talking about the 500-page report.
Mr. TEAGUE. Your report went to the chairman of the full committee, not to me. He told me he received it.
Mr. BARON. I have a 500-page report. I have an opening statement which I wanted to read, which described this 500-page report, and in this I think you can get all the possible names that there are, the times, the dates, the tests that were being run and the internal letters of the company, proper specifications, especially in regard to flamability of materials. All this is in this new report.
Went missing. NASA site declares that it didn't even exist yet. I thought Apollogists didn't need to lie....
-
I'm not talking about Baron, I'm talking about YOU.
You are making a claim based on a report that you freely admit that you haven't seen. In other words your opinion is based on nothing ore than a desire that the report contains something.
That is called, at best, wishful thinking. You don't have the intellectual honesty to say as much.
Have you read this testimony or 59-page report, or summation?
From the testimony - the nature of the 500-page report is CLEARLY described by Baron:
Mr. BARON. I have sent to the chairman of this committee a more thorough report which includes all the names.
...
Mr. BARON. No, sir. You are talking about the 55-page report. I am talking about the 500-page report.
Mr. TEAGUE. Your report went to the chairman of the full committee, not to me. He told me he received it.
Mr. BARON. I have a 500-page report. I have an opening statement which I wanted to read, which described this 500-page report, and in this I think you can get all the possible names that there are, the times, the dates, the tests that were being run and the internal letters of the company, proper specifications, especially in regard to flamability of materials. All this is in this new report.
Went missing. NASA site declares that it didn't even exist yet. I thought Apollogists didn't need to lie....
You really are quite slow on the uptake.
You
Have
No
Idea
What's
In
This
Report.
All you have is a quote from the author. It *may* contain real information. It *may* contain nothing but hearsay from people with an axe to grind. It *may* contain the ramblings of a confabulist.
You simply do not know, yet are continuing to bang your drum as if it absolutely contains something revelatory. You simply cannot say what's in that report. Neither can you asses the veracity of whatever claims are in there. All you can say is "we simply don't know".
For all your bluster you are EXACTLY like every other hoax-believer. Desperate to believe anything that you think shows a knock-out blow. I asked you to show how this "report" can support your claim that it contains one of the more damaging pieces of evidence against them, and the corruption involved with Apollo.
. You cannot, simply because you do not have access to it.
Again, you have demonstrated that you are a fantasist.
-
Again, you have demonstrated that you are a fantasist.
First you say I have no idea what's in the report. Now you just say, "how do you know it's true?"
What we do KNOW:
1. Baron provided a very damning 59 page report... and even management called it "partly true". So not just hot air.
2. Apollo 1 happened, for the very CSM that his team/company was working on.
3. Baron submitted his 500-page expanded report with "specifics/names/details" - and that it went entirely missing.
4. Baron's family killed late at night by a one-car train with no witnesses, 6 days after giving testimony and report.
5. We have no more record of follow-up on any of these "specifics" ... zero.
6. NASA responded to this QA/QC tragedy by increasing their development rate ~50%... reducing a 3 years schedule to 2 years.
And you smell no fish?
-
@LunarOrbit - I think Thomas Baron deserves his own thread here. Even the NASA site authors didn't seem to know the actual details.
-
=== Corruptions he reported - because many of these are inexcusable for the mission they were claiming to be doing =====
Lack of coordination between people in responsible positions.
Lack of communication between almost everyone.
The fact that people in responsible positions did not take many of the problems seriously.
Engineers operating equipment instead of technical people.
Many technicians do not know their job. This is partly due to the fact that they are constantly shifted from one job to another.
People are lax when it comes to safety.
People are lax when it comes to maintaining cleanliness levels.
We do not make a large enough effort to enforce the PQCP.
People do not get an official tie-in time period.
We do not maintain proper work and systems records.
NAA does not give the working force a feeling of accomplishment.
There is not one procedure that I can remember that was completed without a deviation, either written or oral.
Allowing ill practices to continue when the Company is aware of them.
The constant transfer of QC and technical types of people to different types of tasks. Many of the techs will tell the QC man that they have never done that type of job before, or used that type of equipment before. This is one of the most prevalent problems NAA has.
Sorry, you said "corruptions" then spouted of a list of inefficiencies and poor practices that can be found in any government bureaucracy or private business, and having spent over 20 years with the same company, I can honestly say I've seen every item on that list occur.
So, where is this "corruption" you spoke of?
And as you crow about how great Baron was, should we remind you of what the person he named at the hearing said? Sure, let's do that;
Mr. HOLMBURG. He has ideas of what caused the fire. He did most of the talking about it and I listened to speculations on that thing. I never made any comments about what caused it or I never told him exactly what caused it. I was never near the accident when it happened.
Mr. FULTON. Mr. Chairman
Mr. TEAGUE. One question.
Mr. FULTON. You are certain at no time you gave any statement that you had knowledge of the cause of the Apollo 204 accident that killed three astronauts, that you at no time said that they were in the capsule for 5 minutes without getting out, nor that there bad been 9 minutes' noticed of a fire and nothing was done about it?
Mr. HOLMBURG. No, sir.
Mr. FULTON. You are absolutely sure?
Mr. HOLMBURG. Yes, sir.
Remember, Holmburg is the one that Baron claimed told him he knew exactly how the fire occurred, yet Holmburg, under oath, quite clearly states the opposite.
-
Again, you have demonstrated that you are a fantasist.
First you say I have no idea what's in the report. Now you just say, "how do you know it's true?"
What we do KNOW:
1. Baron provided a very damning 59 page report... and even management called it "partly true". So not just hot air.
2. Apollo 1 happened, for the very CSM that his team/company was working on.
3. Baron submitted his 500-page expanded report with "specifics/names/details" - and that it went entirely missing.
4. Baron's family killed late at night by a one-car train with no witnesses, 6 days after giving testimony and report.
5. We have no more record of follow-up on any of these "specifics" ... zero.
6. NASA responded to this QA/QC tragedy by increasing their development rate ~50%... reducing a 3 years schedule to 2 years.
And you smell no fish?
Crack on, lad. You keep on insisting that a report that youve never seen is somehow damning. SMDH
-
Najak seems to have the idea that everyone involved with Apollo downed tools and stopped work while the board of inquiry deliberated. This is not the case, as can be seen in these 'in house' publications
https://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/roundup.html
If he cares to read the relevant ones, he'll also find that recommendations were made and acted upon.
Apollo didn't somehow achieve a magic 50% improvement. It continued with its intended aim: landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth before the decade was out.
-
#1: Could you quantify how much different? I'm not understanding the value of "way different".
#2: Do you believe I could credibly claim the Earth has been faked if I were able to show that rock samples from one part of the world are measurably different from rock samples taken hundreds of miles away?
#1: Did you not see the pie graphs in the chart I posted from that Chinese paper? One is for Apollo, the other is for Chang'e 5.
Sorry, I was away this weekend and am just catching up now.
#1. Yes, I saw the pie graphs and the chart. I'm not a geologist and neither are you. What's missing is some kind of range of acceptable norms. I don't know how much variance should be expected, and I'm very certain you don't either. All this shows there is some difference, but there is no indication of whether it is something significant.
If this is "way different" than the expected range of variance, to use your technical jargon, I'm curious as to why the study is titled, "Extraterrestrial photosynthesis by Chang’E-5 lunar soil" and not something more like, "Holy shit, Apollo rocks were faked!" It doesn't seem like the professionals who conducted the study have reached the same conclusion you did about their data. What do you think the reason for that is?
So why link to the article and use it to prop up your claim if you are unable to verify the veracity of it?
Because it looks accurate/neutral/factual so I present it. If it's wrong, then it gets challenged, and we reassess. Do you want to challenge it? I will accept your challenges if you have them. If I were to stake my claim ahead, "I KNOW THIS ARTICLE IS FACTUAL" - that would be quite dumb of me. So I don't. This is how honest debates go - sometimes you think a claim/source is credible, but later find out it is not.
No, no, no, no, no! This is not how "honest debates go". If something "looks" accurate/neutral/factual to you, then you vet and verify it to be sure that it is, in fact, accurate and factual. Once you have subjected it to enough scrutiny yourself, and documented the ways you verified it, only then should it be presented as fact. We all make errors, so sometimes something that is vetted may still be discovered to be faulty, but that is only legitimate when a thorough investigation has already been performed by the claimant. No one in an honest discussion has the burden of being your research assistant. It is your responsibility to ensure that the material you present is as accurate as possible before presenting it.
Your method is just throwing things against the wall to see if it sticks, and then declaring victory if someone doesn't have a thoroughly documented and verified rebuttal ready. It is lazy and dishonest and has nothing to do with actual research or debate. I have told you variations of this several times already. When are you going to learn?
-
@LunarOrbit - I think Thomas Baron deserves his own thread here. Even the NASA site authors didn't seem to know the actual details.
If you ask me to allow you to start a new threads one more time you will be banned until the new year. I'm not spending my holiday babysitting you.
Grow up and defend the claims you have already made, or retract them.
-
Najak seems to have the idea that everyone involved with Apollo downed tools and stopped work while the board of inquiry deliberated. This is not the case, as can be seen in these 'in house' publications
https://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/roundup.html
If he cares to read the relevant ones, he'll also find that recommendations were made and acted upon.
Apollo didn't somehow achieve a magic 50% improvement. It continued with its intended aim: landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth before the decade was out.
IIRC, they were already working on the Block II Command Module, so it's not like they were starting from scratch.
-
Remember, Holmburg is the one that Baron claimed told him he knew exactly how the fire occurred, yet Holmburg, under oath, quite clearly states the opposite.
... or Holmburg just knew how to stay alive and keep his job... This seems very likely to me.
If Baron was killed, and his 500-page report discarded -- this casts extreme doubt upon the neutrality/sincerity of this Congressional hearing.
The evidence indicates they wanted to bury this... and so they did -- Baron, wife, daughter, and 500-page report with names and specifics.
And you don't smell the fish?
-
Remember, Holmburg is the one that Baron claimed told him he knew exactly how the fire occurred, yet Holmburg, under oath, quite clearly states the opposite.
... or Holmburg just knew how to stay alive and keep his job... This seems very likely to me.
If Baron was killed, and his 500-page report discarded -- this casts extreme doubt upon the neutrality/sincerity of this Congressional hearing.
The evidence indicates they wanted to bury this... and so they did -- Baron, wife, daughter, and 500-page report with names and specifics.
And you don't smell the fish?
Hey, I've got an idea. Why don't you shut up with your gish gallup unsupported opinion and start answering tabled issues? I smell bullshit and you won't get much change from people used to seeing the same pathetic claims and the same behaviour from HBs.
His 59 page report points the finger at NAA and all you are doing is playing desk chair Columbo with a Cluedo set.
-
#1: Najak seems to have the idea that everyone involved with Apollo downed tools and stopped work...
#2: Apollo didn't somehow achieve a magic 50% improvement. It continued with its intended aim: landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth before the decade was out.
#1: NASA was under political pressure of cancellation. Future uncertain... it became a viable question of "throwing more good money after badly spent money..."
If Baron's reports would have become more publicized, it might have lead to more investigations of MORE of the sub-contractors... because if it looks THIS-UGLY at the very end of the production chain -- and WASN'T KNOWN - this indicates problems elsewhere. If you see some roaches, you assume you likely have a bug problem.
For NASA to continue - they needed this 500-page report and Baron to be gone.
#2: Yes, they did change their pace of development by 50% by cutting-corners... and they all declared it was crazy and shouldn't be done. They did it anyways, and pooof, it was magical.
Here's Alan Bean giving a first hand account.. "That's Crazy! You can't do that!
https://youtu.be/Qr6Vcvl0OeU?t=1211 (https://youtu.be/Qr6Vcvl0OeU?t=1211)
Bean's monologue here:
We’re gonna put them all together and test them all at once! Because we’ve run out of time and we want to get to the moon by the end of the decade. And people thought that was a CRAZY IDEA! People said “No way! It’s too many unknowns! We couldn’t possibly do that! There’s no way!”
George Miller kept saying, “If we want to get to the moon by the end of the decade, we’re going to HAVE to do this. And I can remember when that was proposed, I thought it was a really crazy idea. Not a very good idea. Looking back, it was a great idea.
Now, Von Braun might have been in favor of it, or he might not. But I’m sure if we asked him after it was all done he would have said, “What a great a idea! We never thought of that when we began.”
And that compressed the flight schedule by a whole year, maybe by 8 months or something like that. We did a LOT of that. We had a goal to get to the moon by the end of the decade. And we were trying to do it. That doesn’t mean we were being careless. But it meant we were doing everything we possibly could, to make that ahh… goal that president Kennedy set for us. And we did in fact make it.
Clearly NASA became "Schedule driven" way more so than before.
MLH says yes, they did "everything they possibly could - to meet the JFK goal". And for all practical purposes, they achieved that victory.
I've worked in product development too long to know that if you are too "schedule driven", bad things happen - and this is for small teams who work in the same building. NASA's project spanned 50 states, and was coordinated on PAPER (no computers to help them out).
-
If Baron's reports would have become more publicized, it might have lead to more investigations of MORE of the sub-contractors... because if it looks THIS-UGLY at the very end of the production chain -- and WASN'T KNOWN - this indicates problems elsewhere. If you see some roaches, you assume you likely have a bug problem.
For NASA to continue - they needed this 500-page report and Baron to be gone.
Speculation.
Prove it.
-
Speculation. Prove it.
If you weren't pre-attached to Apollo, how would you view this? Would you smell any fish?
-
#1: NASA was under political pressure of cancellation. Future uncertain... it became a viable question of "throwing more good money after badly spent money..."
You don't see the inherent contradiction here?
-
Speculation. Prove it.
If you weren't pre-attached to Apollo, how would you view this? Would you smell any fish?
Did the Command Module work in space - yes or no?
Are you claiming none of the Moon walkers and CM pilots were present in the Command module - yes or no?
-
You don't see the inherent contradiction here?
I'm sure you can drum one up. MLH sees it as a choice between admitting to government abject failure at a time of Civil Rights Unrest, Vietnam, and Cold War/Communism scare. Or pulling the trigger on "Plan B - DoD operation NASAX".
So look at the two choices... Faking it, by far, was the better choice -- especially from govt standpoint. We created a USA focal point to bring World Peace and Unity - at a time when we needed it. And Nixon was glad to sell it this way.
So the last few years of NASA spending was money-well-spent -- because it was a near-guaranteed success.
-
Did the Command Module work in space - yes or no?
Are you claiming none of the Moon walkers and CM pilots were present in the Command module - yes or no?
Answer: Unsure.
Those who built it generally thought so (might have had some doubts but were settled when they saw it working on TV - and it was a narrative that gave them a big win for their resumes and life stories)
So most of my focus has been upon the Landing itself. Why? Because the Landing and Ascent parts were the most difficult aspects of the mission by far.
Most people have no idea how incredibly complex/fragile of a maneuver was the Landing... going from sideways at 3000 mph to upright... and balancing on a central thruster with a top-heavy LM, that was barely tested. And the rendezvous too...
When I get out of jail - I plan to make a new post about this topic in more detail. And am preparing a real-time 3D "game" in Unity3D that will demonstrate these concepts visually. It's a fun journey.
-
Speculation. Prove it.
If you weren't pre-attached to Apollo, how would you view this? Would you smell any fish?
So you are unable or unwilling to prove yet another of your wild claims. Noted.
-
If you weren't pre-attached to Apollo, how would you view this? Would you smell any fish?
So you are unable or unwilling to prove yet another of your wild claims. Noted.
Please answer my question. How would you view this from a neutral position?
If my conclusion is "reasonable" --- it's surely not "WILD", as you say.
This Baron/500-page-report situation smells very very fishy to me, and believe it would also seem this way to a neutral observer.
(especially with how they accelerated development MORE than before, by taking their existing plans and cutting more corners -- or... they were executing a brilliant Plan B - which was an astonishing success)
-
You don't see the inherent contradiction here?
I'm sure you can drum one up.
You said: #1: NASA was under political pressure of cancellation. Future uncertain... it became a viable question of "throwing more good money after badly spent money..."
NASA is a government organisation. Therefore NASA's funding comes from the US government.
You say that "NASA was under political pressure of cancellation". Therefore you consider that the US government was considering defunding or disbanding NASA.
You then say "...it became a viable question of 'throwing more good money after badly spent money'.
So you're suggesting that because NASA is in danger of being defunded by the US government, a viable strategy for it is to approach the US government...for more money.
-
If you weren't pre-attached to Apollo, how would you view this? Would you smell any fish?
So you are unable or unwilling to prove yet another of your wild claims. Noted.
Please answer my question. How would you view this from a neutral position?
If my conclusion is "reasonable" --- it's surely not "WILD", as you say.
This Baron/500-page-report situation smells very very fishy to me, and believe it would also seem this way to a neutral observer.
(especially with how they accelerated development MORE than before, by taking their existing plans and cutting more corners -- or... they were executing a brilliant Plan B - which was an astonishing success)
I AM viewing it from a neutral position. You are approaching it with a confirmation bias as you HOPE that there is something to support your claim.
As you have repeatedly stated you have not seen this report. Nor are you able to show anyone that has. You have zero evidence about the claims contained therein, much less any ability to independently verify those claims.
You are trying to make a claim out of whole cloth.
-
I AM viewing it from a neutral position.
Again, here are the facts:
What we do KNOW:
1. Baron provided a very damning 59 page report... and even management called it "partly true". So not just hot air.
2. Apollo 1 happened, for the very CSM that his team/company was working on.
3. Baron submitted his 500-page expanded report with "specifics/names/details" - and that it went entirely missing.
4. Baron's family killed late at night by a one-car train with no witnesses, 6 days after giving testimony and report.
5. We have no more record of follow-up on any of these "specifics" ... zero.
6. NASA responded to this QA/QC tragedy by increasing their development rate ~50%... reducing a 3 years schedule to 2 years.
And this isn't fishy to you? Smells like bias to me.
-
I AM viewing it from a neutral position.
Again, here are the facts:
What we do KNOW:
1. Baron provided a very damning 59 page report... and even management called it "partly true". So not just hot air.
2. Apollo 1 happened, for the very CSM that his team/company was working on.
3. Baron submitted his 500-page expanded report with "specifics/names/details" - and that it went entirely missing.
4. Baron's family killed late at night by a one-car train with no witnesses, 6 days after giving testimony and report.
5. We have no more record of follow-up on any of these "specifics" ... zero.
6. NASA responded to this QA/QC tragedy by increasing their development rate ~50%... reducing a 3 years schedule to 2 years.
And this isn't fishy to you? Smells like bias to me.
Proof. Proof. Proof.
Without that all you are doing is stringing a load of events together and hoping for a magic trick. Your sense of smell is not important.
You have conceded that you can draw nothing from the so-called 500 page report as you have not viewed it, much less had any of its claims independently verified. We can close this element of your gish-gallop at this stage.
-
So you're suggesting that because NASA is in danger of being defunded by the US government, a viable strategy for it is to approach the US government...for more money.
The funds from Congress were to fund NASA. Without NASA funding, all is lost. Baron and his 500-page report needed to not be in the spotlight, else it cast more doubt on NASA as a whole. But Baron was relentless, and was roping in more witnesses -- until he wasn't.
NASAX didn't have a public budget - it was rolled into the NASA budget and maybe even some from the DoD. Shifting money around is an easy govt task.
-
What we do KNOW:
1. Baron provided a very damning 59 page report... and even management called it "partly true". So not just hot air.
2. Apollo 1 happened, for the very CSM that his team/company was working on.
3. Baron submitted his 500-page expanded report with "specifics/names/details" - and that it went entirely missing.
4. Baron's family killed late at night by a one-car train with no witnesses, 6 days after giving testimony and report.
5. We have no more record of follow-up on any of these "specifics" ... zero.
6. NASA responded to this QA/QC tragedy by increasing their development rate ~50%... reducing a 3 years schedule to 2 years.
Proof. Proof. Proof.
This is Evidence, Evidence, Evidence... all are facts listed above.
And from this evidence, you can draw reasonable conclusions. What do YOU conclude from this evidence?
Gish Gallop is when I make unsubstantiated claims, based on untruths or omissions. What am I omitting from these facts above?
The evidence of what's in the 500-page report comes from Baron's own description of it, from his testimony (and we can know the gist, because of his 59 page report - he says it's the same gist, but with more names, specifics, dates, and details).
Have you read this testimony yet? - If not, you should read all of this before commenting more.
-
What we do KNOW:
1. Baron provided a very damning 59 page report... and even management called it "partly true". So not just hot air.
2. Apollo 1 happened, for the very CSM that his team/company was working on.
3. Baron submitted his 500-page expanded report with "specifics/names/details" - and that it went entirely missing.
4. Baron's family killed late at night by a one-car train with no witnesses, 6 days after giving testimony and report.
5. We have no more record of follow-up on any of these "specifics" ... zero.
6. NASA responded to this QA/QC tragedy by increasing their development rate ~50%... reducing a 3 years schedule to 2 years.
Proof. Proof. Proof.
This is Evidence, Evidence, Evidence... all are facts listed above.
And from this evidence, you can draw reasonable conclusions. What do YOU conclude from this evidence?
Gish Gallop is when I make unsubstantiated claims, based on untruths or omissions. What am I omitting from these facts above?
The evidence of what's in the 500-page report comes from Baron's own description of it, from his testimony (and we can know the gist, because of his 59 page report - he says it's the same gist, but with more names, specifics, dates, and details).
Have you read this testimony yet? - If not, you should read all of this before commenting more.
Join the loooong list of hoax-believers that have yet to learn that correlation does NOT equal causation. You cannot prove your initial proclamation that this so-called 500 page report is damaging, or indeed relevant.
Case closed unless you can EVIDENCE your claim.
-
Case closed unless you can EVIDENCE your claim.
Is this not also evidence - that he has a 59-page report you can read now, which is damning to Apollo - indicating piss poor quality at the very end of the production chain, fully-ignored and unnoticed -- until Apollo 1 happened.
Here is Baron's claim about the 500-page report, which is VERY clear. Baron surely knows what's in it.
BARON: "I wanted to read, which described this 500-page report, and in this I think you can get all the possible names that there are, the times, the dates, the tests that were being run and the internal letters of the company, proper specifications, especially in regard to flamability of materials. All this is in this new report."
Then it evaporated. Nobody is on record even asking about it.
And you don't find this fishy?
-
Case closed unless you can EVIDENCE your claim.
Is this not also evidence - that he has a 59-page report you can read now, which is damning to Apollo - indicating piss poor quality at the very end of the production chain, fully-ignored and unnoticed -- until Apollo 1 happened.
Here is Baron's claim about the 500-page report, which is VERY clear. Baron surely knows what's in it.
BARON: "I wanted to read, which described this 500-page report, and in this I think you can get all the possible names that there are, the times, the dates, the tests that were being run and the internal letters of the company, proper specifications, especially in regard to flamability of materials. All this is in this new report."
Then it evaporated. Nobody is on record even asking about it.
And you don't find this fishy?
Maybe it was a 500 page report complaining about all of the hippy hairstyles and funny smelling cigarettes that the engineers were smoking. Maybe one of the engineers was scared he'd lose his job over this report and sabotaged Baron's car.
Or maybe it was really just an unfortunate accident.
It's easy to imagine all sorts of scenarios... but until you provide proof of anything it's all just pointless speculation and does nothing to prove Apollo was faked.
-
Case closed unless you can EVIDENCE your claim.
Is this not also evidence - that he has a 59-page report you can read now, which is damning to Apollo - indicating piss poor quality at the very end of the production chain, fully-ignored and unnoticed -- until Apollo 1 happened.
Here is Baron's claim about the 500-page report, which is VERY clear. Baron surely knows what's in it.
BARON: "I wanted to read, which described this 500-page report, and in this I think you can get all the possible names that there are, the times, the dates, the tests that were being run and the internal letters of the company, proper specifications, especially in regard to flamability of materials. All this is in this new report."
Then it evaporated. Nobody is on record even asking about it.
And you don't find this fishy?
Your claim of verification is the author of the report? Excuse me while I laugh myself half to death. I'd love to see your success rate in a court of law with that approach.
I have a 600 page report that proves that Najak's mother was a hamster and his father smells of elderberries*. Can you see the report? Of course not. I have submitted it to my local government office though, so if you ask there I'm sure that they will give it to you. The evidence within the report is exemplary.
Take that, you elderberry-smelling son of a hamster!
*If you get it, you get it.
-
#1: Maybe it was a 500 page report complaining about all of the hippy hairstyles..
#2: Or maybe it was really just an unfortunate accident.
#1: You are bringing up "outlandish speculation" to attempt the dispute of "very reasonable conclusions". Why resort to this?
#2: Maybe.... or maybe not.
Do you not find this "fishy"? One copy of this 500-page report was submitted to CONGRESS... and then never seen again.
==
For me, this Baron evidence goes along with the testimony of Alan Bean describing their fully-schedule-driven mandate for Apollo, more-so than ever. In the end, the "public perception of success" would have the exact SAME positive impact as "actual success". And this impact, either way, was fantastic. Worth the cost.
And James Webb's address to Congress in March 1967, also made things look stark:
"But my own judgment is that if we get this done by the end of 1969, we will be very, very fortunate; that the chance that we will do so, the odds that we will do so, the possibility of doing all the work
necessary is less this year than it was last. And I testified at this table last year that it was less at that time than it had been the previous year. "
His resignation in October 1968 after doing a late-game decision for Apollo 8 to "go around the moon" - for me is also evidence. He didn't even attend the 1968 Launch - a "crowning achievement" for him, as he was the one who started it all in 1961. Why didn't Webb attend any more launches?
It's a collection of evidence that I'm looking at here. And the freak death of Baron along with his 500-page report given to Congress gone missing (and never mentioned, and now NASA site says it never existed)... all contributes to the MLH case.
-
Your claim of verification is the author of the report? Excuse me while I laugh myself half to death. I'd love to see your success rate in a court of law with that approach.
Baron produced a comprehensive 59 page report for Congress, and then SUBMITTED the 500-page report to as well. Clearly he had confidence in this report... and wanted to read it in the testimony (they didn't let him). If it was "crap" as you want to suspect, wouldn't this be something that NASA would gladly reveal?
Yet to you, this is the same as just making a "wild claim out of the blue" with no correlation towards anything. Do any other Apollogists here think you are making a valid argument?
-
Your claim of verification is the author of the report? Excuse me while I laugh myself half to death. I'd love to see your success rate in a court of law with that approach.
Baron produced a comprehensive 59 page report for Congress, and then SUBMITTED the 500-page report to as well. Clearly he had confidence in this report... and wanted to read it in the testimony (they didn't let him). If it was "crap" as you want to suspect, wouldn't this be something that NASA would gladly reveal?
Yet to you, this is the same as just making a "wild claim out of the blue" with no correlation towards anything. Do any other Apollogists here think you are making a valid argument?
Sorry...I can't hear you over the smell of elderberries and hamsters...
-
... or Holmburg just knew how to stay alive and keep his job... This seems very likely to me.
If Baron was killed, and his 500-page report discarded -- this casts extreme doubt upon the neutrality/sincerity of this Congressional hearing.
The evidence indicates they wanted to bury this... and so they did -- Baron, wife, daughter, and 500-page report with names and specifics.
And you don't smell the fish?
Or, and the most likely scenario I can see, is that you have built Baron up as this great 'hero of the people', and woe betide anyone who speaks ill of him. Based on what we know, Baron's 500pg report was most likely based on hearsay and 3rd party reports, with very little witnessed by Baron himself, and would have been of little actual value beyond the original smaller report. With the deaths of Baron, his wife, and one-of-two stepdaughters (why do you keep leaving this out?) as nothing more than a tragic accident.
And the freak death of Baron
What freak death? Are you not aware that trains and cars quite often collide, especially at uncontrolled crossings? Currently it's something like 2,000 per year, at controlled crossings.
If it was "crap" as you want to suspect, wouldn't this be something that NASA would gladly reveal?
How could NASA reveal what was given to a congressional committee?
For the record, from what I've seen from the threads combined, you approach this from the position that Apollo was faked, and are merely conclusion shopping your hypothesis. Even more so, when almost every thread so far has you admitting to not knowing much about a subject, yet still defaulting to the position of 'it was fake, until someone else can show me (in the exact method I demand) that it wasn't', rather than the more honest 'I don't know how it was done, and so will reserve judgement'.
-
#1: How could NASA reveal what was given to a congressional committee?
#2: ... rather than the more honest 'I don't know how it was done, and so will reserve judgement'.
#1: It was a report directly pertaining to NASA, and part of public record. So you think NASA wouldn't even care enough to read it? Or they read it, and said "oh crap" then Baron was dead 6 days later, and his report disposed. This 500-page Disposal is a huge deal. It was supposed to become public record...
#2: Same for you -- you've already concluded that everything I believe is "wrong from the get-go" and that the only viable conclusion is the Apollogy.
I've seen enough so far, to believe "this is very fishy" -- and as I dig deeper, I find that "things I was told" aren't really so substantiated, and the bad stuff is all suppressed, hard to even find.
Just as the "whole narrative of society" has given you your beliefs. Mine were formed on seeing "too many holes in the story" -- too many reasons to suspect.. And then seeing how strongly Google/YT/FB/etc and the whole mainstream is setup to prevent most people from finding the "good MLH arguments" - motivates me more. This is a dangerous mechanism to accept. If you try to find any MLH support from Google/YT/FB, you'll never find anything but the "strawman arguments" - the bad MLH arguments, all debunked.
8-flag-motions - is not something Google/YT will allow you to find.
Did Myth Busters address the 8-flag-motions? Nope - they addressed the Strawman that "Flags can't wave like a pendulum in a Vacuum"-- pretending that THIS is the real MLH argument. They ignored the ONE argument about flags, for which there isn't a valid hypothesis to debunk it.
This kind of crap motivates me to try and discover the full list of "MLH claims that aren't viably refuted"... But even here, on a forum dedicated to "the Hoax" - I'm not allowed to start any of these new threads, to explore those claims.
-
Your claim of verification is the author of the report? Excuse me while I laugh myself half to death. I'd love to see your success rate in a court of law with that approach.
Baron produced a comprehensive 59 page report for Congress, and then SUBMITTED the 500-page report to as well. Clearly he had confidence in this report... and wanted to read it in the testimony (they didn't let him). If it was "crap" as you want to suspect, wouldn't this be something that NASA would gladly reveal?
Yet to you, this is the same as just making a "wild claim out of the blue" with no correlation towards anything. Do any other Apollogists here think you are making a valid argument?
Sorry...I can't hear you over the smell of elderberries and hamsters...
I don't know which smells worse, the pong from the dead horse being flogged or the whiff from the fart in his general direction.
-
Webb's assessment of the likelihood of success was entirely fair, as was Armstrong's own pessimistic view that they were as likely to die as not. Realism about your chances us not the same as those chances being nil. Kennedy's political grandstanding put them all under pressure to complete a program that had already been started. Has he not done so, and committed the funds, it may well never have happened.
Webb's resignation came because LBJ opted not to stand. Webb knew he would have no political support for hisxpolitically appointed role so told LBJ he would stand down with him. LBJ pretty much effected that decision there and then (very much to Webb's surprise)
0 rather than wait until he formally left office.
You've also mentioned Bob Seaman's resignation. That came about because he felt sidelined and undermined by some of Webb's decisions. Nothing else. Uf ypu dispute the motivations for these resignations, produce evidence.
All this is documented fact. Take a look at Piers Bizony's "The man who ran the moon" for details. These people are administrators, not scientists and engineers. They do not build machines or do equations.
Baron had no involvement with NASA. He worked for NAA. His reports embarrassed them both because their content was discussed publicly. As neither you nor I know the exact content of the larger report beyond what was publicly discussed and recorded anything in it is speculation and hearsay. The smaller report will do. If you wanted to suppress the reports, doing it after they've been made public is pretty inept.
-
#1: How could NASA reveal what was given to a congressional committee?
#2: ... rather than the more honest 'I don't know how it was done, and so will reserve judgement'.
#1: It was a report directly pertaining to NASA, and part of public record. So you think NASA wouldn't even care enough to read it? Or they read it, and said "oh crap" then Baron was dead 6 days later, and his report disposed. This 500-page Disposal is a huge deal. It was supposed to become public record...
Take it up with Congress.
#2: Same for you -- you've already concluded that everything I believe is "wrong from the get-go" and that the only viable conclusion is the Apollogy.
I've seen enough so far, to believe "this is very fishy" -- and as I dig deeper, I find that "things I was told" aren't really so substantiated, and the bad stuff is all suppressed, hard to even find.
And you are on record as not trusting anyone with "vested interests", so there's pretty much no point in anyone giving you anything from a source you are automatically going to dismiss.
Just as the "whole narrative of society" has given you your beliefs. Mine were formed on seeing "too many holes in the story" -- too many reasons to suspect.. And then seeing how strongly Google/YT/FB/etc and the whole mainstream is setup to prevent most people from finding the "good MLH arguments" - motivates me more. This is a dangerous mechanism to accept. If you try to find any MLH support from Google/YT/FB, you'll never find anything but the "strawman arguments" - the bad MLH arguments, all debunked.
If I google 'Moon Hoax' I will find all manner of pages by people who believe Apollo was faked. It is not our problem that most of htoase arguments are written by dribbling morons with no understanding of science, engineering, or historical fact and base their unfounded opinions on messianic hubris and paranoid delusion. Write your own page if you don't like it.
8-flag-motions - is not something Google/YT will allow you to find.
How many other people do you believe think this is an actual thing. And again, it's not 8 movements. it's a continuous motion for which you only see an occasional part.
Did Myth Busters address the 8-flag-motions? Nope - they addressed the Strawman that "Flags can't wave like a pendulum in a Vacuum"-- pretending that THIS is the real MLH argument. They ignored the ONE argument about flags, for which there isn't a valid hypothesis to debunk it.
Strawman itself, that's not what they examined.
This kind of crap motivates me to try and discover the full list of "MLH claims that aren't viably refuted"... But even here, on a forum dedicated to "the Hoax" - I'm not allowed to start any of these new threads, to explore those claims.
Find them. They'll be refuted, just as they are being already. Your problem is a refusal to listen to the refutations.
-
#1: If I google 'Moon Hoax' I will find all manner of pages by people who believe Apollo was faked. It is not our problem that most of htoase arguments are written by dribbling morons with no understanding of science, engineering, or historical fact and base their unfounded opinions on messianic hubris and paranoid delusion. Write your own page if you don't like it.
#2: "8 flag motions": it's not 8 movements. it's a continuous motion for which you only see an occasional part.
#1: I type "Moon Hoax" and google only shows me links where MLH is debunked, or "how we know we went to the moon". No links by people who actually make a case for MLH.
Please show me a few links that are supportive MLH links from this search.
#2: "Continuous motion" -- Does anyone here agree with you on this? Are you watching the video? It comes on screen, and stays still for up to 33 seconds at a time... no motion... and there remains no viable explanation for what "pushed it - gently- and held it there".
Do you really want to defend your notion of "continuous motion"?? I'd be happy to continue this line of reasoning with you in detail, if you genuinely think "continuous motion" explains what we see in these videos.
-
#1: I type "Moon Hoax" and google only shows me links where MLH is debunked, or "how we know we went to the moon". No links by people who actually make a case for MLH.
Please show me a few links that are supportive MLH links from this search.
That's because the vast vast VAST majority of them are posted by blithering idiots who haven't done a jot of proper research, or by those with vested financial interests (books and seminars to flog)..
As you don't seem to have a boog to promote I'm guessing that narrows the field down considerably....
-
In Google, I also type "proof that we did not land on the moon", and AI is quick to respond with:
"The claim that humans never landed on the moon is a conspiracy theory with no credible scientific evidence to support it."
And then nothing but links that give proof why we "know we went to the moon" and "why the moon landing hoax is false".
100%. Google has spoken. And among the Apollogists, "there was much rejoicing... yay"
-
In Google, I also type "proof that we did not land on the moon", and AI is quick to respond with:
"The claim that humans never landed on the moon is a conspiracy theory with no credible scientific evidence to support it."
And then nothing but links that give proof why we "know we went to the moon" and "why the moon landing hoax is false".
100%. Google has spoken. And among the Apollogists, "there was much rejoicing... yay"
I suspect that if you also asked it "proof that water is not wet" you would get similar results.
-
His resignation in October 1968 after doing a late-game decision for Apollo 8 to "go around the moon" - for me is also evidence
"man authorised A, therefore A didn't happen"
A perfect example of your diseased thinking.
-
In Google, I also type "proof that we did not land on the moon", and AI is quick to respond with:
"The claim that humans never landed on the moon is a conspiracy theory with no credible scientific evidence to support it."
And then nothing but links that give proof why we "know we went to the moon" and "why the moon landing hoax is false".
100%. Google has spoken. And among the Apollogists, "there was much rejoicing... yay"
Google is merely collating results. You don't like the results. Poor baby.
-
And James Webb's address to Congress in March 1967, also made things look stark:
"But my own judgment is that if we get this done by the end of 1969, we will be very, very fortunate; that the chance that we will do so, the odds that we will do so, the possibility of doing all the work
necessary is less this year than it was last. And I testified at this table last year that it was less at that time than it had been the previous year. "
His resignation in October 1968 after doing a late-game decision for Apollo 8 to "go around the moon" - for me is also evidence. He didn't even attend the 1968 Launch - a "crowning achievement" for him, as he was the one who started it all in 1961. Why didn't Webb attend any more launches?
And this is why you make it seem pointless to just explain stuff to you - you ignore it. See reply #372 in this thread for the explanation for Webb's resignation - the sort of politics that happens in the US government every time a new President is elected:
Webb resigned because he was a close associate of Lyndon Johnson, and Johnson wasn't standing in the 1968 election. Neither Humphrey or Nixon would have wanted Webb as NASA Administrator. Again, you'd know this if you paid the slightest attention to actual evidence.
-
Most people have no idea how incredibly complex/fragile of a maneuver was the Landing.
And from what follows, you have no idea what it entailed either.
going from sideways at 3000 mph to upright.
In space it makes no odds how fast you're going if you just want to turn the vehicle around. That's a simple firing of the RCS system to reorient the spacecraft. Its velocity at the time has virtually no impact on how that works.
and balancing on a central thruster with a top-heavy LM,
Rockets do not 'balance' on the engine. If the thrust vector aligns with the centre of gravity then the rocket will remain upright. And your parroting of the 'top-heavy LM' claim shows a complete failure to understand the actual system. Seriously, how do you keep a straight face when describing a squat little thing like the LM, with its fuel and oxidiser tanks located either side of the engine, as 'top heavy' when you see so many long, thin rockets with fuel and oxidiser tanks stacked vertically directly above the engine (not to mention the other rocket stages stacked vertically on top of those!) working absolutely fine?
[/quote]that was barely tested.[/quote]
Another bingo tick. The LM was flown three times before Apollo 11, twice with a crew. The landing was the final test. Since the vehicle was designed to be piloted then the only option was to put some men in it and land it. There were plenty of abort options. Aircraft are routinely tested by putting a pilot in them for the first flight, because there is no other way to do it. Risky of course, but hardly suspect.
And the rendezvous too.
And your qualifications to judge the complexity of orbital rendezvous are what, exactly?
-
Google is merely collating results. You don't like the results. Poor baby.
If the Moon landings were faked, would you even want to know? Or would you prefer these protective layers to remain intact?
-
#1: And this is why you make it seem pointless to just explain stuff to you - you ignore it. See reply #372 in this thread for the explanation for Webb's resignation - the sort of politics that happens in the US government every time a new President is elected:
#2: Again, you'd know this if you paid the slightest attention to actual evidence.
#1: The election was a month away, and 3.5 months away from the transition of power. In the meantime, why not stick around to be a part of this GRAND VICTORY (which is the FIRST TIME EVER that Astronauts have been launched through the Van Allen Belts, and then into orbit around the moon!)...
I hear your "evidence" - but equating "words given from top leaders about reasons for resignation" as Truth - -is a big stretch.
If you weren't biased, you might see this as fishy too. Think about it more. Webb was like the "Father of Apollo" - it was his brain-child. He championed it. It was based upon his zeal and confidence that Congress approved of the program.
Then he makes what should have been a reckless decision to change the Apollo 8 mission into a Moon Orbit late-in-the-game - and you think that this was "his decision". In order to make such a bold decision, you must have some real conviction about it... but, instead he resigns 2 months later -- and does not even attend the launch! Hmmm.... no fish here.
===
#2: "Paid attention to evidence..."
If you didn't simply give full credence to the narrative they "tell you" and instead looked at the actions/events that are transpiring -- you might see more compelling evidence.
Webb's actions indicate something different than the "excuse" he gave for resigning. His excuse makes little sense.
And if Apollo 8 was a success, why on earth would Nixon replace the "Father of Apollo"?? Under his leadership/inspiration, wasn't Apollo 8 itself a miracle? Would Nixon disrupt this leadership 6 months before Apollo 11?
Webb didn't want a part of Apollo anymore... this is pretty blatant to neutral eyes. GenZ won't fall for his "excuse" and call it "fact/evidence".
-
#1: In space it makes no odds how fast you're going if you just want to turn the vehicle around. That's a simple firing of the RCS system to reorient the spacecraft. Its velocity at the time has virtually no impact on how that works.
#2: Rockets do not 'balance' on the engine. If the thrust vector aligns with the centre of gravity then the rocket will remain upright.
#1/#2:
"Top Heavy" - yes, by landing the LM was fairly top heavy -- The lander's fuel tanks were almost empty, with an 11,000 lb Ascent Module sitting on top. Most of the weight was ABOVE the rocket engine.
LM/AM center of mass wasn't perfectly centered, nor stable - there's a reason we had so many rockets fall over at launch ... it's still a precarious balancing act.
Even Armstrong with a "flat low-center-of-gravity LLTV" had difficulty keeping it's balance - and this was just being "straight up, not moving". His experience with flying the LM - was non-existent, and it was much more top heavy than the LLTV -- and even the LLTV failed to function as it was intended. And to make it more real, they should have stacked most of the weight on top above it, as would be the case for the LM. But it was already unstable, and NASA didn't even want Armstrong to fly it.
And all we have of the LLTV are 2-minute max-length tight-cropped clips that don't show the context -- so we can't even see if Armstrong can fly a straight line with it.
Is there any good reason that you know of why the AGC was never flight tested with the LLTV, to demonstrate how it can "maintain balance of an LM-like vehicle"? I have a guess.
And when did the other Astronauts train on the LLTV? No longer important?
I get that untrained eyes don't understand the instability involved here. I'm working on a 3D Simulation game to demonstrate the real-time physics involved. Maybe you can play it soon and see.
-
#1: And this is why you make it seem pointless to just explain stuff to you - you ignore it. See reply #372 in this thread for the explanation for Webb's resignation - the sort of politics that happens in the US government every time a new President is elected:
#2: Again, you'd know this if you paid the slightest attention to actual evidence.
#1: The election was a month away, and 3.5 months away from the transition of power. In the meantime, why not stick around to be a part of this GRAND VICTORY (which is the FIRST TIME EVER that Astronauts have been launched through the Van Allen Belts, and then into orbit around the moon!)...
I hear your "evidence" - but equating "words given from top leaders about reasons for resignation" as Truth - -is a big stretch.
If you weren't biased, you might see this as fishy too. Think about it more. Webb was like the "Father of Apollo" - it was his brain-child. He championed it. It was based upon his zeal and confidence that Congress approved of the program.
Then he makes what should have been a reckless decision to change the Apollo 8 mission into a Moon Orbit late-in-the-game - and you think that this was "his decision". In order to make such a bold decision, you must have some real conviction about it... but, instead he resigns 2 months later -- and does not even attend the launch! Hmmm.... no fish here.
===
#2: "Paid attention to evidence..."
If you didn't simply give full credence to the narrative they "tell you" and instead looked at the actions/events that are transpiring -- you might see more compelling evidence.
Webb's actions indicate something different than the "excuse" he gave for resigning. His excuse makes little sense.
And if Apollo 8 was a success, why on earth would Nixon replace the "Father of Apollo"?? Under his leadership/inspiration, wasn't Apollo 8 itself a miracle? Would Nixon disrupt this leadership 6 months before Apollo 11?
Webb didn't want a part of Apollo anymore... this is pretty blatant to neutral eyes. GenZ won't fall for his "excuse" and call it "fact/evidence".
https://discoverlbj.org/item/oh-webbj-19690429-1-74-266
Read. Learn. Any interpretation other than the actual words of the people concerned is you projecting your bias.
-
"Top Heavy" - yes, by landing the LM was fairly top heavy -- The lander's fuel tanks were almost empty, with an 11,000 lb Ascent Module sitting on top. Most of the weight was ABOVE the rocket engine.
That is literally how ALL rockets work. In most rockets ALL the weight is above the engines. That doesn't alter the fact that rockets do not work by 'balancing' on the thrust. They have complex control systems that can deal with things shifting off-axis. When rockets 'fall over' it's not because of a failure to 'balance' on the thrust, it's a failure of some control or engine creating an imbalance that can't be rectified leading to significant off-axis forces actively pushing the vehicle over.
even the LLTV failed to function as it was intended.
No it didn't. It crashed during one of Armstrong's flights due to a broken feed line. That has nothing to do with any stability problems of thrust or centre of mass.
And all we have of the LLTV are 2-minute max-length tight-cropped clips that don't show the context -- so we can't even see if Armstrong can fly a straight line with it.
No, that's all YOU have been able to find. There is plenty of footage of the LLTV working as intended, and not just being flown by Armstrong either.
Is there any good reason that you know of why the AGC was never flight tested with the LLTV, to demonstrate how it can "maintain balance of an LM-like vehicle"?
Because the AGC was not intended to 'maintain the balance of a LM-like vehicle', it was intended to operate as part of the Apollo spacecraft. Why do you think you can just stick one into the other?
And when did the other Astronauts train on the LLTV? No longer important?
Ah, so you have only managed to find references to Armstrong's crash and assumed no other astronauts flew the vehicle? Zero out of ten for effort there. The flights of all the LLRVs and LLTVs (there was more than one) are on record. Try harder.
I get that untrained eyes don't understand the instability involved here.
And your eyes are trained how, exactly? This is the third time of asking you to explain how you are qualified to judge the systems.
-
https://discoverlbj.org/item/oh-webbj-19690429-1-74-266
Read. Learn. Any interpretation other than the actual words of the people concerned is you projecting your bias.
Thanks for the link. Now I'm informed about his words. This inspired me to learn more.
Webb left Oct 7th, and also did NOT attend Apollo 7's launch 3 days later! Nor Apollo 8.... nor any others. He went from "Father of Apollo" (his brain-child) - to "I couldn't care less."
Have you ever witnessed someone where their "mouth is saying one thing", but "their actions are saying the opposite"??
This is not "my bias" - it's just putting more emphasis on the actions, than the words. I'm reading into his actions... Neutral eyes would likely do the same.
-
Even Armstrong with a "flat low-center-of-gravity LLTV" had difficulty keeping it's balance - and this was just being "straight up, not moving". His experience with flying the LM - was non-existent, and it was much more top heavy than the LLTV -- and even the LLTV failed to function as it was intended. And to make it more real, they should have stacked most of the weight on top above it, as would be the case for the LM. But it was already unstable, and NASA didn't even want Armstrong to fly it.
Astounding ignorance and poor research.
And all we have of the LLTV are 2-minute max-length tight-cropped clips that don't show the context -- so we can't even see if Armstrong can fly a straight line with it.
That's with winds/atmosphere.
And when did the other Astronauts train on the LLTV? No longer important?
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/alsj-LLTV-value.html
I get that untrained eyes don't understand the instability involved here.
Bollocks, your untrained eye is the problem.
-
And all we have of the LLTV are 2-minute max-length tight-cropped clips that don't show the context -- so we can't even see if Armstrong can fly a straight line with it.
No, that's all YOU have been able to find. There is plenty of footage of the LLTV working as intended, and not just being flown by Armstrong either.
Both me and my Apollogist nerd friends scoured for these. The best I could find was a stint almost 4-minutes long, but comprised of two 2-minute clips (as it was cut in half). So the longest continuous footage I've seen of this LLTV flying is just under 2 minutes -- but it was tight-cropped -- so you could see NO CONTEXT -- if he was flying a straight line, or just hovering precariously.
If you have more that you know of, I'd appreciate seeing them. I don't see anything from NASA directly for this. As you watch, look for the cuts, vs. continuous footage.
And we didn't find any flights after June 1969 by Armstrong. If these are available, how did you find them?
Armstrong always advertised the LLTV as having the Jet Engine only supply 83% of the thrust... but in all videos I see, it's supplying 100%... they have some downward jets installed (showed for a few seconds in one clip) -- but they don't use them during flight. This is my basis for saying it "didn't work as designed".
-
This is not "my bias" - it's just putting more emphasis on the actions, than the words. I'm reading into his actions... Neutral eyes would likely do the same.
Which part of "your biased opinion means nothing" are you confused by?
Did the Command Module work in space - yes or no?
Are you claiming none of the Moon walkers and CM pilots were present in the Command module - yes or no?
Answer: Unsure.
Those who built it generally thought so (might have had some doubts but were settled when they saw it working on TV - and it was a narrative that gave them a big win for their resumes and life stories)
So most of my focus has been upon the Landing itself. Why? Because the Landing and Ascent parts were the most difficult aspects of the mission by far.
Most people have no idea how incredibly complex/fragile of a maneuver was the Landing... going from sideways at 3000 mph to upright... and balancing on a central thruster with a top-heavy LM, that was barely tested. And the rendezvous too...
When I get out of jail - I plan to make a new post about this topic in more detail. And am preparing a real-time 3D "game" in Unity3D that will demonstrate these concepts visually. It's a fun journey.
Unsure? Really!
Have you not seen the footage shot onboard in space?
You appear to be trolling here after you said you had no problem with them getting to the Moon, just the landing part was in question. Now your dumb fixation on Thomas Baron and politics that you think are "fishy" is getting really boring.
-
And all we have of the LLTV are 2-minute max-length tight-cropped clips that don't show the context -- so we can't even see if Armstrong can fly a straight line with it.
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/alsj-LLTV-value.html
THANKS FOR THE LINKS. That flight you showed there was the longest flight I saw before, but the other one had it "cut half-way through" so wasn't continuous. So a 4-minute flight, continuous from take-off to landing some distance away.
I wish someone would have filmed it from that helicopter... they would have been able to show it "in context" -- flying a straight line, to demonstrate fidelity of horizontal control.
This video only has 7K views in 7 years. And it's better than the one that is easy-to-find (that has the cut). This one also zooms out to show "higher altitude" as well.
As for the other link -- do we have ANY other videos showing the other pilots flying the LLTV? I can't find any... So all we have is them saying they did it, right?
-
So the longest continuous footage I've seen of this LLTV flying is just under 2 minutes -- but it was tight-cropped -- so you could see NO CONTEXT -- if he was flying a straight line, or just hovering precariously.
That's a failure of your research. It's not my burden of proof.
As you watch, look for the cuts, vs. continuous footage.
Yep. done that thank you.
And we didn't find any flights after June 1969 by Armstrong.
Why would there be any flights by Armstrong after this time? It's a training aid for flying the vehicle he actually flew in July of that year. Why would he then fly it again? This is such a ridiculous question.
Armstrong always advertised the LLTV as having the Jet Engine only supply 83% of the thrust... but in all videos I see, it's supplying 100%
Your fixation on Armstrong is ridiculous. He wasn't the only astronaut you know. And your failure to understand the way the LLTV worked is showing again.
The central jet engine was intended to produce thrust equivalent to 83% of the weight of the vehicle in order to simulate lunar gravity.
This is my basis for saying it "didn't work as designed".
It did, it's just that you haven't done the work to understand how it was designed.
-
#1: Unsure? Really! Have you not seen the footage shot onboard in space?
You appear to be trolling here after you said you had no problem with them getting to the Moon, just the landing part was in question.
#2: Now your dumb fixation on Thomas Baron and politics that you think are "fishy" is getting really boring.
#1: Was he inside of the LM or CSM there? And when you say "Works" - this isn't a binary answer... there are various functions that could possibly not work. I'm OK with presuming that the CSM worked fine, and even that it took them all the way around the moon and back. At least for now -- I may delve deeper later. For now, my plate is full ONLY looking at the "Lunar Landing" part. This doesn't mean that I'd say "I KNOW they went around the moon" - just saying that I'm not making any claims here, but am willing to, for now, to presume they orbited the moon.
#2: My fixation on Baron and Politics, simply sets the stage for them to fake the Moon Landing part. That they started behaving in reckless ways when it came to the schedule and cramming in more tests into fewer flights... and them all magically "just working" so that every few months they could "progress rapidly" rather than having an "ooops, that didn't work, gotta make some fixes" -- as would be expected.
So something seems very awry, to me. I smell lots of fishy fish.
-
And we didn't find any flights after June 1969 by Armstrong.
#1: Why would there be any flights by Armstrong after this time?
Armstrong always advertised the LLTV as having the Jet Engine only supply 83% of the thrust... but in all videos I see, it's supplying 100%
#2: The central jet engine was intended to produce thrust equivalent to 83% of the weight of the vehicle in order to simulate lunar gravity.
#1: this was miswording on my part, I meant "any flights [by other astronauts] [filmed] after June 1969's flight by Armstrong."
#2: Show me a video where they are using the white-plumed jets to produce the other 17%...
In the long video from Mag40, as he started to land, he used it for about 1/2 second... then turned it back off. So how is this "functioning as designed" (i..e jet only providing 83% lift) ??
-
https://discoverlbj.org/item/oh-webbj-19690429-1-74-266
Read. Learn. Any interpretation other than the actual words of the people concerned is you projecting your bias.
Thanks for the link. Now I'm informed about his words. This inspired me to learn more.
Webb left Oct 7th, and also did NOT attend Apollo 7's launch 3 days later! Nor Apollo 8.... nor any others. He went from "Father of Apollo" (his brain-child) - to "I couldn't care less."
Have you ever witnessed someone where their "mouth is saying one thing", but "their actions are saying the opposite"??
This is not "my bias" - it's just putting more emphasis on the actions, than the words. I'm reading into his actions... Neutral eyes would likely do the same.
This is 100% your bias. There is no way to know the intentions behind his actions, so you're speculating a motive that supports your narrative. Maybe sixteen manned Mercury and Gemini launches was enough. Maybe he was trying to ease the transition for his replacement by being absent. Maybe his family demanded that he spend more time at home. Maybe he was sick. Maybe a hundred other possibilities that you haven't considered.
There is a special kind of arrogance in not only assuming that you know the actual motives inside someone's thought process, but to claim that your obvious speculation is not bias.
Both me and my Apollogist nerd friends scoured for these.
THANKS FOR THE LINKS.
Yeah, it's clear you turned over every rock... ::)
You continually fail at every turn to do any kind of successful research, even on something as simple as Google.
How are you doing finding the reason for variance in ISS and Apollo docking times? It took me about 15 seconds to find information confirming my expectation. You are considerably behind that at this point.
-
#1: this was miswording on my part, I meant "any flights [by other astronauts] [filmed] after June 1969's flight by Armstrong."
Thank you for the clarification. Your failure to find such records is still not my problem, though.
#2: Show me a video where they are using the white-plumed jets to produce the other 17%...
Nope, still not understanding how the machine worked. Nothing 'produced the other 17%'. There was the central gimballed jet that always countered 5/6th of the vehicle's weight during descent, then there were a couple of rockets used to simulate the LM DPS during descent and an attitude control system (the failure of which is what led to Armstrong's crash if I recall correctly). The 'white plumed jets' are the attitude control system being used. The other rocket engines simulating the DPS are in steady state and not producing a plume visible in daylight. Your insistence on looking at videos for things that appeal to your intuitive sense of how the thing should work is the problem here.
Once again, the thing did work as designed, you just don't understand how it was designed, as has been amply shown by your comments.
-
This is 100% your bias. There is no way to know the intentions behind his actions, so you're speculating a motive that supports your narrative. Maybe sixteen manned Mercury and Gemini launches was enough. Maybe he was trying to ease the transition for his replacement by being absent. Maybe his family demanded that he spend more time at home. Maybe he was sick. Maybe a hundred other possibilities that you haven't considered.
There is a special kind of arrogance in not only assuming that you know the actual motives inside someone's thought process, but to claim that your obvious speculation is not bias.
He said his reasons, "to make it easy for Nixon to name a replacement"... but then stepped down 3.5 months early, and 3 days before Apollo 7, and didn't bother to attend the Launch. He was checked out fully. As it if no longer meant anything to him.... This is a BIG disconnect.
If someone says "I love my kids" but then leaves them on the roadside, and never returns. I believe their actions more than their words.
-
Even Armstrong with a "flat low-center-of-gravity LLTV" had difficulty keeping it's balance - and this was just being "straight up, not moving". His experience with flying the LM - was non-existent, and it was much more top heavy than the LLTV -- and even the LLTV failed to function as it was intended. And to make it more real, they should have stacked most of the weight on top above it, as would be the case for the LM. But it was already unstable, and NASA didn't even want Armstrong to fly it.
And all we have of the LLTV are 2-minute max-length tight-cropped clips that don't show the context -- so we can't even see if Armstrong can fly a straight line with it.
Is there any good reason that you know of why the AGC was never flight tested with the LLTV, to demonstrate how it can "maintain balance of an LM-like vehicle"? I have a guess.
And when did the other Astronauts train on the LLTV? No longer important?
You are like a sniper except you are using bollocks for bullets. Please stop now as you are embarrassing yourself..
Armstrong saw the LLTV as the single best training vehicle for landing the LM. He made 29 flights in the LLTV/LLTV
-
This is 100% your bias. There is no way to know the intentions behind his actions, so you're speculating a motive that supports your narrative. Maybe sixteen manned Mercury and Gemini launches was enough. Maybe he was trying to ease the transition for his replacement by being absent. Maybe his family demanded that he spend more time at home. Maybe he was sick. Maybe a hundred other possibilities that you haven't considered.
There is a special kind of arrogance in not only assuming that you know the actual motives inside someone's thought process, but to claim that your obvious speculation is not bias.
He said his reasons, "to make it easy for Nixon to name a replacement"... but then stepped down 3.5 months early, and 3 days before Apollo 7, and didn't bother to attend the Launch. He was checked out fully. As it if no longer meant anything to him.... This is a BIG disconnect.
If someone says "I love my kids" but then leaves them on the roadside, and never returns. I believe their actions more than their words.
You are ascribing motive to those actions. They are not self explanatory. There are a hundred possible reasons that he may have chosen not to attend the launch. You are choosing the one that resonates with you, because you consistently choose anything that supports your narrative and reject anything that doesn't.
Your biggest issue is a complete lack of self awareness of your overriding assumption. Your head is so far up your ass you likely aren't even aware of the assumption you're making. Here is some help. Everything you have presented is only true if we assume that your judgement and assessments are infallible. Remove that one single idea and everything you have comes crashing down. You will find that I am one of a large majority of people who don't share your confidence about your infallibility.
You have repeatedly brought the phrase "it smells fishy" to what you initially claimed was an honest intellectual debate. That phrase is incompatible with any legitimate discourse.
-
#1: this was miswording on my part, I meant "any flights [by other astronauts] [filmed] after June 1969's flight by Armstrong."
There are plenty. Most of them have never been transferred from the original 16mm film. For example, here's the film cannister of one of John Young's LLTV training flights in November 1971 - https://imgur.com/gallery/film-M9bKN9u
However, some films have made it to the internet where twoof-by-google hoaxnuts can find them (or not). Here are Lovell & Cernan evaluating hard landings in the LLTV filmed after Armstrong's final training flight - https://catalog.archives.gov/id/95109544
And you could also have a look for the Ellington AFB flight logs.........
-
What?! There are sources of information other than the internet? You mean we have to actually go looking for stuff that was recorded on some outdated analogue format because nobody digitised and uploaded it? What kind of backwards world are we living in?! ;D
-
This is 100% your bias. There is no way to know the intentions behind his actions, so you're speculating a motive that supports your narrative. Maybe sixteen manned Mercury and Gemini launches was enough. Maybe he was trying to ease the transition for his replacement by being absent. Maybe his family demanded that he spend more time at home. Maybe he was sick. Maybe a hundred other possibilities that you haven't considered.
There is a special kind of arrogance in not only assuming that you know the actual motives inside someone's thought process, but to claim that your obvious speculation is not bias.
He said his reasons, "to make it easy for Nixon to name a replacement"... but then stepped down 3.5 months early, and 3 days before Apollo 7, and didn't bother to attend the Launch. He was checked out fully. As it if no longer meant anything to him.... This is a BIG disconnect.
If someone says "I love my kids" but then leaves them on the roadside, and never returns. I believe their actions more than their words.
He stepped down early because LBJ made him go early. Interpreting that as no longer caring about it is your spin on it, with no basis in fact.
Edited to add: if you'd read, as you claimed, the oral history I posted, you'd know how many launches he attended, and why.
-
#1: this was miswording on my part, I meant "any flights [by other astronauts] [filmed] after June 1969's flight by Armstrong."
There are plenty. Most of them have never been transferred from the original 16mm film. For example, here's the film cannister of one of John Young's LLTV training flights in November 1971 - https://imgur.com/gallery/film-M9bKN9u
However, some films have made it to the internet where twoof-by-google hoaxnuts can find them (or not). Here are Lovell & Cernan evaluating hard landings in the LLTV filmed after Armstrong's final training flight - https://catalog.archives.gov/id/95109544
Thank you.
First link appears never watched or validated. Lone comment says "300 feet of mystery". Yeah, I agree.
==
2nd link was good.
Additionally, I'd really like to see them demonstrate a maneuver closer to the one where they have to slow down a very fast horizontal motion. They make doing these slow flat landings look difficult.
So why not put some top-weight on there to better emulate the LM? And show that they know how to bring the LM to horizontal rest? Isn't "emulation of the LM as close as possible, the goal?"
And... here again, for all 3 examples, I'm not seeing where they are using their manual jets to supply ANY of the 17% of upward thrust.. It appears the jet engine is still doing all of the lifting. This doesn't seem to match what Armstrong claimed repeatedly. What's the deal?
-
He stepped down early because LBJ made him go early. Interpreting that as no longer caring about it is your spin on it, with no basis in fact.
Where did he say LBJ *made* him step down early? Did LBJ also tell him to not attend any more launches?
Apollo 8 would have been a crowning achievement after 8 years of very hard work and sweat... and deaths... Apollo wouldn't have happened without Webb -- it was HIS idea -- and because of HIS confidence, Congress approved of it. Father of Apollo -- stops caring.
Seaman's wanting out too - again -- he's at the HEAD OF MAN'S GREATEST ACHIEVEMENT -- and he leaves, with lame excuse. This would have been his crowning achievement too.
These were the two main figures at the head of Apollo for these 8 years... about to achieve the GREATEST THING EVER -- and they lose interest.
Sorry -- actions speak loudly here. Sure it's not proof -- but at minimum, it's compelling.
-
#1: this was miswording on my part, I meant "any flights [by other astronauts] [filmed] after June 1969's flight by Armstrong."
There are plenty. Most of them have never been transferred from the original 16mm film. For example, here's the film cannister of one of John Young's LLTV training flights in November 1971 - https://imgur.com/gallery/film-M9bKN9u
However, some films have made it to the internet where twoof-by-google hoaxnuts can find them (or not). Here are Lovell & Cernan evaluating hard landings in the LLTV filmed after Armstrong's final training flight - https://catalog.archives.gov/id/95109544
Thank you.
First link appears never watched or validated. Lone comment says "300 feet of mystery". Yeah, I agree.
==
2nd link was good.
Additionally, I'd really like to see them demonstrate a maneuver closer to the one where they have to slow down a very fast horizontal motion. They make doing these slow flat landings look difficult.
So why not put some top-weight on there to better emulate the LM? And show that they know how to bring the LM to horizontal rest? Isn't "emulation of the LM as close as possible, the goal?"
And... here again, for all 3 examples, I'm not seeing where they are using their manual jets to supply ANY of the 17% of upward thrust.. It appears the jet engine is still doing all of the lifting. This doesn't seem to match what Armstrong claimed repeatedly. What's the deal?
I love it. So now you think that you know more than the best test pilots the world had to offer? Such hubris.
Read about Armstrong's flying history and tell us again that you are in a position to comment.
-
Additionally, I'd really like to see them demonstrate a maneuver closer to the one where they have to slow down a very fast horizontal motion.
What you would like is largely irrelevant. Again, the LLTV is designed for simulation of a very specific part of the descent profile, not the entire thing from orbital descent.
So why not put some top-weight on there to better emulate the LM?
Because that is your layman's expectation of what it should look like, based on no understanding of the actual purpose of the vehicle.
Isn't "emulation of the LM as close as possible, the goal?"
No, that's your interpretation of it so you can claim it's suspect.
And... here again, for all 3 examples, I'm not seeing where they are using their manual jets to supply ANY of the 17% of upward thrust.. It appears the jet engine is still doing all of the lifting. This doesn't seem to match what Armstrong claimed repeatedly. What's the deal?
The deal is you don't understand how the machine was designed to work, and I have already explained your error earlier. The jet is ONLY there to counter 5/6th of the weight during the descent phase. There are other rockets firing to simulate the DPS, and you can't see them because they don't generate a visible plume in steady state combustion in daylight. The little jets are only the attitude control system. Again, this is 'emulating the LM' in that you have one system providing the main thrust and the RCS providing attitude control.
[/quote]
-
#1: What you would like is largely irrelevant. Again, the LLTV is designed for simulation of a very specific part of the descent profile, not the entire thing from orbital descent.
#2: Because that is your layman's expectation of what it should look like, based on no understanding of the actual purpose of the vehicle.
#3: There are other rockets firing to simulate the DPS, and you can't see them because they don't generate a visible plume in steady state combustion in daylight.
#1: So where is their attempt to simulate the HARDER part, in going from horizontal orientation to angled, to upright. Stopping a fast motion was never practiced? Why?
Answer: Because they couldn't.
#2: The LM was top-heavy at landing -- so should have been the LLTV, as emulating the LM was their stated goal. Why didn't they?
Answer: Because they couldn't. It was already hard to control as it was.
#3: There are a few shots out that the SHOW the downward jets... quite powerful, and VERY WHITE. They simply don't use them hardly at all.
Do you have any evidence to your claims of them using "invisible plumed alternate jets" for the other 17%? You seem so certain.
-
Additionally, I'd really like to see them demonstrate a maneuver closer to the one where they have to slow down a very fast horizontal motion.
Historical truth really doesn't care about what you'd 'like to see.'
The lunar module started shedding forward velocity the moment the DPS engine started powered descent. That's around 11 minutes before landing. The braking phase reduced the velocity to around 430 feet per second. Ground speed at pitchover (controlled by the autopilot) was therefore not "very fast". Forward velocity when Armstrong took over manual control was around 70 feet per second.
-
I love it. So now you think that you know more than the best test pilots the world had to offer? Such hubris.
Read about Armstrong's flying history and tell us again that you are in a position to comment.
If they weren't really going to land on the moon, they didn't need to practice these harder maneuvers - as they'd never have to do them. And since they couldn't do these maneuvers, they just pretended like they were non-important.
In no world do you have dangerous difficult tasks to do, and then you prepare for these difficult tasks by only practicing the easy tasks, but never the hard ones.
Additionally, if you know your "real scenario" will involve a top-heavy module, with the pilots STANDING UP, well above the engine, looking out a 9" triangular window.... then you ALWAYS try to make the "simulation as close to reality as possible".... But NOT if you aren't really going to do the hard tasks, then you cut corners and proclaim "I'm trained".
These maneuvers were never flight tested until humans were on board, out-of-site... and magically they worked fine every time.
-
The lunar module started shedding forward velocity the moment the DPS engine started powered descent. That's around 11 minutes before landing. The braking phase reduced the velocity to around 430 feet per second. Ground speed at pitchover (controlled by the autopilot) was therefore not "very fast". Forward velocity when Armstrong took over manual control was around 70 feet per second.
Thanks for the details!
That's about 45 mph. So they should be practicing this.
And the DPS - how did they validate it's operation ahead of time? As it's slowing down... keeping balance is difficult... why? The RCS thrusters are NOT at the center of mass vertically. They are above it. Slowing down was an intricate process -- but where was this process ever flight tested before they went on the mission?
-
#1: So where is their attempt to simulate the HARDER part, in going from horizontal orientation to angled, to upright.
Who says that is the harder part? Answer: you do, because that's what you have decided based on clearly no actual understanding. Changing the orientation of a spacecraft is not complicated. Slowing it down is not complicated. Slowing it down to a landing in a specific place IS the hardest part.
Stopping a fast motion was never practiced? Why?
Answer: Because they couldn't.
Answer: because that's not what the LLTV was designed for.
#2: The LM was top-heavy at landing -- so should have been the LLTV, as emulating the LM was their stated goal. Why didn't they?
Because their goal was not 'make a perfect match for the LM', it was 'provide a simulation of a rocket powered descent in lower gravity to allow the astronauts to get accustomed to the different reactions and sensations of such. They were not simulating the exact vehicle.
#3: There are a few shots out that the SHOW the downward jets... quite powerful, and VERY WHITE. They simply don't use them hardly at all.
Because, as I have already said, those are the attitude control jets, NOT the main descent engine rockets. Am I going to have to explain how the RCS system worked as well? It includes jets that fire to the sides, to the front and the back and vertically depending on the motion it is working to counter. That's why they are firing in short bursts. The main descent rockets are firing continuously, just as the DPS on the LM would be.
Do you have any evidence to your claims of them using "invisible plumed alternate jets" for the other 17%? You seem so certain.
They are not 'alternate jets', they are the main descent rockets.
https://history.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/LLTV-952.html (https://history.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/LLTV-952.html)
As always, you fail to understand what the LLTV was intended to achieve and how it was designed, but that doesn't stop you looking at some video and declaring it inadequate.
-
And the DPS - how did they validate it's operation ahead of time? As it's slowing down... keeping balance is difficult... why?
For the last time, rockets do not 'balance' on the thrust. This is just you projecting your very limited understanding and deciding that what looks difficult to you must in fact be difficult.
The RCS thrusters are NOT at the center of mass vertically. They are above it.
And? Do you know what a feedback system is?
Slowing down was an intricate process -- but where was this process ever flight tested before they went on the mission?
Apollo 5, 9 and 10 flight tested the LM. Apollo 11 WAS the final test.
-
That's about 45 mph. So they should be practicing this.
You've already been shown Armstrong doing exactly that.
BTW - you know the LM could have soft-landed without any pilot input at all, right? After pitchover, the commander could re-designate the exact landing spot the autopilot was headed toward if he wanted, and after he took manual control was basically just making sure they didn't land in a crater or on top of a pile of rocks.
Was there "something fishy" about the Chinese managing to soft-land ON THEIR VERY FIRST ATTEMPT. They had to slow down their unmanned spacecraft from 3,500mph. Wow, that number is so big and scary that I'm going to have to write out in full - THREE AND A HALF THOUSAND MILES AN HOUR!!!!!. And then......AND THEN...... they just plopped down on the lunar surface as light as a feather. HOW DID THEY DO THAT??? without a pilot!!!!!!!!!!
-
The lunar module started shedding forward velocity the moment the DPS engine started powered descent. That's around 11 minutes before landing. The braking phase reduced the velocity to around 430 feet per second. Ground speed at pitchover (controlled by the autopilot) was therefore not "very fast". Forward velocity when Armstrong took over manual control was around 70 feet per second.
Thanks for the details!
That's about 45 mph. So they should be practicing this.
And the DPS - how did they validate it's operation ahead of time? As it's slowing down... keeping balance is difficult... why? The RCS thrusters are NOT at the center of mass vertically. They are above it. Slowing down was an intricate process -- but where was this process ever flight tested before they went on the mission?
This is covered by in your words "incomplete code", The thrusters were coded to compensate any rotational thrust to keep the LM flying straight and narrow. If you look back in the thread you will find a question that I asked the group about mission problems and you will find Jay's answer that A12 had lateral movements, that were code corrected after that flight. Those dumb old programmers at MIT sure knew there coding way better than you.
-
but where was this process ever flight tested before they went on the mission?
You know the Surveyor unmanned landers slowed down from 6,000mph to soft-land on the Moon, right?
-
You know the Surveyor unmanned landers slowed down from 6,000mph to soft-land on the Moon, right?
With one even doing a simulated lunar lift off.
-
#2: The LM was top-heavy at landing -- so should have been the LLTV, as emulating the LM was their stated goal. Why didn't they?
Answer: Because they couldn't. It was already hard to control as it was.
I have said this before, I am not one of the Apollo-related experts on this forum and I do not mind making errors and getting them corrected. Having said that, how is this comedian still spouting his Bart Sibrel claim when he's had it corrected a few times? The LM was designed by a huge team of fantastic engineers at Grumman and is highly regarded in engineering circles.
https://moonhoaxdebunked.blogspot.com/2017/07/712-how-could-lunar-module-be-so-stable.html
-
#1: because that's not what the LLTV was designed for.
#2: "not top heavy?" ::Because their goal was not 'make a perfect match for the LM'
#3: ...NOT the main descent engine rockets. "Invisible plumes..."
They are not 'alternate jets', they are the main descent rockets.
#1: If he had to slow it down from 45 mph to 0 mph -- why not simulate that? Not important? Don't need the practice?
#2: Why not try to make it "more like the LM?" Wouldn't that be better?
Why not put them in the standing position several meters ABOVE the engine, looking through tiny windows?
Stopping a top-heavy vehicle going 45 mph - was never practiced. Ever. Their first times doing it was the 6 Landings... and they weren't even sweating it. No signs of "I'm never going to see my kid again, if we have one mess-up."
Their lack of even TRYING to simulate the real environment with this LLTV is unrealistic, especially given the fatal consequences of just a minor lapse in attitude control.
#3: Looking at the LLTV schematic, I see no place for the jet that were supposed to provide 17% of the thrust. Where is this jet? What type of fuel does it use?
-
And? Do you know what a feedback system is?
Yep, programmed several. One mechanical. They require fast/accurate feedback with the capability to respond quickly and precisely with the needed response.
This LLTV topic deserves it's own thread.
-
Was there "something fishy" about the Chinese managing to soft-land ON THEIR VERY FIRST ATTEMPT. They had to slow down their unmanned spacecraft from 3,500mph. Wow, that number is so big and scary that I'm going to have to write out in full - THREE AND A HALF THOUSAND MILES AN HOUR!!!!!. And then......AND THEN...... they just plopped down on the lunar surface as light as a feather. HOW DID THEY DO THAT??? without a pilot!!!!!!!!!!
They did it in 2019 right? 1000x+ the fidelity. A million+ times the processing power and speed of feedback loops. So this is at least believable.
But even the Odysseus 2024 fell over -- even with this tech that operates far better than human control. We have tech that can land a Starship from free fall... humans can't do this.
And for the LM -- there was NO PRACTICE for the pilots to gauge the response of this top-heavy vehicle while looking through 9" triangular windows, standing up. No problem.
-
#1: If he had to slow it down from 45 mph to 0 mph -- why not simulate that? Not important? Don't need the practice?
The entire landing WAS simulated, in the LM simulator. The LLTV was specifically designed to provide some degree of simulation of the final approach and landing. That is all it was intended for, and NASA isn't under any obligation to make their simulators to what you consider the necessary degree.
#2: Why not try to make it "more like the LM?" Wouldn't that be better?
Why not put them in the standing position several meters ABOVE the engine, looking through tiny windows?
Because that's unnecessarily complex for what the LLTV was trying to achieve. It was adequate for the stated aim. You don't get to come along decades later and say it was inadequate because it doesn't meet your layman's expectations of how you think it should have been done.
Their lack of even TRYING to simulate the real environment with this LLTV is unrealistic
To you. So what?
especially given the fatal consequences of just a minor lapse in attitude control.
Usual hyperbole. Attitude control was under the control of the automatic system, and the system was tested by the time of the landing. Your suggestion that the astronauts should have sounded tense ignores the fact most of these guys were test pilots and combat pilots before Apollo. They had plenty of experience of potentially fatal situations, and they come through them by remaining calm and collected. Your inability to fathom that counts for very little.
#3: Looking at the LLTV schematic, I see no place for the jet that were supposed to provide 17% of the thrust. Where is this jet? What type of fuel does it use?
Read that site I linked to and look at all the images that are also linked in that article. I told you I'm not spoon feeding you.
'This thing doesn't look like I expect it to' is not evidence of anything suspect, especially when you clearly have no actual idea of how it worked.
-
And? Do you know what a feedback system is?
Yep, programmed several. One mechanical. They require fast/accurate feedback with the capability to respond quickly and precisely with the needed response.
And so you are now also presuming that the systems in the spacecraft could not handle such things? Again with no more evidence than you don't believe it.
-
You know the Surveyor unmanned landers slowed down from 6,000mph to soft-land on the Moon, right?
Surveyors weighed 4% as much (650 lbs, vs 18,000 lbs), and was able to be bottom heavy (as they didn't have to carry 11,000 lbs on TOP of it).
The LM was 18,000 lbs at landing-- 11,000 lbs was the AM + crew.
And being only 650 lbs with no crew, they could fall a lot faster without issue.
25x lighter, bottom heavy, and could land much harder without breaking.
Surveyor 3 shows a bounce...
-
And so you are now also presuming that the systems in the spacecraft could not handle such things? Again with no more evidence than you don't believe it.
Effective feedback loops required accurate/fast/precise INPUT as well as a very predictable output response.
The sensors they had and computing power were much lower fidelity and weak. And "made in a hurry, by a fully schedule driven NASA work plan."
The fact that it was never Tested/calibrated to get-it-right - is the main part I find non-credible.
The fact that they didn't even try (or were unable) to create a similar vehicle to fly on earth, to demonstrate that this theoretical algorithm would work... is non-credible to me.
It's the stacking up of "fishy things", "non-credible things", "a fully schedule-driven corner cutting process" along with some "impossibilities" - -that provide me with a foundation for giving credence to MLH.
-
Effective feedback loops required accurate/fast/precise INPUT as well as a very predictable output response.
That is not in dispute.
The sensors they had and computing power were much lower fidelity and weak.
Meaningless waffle. What computing power was required to operate such a system? I don't believe you actually know, nor have any idea how it was designed.
The fact that it was never Tested/calibrated to get-it-right - is the main part I find non-credible.
And that is pure ignorance. It was tested, it's just that you don't know how and have applied your epxectations to the design process of actual experts in the field.
The fact that they didn't even try (or were unable) to create a similar vehicle to fly on earth, to demonstrate that this theoretical algorithm would work... is non-credible to me.
You're credulity is not evidence of foul play.
-
I have said this before, I am not one of the Apollo-related experts on this forum and I do not mind making errors and getting them corrected. Having said that, how is this comedian still spouting his Bart Sibrel claim when he's had it corrected a few times? The LM was designed by a huge team of fantastic engineers at Grumman and is highly regarded in engineering circles.
https://moonhoaxdebunked.blogspot.com/2017/07/712-how-could-lunar-module-be-so-stable.html
Thanks for the addition. It's when I see articles like this with known deception, that adds to my wonder -- "Why lie if truth is on your side?"
This article says: "its main masses were located at or below the center of thrust of the motor and therefore its center of mass was quite low."
This is blatantly FALSE, for the landing, as he had to slow it down from 45 mph to 0 mph.
Descent Engine, Center of Thrust - was 9' above the landing pads.
Base weight, 4500 lbs + a little fuel left.. 6,000 lbs max. Center of Mass - 7' above landing pads.
So far -- so good, but just barely. The thrust COM is 2' ABOVE the lander's center of mass (MAX)
Now pile on top of this 11,000 more lbs... starting at 2' ABOVE the Thrust's COM! (center of mass)
For the AM, it has 5000 lbs of fuel centered at 2' above it's floor-- so this 5,000 lbs is 4' ABOVE the Thrust's COM.
Now add on the rest of the 6000 lbs of fuel - centered at 4'+ above it's floor -- 6,000 lbs 6' ABOVE the Thrust's COM.
VERY TOP HEAVY. The overall COM of mass for the above is:
6000 at 7' + 5000 at 11' + 6000 at 13' => 10.9' COM -- which is 2' above the Thrust's COM - minimum.
So this article attempting to "educate people" - has to Lie to make their point, and prevent people from asking questions.
This is how NASA education typically goes -- claims that are NOT cross-examined... and the cross-examination is classified as "flat earth stupid" so no one ever sees it.
Truth is easy to control for the govt' for things like this. All of Society SUPPORTS IT. Confirmation bias isn't conspiracy -- it's how things work. Society now has this confirmation bias to not even question the things told to them.
That's how I see it.
-
Because you didn't read this or more than likely ignored it
The lunar module started shedding forward velocity the moment the DPS engine started powered descent. That's around 11 minutes before landing. The braking phase reduced the velocity to around 430 feet per second. Ground speed at pitchover (controlled by the autopilot) was therefore not "very fast". Forward velocity when Armstrong took over manual control was around 70 feet per second.
Thanks for the details!
That's about 45 mph. So they should be practicing this.
And the DPS - how did they validate it's operation ahead of time? As it's slowing down... keeping balance is difficult... why? The RCS thrusters are NOT at the center of mass vertically. They are above it. Slowing down was an intricate process -- but where was this process ever flight tested before they went on the mission?
This is covered by in your words "incomplete code", The thrusters were coded to compensate any rotational thrust to keep the LM flying straight and narrow. If you look back in the thread you will find a question that I asked the group about mission problems and you will find Jay's answer that A12 had lateral movements, that were code corrected after that flight. Those dumb old programmers at MIT sure knew there coding way better than you.
-
Apparently only najak has a problem understanding the weight distribution on the LM designed by expert engineers. It seems like he doesn't understand even basic rocket design!
From that link:
"This is a far more stable configuration than a conventional rocket, in which the tanks (and therefore their great masses) are located above the engines. Placing these tanks laterally and at opposite ends actually helped to stabilize the vehicle, somewhat like the pole of a tightrope walker."
This bloke is a complete waste of time.
-
Apparently only najak has a problem understanding the weight distribution on the LM designed by expert engineers. It seems like he doesn't understand even basic rocket design!
Sure - that's a good idea for stability - at least for 1 of the 2 directions.
But this article you shared talks about VERTICAL center-of-mass -- ABOVE vs. BELOW... and declared it to be BELOW... Instead it's 2' ABOVE.
So stopping a 45 mph vehicle that is top heavy - is a bigger deal.
But they PURPOSEFULLY made the LLTV "easier to control" than the LM... why? Why not make them "more similar" to provide "more valid practice?"
Why not practice the harder maneuvers?
And you don't smell any fish.
-
But this article you shared talks about VERTICAL center-of-mass -- ABOVE vs. BELOW... and declared it to be BELOW... Instead it's 2' ABOVE.
Alrighty, you go and fetch me the phrase that says that.
So stopping a 45 mph vehicle that is top heavy - is a bigger deal.
Bollocks.
But they PURPOSEFULLY made the LLTV "easier to control" than the LM... why?
More bollocks.
Why not make them "more similar" to provide "more valid practice?"
If I Ran the Local Lavatory Service. The zoo is too refined for this.
Why not practice the harder maneuvers?
They did on simulators.
And you don't smell any fish.
I smell total ignorance.
-
...I find non-credible.
... is non-credible to me.
It's the stacking up of "fishy things", "non-credible things", "a fully schedule-driven corner cutting process" along with some "impossibilities" - -that provide me with a foundation for giving credence to MLH.
As many of us have pointed out many times now and in many different ways, what you find credible or not credible isn't relevant. Your assumption that what you believe is plausible is some kind of gold standard is laughably arrogant. You don't know nearly enough about any of this to weigh in on credible or non credible.
Why do you think professional test pilots and engineers should have consulted you for the best way to test their hardware for a lunar landing? You know nothing about anything they did or the reasons they did it. Go do some actual research and see what questions you have remaining when you've put in even an ounce of work.
Or just admit that you like living in your fantasy of being the main character in a Dan Brown novel, unraveling massive conspiracies one detail at a time, and stop wasting everyone's time.
-
But this article you shared talks about VERTICAL center-of-mass -- ABOVE vs. BELOW... and declared it to be BELOW... Instead it's 2' ABOVE.
Alrighty, you go and fetch me the phrase that says that.
From your article, it concludes:
"because its main masses were located at or below the center of thrust of the motor and therefore its center of mass was quite low."
This is an Apollogist's Lie. One which you digested as truth. The MAJORITY OF THE MASS was ABOVE the center of thrust for this descent engine.
-
As many of us have pointed out many times now and in many different ways, what you find credible or not credible isn't relevant. Your assumption that what you believe is plausible is some kind of gold standard is laughably arrogant. You don't know nearly enough about any of this to weigh in on credible or non credible.
Correct. My finding something "non credible" doesn't make it false, and itself is not evidence. It's simply my reaction to the facts we're looking at. I'm not stating this as "proof" of anything other than "how I perceive the evidence/facts".
Part of what I'm doing here is establishing integrity for all MLH evidence. Often I start with a set of facts for MLH... which are flawed or have omissions, etc. They are bad beliefs.
So I come here state these "Facts", where they are most likely to be disputed, if they can be disputed.
This is the place to be, to establish if there is any integrity in MLH claims -- one at a time. BUT, only for the ones where I cannot find an existing debunk. Most are dumb (or non-compelling) or debunked already.
-
What exactly do you mean when you say "the government"? The US government? If so, do you seriously think that only USAnian scientists can study the Apollo rocks? If not, then how can the US government possibly affect what non-USAnian scientists say about the rocks?
https://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/sampreq/requests.cfm
That's the website to use when you want to request a lunar sample for research. Where does it say that "the government" has any say in it, especially for non-USAnian scientists?
This is the request form. Where do you see the database/evidence of SATISFIED REQUESTS? This is the only thing that matters.
How requests are approved -- where are the docs for this process? NASA is govt' owned -- so they effectively ARE the USA govt.
So, once again, rather than take things at face value, you invent a scenario for which there's no evidence but which aligns with your predetermined conclusion that Apollo is fake.
In the meantime, I'll assume from other comments you've made that non-USAnian scientists can study the Apollo rocks, or rather, "study" them, as long as they write scientific papers which align with the mainstream view. Would that be an accurate characterisation of your view?
Reply #119:
One piece of evidence against the Cold War was JFK's attempt to establish a collaboration with Russia on the Moon Landing in 1963. This doesn't sound like "enemies" to me... They said "no thanks, but good luck with that" -- soon after JFK was assassinated. JFK wouldn't go into Vietnam? Was exhibiting doubts about Apollo's mission, possibly willing to pull the plug? Anti-Banks/CIA? Who knows -- why he was assassinated. BUT -- 1963 we see he doesn't seem to be too concerned by Cold War... maybe that was part of it... the DoD profiteers wanted the Cold War to be something that struck fear in Americans to justify govt spending to mitigate these fears.
The existence of the ideological conflict is undeniable, as it was argued out by people in many countries across the world, whether at the ballot box, in universities, or down the barrel of a gun. The same for the officers and men of the military forces of the USA and the USSR - fervently believing in the rightness of capitalism or communism.
Yet according to you the clique in charge of each country consisted of people who knew it was all for show. How did people promoted to that clique psychologically handle that transition?
I don't believe the "elected figureheads" are the ones really running the show. The unelected unknowns are likely pulling more powerful strings. The "figureheads" is who they want us to look at... Who pulls the strings at CIA? DIA? DoD? I think more power resides in these organizations. Much of what we see in Congress/etc - is a charade.
This is above my pay grade. So I'm speculating on a narrative... which makes more sense to me.
But if YOU think you KNOW truth at this much higher level and behind the veils/curtains, because it's how it's presented to us -- then I believe you are way way over confident.
It's why I tend to rely on "the basics" for truth... and look for the "holes in their story" to realize "things aren't what they are telling us here."
Okay, so when you were a fundamentalist Christian you believed in an all-powerful God. Now, in your post-Christian life, you instead believe in the all-powerful "unelected unknowns". You took God on faith. How is "speculating on a narrative" any different from faith?
But let's go back to the example I provided before: Colin Powell. Here is a man who grew up the child of Jamaican immigrants, went to the local government schools, and served as a Captain and Major in the US Army in the Vietnam War. Obviously, at those ranks, and with his background, he wasn't one of the people who "pull the strings". Yet 20 years later he held the most senior position in the US military, and another 15 years later was George W Bush's Secretary of State. Would you consider that position senior enough to be one of the string pullers? Or are you going to now say the entire US government consists of people who don't realise they're being controlled by these "unelected unknowns"?
#2: a-c: "So they say"... Moon-rock science has not much commercial value... it's govt grant funded.
Funded by which government? Evidence please.
I think many govt's have collaborations. I think we may more leverage on certain nation's leaders than we'll ever announce. It's almost in no one's best interest to "reveal dirt" when you can more smartly "use that dirt for leverage". .. reveal it, and the leverage is gone. And we're all-in-this-together, to a point... so if you cause damage, it can cut both ways with backlash.
So "govt" is enough. USA govt has influence in many places.
Since there is no "private profitable commercial value to moon rocks or studies" - this gets funded by govt. If the USA wanted to establish validation from another nation, it wouldn't take much money to do so - nor obvious corruption. "Hey we'd like you to take a look at our rocks." Answer: "Why? What's in it for us? Expense without benefit?" -- USA -- "here's some money for your troubles to pay those salaries to do this work"... the hand that feeds them is USA. Not much, not corrupt.
Or if not direct -- then indirect. Either way, these guys aren't hired to "call USA liars"... their findings were pre-determined, mostly. It's moon studies -- so they may have been fed suggested methodologies, known to produce the results we wanted.
Without commercial profits - and only a small select set of people involved -- ultimately funded by govt (USA as the source, in some fashion) -- I don't hold this form of "Scientific Consensus" at the same level as I would for most other concepts. Follow the money -- and it leads back to govt's -- which are influenced by the USA, motivated to do right by them.
So please explain, exactly what power does the US government have? How many decisions they make are their own, and how many are made by the "unelected unknowns"? On the one hand they have the power to make the world's scientific community maintain a lie about Apollo (and a remarkably self-consistent lie too), yet they're somehow under the thrall of these "unelected unknowns"?
Them declaring Apollo is Real is a given. All of these seem to have viable methods to produce seemingly authentic moon rocks from those gathered in Antarctica.
We've already explained to you that the differences between lunar meteorites and Apollo rocks are so obvious that even non-scientists could tell them apart. Mag40 specifically told you some of those differences. Do you acknowledge this information was given?
Please provide me your best link(s) for this claim. I'll will check it out in more detail.
As I said, Mag40 has explained some of those differences. Use some of those terms in a search engine. Or just ask your AI friend to list the differences. Or I suppose you can just assume they're all lying anyway.
What's your source for this? And seeing as you put words in quotes, do you mean they're exact quotes of what someone said?
My use of quotes is for clarity of a term to group words together more clearly. Since we aren't speaking, it's hard to convey inflection. If I'm making a real quote, I'll put it on a separate line with a ":" to clarify, "this is an actual quote".
Fine...whatever. Let's see if you live up to that, because you're quickly building a reputation of someone who quickly forgets what he promises.
I've already given you place to look: the Lunar and Planetary Institute website. Do you need instructions to navigate the site?
Sure give me a lowdown. And show me an example of rocks that were studied by non-govt-funded entities, or other nations. I believe the vast majority were simply inspected and catalogued by NASA... not others.
Yes, the rocks were cataloged by NASA, because they hold them. It's sort of like the way a library catalogs its own books, then lends them out to people to read.
Please show me some evidence that my conclusions here are notably wrong, and I'll investigate it further. As a rookie, my focus hasn't been on the "rocks/samples" so I've only spent a few hours on this topic so far. I tried searches to figure out "who got and studied these rocks/samples?"...etc... and only got a few obscure hits... But MOST of the hits came back were for 2019 and more recent... there was a sudden surge of samples released. Prior to 2019 -- not seeing the evidence of this.
Well, in another of my posts I've given you the website address and the menu options to select to find the compendium for each sample. I assume you realise it's on you to actually go there and do the research, not us.
2012 - finding the "particle size by weight to be 1/8th of what they were in 1970's" -- discovered all-of-a-sudden (not gradual) -- seems to me like a gaping hole-in-their-story - indicating that things are not what we've been told.
I've already explained your faulty logic here.
Then May 1972, our alliance with Russia was signed. For how long before that was this alliance planned?
What was the name of the alliance as described in the document the two countries signed?
https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/events/centennials/nixon/exhibit/nixon-online-exhibit-agreement.html#:~:text=On%20May%2024%2C%201972%2C%20President,with%20a%20Soyuz%20command%20module.
How long was this in-the-works, prior to May 1972? (did they know they were planning to have it play out like this as of 1969?)
So, the document you linked was the "Agreement Concerning Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for Peaceful Purposes". In other words, it's an agreement, not an alliance. Prove me wrong.
but NOW these samples show average particle size of 35 microns instead of 80!!!... Hmmm,.... maybe it's because China's samples that are real showed this... Next we'll just claim that our measurement process in 1970's was flawed... off by 55%.
Okay, just to clarify again, are you saying that the only analysis performed on the Apollo rocks was to measure average particle size?
Nope. But particle weight dropped to under 1/8th, without anyone noticing degradation of size in the prior decades - is a highly suspect occurrence.
Well, no. As I've explained elsewhere, this exact type of test appears to have been conducted twice - once in 1969 and once in 2012. Conducting a test twice gives us two data points, and two data points don't tell us anything about the shape of the curve between them. Prove me wrong.
And also, how did you ascertain that the Chinese samples are real? What problems did the Chinese solve that the Yanks and Russkies couldn't?
Yes, because it was decades later with 1000x+ the electronic/sensor capabilities. Not done in a rush, and NOT carrying humans. We don't know it's true, but it's 100x more believable than the feats claimed by Apollo.
Okay, so you don't know it's true. Thank you.
In the Ross Taylor interview, what significant finding did scientists make about the lack of a particular group of metals in the Apollo rock samples?
I don't think I'm familiar with the claim. Please state it, give a reference, and we'll go from there.
I've provided the link. All you have to do is read the interview.
-
#1: In the meantime, I'll assume from other comments you've made that non-USAnian scientists can study the Apollo rocks, or rather, "study" them, as long as they write scientific papers which align with the mainstream view. Would that be an accurate characterization of your view?
It's a general notion currently. I also don't think things are clear cut. I don't think they sat anyone down and specifically told them what their findings needed to be. When I looked for "who did the research", I didn't see any good proof of much being done outside of Johnson Space Center ... so if you have some links, I'll mark them and read them. And learn more. And then have a better assessment.
#2: The existence of the ideological conflict is undeniable, as it was argued out by people in many countries across the world, ...
Thing is - the media (driven by govt at times?) - drives the narrative, which people latch onto, then it becomes REAL - at the ground level. People are told this/that with fear motives - and poof, they start believing it. So sure, it all seemed real to the masses of people - but was it based upon truth?
For example, close to half of Americans believe the 2020 election was rigged; and half don't. Depending upon who you ask - you'll get a different story.
In 1969 - it was easier for gov't to control the narrative. Walter Cronkite was generally regarded as fully honest- if he said it, people trusted it. Just as half of Americans in 2020 were 100% fooled into believing a lie, and to them, their beliefs were "real" -- the same dynamic was active in 1969 - except back then, it was easier to have a more singular unified narrative... such as with Communism (told to fear it - and so we did) ... and Apollo.
#3: Now, in your post-Christian life, you instead believe in the all-powerful "unelected unknowns". You took God on faith. How is "speculating on a narrative" any different from faith?
All-Powerful is an absolute. I rarely think in absolutes. I think the "elected unknowns" have power, and that it's out of the public view, and something rarely acknowledged.
#4: Or are you going to now say the entire US government consists of people who don't realize they're being controlled by these "unelected unknowns"?
One set of "unelected unknowns" are Lobbyists - controlling govt' via legal bribery called "Campaign donations". In 1969, who knows what type of money kickbacks were set up, with the profitable NASA contracts. I think Webb's hand was twisted into making Apollo 8 "go around the moon" - He resigned a month later, and didn't attend anymore launches... total loss of interest, it seems.
So those "making decisions" have strings being pulled on them that they do not talk about or admit.
#5: So please explain, exactly what power does the US government have? How many decisions they make are their own, and how many are made by the "unelected unknowns"?
I believe JFK assassination was a conspiracy of an institution. This institution was never found out... dropped. Papers STILL sealed. I think JFK was being eliminated ... possibly for one or more reasons... as he opposed some powerful (unelected) institutions -- Fed Bank, CIA, DIA, Vietnam War Machine... and instead of feigning the Red Scare/Cold War -- in 1963 he asked the Russian to partner with them on the Moon Landing!... oops, this breaks the charade of a "nasty scary Cold War". Who benefitted from the Cold War?? Contractors... Military, etc. Follow the money...
#6: We've already explained to you that the differences between lunar meteorites and Apollo rocks are so obvious that even non-scientists could tell them apart.
Here's a counter reference, where a champion Geologist Apollogist, contradicts your claims:
https://sites.wustl.edu/meteoritesite/items/how-do-we-know-that-its-a-rock-from-the-moon/ (https://sites.wustl.edu/meteoritesite/items/how-do-we-know-that-its-a-rock-from-the-moon/)
quote: Lunar mare basalts, as well as basaltic meteorites from Mars, bear a strong resemblance to basalts from Earth. In the absence of a fusion crust, there is little about a lunar mare basalt that would provoke much interest in a geologist who was handed the rock by someone asking, “What is this?”
#7: Yes, the rocks were cataloged by NASA, because they hold them.
And my concern is - if these are rocks from Antarctica - their manner of study and qualifications can be such that it produces results that show "these are from the moon". Without motivated skeptics, paid to be skeptics, rewarded for being skeptics -- I do find the "results" suspect, in an industry where all people paid to do this stuff - are funded by the govt.... not the commercial world.
Similar to "Polls" - the manner in which questions are asked (or to whom they are asked) - can produce an erroneous result - often intended to favor one side to begin with. The same concept can apply to "moon rock studies" --- so I take results with a grain of salt.
The recent HUGE difference in composition/size of Chinese regolith vs. Apollo -- is more fuel to support MLH.
#8: "2012 - particle size by weight to be 1/8th of what they were in 1970's"
I've already explained your faulty logic here.
Explain it again please. This is a DRASTIC change. If they are reducing to 1/8th size -- this is DRASTIC -- but they didn't notice? Their excuse was "water degradation?" -- in which case there would be OTHER changes -- not JUST SIZE. This explanation has no names attached to it -- no real explanation. I'd like to see some skeptic geologists paid to find out "what's wrong with this picture"... but this isn't how this industry works. People serve those who pay them. And if they don't, they get fired and discredited... Same as was the case for Thomas Baron, RIP.
#9: "Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for Peaceful Purposes". In other words, it's an agreement, not an alliance. Prove me wrong.
"Cooperation" is a form of Alliance. Agreed to hold hands and cooperate. Within a few years, our astronauts were hugging it out in orbit! This was a refreshing "win".
#10: Well, no. As I've explained elsewhere, this exact type of test appears to have been conducted twice - once in 1969 and once in 2012. Conducting a test twice gives us two data points, and two data points don't tell us anything about the shape of the curve between them. Prove me wrong.
See above. You won't get "unbothered breakdown of particle size from atmospheric problems" (as though they couldn't keep it in a vacuum) THIS dramatic without other changes ALSO happening... all of which would have been noticed. Big hole in their story, IMO.
If it were just a smaller change -- sure. But not when each particle is essentially being divided into 8 parts! THIS IS HUGE -- a bigger deal and investigation should be made from this... but NASA wouldn't fund that. So it'll never get done. It costs money to do this stuff - and there is no money in Atheism.
#11: Ross Taylor interview - I've provided the link. All you have to do is read the interview.
Found your link, and it's on my list to check out. Thank you.
UPDATE:
Skimming it -- very long. I get it -- "lots of qualifications", but also "You remained a consultant for NASA for 20 years, didn't you?"...
Paid by NASA, and probably is best paying client/boss. If he was "inept" they'd find someone else to earn this good money.
Before taking the job, probably had to sign away a few Rights (NDA stuff, etc) -- so that if he decided to "choose honesty over very good money" - he couldn't legally be honest... He'd be breaking the law against NASA (not just a normal commercial company).
So you are correct -- these type results that can only be proclaimed by "those working for NASA" -- are not so compelling to me either way. To me - it's "just words" - predictable words.
I look for the "actions", and holes in the story, and the unlikeliness of certain events, or in some cases, seeming impossibilities.
I also Follow the Money - and do not trust "political/world narratives" -- I think to a large degree they are manufactured, and "turned into reality" via media/propaganda -- telling everyone how to think... and they do. Making it look easy, IMO.
EDIT#2 - if you have specific things he said in mind that you want to highlight -- please do. I'd be happy to discuss various points -- I am not suggesting he's "just outright lying about everything" - I do not believe this. I simply believe that he's apply a subject-pro-nasa filter to his views, where this pertains.
-
It's a general notion currently. I also don't think things are clear cut. I don't think they sat anyone down and specifically told them what their findings needed to be. When I looked for "who did the research", I didn't see any good proof of much being done outside of Johnson Space Center ... so if you have some links, I'll mark them and read them. And learn more. And then have a better assessment.
I already gave you a list of papers from the first lunar science conferences. You can check the insititutions for whom the authors work. There are many, many of thgem outside NASA. I've already pointe you towards Google Scholar, where - if you search properly, you can find research papers from scientists around the world looking at Apollo samples.
Thing is - the media (driven by govt at times?) - drives the narrative, which people latch onto, then it becomes REAL - at the ground level. People are told this/that with fear motives - and poof, they start believing it. So sure, it all seemed real to the masses of people - but was it based upon truth?
For example, close to half of Americans believe the 2020 election was rigged; and half don't. Depending upon who you ask - you'll get a different story.
And only one of those answers will be correct.
#4: Or are you going to now say the entire US government consists of people who don't realize they're being controlled by these "unelected unknowns"?
One set of "unelected unknowns" are Lobbyists - controlling govt' via legal bribery called "Campaign donations". In 1969, who knows what type of money kickbacks were set up, with the profitable NASA contracts. I think Webb's hand was twisted into making Apollo 8 "go around the moon" - He resigned a month later, and didn't attend anymore launches... total loss of interest, it seems.[/quote]
Webb's arm was twisted by a belief they were about to be beaten by the Soviets. I've already given you a link where he clerarly states why he didn't go to launches.
#5: So please explain, exactly what power does the US government have? How many decisions they make are their own, and how many are made by the "unelected unknowns"?
I believe JFK assassination was a conspiracy of an institution. This institution was never found out... dropped. Papers STILL sealed. I think JFK was being eliminated ... possibly for one or more reasons... as he opposed some powerful (unelected) institutions -- Fed Bank, CIA, DIA, Vietnam War Machine... and instead of feigning the Red Scare/Cold War -- in 1963 he asked the Russian to partner with them on the Moon Landing!... oops, this breaks the charade of a "nasty scary Cold War". Who benefitted from the Cold War?? Contractors... Military, etc. Follow the money... [/quote]
"Think"..."believe"...
Here's a counter reference, where a champion Geologist Apollogist, contradicts your claims:
https://sites.wustl.edu/meteoritesite/items/how-do-we-know-that-its-a-rock-from-the-moon/ (https://sites.wustl.edu/meteoritesite/items/how-do-we-know-that-its-a-rock-from-the-moon/)
quote: Lunar mare basalts, as well as basaltic meteorites from Mars, bear a strong resemblance to basalts from Earth. In the absence of a fusion crust, there is little about a lunar mare basalt that would provoke much interest in a geologist who was handed the rock by someone asking, “What is this?”
You missed a bit from the same paragraph: " However, chemical tests would be required to prove a lunar or martian origin." So there is a way of testing to show a meteorite's origin. There's a lot more of that page you're ignoring. You're also ignoring the fact that the samples were collected on live TV and photographed in situ. No-one just turned up with a baggie and said "oh yeah this is from the moon".
And my concern is - if these are rocks from Antarctica - their manner of study and qualifications can be such that it produces results that show "these are from the moon". Without motivated skeptics, paid to be skeptics, rewarded for being skeptics -- I do find the "results" suspect, in an industry where all people paid to do this stuff - are funded by the govt.... not the commercial world.
Science is a process of scepticism. Your suspicion over results is entirely based on your opinion. That's not how it works. Not all scientifica analysis is paid for by Government. Not all governments are American, government can't dictate the outcome of experimental work.
Similar to "Polls" - the manner in which questions are asked (or to whom they are asked) - can produce an erroneous result - often intended to favor one side to begin with. The same concept can apply to "moon rock studies" --- so I take results with a grain of salt.
Phyisical and chemical analyses of material is a very different process to the composition of a poll question. In either case, anyone worth their salt can look at how these things were done and pick holes in them.
Explain it again please. This is a DRASTIC change. If they are reducing to 1/8th size -- this is DRASTIC -- but they didn't notice? Their excuse was "water degradation?" -- in which case there would be OTHER changes -- not JUST SIZE. This explanation has no names attached to it -- no real explanation. I'd like to see some skeptic geologists paid to find out "what's wrong with this picture"... but this isn't how this industry works. People serve those who pay them. And if they don't, they get fired and discredited... Same as was the case for Thomas Baron, RIP.
Or you could go read it again.
Baron was fired because he breached company policy and leaked information to the press.
"Cooperation" is a form of Alliance. Agreed to hold hands and cooperate. Within a few years, our astronauts were hugging it out in orbit! This was a refreshing "win".
Yes, it was. I've met one of the people who did the hand shaking and heard his testimony. There may have been handshakes in space, but the missiles were still very much beng pointed.
See above. You won't get "unbothered breakdown of particle size from atmospheric problems" (as though they couldn't keep it in a vacuum) THIS dramatic without other changes ALSO happening... all of which would have been noticed. Big hole in their story, IMO.
If it were just a smaller change -- sure. But not when each particle is essentially being divided into 8 parts! THIS IS HUGE -- a bigger deal and investigation should be made from this... but NASA wouldn't fund that. So it'll never get done. It costs money to do this stuff - and there is no money in Atheism.
You store them in a vacuum but you still get contamination when you remove samples form vacuum, no matter how careful you are. YOu've also had it explained to you, at least twice, that the degradation of samples was not replicated by other researchers, and that the degradatiuon was not occuring on samples still in storage - only those already released for analysis.
"divided into 8 parts"? Tell me you know nothing about particle size analysis without saying you know nothing about it...
Skimming it -- very long. I get it -- "lots of qualifications", but also "You remained a consultant for NASA for 20 years, didn't you?"...
Paid by NASA, and probably is best paying client/boss. If he was "inept" they'd find someone else to earn this good money.
Before taking the job, probably had to sign away a few Rights (NDA stuff, etc) -- so that if he decided to "choose honesty over very good money" - he couldn't legally be honest... He'd be breaking the law against NASA (not just a normal commercial company).
So you are correct -- these type results that can only be proclaimed by "those working for NASA" -- are not so compelling to me either way. To me - it's "just words" - predictable words.
I look for the "actions", and holes in the story, and the unlikeliness of certain events, or in some cases, seeming impossibilities.
I also Follow the Money - and do not trust "political/world narratives" -- I think to a large degree they are manufactured, and "turned into reality" via media/propaganda -- telling everyone how to think... and they do. Making it look easy, IMO.
"Probably"..."IMO".."I think"...
You might follow money, but you don't follow science, facts, data, logical argument and deduction and engineering. You might skim read a paper but you don't take in the nuances of it. Genuine research looks for holes in its own arguments. You don't do that.
-
he had to slow it down from 45 mph to 0 mph.
After Armstrong takes manual control the default attitude of the LM is a backward tilt of around 10 degrees. The descent engine is slowing the forward velocity of the LM without Armstrong having to do a thing.
-
he had to slow it down from 45 mph to 0 mph.
After Armstrong takes manual control the default attitude of the LM is a backward tilt of around 10 degrees. The descent engine is slowing the forward velocity of the LM without Armstrong having to do a thing.
Thank you for the detail.
I've heard competing claims from Apollogists on this. When it comes to landing, how is the LM balance maintained? If it begins to tilt, which becomes more and more, unless countered - how is this tilt detected and then mitigated?
When it comes to this 10 deg tilt -- as it slows down, it has to gradually decrease, to 0 deg tilt. What system/human provides this "balancing"?
Is the Balancing control performed by Human or the AGC?
===
No matter these answers, I have a issue to vent:
1. If it was Armstrong - then he needed to practice this 10 deg 45mph motion with the LLTV.
2. If the AGC/IMU - then this should have been tested in the context of an LLTV-like vehicle, to prove viability.
Either way - this 45 mph, 10 deg tilt maneuver -- was NEVER FLIGHT TESTED... until they were going the real deal.
And of more importance, the setup of this LLTV, should have been "more like the LM" where feasible -- such as "being top heavy", position the astronaut STANDING UP, with his feet 3 feet above the top of the jet engine... Give him a 9" window to look out. Then have him at least do the 45 mph to stopping maneuver many times -- until he can nail it. (or the AGC can)
Instead, the FIRST time they EVER did these maneuvers, from within a LM-like vehicle, was on the moon.
-
#1: I already gave you a list of papers from the first lunar science conferences.
#2: I've already pointe you towards Google Scholar, where - if you search properly, you can find research papers from scientists around the world looking at Apollo samples.
#1: Can you supply this link again, I'll check them out this time.
#2: "if you search PROPERLY" - can you please give me a few examples, so that I might know what "properly" means?
I'd like to see evidence, especially pre-2019, of non-NASA institutions studying these samples or rocks. When I search last time, I got a lot of hits, but almost all were 2019+...
I mostly want to see the studies and 3rd parties involved during the 1970's -- the era where we're told that these were "uber validated by nations and labs around the world" -- I'd like to follow these leads mostly - to see the evidence of this compelling validation.
-
And only one of those answers will be correct.
Agreed -- yet half believe a lie, based mostly upon either Trump or the mainstream telling them what to believe. Yet people believe what they believe like it's fact.
How much easier was it to dispense "truth" in this manner in the 1960's where Walter Cronkite was trusted by all. Apollo was non-partisan... started by Democrats, finished by Nixon/GOP. Everyone wins...
So when I hear about "Cold War was Real -- just ask those who lived through it!"...
You could likewise, as a conservative say "The 2020 Election was Rigged - we lived it... we saw X, Y , Z... 2000 Mules, etc, etc... it was 100% real". While Democrats will tell you the exact opposite story -- BOTH believe their views are REAL 100%. Group delusions are easy to achieve -- I'd say, MUCH easier back in the 1960's, especially with the new age of TV and only a few main broadcast channels.
-
"divided into 8 parts"? Tell me you know nothing about particle size analysis without saying you know nothing about it...
Yes 8 parts average. The average diameter of these particles fell from 80 microns to 35 micros... less then half the diameter. So the VOLUME is cubed... Under 1/8th (2^3 = 8).
I suppose I should instead as 1/12th -- because 80/35 cubed == 11.94.
So each previous particle needs to be, on average cut into 12 pieces! ... to achieve this new average diameter particle.
THIS IS DRASTIC... And if just "opening it causes this quick stunning breakdown" - this should get more press, and seek more explanation.
Are you aware of any added research on this?
The article I saw gave a generic 1 sentence explanation: "The most likely explanation for the degradation is damage caused by water vapor, the scientists say."
No names. No follow-up. This topic should be hot, but it's not. Because who is funded to highlight things that might implicate MLH? No one.
-
Instead, the FIRST time they EVER did these maneuvers, from within a LM-like vehicle, was on the moon.
It's what test pilots do. And Armstrong wasn't the first person to control the LM while the descent engine was firing. He was the third.
And have a proper look at LLRV/LLTV flights.........
And it's already been explained to you that soft-landing on the Moon had already been achieved. Quit whining that Surveyor 3 bounced. That's because it didn't have a human pilot to cut the engine when the landing radar got confused just above the surface.
Some idiots didn't believe the Wright Brothers..........
BTW -there's plenty of documentation on how the autopilot maintained the LM's attitude. You may have the wit to find it but you will just hand-wave it away in ignorance and in fear of cognitive dissonance.........
-
#1: And have a proper look at LLRV/LLTV flights.........
#2: BTW -there's plenty of documentation on how the autopilot maintained the LM's attitude. You may have the wit to find it but you will just hand-wave it away in ignorance and in fear of cognitive dissonance.........
#1: I'm trying to find all of the footage I can find. There's just not much of it to go around. I imagine there's a lot more "claims of flights" though.
Do any of them say "we simulated the 10 deg 45 mph tilt, and brought it to a stop"?
#2: I've seen plenty of "top level design docs" stating the plans/theories. This is the easy part.
Implementation, test, recycle - that's the meat.
What I'm not seeing is ANY signs of adequate flight testing, and that the LLTV they decided to use, was blatantly different from the LM in some very critical ways.
The LM context differences that they SHOULD have simulated, but didn't:
1. Top Heavy design
2. Pilot standing 3' above the jet, not sitting near level with jet.
3. Only give him a 9" window to look out.
4. Simulate the 45 mph, 10 deg tilt maneuver.
And, since the AGC was supposed to maintain Attitude control:
1. Integrate to this top-heavy LLTV, with IMU, to flight test it -- show it can maintain the attitude.
2. Have it maneuver from even higher speeds than 45 mph to a stop.
INSTEAD, the FIRST TIME any of this was FLIGHT TESTED was "AT THE MOON".
If the AGC was as magic as they claimed - they would have done this testing here on earth, as a Proof of Concept that "yes, this AGC using IMU inputs, CAN maintain balance on an LM-like craft".
But they didn't -- because they couldn't. If they could, they would -- because to have this TEST FOR FIRST TIME ON THE MOON - would be idiocy.
-
What I'm not seeing is ANY signs of adequate flight testing, and that the LLTV they decided to use, was blatantly different from the LM in some very critical ways.
Stop whining..........
You are spectacularly unqualified to determine what is adequate in this context.
-
Stop whining..........You are spectacularly unqualified to determine what is adequate in this context.
What Google/YT will soft-suppress, is enabling the mainstream smart people to see this information. If more of the actual dirt/details of Apollo became common knowledge, you'd see a LOT more smart people begin to doubt the Landings.
I'd really like to see those who are more qualified than me to judge this short-coming of Apollo -- to SEE THESE DETAILS.
Most have no clue of the details, because these are never advertised. Instead all we find from mainstream are articles assuring "it's all real; those who think otherwise are idiots - here look at the top 10 reasons they doubt it... and they also believe the earth is flat"... And that's the typical journey/experience of someone daring to "question the moon landing".
It's part of the reason I work so hard here and tolerate the abuse/insults. I want to see these factual details shared more widely -- to the intelligent/qualified/professionals/scientists - for their evaluation and opinion. Not just those working for NASA/SpaceX who are probably contracted to not comment publicly.
I'd like to speak with one of them in person, off the record, get the real scoop. I don't think they are as convinced we landed, as are you.
-
If more of the actual dirt/details of Apollo became common knowledge, you'd see a LOT more smart people begin to doubt the Landings.
People have been saying that for decades. More and more details come out and yet nothing has changed. The only people who doubt are the ignorant ones like you who have zero expertise in the relevant fields.
I'd really like to see those who are more qualified than me to judge this short-coming of Apollo -- to SEE THESE DETAILS.
People more qualified than you are literally looking at those details right here right now. You are simply not accepting their responses because they don't agree with you.
-
Stop whining..........You are spectacularly unqualified to determine what is adequate in this context.
What Google/YT will soft-suppress, is enabling the mainstream smart people to see this information. If more of the actual dirt/details of Apollo became common knowledge, you'd see a LOT more smart people begin to doubt the Landings.
I'd really like to see those who are more qualified than me to judge this short-coming of Apollo -- to SEE THESE DETAILS.
Most have no clue of the details, because these are never advertised. Instead all we find from mainstream are articles assuring "it's all real; those who think otherwise are idiots - here look at the top 10 reasons they doubt it... and they also believe the earth is flat"... And that's the typical journey/experience of someone daring to "question the moon landing".
It's part of the reason I work so hard here and tolerate the abuse/insults. I want to see these factual details shared more widely -- to the intelligent/qualified/professionals/scientists - for their evaluation and opinion. Not just those working for NASA/SpaceX who are probably contracted to not comment publicly.
I'd like to speak with one of them in person, off the record, get the real scoop. I don't think they are as convinced we landed, as are you.
"I can't find it therefore it is deliberately hidden & fake"
Written with the paranoia and conceit of a two-bob conspiracy theorist......
-
#1: I'm trying to find all of the footage I can find.
Without leaving your desk of course. Has it occurred to you that not all this information is actually available online and you might have to go and find the actual footage in an archive somewhere, then have the right access to a projector to view it?
What I'm not seeing is ANY signs of adequate flight testing, and that the LLTV they decided to use, was blatantly different from the LM in some very critical ways.
You are not qualified to judge what is adequate, and you have so far still not grasped the very specific thing the LLTV was intended for. I'll say it again, it was intended to provide the astronaut with some idea of the way a landing in 1/6th gravity would feel, because all his pilot training has so far equipped him only to handle a vehicle descending under 1G, and there are differences in timing and response that he would not be familiar with when manually controlling a vehicle landing on the Moon. It was NOT, and was NEVER intended or claimed to be, a simulator of the LM itself.
If the AGC was as magic as they claimed - they would have done this testing here on earth, as a Proof of Concept that "yes, this AGC using IMU inputs, CAN maintain balance on an LM-like craft".
And if you can't let go of the idea of rockets 'balancing' your understanding will never improve. The AGC, among other things, uses the RCS system to maintain attitude, and the LM was not the first vehicle to use such a system.
because to have this TEST FOR FIRST TIME ON THE MOON - would be idiocy.
[/b]
Once again, the LM was flight tested three times before Apollo 11, and the systems were subject to ground tests. The issue is not the testing regime, it's your layman's expectations of what that should entail. Once again I ask, what exactly are your qualifications in this area?
-
It's a shame I can't start any new threads - there are so many separate big topics we are touching on here -- in a splintered/meandered fashion.
Here's one I'd like to EXPLORE. It's compelling to ME, but if it's hogwash, I would expect the members here be able to tell me some specifics about "why it's a garbage concern".
Here goes -- regarding the "SaturnV's Power Capacity".
Here's a link that compares SaturnV to the modern day SLS:
https://www.foxweather.com/earth-space/nasa-sls-mega-moon-rocket-compares-apollo-era-saturn-v (https://www.foxweather.com/earth-space/nasa-sls-mega-moon-rocket-compares-apollo-era-saturn-v)
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2001.0;attach=1289)
Things to note here:
SLS is 0.75 Mlbs lighter, but has 1.3 Mlbs more thrust power.
SaturnV has 7.5 Mlbs of thrust, but weighed 6.5 Mlbs at launch -- so only had 1 MLbs of excess thrust to accelerate or LIFT cargo.
SLS has 8.8 Mlbs of Thrust! and only weighs 5.75 Mlbs at launch! -- so it has 3.05 Mlbs of EXCESS Thrust to Accelerate and LIFT cargo.
But the SLS can only carry HALF the payload to the moon as the SaturnV.
===
Von Braun's original Math indicated that we'd need 3 GIANT Rockets and Refuelings in order to get the CSM/LM to the moon.
What we settled for was a single half-sized SaturnV.... yeah, that should do the trick.
Look, they told us it worked! See it on TV? Look at the slow motion footage - that's low gravity!
So -- how is a 1968 SaturnV with 1/3rd the Lifting capacity as the SLS, able to deliver DOUBLE the load to the moon?
I'm asking for a friend.
-
#1: And have a proper look at LLRV/LLTV flights.........
#2: BTW -there's plenty of documentation on how the autopilot maintained the LM's attitude. You may have the wit to find it but you will just hand-wave it away in ignorance and in fear of cognitive dissonance.........
#1: I'm trying to find all of the footage I can find. There's just not much of it to go around. I imagine there's a lot more "claims of flights" though.
Do any of them say "we simulated the 10 deg 45 mph tilt, and brought it to a stop"?
#2: I've seen plenty of "top level design docs" stating the plans/theories. This is the easy part.
Implementation, test, recycle - that's the meat.
What I'm not seeing is ANY signs of adequate flight testing, and that the LLTV they decided to use, was blatantly different from the LM in some very critical ways.
The LM context differences that they SHOULD have simulated, but didn't:
1. Top Heavy design
2. Pilot standing 3' above the jet, not sitting near level with jet.
3. Only give him a 9" window to look out.
4. Simulate the 45 mph, 10 deg tilt maneuver.
And, since the AGC was supposed to maintain Attitude control:
1. Integrate to this top-heavy LLTV, with IMU, to flight test it -- show it can maintain the attitude.
2. Have it maneuver from even higher speeds than 45 mph to a stop.
INSTEAD, the FIRST TIME any of this was FLIGHT TESTED was "AT THE MOON".
If the AGC was as magic as they claimed - they would have done this testing here on earth, as a Proof of Concept that "yes, this AGC using IMU inputs, CAN maintain balance on an LM-like craft".
But they didn't -- because they couldn't. If they could, they would -- because to have this TEST FOR FIRST TIME ON THE MOON - would be idiocy.
Please detail your experience on designing flight test programs for cutting edge space programs.
I'm sure you must have loads, otherwise it would appear that you are posting another load of speculative nonsense based on woefully poor knowledge.
If I ran the zoo it would be the best zoo ever
The Dunnings-Kruger effect is strong in this thread.
-
Please detail your experience on designing flight test programs for cutting edge space programs.
I'm sure you must have loads, otherwise it would appear that you are posting another load of speculative nonsense based on woefully poor knowledge.
I've been the lead for various product developments, in electronics and software. You don't skip "system/field testing", and you almost NEVER had things succeed the first time - you plan in "issue reporting" and recycle, and retest.
For Apollo, they skipped vital system/field testing for the AGC and for the pilots.
The first system/field test was on the moon. While Skipping any attempts to do it here.
This is just plain Product Development sense. But they were in a hurry - schedule-driven... skipping steps.
I agree with Alan Bean, quote: “No way! It’s too many unknowns! We couldn’t possibly do that! There’s no way!”
-
Von Braun's original Math indicated that we'd need 3 GIANT Rockets and Refuelings in order to get the CSM/LM to the moon.
Von Braun’s maths envisaged the direct ascent method not LOR, he fought against it originally. But in the end he actually said, it was the only way we could have done it. The LOR method was much more fuel efficient but more wasteful of material in that only the CM made it back. You really haven’t researched this well at all. It would have consisted of a single craft not a disposable LM.
-
SLS is 0.75 Mlbs lighter, but has 1.3 Mlbs more thrust power.
SaturnV has 7.5 Mlbs of thrust, but weighed 6.5 Mlbs at launch -- so only had 1 MLbs of excess thrust to accelerate or LIFT cargo.
SLS has 8.8 Mlbs of Thrust! and only weighs 5.75 Mlbs at launch! -- so it has 3.05 Mlbs of EXCESS Thrust to Accelerate and LIFT cargo.
But the SLS can only carry HALF the payload to the moon as the SaturnV.
The Saturn V was a three-stage rocket. The SLS is not. You need a lot more than just lift-off weight and first stage thrust to calculate payload capacity. The Russian N1 rocket generated 10 million pounds of thrust in its first stage but had lower payload capacity than the Saturn V. This literally is rocket science, and you don't understand it.
Von Braun's original Math indicated that we'd need 3 GIANT Rockets and Refuelings in order to get the CSM/LM to the moon.
What we settled for was a single half-sized SaturnV.... yeah, that should do the trick.
No, as has been very well documented if you bothered to look, the early assumptions were based on direct ascent or Earth orbit rendezvous models. Both of those assumed that everything needed for returning to Earth would land on the Moon. It was only when the concept of lunar obit rendezvous was explored that it became apparent this was not necessary and the vehicles could be smaller and lighter as a result, and that informed the design process for the CSM, the LM and the Saturn V. This is extensively documented, so you either haven't done anything in the way of research or else you are once again going to suggest it's a lie because it doesn't support your conclusion.
-
For Apollo, they skipped vital system/field testing for the AGC and for the pilots.
No, they didn't. You just don't know what the testing involved, or how such testing should be designed. The question about your qualifications is intended to delve into what experience you have specifically in developing space flight testing programs. I've done 'product development' as well, but it had nothing to do with space flight.
-
Von Braun’s maths envisaged the direct ascent method not LOR, he fought against it originally. But in the end he actually said, it was the only way we could have done it. The LOR method was much more fuel efficient but more wasteful of material in that only the CM made it back. You really haven’t researched this well at all. It would have consisted of a single craft not a disposable LM.
I'm a rookie, and talking about the SaturnV is outside of my focal area. But as I do my other research, I run across some things.
How do you explain this discrepancy between the SaturnV and the SLS? SLS has 3.05 Mlbs of excess thrust to use for acceleration and lift -- vs. the SaturnV's 1 Mlbs... and since the SLS is 12% lighter - this extra Acceleration is 12% more effective on top of that. But it's payload is only 1/2 that of the SaturnV?
I'm NOT proposing we didn't orbit the moon - but I am perplexed by what appears to be a glaring discrepancy. Why did we get worse, instead of better? And how does "triple the lift/acceleration" amount to 1/2 the load capacity?
-
No, they didn't. You just don't know what the testing involved, or how such testing should be designed. The question about your qualifications is intended to delve into what experience you have specifically in developing space flight testing programs. I've done 'product development' as well, but it had nothing to do with space flight.
So you KNOW they didn't skip this? Since you seem qualified to judge this - please tell us how they verified the AGC+IMU+RCS+LM - was going to work in real life?
Why was it genius of them to skip any form of Flight Testing here on earth -- and instead have this combination tested for first time on the moon?
-
How do you explain this discrepancy between the SaturnV and the SLS? SLS has 3.05 Mlbs of excess thrust to use for acceleration and lift -- vs. the SaturnV's 1 Mlbs... and since the SLS is 12% lighter - this extra Acceleration is 12% more effective on top of that. But it's payload is only 1/2 that of the SaturnV?
I have explained this. You need more than lift-off thrust and weight to calculate the payload capacity. Once again, the Saturn V is a three-stage rocket, the SLS is not. The Russian N1 produced more lift-off thrust than the Saturn V but had a lower payload capacity. And you are also naively assuming improvement is inevitable, ignoring all other factors like cost, facilities, the fact that the SLS is based on existing shuttle tech rather than the purpose-built Saturn V...
You are using an oversimplified comparison and considering it evidence of something suspect rather than a gap in your understanding, which is the problem with literally all of your arguments so far.
-
So you KNOW they didn't skip this? Since you seem qualified to judge this - please tell us how they verified the AGC+IMU+RCS+LM - was going to work in real life?
Not my burden of proof. You claim they 'skipped' something, but you have nothing to base that on other than you don't think they would have done it the way they did. Which is also absurd because you clearly have not actually researched what testing was done and why (and by 'researched' I don't mean 'googled for what I could find online').
And once again, the LM was flight tested three times before Apollo 11. Once without a crew and twice with. It worked.
-
The Russian N1 rocket generated 10 million pounds of thrust in its first stage but had lower payload capacity than the Saturn V. This literally is rocket science, and you don't understand it.
The N1 is comparable to today's SLS.
Please explain to me how this N1 with more fuel, and FAR MORE (4X!!!!) LIFT/ACCELERATION at Launch - had a smaller lunar payload capacity?
N1 - 4Mlbs of excess Thrust for a 6 Mlbs rocket! Massively more Lift/acceleration compared to the SaturnV.
It has more total Impulse too.
But was only rated for HALF the SaturnV payload capacity.
So explain this rocket science to me please. How does 4x the acceleration with more total impulse - result in 1/2 the payload???
Perhaps we had Harry Potter in the control room casting the Leviosa spell. Or Yoda? Something seems very magical about our SaturnV.
-
Not my burden of proof. You claim they 'skipped' something, but you have nothing to base that on other than you don't think they would have done it the way they did. Which is also absurd because you clearly have not actually researched what testing was done and why (and by 'researched' I don't mean 'googled for what I could find online').
This is why I find it a pity that THIS type of information is soft-suppressed by Google/YT/etc -- and ridiculed by the Apollogists.
I'd like a whole set of more-qualified people to view these comparisons - and explain it.
So far, I've not heard any decent explanations for how the SaturnV is the ONLY ROCKET EVER to be of this size, with the LEAST AMOUNT of acceleration/lift - to be able to carry DOUBLE the payload to the moon in 1968-1972... Today, we can only do half of this, with a super rocket that has much better specs than the SaturnV.
Do you smell any fish?
-
Please explain to me how this N1 with more fuel, and FAR MORE (4X!!!!) LIFT/ACCELERATION at Launch - had a smaller lunar payload capacity?
I've given you some pointers already. Like I said, this is literally rocket science, and you don't understand it. That is not evidence of something being suspect but of a gap in your understanding. Stop concentrating on weight and lift-off thrust, as I have now suggested three times, and think about the other elements that go into launching any payload to the Moon.
So explain this rocket science to me please. How does 4x the acceleration with more total impulse - result in 1/2 the payload???
Perhaps we had Harry Potter in the control room casting the Leviosa spell. Or Yoda? Something seems very magical about our SaturnV.
Has it occurred to you that people would be far more willing to explain things to you if you dropped the sarcastic comments that make it clear that you have already decided the explanation is fakery rather than a genuine wish to learn?
-
The Saturn V was more efficient and had a lower dry weight than the N1 which had a cluster of 30 less efficient engines. Plus the fuel used for Saturn was more efficient than the kerosene O2 mix used on the N1. You do like to compare apples and oranges don’t you?
As with Jason’s reply above. Cut the crap.
-
Please explain to me how this N1 with more fuel, and FAR MORE (4X!!!!) LIFT/ACCELERATION at Launch - had a smaller lunar payload capacity?
OK, here are some numbers for you, which took me all of two minutes to dredge up. The first stages of the Saturn V and the N1 (the ones that actually generate that liftoff thrust) compare thus:
Saturn V S-IC stage dry mass: 303,000lb
N1 block A dry mass: 423,000lb
Saturn V S-IC propellant mass: 4,578,000lb
N1 block A propellant mass: 3,858,000lb
Saturn V S-IC burn duration: 263 seconds
N1 block A burn duration: 113 seconds
So the N1 burns through less fuel in less than half the time in its first stage flight, accelerating a heavier dry mass and heavier upper stages. It then continues using the same kerosene/LOX combination in all the other stages, while the Saturn V upper stages used the more efficient liquid hydrogen/LOX combination*. Additionally the design of the N1 was staggeringly inefficient, with a conical outer wall containing spherical fuel tanks. The Saturn V fuel tanks were the body of the rocket (and the upper stages did away with any intertank void such as those between the fuel and LOX tanks in the first stage by using a common bulkhead to separate fuel and LOX), and so a greater proportion of the fully fuelled mass was fuel compared to the N1.
*The difference in mass between liquid hydrogen and kerosene is something you have also failed to take into account when simply declaring the N1 had 'more fuel'. It may have had more fuel by mass but that's not a good comparison.
-
The Saturn V was more efficient and had a lower dry weight than the N1 which had a cluster of 30 less efficient engines. Plus the fuel used for Saturn was more efficient than the kerosene O2 mix used on the N1. You do like to compare apples and oranges don’t you?
I'll do some math on this and create a spreadsheet to show the predicted result for each rocket (just as Braeunig did for the AM - this is a valid approach, where the only significant deviation occurs during launch transients).
You call SaturnV "more efficient" -- but the MOST (by far) inefficient thing you can do with a rocket launch is "take a long time to get closer to orbit" -- because as you enter orbit and leave the air resistance behind -- you don't have to spend ANY fuel maintaining your current altitude...
The SaturnV spends a LOT longer in these non-ideal circumstances of having to fight-gravity. Imagine if it produced 1 Mlbs less thrust -- what would happen? I would sit there going NOWHERE -but burning a ton of fuel while going nowhere...
Ideally- you get past this inefficient mode of operation as quickly as possible. (which is accomplished better by the SLS and N1 by producing 2.5x to 3x more acceleration from the onset, while the SaturnV barely has enough thrust to overcome it's own weight at launch)
This is why I find the SaturnV claimed of "double-the-load" to be suspect.
I'll create a spreadsheet, and see what it looks like.
-
OK, here are some numbers for you, which took me all of two minutes to dredge up. The first stages of the Saturn V and the N1 (the ones that actually generate that liftoff thrust) compare thus:
Here's the SaturnV specs I'm looking at for 1969 - -are these wrong?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V
It shows stage one burns for just 168 seconds. -- specific impulse is what you quoted - which is a hard-to-wrap-your-head-around number... but is NOT "burn time" as you noted.
Don't worry, my name isn't Jay - I won't rub your nose in it, and tell you that I can't give you any "answers" because you wouldn't believe them.
If I was Jay, I'd be leading you along, getting you to madly defend your claims - looking like a fool - for as long as I could -- to discredit you.
:)
I recognize a simple mistake when I see one. Which is all you did here.
-
just as Braeunig did for the AM - this is a valid approach........
You know Bob did it for the Saturn V too, right?
-
You know Bob did it for the Saturn V too, right?
It's an easy method. Got a link to his Saturn V result? I'd like to compare my results to his.
And then do it for the SLS -- to compare. That's where my concern lies. At this point, I can't imagine how the Saturn's trajectory beats the SLS... but I haven't completed the spreadsheet yet.
Maybe it's all fine... or maybe it's not. :)
-
OK, here are some numbers for you, which took me all of two minutes to dredge up. The first stages of the Saturn V and the N1 (the ones that actually generate that liftoff thrust) compare thus:
Here's the SaturnV specs I'm looking at for 1969 - -are these wrong?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V
It shows stage one burns for just 168 seconds. -- specific impulse is what you quoted - which is a hard-to-wrap-your-head-around number... but is NOT "burn time" as you noted.
Oops, yes indeed you are correct. Burn time should indeed be 168 seconds.
-
Please detail your experience on designing flight test programs for cutting edge space programs.
I'm sure you must have loads, otherwise it would appear that you are posting another load of speculative nonsense based on woefully poor knowledge.
I've been the lead for various product developments, in electronics and software. You don't skip "system/field testing", and you almost NEVER had things succeed the first time - you plan in "issue reporting" and recycle, and retest.
For Apollo, they skipped vital system/field testing for the AGC and for the pilots.
The first system/field test was on the moon. While Skipping any attempts to do it here.
This is just plain Product Development sense. But they were in a hurry - schedule-driven... skipping steps.
I agree with Alan Bean, quote: “No way! It’s too many unknowns! We couldn’t possibly do that! There’s no way!”
So, for brevity, you have absolutely zero experience in designing or running test programs for cutting edge spaceflight. Gotcha.
So AGAIN you have been caught out posting speculative nonsense about a field that you have no knowledge or experience in. As I said, the Dunnings-Kruger effect is very obviously at work here.
In the case of the Dunning–Kruger effect, this applies mainly to people with low skill in a specific area trying to evaluate their competence within this area. The systematic error concerns their tendency to greatly overestimate their competence, i.e. to see themselves as more skilled than they are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect?wprov=sfla1
That describes your efforts to a T. You constantly assume that some level of expertise is directly transferable to another completely unrelated field
At the same time you vastly underestimate the complexity of the issue.
-
[
For Apollo, they skipped vital system/field testing for the AGC and for the pilots.
The first system/field test was on the moon. While Skipping any attempts to do it here.
Bullshit.
Apollo 7,8,9 and 10 tested those systems. Apollo 11 tested the final part of the flight profile right down to touchdown.
-
It's an easy method. Got a link to his Saturn V result? I'd like to compare my results to his.
You post your results here, and then I'll post the link.
-
That describes your efforts to a T. You constantly assume that some level of expertise is directly transferable to another completely unrelated field
At the same time you vastly underestimate the complexity of the issue.
Possibly. But I believe Braenig's SIMPLE spreadsheet solution predicts performance reasonably well - even with Jay's approval, in general.
Why? Because just because Rocket's are involved, doesn't mean it can't also be modeled with Newtonian math, just as Braeunig did.
In the end, after all the "rocket sciency complex stuff is done" the end result is a "NET THRUST" - which then fits cleanly into Newtonian equations.
At "Steady state" (achieved fairly quickly, well-enough) - the modeling is fairly simple -- I'll do this up for the SLS, and SaturnV (to compare against Braeunig), and see how it turns out.
I might be eating my own foot ... or I might not.
Dunning Kruger applies heavily, IMO, to politics -- where everyone thinks they know "what's best for the nation/economy/etc" -- but we don't.
You might think "Electrical Engineering is very complex" - as parts of it are... but a LOT of it boils down to "Volts = Amps * Resistance"... for parallel or serial circuits. I learned this in 7th grade, and won a science fair for it. Normal algebra is all it takes. Just like Newtonian physics.
And even the inside the wires, the trillions of electron interactions going on -- there is a lot of complexity, and reflections and inefficiencies -- but that ALL DROPS OUT (99.9%) for MANY cases.
If you were trying to prove something wrong that I didn't want you to prove wrong -- I'd take an approach like Jay - make you dig into differential equations and imaginary numbers to determine the transmission line qualities of the various wires... and the conductance of the wire material, etc... And look for ways to discredit you -- so that we'd not have to finish the proof.
:) This is what has been happening on the other thread.
Static Pressure Thrust boils down to some simple equations to provide a "good enough estimate" - such that we can quickly determine if "Static Pressure Thrust" has any chance of explaining the 2.5x higher than normal acceleration we're seeing for the first full second.
I predict he'll find a way to prevent us from getting to the end of this road, doing his best to make it sound way more complicated than it needs to be (to get a 90%+ accurate enough result).
-
Bullshit.
Apollo 7,8,9 and 10 tested those systems. Apollo 11 tested the final part of the flight profile right down to touchdown.
I'm talking about "the landing part" here.
And if you'll note - those tests generally all "just worked" - so that they could progress to the next milestone quickly, without any significant rework.
This type of success "first try" isn't seen in other industries. But NASA was a "well oiled machine, like no other" -- unless you ask Thomas Baron, RIP.
-
Tedious irrelevance snipped
You know jack about testing cutting-edge aeronautical programs, yet you feel OK to waltz in demanding that it should be done this way or that. All t.your flannel can't cover up for your complete ignorance in this field.
-
Bullshit.
Apollo 7,8,9 and 10 tested those systems. Apollo 11 tested the final part of the flight profile right down to touchdown.
I'm talking about "the landing part" here.
And if you'll note - those tests generally all "just worked" - so that they could progress to the next milestone quickly, without any significant rework.
This type of success "first try" isn't seen in other industries. But NASA was a "well oiled machine, like no other" -- unless you ask Thomas Baron, RIP.
11 was the test of the landing. If it didn't work, then 12 would have been up.
Baron? We've already closed the book on that. You haven't seen the report so you cannot draw anything from it. Elderberries and hamsters, remember?
-
You call SaturnV "more efficient" -- but the MOST (by far) inefficient thing you can do with a rocket launch is "take a long time to get closer to orbit" -- because as you enter orbit and leave the air resistance behind -- you don't have to spend ANY fuel maintaining your current altitude...
The SaturnV spends a LOT longer in these non-ideal circumstances of having to fight-gravity. Imagine if it produced 1 Mlbs less thrust -- what would happen? I would sit there going NOWHERE -but burning a ton of fuel while going nowhere...
Ideally- you get past this inefficient mode of operation as quickly as possible. (which is accomplished better by the SLS and N1 by producing 2.5x to 3x more acceleration from the onset, while the SaturnV barely has enough thrust to overcome it's own weight at launch)
This is why I find the SaturnV claimed of "double-the-load" to be suspect.
I'll create a spreadsheet, and see what it looks like.
LOL, it's funny watching you patiently explain aspects of rocket science to actual rocket scientists...
-
LOL, it's funny watching you patiently explain aspects of rocket science to actual rocket scientists...
Who all that has responded so far here is an actual "Rocket Scientist"?
The toughest parts of Rocket science isn't modeling the "acceleration from a known Thrust". Once the thrust is stated - the impact on the rocket for that instant can be modeled as Newtonian, unless you are dealing with velocities that near the speed of light, and you start screwing with time/mass/etc/relativity.
Why do you think Braeunig could produce a reasonable trajectory estimation using a spreadsheet with algebraic math?
-
Baron? We've already closed the book on that. You haven't seen the report so you cannot draw anything from it. Elderberries and hamsters, remember?
And why is it that we've not seen this 500-page report? Why is it that we don't even hear NASA or congress making a deal of "where did it go?" Instead, the NASA site's SUMMARY STILL proclaims it to have NEVER EXISTED.
And you don't smell fish. You are stunning.
-
The toughest parts of Rocket science isn't...
And as you're not a rocket scientist, why should we accept your statements about what the 'toughest part' is or isn't?
-
And if you'll note - those tests generally all "just worked" - so that they could progress to the next milestone quickly, without any significant rework.
This type of success "first try" isn't seen in other industries. But NASA was a "well oiled machine, like no other"
I love this particular bollocks, there were issues in these tests, for instance; On Apollo 10 The LM went into an uncontrolled spin during the Ascent stage. This is why Apollo had this staged approach, to check each phase and as stated by another, even Apollo 11 was the first test landing (although this is contested by some).
-
Baron? We've already closed the book on that. You haven't seen the report so you cannot draw anything from it. Elderberries and hamsters, remember?
And why is it that we've not seen this 500-page report? Why is it that we don't even hear NASA or congress making a deal of "where did it go?" Instead, the NASA site's SUMMARY STILL proclaims it to have NEVER EXISTED.
And you don't smell fish. You are stunning.
Only elderberries and hamsters.
And huge piles of horseshit.
-
Baron? We've already closed the book on that. You haven't seen the report so you cannot draw anything from it. Elderberries and hamsters, remember?
And why is it that we've not seen this 500-page report? Why is it that we don't even hear NASA or congress making a deal of "where did it go?" Instead, the NASA site's SUMMARY STILL proclaims it to have NEVER EXISTED.
And you don't smell fish. You are stunning.
Only elderberries and hamsters.
And huge piles of horseshit.
-
And as you're not a rocket scientist, why should we accept your statements about what the 'toughest part' is or isn't?
You don't have to accept it. I guess you can wait and see how my spreadsheet works out for reasonably predicting the rocket trajectory.
I may also put this into the unity3D simulation game... Show the two rockets side by side take off into space, showing readouts for their altitude, velocity, current acceleration, mass.
-
I love this particular bollocks, there were issues in these tests, for instance; On Apollo 10 The LM went into an uncontrolled spin during the Ascent stage. This is why Apollo had this staged approach, to check each phase and as stated by another, even Apollo 11 was the first test landing (although this is contested by some).
If they were faking it, of course they need to insert some bugs/issues. But note, never a fatality, nor any significant issue with "part/design" failure that demanded a delay to the schedule.... Not since 1967, with Apollo 1, when they couldn't even pass a 3-build comms test, or keep the crew alive while doing nothing.
But they finally figured out the trick to fixing their QA/QC problem -- cut out 30% of the steps, and rush it. Because that's how real life works; ask anyone who is doing any form of complex product development.
-
If they were faking it, of course they need to insert some bugs/issues.
This is why discussion with you is pointless. First it was suspect that they all worked fine. Once the problems are pointed out it's 'oh they put those in to make it look realistic'. As I said earlier on, any counter to your argument is dismissed as a cover up, or handwaved away by imagined weighted feathers or falsified documents.
-
And as you're not a rocket scientist, why should we accept your statements about what the 'toughest part' is or isn't?
You don't have to accept it. I guess you can wait and see how my spreadsheet works out for reasonably predicting the rocket trajectory.
But as you're not a rocket scientist, IF your spreadsheet doesn't match the stated performance closely enough, how will we know you used the correct calculations in your spreadsheet? Because with 50+ years and countless others who have examined those rockets, the likelihood you made a mistake is far higher than the likelihood you uncovered the smoking gun evidence of a massive fraud.
-
(https://history.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/LLTV952-UndersideAft.jpg)
And by the way, here is the underside of the LLTV. Can you see the descent rockets now?
-
Baron? We've already closed the book on that. You haven't seen the report so you cannot draw anything from it. Elderberries and hamsters, remember?
And why is it that we've not seen this 500-page report? Why is it that we don't even hear NASA or congress making a deal of "where did it go?" Instead, the NASA site's SUMMARY STILL proclaims it to have NEVER EXISTED.
That's not what it says. The page makes it clear that it's reproducing material from the book "Chariots for Apollo".
-
But this article you shared talks about VERTICAL center-of-mass -- ABOVE vs. BELOW... and declared it to be BELOW... Instead it's 2' ABOVE.
Alrighty, you go and fetch me the phrase that says that.
From your article, it concludes:
"because its main masses were located at or below the center of thrust of the motor and therefore its center of mass was quite low."
This is an Apollogist's Lie. One which you digested as truth. The MAJORITY OF THE MASS was ABOVE the center of thrust for this descent engine.
And of course you read that properly did you? It is talking about the centre of thrust. It talks about the "main masses" And you claimed it was talking about the vertical centre of mass.
The only thing worse than a bloody "rookie" rocket-engineer is an HB who thinks they can read sodding Wikipedia and acquire expert status. You make all this drivel about centre of mass when every rocket ever launched has it above the centre of thrust! It only needs to be along the line of the thrust with good balance.
You are the epitome of HB bingo.
-
I love this particular bollocks, there were issues in these tests, for instance; On Apollo 10 The LM went into an uncontrolled spin during the Ascent stage. This is why Apollo had this staged approach, to check each phase and as stated by another, even Apollo 11 was the first test landing (although this is contested by some).
If they were faking it, of course they need to insert some bugs/issues. But note, never a fatality, nor any significant issue with "part/design" failure that demanded a delay to the schedule.... Not since 1967, with Apollo 1, when they couldn't even pass a 3-build comms test, or keep the crew alive while doing nothing.
But they finally figured out the trick to fixing their QA/QC problem -- cut out 30% of the steps, and rush it. Because that's how real life works; ask anyone who is doing any form of complex product development.
As Jason pointed out, you're (as usual) arguing out of both sides of your mouth. Things are too perfect to be authentic. Problems are pointed out. Those are just there to make it look real.
But you claim there was no delay to the schedule. Again, you demonstrate your complete lack of unfamiliarity with this topic. The LM was supposed to be tested on Apollo 8 but it wasn't ready. The whole reason Apollo 8 was sent to orbit the moon was to avoid the delay inherent in waiting for the LM or do a redundant mission that didn't actually advance the program. Just because demonstrably intelligent and creative people found a way to work within their situation to avoid the consequences of the delay doesn't mean it didn't happen.
The landing at Fra Mauro was delayed by 9 months. Perhaps you're familiar with Apollo 13? That was made into a movie, so it should be within the boundaries of your research capabilities.
It doesn't matter though, you'll find a way to dismiss this as another confirmation of your absurd unsupported conclusion. Anything that went well is too perfect. Anything that didn't go well was designed to make it look real. Any expert who works for or with NASA, no matter how thin the relationship, is a paid shill and can't be trusted. Anyone who doesn't work for or with NASA isn't professional or close enough to the situation to have any reliable knowledge. Your whole "argument" is just a con. You just don't realize that nobody here is dumb enough to fall for it.
Still waiting on you to demonstrate any looking in to the ISS vs Apollo docking situation. It's embarrassing to have to spoon feed you like this, but here is a little push in the right direction, champ. List the docking procedures for the ISS as you understand them and the docking procedures of the AM as you understand them. Compare and contrast and see if you can spot the difference. If you don't know the procedures, you may need to do a little digging, but this is something that even a lazy google search should be able to provide for you.
-
This is why discussion with you is pointless. First it was suspect that they all worked fine. Once the problems are pointed out it's 'oh they put those in to make it look realistic'. As I said earlier on, any counter to your argument is dismissed as a cover up, or handwaved away by imagined weighted feathers or falsified documents.
But these are reasonable responses. It would be dumb for me to say "if they were faking it, they'd pretend all was immaculately perfect"... my point was that "nothing significant went wrong" such as to interrupt their "mandatory aggressive corner-cutting schedule"...
-
The only thing worse than a bloody "rookie" rocket-engineer is an HB who thinks they can read sodding Wikipedia and acquire expert status.
So the the LM was not "top-heavy" as he claimed? :o
-
But as you're not a rocket scientist, IF your spreadsheet doesn't match the stated performance closely enough, how will we know you used the correct calculations in your spreadsheet? Because with 50+ years and countless others who have examined those rockets, the likelihood you made a mistake is far higher than the likelihood you uncovered the smoking gun evidence of a massive fraud.
My goal in this exercise is just general comparison... it's subject to some error, but if done right - should be with 20% error or much less.
I want to see if the SLS turns out to look "about HALF as good" as the Saturn.
If it turns out to be 70% as good - this too will bode well for Apollogists... because at least it shows SaturnV as SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER.
I think it's going to show the opposite -- that SLS was "better than SaturnV"... We'll soon find out.
-
And by the way, here is the underside of the LLTV. Can you see the descent rockets now?
Thanks. I'm not sure which part are these other descent rockets. I can see the jet engine. :)
-
That's not what it says. The page makes it clear that it's reproducing material from the book "Chariots for Apollo".
The NASA site says this: "When the tragedy occurred, Baron was apparently in the process of expanding his 55-page paper into a 500-page report."
As though it never existed. Including a proven Lie from some other source, doesn't exonerate them from responsibility for showing this content.
This just means that a book writer ALSO LIES. This "Chariots for Apollo" has been lauded by many Apollogists as a good book -- yet it lies about Baron, blatantly..
-
And by the way, here is the underside of the LLTV. Can you see the descent rockets now?
Thanks. I'm not sure which part are these other descent rockets. I can see the jet engine. :)
Keep looking. They're on either side of the jet engine, and those grey spherical tanks held the fuel.
I must modify an earlier statement about the exhaust being steady state combustion. The descent rockets and the RCS were both monopropellant hydrogen peroxide motors, which use the rapid catalysed decomposition of hydrogen peroxide to generate thrust. There is no combustion involved.
-
We'll soon find out.
We already know.
-
So the the LM was not "top-heavy" as he claimed? :o
Not sure you point here. Do you think the LM was NOT top-heavy?
-
I must modify an earlier statement about the exhaust being steady state combustion. The descent rockets and the RCS were both monopropellant hydrogen peroxide motors, which use the rapid catalysed decomposition of hydrogen peroxide to generate thrust. There is no combustion involved.
OK -- so then the exhaust is super thick white - can't miss it.
Only we almost NEVER ever see it... what does this tell you?
-
So the the LM was not "top-heavy" as he claimed? :o
Not sure you point here. Do you think the LM was NOT top-heavy?
The point is not whether the LM was 'top heavy', but that it is very obviously NOT as top heavy as any other launch vehicle. Even your own estimates put the centre of mass only a couple of feet above the descent engine, and it has a lot of mass distributed to the sides of that. Most rockets have virtually none of the mass to the sides of the engines and a centre of mass tens of feet higher. They work, so why should the LM have any particular difficulty? As the article says, the LM has an inherently more stable mass distribution.
-
I must modify an earlier statement about the exhaust being steady state combustion. The descent rockets and the RCS were both monopropellant hydrogen peroxide motors, which use the rapid catalysed decomposition of hydrogen peroxide to generate thrust. There is no combustion involved.
OK -- so then the exhaust is super thick white - can't miss it.
No, the initial burst is thick white steam (hence why we see the RCS firings, as they are short pulses) but once it's a steady process the exhaust is transparent.
-
If it turns out to be 70% as good - this too will bode well for Apollogists.
You’ve been warned off that particular insult more than once by LunarOrbit.
-
It's a shame I can't start any new threads - there are so many separate big topics we are touching on here -- in a splintered/meandered fashion.
Here's one I'd like to EXPLORE.
If you keep trying to circumvent my moderation by starting new topics within existing threads I will impose even stricter restrictions on you that will require your posts to be approved by me before they appear in the forum.
-
LOL, it's funny watching you patiently explain aspects of rocket science to actual rocket scientists...
Who all that has responded so far here is an actual "Rocket Scientist"?
Would it matter if I named names? You have no problems with labelling anyone disagreeing with you as a liar.
The toughest parts of Rocket science isn't modeling the "acceleration from a known Thrust". Once the thrust is stated - the impact on the rocket for that instant can be modeled as Newtonian, unless you are dealing with velocities that near the speed of light, and you start screwing with time/mass/etc/relativity.
Why do you think Braeunig could produce a reasonable trajectory estimation using a spreadsheet with algebraic math?
Just visit his website and you'll see.
-
Any expert who works for or with NASA, no matter how thin the relationship, is a paid shill and can't be trusted.
I had one person telling me I was a paid shill because the person who ran/wrote an astronomy course I took had once worked for NASA. That was it.
-
The point is not whether the LM was 'top heavy', but that it is very obviously NOT as top heavy as any other launch vehicle. Even your own estimates put the centre of mass only a couple of feet above the descent engine, and it has a lot of mass distributed to the sides of that. Most rockets have virtually none of the mass to the sides of the engines and a centre of mass tens of feet higher. They work, so why should the LM have any particular difficulty? As the article says, the LM has an inherently more stable mass distribution.
LM was considerably more top heavy than the LLTV -- why purposefully avoid making your "simulation vehicle the same as the real thing" unless the real thing was simply "too difficult to fly" -- the LLTV was hard-enough as is. Weren't we trying to "simulate as best as possible the REAL deal?" Yet we cut short on some things, making LLTV practice very different than LM practice.
Rockets also don't have to start at a tilt and bring themselves upright (until Elon's starships which are awesome).
Rockets, once they get moving, have aerodynamics to keep them straight -- like an arrow. So for rockets, the advantage of atmosphere is very stabilizing.... before they get moving, they are MUCH less stable and at risk of falling over (as many have).
-
No, the initial burst is thick white steam (hence why we see the RCS firings, as they are short pulses) but once it's a steady process the exhaust is transparent.
Got any science references to back up this claim?
Do you know the chemical reaction used for Hydrogen peroxide here? And the heat generated?
Why in most videos do we never see this "burst of white" from the descent jets? If there's to be an initial burst as it starts -- why do many of the videos have NONE of this?
-
If you keep trying to circumvent my moderation by starting new topics within existing threads I will impose even stricter restrictions on you that will require your posts to be approved by me before they appear in the forum.
My other threads are all completed, except for the "Launch acceleration" - which is mostly done too, waiting on Jay.
You are holding me hostage to not talking at all, because my points "make too much sense" and you don't want people to see them.
We're now having a productive chat about Saturn V vs. SLS/N1, and the LLTV. Because you give us no other place to chat.
CAN SOMEONE ELSE CREATE A TOPICAL THREAD?? Pick a topic that is actually debatable -- not a stupid one. And then we can have interesting discussions. LLTV, and SaturnV are decent topics.
But also - Moon Dust and Surface is a GREAT topic - as the Apollo program modeled these very inaccurately, IMO.
-
#1: Would it matter if I named names? You have no problems with labelling anyone disagreeing with you as a liar.
#2: Why do you think Braeunig could produce a reasonable trajectory estimation using a spreadsheet with algebraic math?
#1: Yep, it matters if people have professional qualifications. Mine are related to "complex product development" for "Cummins Engines"... Complex, yet compared to Apollo - very simple. And in no industry do you skip the vital testing. Apollo didn't even try to make the LLTV "more like the LM" as they surely could have had them stand-up with feet 3' above the jet engine, look through a 9" window, and pile some mass on top. This would have better approximated the real deal. And since the magical AGC was never flight tested, even as a POC - this is a stunningly obvious miss.
For me, these gaping holes in the LLTV vs LM program - propelled me quickly into accepting the possibility of the "Landing hoax". That combined with Apollo 1, the accelerated schedule of clumping steps together -- and the rigid/snap-stop motion of the Apollo 11 rendezvous. This was my starting point where I crossed-over from 50/50 to 70/30..
#2: He did it for AM, and was lauded as a fairly good simulation of the results. Do you think it CANNOT produce an accurate result?
The results use simple algebraic equations - -for Thrust, Mass, and Drag. (on the moon, no drag) -- and some knowledge of the advertised pitch angle as it rises and leans over to go into orbit.
-
I had one person telling me I was a paid shill because the person who ran/wrote an astronomy course I took had once worked for NASA. That was it.
The ones who get substantial earnings are of course more suspect. If they turn on NASA, they lose a LOT of money. To boot, part of their contract likely contains NDA lingo, making them liable to lawsuit if they ever turned on NASA afterwards... and they wouldn't be "heroes" for doing so - instead they would easily discredited by a world largely resistant to having their world views shattered. This is simply how human group think (and religion) work. It's a defense mechanism.
-
#1: Would it matter if I named names? You have no problems with labelling anyone disagreeing with you as a liar.
#2: Why do you think Braeunig could produce a reasonable trajectory estimation using a spreadsheet with algebraic math?
#1: Yep, it matters if people have professional qualifications. Mine are related to "complex product development" for "Cummins Engines"... Complex, yet compared to Apollo - very simple. And in no industry do you skip the vital testing. Apollo didn't even try to make the LLTV "more like the LM" as they surely could have had them stand-up with feet 3' above the jet engine, look through a 9" window, and pile some mass on top. This would have better approximated the real deal. And since the magical AGC was never flight tested, even as a POC - this is a stunningly obvious miss.
For me, these gaping holes in the LLTV vs LM program - propelled me quickly into accepting the possibility of the "Landing hoax". That combined with Apollo 1, the accelerated schedule of clumping steps together -- and the rigid/snap-stop motion of the Apollo 11 rendezvous. This was my starting point where I crossed-over from 50/50 to 70/30..
#2: He did it for AM, and was lauded as a fairly good simulation of the results. Do you think it CANNOT produce an accurate result?
The results use simple algebraic equations - -for Thrust, Mass, and Drag. (on the moon, no drag) -- and some knowledge of the advertised pitch angle as it rises and leans over to go into orbit.
You have ZERO knowledge or experience in conducting test flight regimes for cutting edge aeronautical or space programs, so please STFU with the "they should have done it this way" bollocks.
ADMIT that the problem is your complete lack of experience and knowledge and not an issue with the LLTV/LLTV.
-
#1: Would it matter if I named names? You have no problems with labelling anyone disagreeing with you as a liar.
#2: Why do you think Braeunig could produce a reasonable trajectory estimation using a spreadsheet with algebraic math?
#1: Yep, it matters if people have professional qualifications.
You keep accusing people with professional qualifications of being liars or shills, so why should we believe you when you say that?
Mine are related to "complex product development" for "Cummins Engines"...
Prove it. And while you're about it, prove you aren't just a shill for Big Oil.
Complex, yet compared to Apollo - very simple. And in no industry do you skip the vital testing. Apollo didn't even try to make the LLTV "more like the LM" as they surely could have had them stand-up with feet 3' above the jet engine, look through a 9" window, and pile some mass on top. This would have better approximated the real deal.
Seeing as you've confirmed you have no qualifications in aerospace engineering, who cares what you assert about the industry?
I also have no qualifications in aerospace engineering. When I come across a concept in the industry that appears to make no sense to me, my default assumption is that my lack of knowledge is the reason for this appearance. I then ask questions of the experts, outlining the apparent nonsense. Their answers usually explain why my preconceptions are wrong. (Sure, not always; but even then I'm comfortable with the idea that the impasse is a failure is on my part, not theirs.)
Rest assured that if I felt the need to ask questions of you about Cummins engines, about which I have a similar lack of qualifications, I'd take the same approach.
Out of interest, when you had theological questions for your pastor, did you take the same approach then as you're taking here?
And since the magical AGC was never flight tested, even as a POC - this is a stunningly obvious miss.
So...how did Apollos 7, 8, 9 and 10 happen if they didn't use the AGC?
#2: He did it for AM, and was lauded as a fairly good simulation of the results. Do you think it CANNOT produce an accurate result?
The results use simple algebraic equations - -for Thrust, Mass, and Drag. (on the moon, no drag) -- and some knowledge of the advertised pitch angle as it rises and leans over to go into orbit.
You numpty, you didn't respond to my comment; you answered your own question instead. Do you pay so little attention to the contents of this thread that you don't even recognise your own writing?
Your original question was: "Why do you think Braeunig could produce a reasonable trajectory estimation using a spreadsheet with algebraic math?"
I responded with: "Just visit his website and you'll see."
So, have you visited his site yet? And if so, do you think Braeunig is able to produce "a reasonable trajectory estimation", or do you think he's just making it all up?
-
If you keep trying to circumvent my moderation by starting new topics within existing threads I will impose even stricter restrictions on you that will require your posts to be approved by me before they appear in the forum.
My other threads are all completed
I'll be the judge of that, thanks.
If you want to end any of your threads you can do so by posting the following exactly:
"I have failed to make my case and I am unable to defend the claim(s) that I made in the original post of this thread. I withdraw this claim."
Otherwise you can keep defending it until you have convinced us that you are right.
except for the "Launch acceleration" - which is mostly done too, waiting on Jay.
We're all waiting for you to follow Jays attempt to lead you to the answers you seek.
You are holding me hostage to not talking at all, because my points "make too much sense" and you don't want people to see them.
No, I'm holding you responsible for your claims. If you don't like that responsibility you shouldn't be making such claims.
Pick a topic that is actually debatable -- not a stupid one.
Maybe you should have followed that same advice when you started.
-
No, the initial burst is thick white steam (hence why we see the RCS firings, as they are short pulses) but once it's a steady process the exhaust is transparent.
Why in most videos do we never see this "burst of white" from the descent jets? If there's to be an initial burst as it starts -- why do many of the videos have NONE of this?
2 seconds into this one it's pretty clear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC5GDFKDYBA&t=2s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC5GDFKDYBA&t=2s)
-
LM was considerably more top heavy than the LLTV -- why purposefully avoid making your "simulation vehicle the same as the real thing"
Because, and I cannot say this any more clearly, THEY WERE NOT TRYING TO SIMULATE THE ACTAUL LM. It was a training aid for manual landing in 1/6th G, the principles of which are the same for any such vehicle, not a simulator. If you cannot understand how it is perfectly possible to extract and test only certain aspects and a completely faithful simulation of the final conditions in every aspect is not actually required to do so there's not much point in carrying on.
Yet we cut short on some things, making LLTV practice very different than LM practice.
A rocket powered descent in 1/6th G with an RCS system to control attitude is, in the basics, the same in the LM and the LLTV.
Rockets, once they get moving, have aerodynamics to keep them straight -- like an arrow. So for rockets, the advantage of atmosphere is very stabilizing.... before they get moving, they are MUCH less stable and at risk of falling over (as many have).
Nice try, but aerodynamic stability is only a factor once it reaches a suitable speed. The initial takeoff is not remotely stabilised by the air, and yet the vast majority of rockets work with all that mass up top. Rockets that 'fall over' do so either because the thrust is misaligned (a properly aligned rocket can shoot off in any direction it's aimed at without tipping over) or because something went wrong. It is not inherently a problem to 'balance' a rocket on its thrust.
-
And since the magical AGC was never flight tested, even as a POC - this is a stunningly obvious miss.
There are two very detailed books on the AGC.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Apollo-Guidance-Computer-Architecture-Operation/dp/1441908765
And
https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Journey_to_the_Moon.html?id=G8Dml1x55r0C&redir_esc=y#:~:text=evolution%20of%20the%20Apollo%20Guidance,integrated%20circuits%20were%20just%20emerging.
My skim reading of that tells me that the guidance systems were based on those used in missiles, which work just fine. They also tell me what testing was required and done.
You point a rocket in a direction, you tell it which way is up, you tell it what to do in set circumstances and you have a person on board just in case. Input = output routines do not have to be done outside.
-
And since the magical AGC was never flight tested, even as a POC - this is a stunningly obvious miss.
There are two very detailed books on the AGC.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Apollo-Guidance-Computer-Architecture-Operation/dp/1441908765
And
https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Journey_to_the_Moon.html?id=G8Dml1x55r0C&redir_esc=y#:~:text=evolution%20of%20the%20Apollo%20Guidance,integrated%20circuits%20were%20just%20emerging.
My skim reading of that tells me that the guidance systems were based on those used in missiles, which work just fine. They also tell me what testing was required and done.
You point a rocket in a direction, you tell it which way is up, you tell it what to do in set circumstances and you have a person on board just in case. Input = output routines do not have to be done outside.
Add "Digital Apollo" by David Mindell and "Sunburst and Luminary" by Don Eyles to that list. No doubt Najak will ignore this because it involves some real reading and learning. He'd also automatically handwave Don Eyles (the guy that coded programs for the AGC and the STS) as a paid NASA shill....
-
#1: Yep, it matters if people have professional qualifications. Mine are related to "complex product development" for "Cummins Engines".
So, no qualifications relating to rocketry, flight computers, spacecraft design or space flight in general. So in matters relating to Apollo you are a layperson, yet you presume to declare the record 'fishy' based on the fact it doesn't conform to your uninformed views of how it should appear. This is so much a case of 'same shit, different day' for most of us here. You're just the latest in a long line I've encountered in the 20+ years I've been on this forum and its predecessor.
You bring nothing new, nothing surprising, and nothing of any substance, and as is so often the case you combine it with a total inability to recognise that the most likely explanation by far for your 'anomalies' is that you just don't have the expertise to recognise why they are not actually anomalies.
-
Add "Digital Apollo" by David Mindell and "Sunburst and Luminary" by Don Eyles to that list. No doubt Najak will ignore this because it involves some real reading and learning. He'd also automatically handwave Don Eyles (the guy that coded programs for the AGC and the STS) as a paid NASA shill....
And also all the projects in trying to get the AGC back to live (simulated or real). Like John Pultorak who more or less rebuild it in his basement; talking about some effort... He also has some nice documents on that site.
https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Pultorak_files/build_agc_1.pdf
-
Add "Digital Apollo" by David Mindell and "Sunburst and Luminary" by Don Eyles to that list. No doubt Najak will ignore this because it involves some real reading and learning. He'd also automatically handwave Don Eyles (the guy that coded programs for the AGC and the STS) as a paid NASA shill....
And also all the projects in trying to get the AGC back to live (simulated or real). Like John Pultorak who more or less rebuild it in his basement; talking about some effort... He also has some nice documents on that site.
https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Pultorak_files/build_agc_1.pdf
But najak tells us that the code included in the simulator was "incomplete" even though it is the same code that landed six missions on the Moon. What more would you need, najak?
-
But najak tells us that the code included in the simulator was "incomplete" even though it is the same code that landed six missions on the Moon. What more would you need, najak?
Well, I suppose that everyone is entitled to their opinion. What they are not entitled to is having that opinion respected, especially if it is horseshit.
-
Najak, could you please respond to these questions (originally Reply #370). Thank you.
...What is your evidence for the existence of such non-functional components?
Familiar with Theranos? They pulled off a CRIMINAL scam, where the employees had no idea that their product didn't work... for years.. And this was as criminals, with "Need to Know"/NDA's that were only enforceable by Criminals as Civil lawsuits. NASAX employees, military men, Patriots - conducting an operation of deception to BENEFIT the USA. Non-Criminals. Licensed for this type of lie... and their only end deliverable was Perception... A religion. Example: Perception of Heaven is a win for religion. It doesn't have to be real.
So yes, employees doing their best to make something work, hand it off to Integration testing, also real, then onto Systems work -- also real -- but then in the end, those doing "Acceptance testing" just fudge it.. change the "expected results to match the actual results" where they couldn't get it right. Do some recycle -- TRY to get it right.... in the end... it wasn't going to be used for Landing. Doesn't mean they didn't try, and 99% think they succeeded.
I worked for Lockheed-Martin on Sonar detection algorithms -- I have NO IDEA who did System/Acceptance testing... none. Why? Because I didn't have a "Need to Know".. if the entire Seawolf Submarine was faulty -- we didn't know. For Military -- "perception" is key -- and deception is their tool.
So you don't actually have any evidence, you just assert it so your theory can work. Or have you provided evidence in another thread about what was deficient in the LM?
Anyway, according to you the Apollo spacecraft orbited the Moon and never landed. Yet the telemetry indicates they did. Do you know how telemetry determined that the Command Module and Lunar Module weren't together?
Do you seriously believe "we don't really know" about the nature of the Cold War? What about other events in history? World War Two? The Tunguska Event? Caesar's Conquest of Gaul?
We know half-truths, and details -- they didn't just "make it up" - they use "evidence" -- but the end narrative is easily spun. Having "an enemy for a nation" fosters citizen loyalty, and reduces criticisms of govt' spending. So, the "perception of danger/war" is even BETTER than the real deal.... because govt gets the benefits without the real risks.
To presume that the narratives we're told are accurate -- is presumptuous.
Would you call 50,000 dead American soldiers in the Vietnam War merely a "perception of danger/war"? Or is the government lying about that too?
Why would you send a rocket engineer to gather moon rocks?
He went to get rocks... this is known.
You know the deal: evidence please.
Are you going to read the Taylor interview I linked for you (https://web.archive.org/web/20120905025108/http://www.science.org.au/scientists/interviews/t/rt.html)? Or are you going to show some of that integrity you claim for yourself and admit that (a) it's possible for people to know of these differences, and (b) you don't actually know what those differences are?
If you don't have a real sample, how will you know a real specimen? It's just "different". And Moon Rock scientists have no commercial value - their paychecks come from govt. I don't even buy the fact that world leaders from "antagonizing nations" are necessarily enemies... We only know what they "present". To presume you know what's going on behind closed doors at the tippy top, is presumptuous. So I don't lend this much weight as considering the stuff they feed us as "fact".
If you read the Ross Taylor interview I've pointed you towards several times now, you'd be able to answer your own first question (as well as the other question I've asked you from that interview).
I might as well ask another question here: pre-1950, what were the three main hypotheses for the origin of the Moon?
Unfortunately, our only source of information is from govt' funded scientists, possibly hand-selected by NASA.
Government leaders may collude, just as CEO's of competitor companies also try to price-collude... But they are competitors... yet discussions happen behind closed doors.
You're quoting yourself here, not my question. Please answer my question: Evidence please that non-USAnian scientists are funded by the US government.
The scientific papers written about the Apollo rocks are published in science journals, not by NASA. Do you accept I am correct when I say this?
Can you show me where to look? I'd like to see names and institutions. When I looked at the catalog, I wasn't seeing any evidence of "this rock was studied and catalogued by {this 3rd party}." If I'm missing something, please do show.
I've already provided you the link to the Lunar and Planetary Institute website. Very well, here it is:
Go to www.lpi.usra.edu/ > Menu > Resources > Lunar Science and Exploration > Lunar Sample Atlas; scroll down and click on any of the five digit sample numbers; scroll down, and under "Other Information", click on "Lunar Sample Compendium, XXXXX.pdf" (if it's present, not all samples have such a document); open the PDF; scroll down to the end of the PDF where it says "References for XXXXX" to see the scientific articles relating to that sample.
Now, just to be sure, I checked 11 separate samples from all landing missions, and 10 of them had compendiums. I checked the compendiums, and they had between 12 and 30 scientific papers listed on them. Notably, all the compendiums dated between 2009 and 2012, and obviously the papers all pre-date the compendiums. You said: "The signs I see show that there was a huge surge of Regolith samples given out recently, around 2019 and later. Prior to that, not seeing them distributed much to 3rd party labs". Well, read the reference list, and it shows you who the authors were (so you can check where they were working at the time) and where the papers were published.
Do you stand by the claim that I just quoted above? Or do you accept that (a) Apollo samples were tested outside of NASA, (b) Apollo samples were studied in large amounts prior to 2019, and (c) scientific papers relating to the samples were published in journals that were nothing to do with NASA?
1. What was the purpose of the N-1 rocket the Soviets designed and attempted to launch four times?
2. If it was all faked, why didn't the Soviets fake a landing before the Americans?
3. If the Space Race was agreed to be faked by the USA and the USSR, what did the USSR gain from it?
1. Rocket science is good. Also relates to military. Maybe they wanted to see if they could succeed, where we had only faked it. (for example, today's largest rocket, SLS, with more umpf than the SaturnV can only lift 59,000 lbs out of earth's orbit... maybe the N1 theoretically was CAPABLE of doing more than our rockets can today - but failed)
Can you pick a hoax hypothesis and stick to it, please? Your hypothesis up to now was that Apollo could do everything except land on the Moon. Are you now saying the Saturn V was incapable of putting a manned spacecraft into lunar orbit?
2. Not sure the ACTUAL dynamics between Soviets and USA -- or if there was any puppets in USSR. We only know "what they presented" -- the truth can be something else. But we DID validate their rocks -- so that Luna missions were declared a success... that's a small win.
Now how about you answer my actual question: If it was all faked, why didn't the Soviets fake a landing before the Americans?
3. If we really did Land and USSR knew it -- what did they gain from Acknowledgement? They control their OWN MEDIA (Not free press there) - so they could have easily told all of their own citizens "The Americans are Liars" -- Instead they publish America's Apollo victory, via govt controlled press.
This is NOT how you respond to enemies in a war.
You haven't accurately described how the USSR reacted to Apollo 11. First, they acknowledged the success of Apollo 11. Second, they pointed out that manned lunar missions were more expensive and dangerous compared to the USSR's own unmanned sample retriever missions. Third, they said that they didn't have a manned lunar landing program of their own, so the USA was only racing against itself.
The second statement is accurate - manned lunar landings are more expensive and dangerous than unmanned sample retriever missions. However the third statement is inaccurate - the Soviets had a manned lunar landing program, but they couldn't get it to work; and its existence has been public knowledge since the days of Glasnost...if you're old enough to remember that.
In other words, the Soviets knew they couldn't claim Apollo 11 was fake, so they did the next best thing: they used a mixture of truth and lies to downplay the American accomplishment. Propaganda 101.
Just to clarify, because on the face of it this statement is so stupidly wrong that I have to assume you made a mistake, are you claiming that up to 2019, most analysis of the Apollo rocks was performed by NASA staff?
The signs I see show that there was a huge surge of Regolith samples given out recently, around 2019 and later. Prior to that, not seeing them distributed much to 3rd party labs ... where is this evidence?
What signs do you see? Come on, you know how this works: when you make a claim you provide the supporting evidence.
but NOW these samples show average particle size of 35 microns instead of 80!!!... Hmmm,.... maybe it's because China's samples that are real showed this... Next we'll just claim that our measurement process in 1970's was flawed... off by 55%.
https://www.space.com/30450-apollo-moon-soil-samples-disintegrating.html
"The differences between the two datasets are stark. For example, the median particle diameter has decreased from 78 microns (0.0031 inches) to 33 microns (0.0013 inches). And in the original sieve data, 44 percent of soil particles were between 90 and 1,000 microns (0.0035 to 0.039 inches) wide; today, just 17 percent of the particles are that large."
This alone seems like a smoking gun to me. This simply makes no sense that they'd have NO CLUE ABOUT THIS until 2012.
1. What is it a smoking gun of? In other words, according to you, what does it prove?
2. What is your logic process to back this up? And I don't mean (a) the samples degraded, therefore (b) the samples are fake. I'd like you to explain how the degradation is a smoking gun of whatever you think it's a smoking gun of.
When Bush announced "We're going back to the moon" this started an "oh shit campaign" of trying to figure out how to reconcile "Apollo reports" with the more modern studies and conclusions.
I believe the real regolith average size is 35 micron, not 80.. So they can now measure them and say "it's 35! not sure what happened".
So why do you think the original report said 80 microns? Where do you think they got that figure from?
As you seem to believe that samples/rocks have been studied each decade-- why on earth didn't we see this "degradation process" at all? Instead we have 1/5th sized particles! (by mass) -- all in one fell swoop.
I already answered that question in reply #140. Here it is again:
Yes, scientists have been studying the Apollo samples through the decades. Of course, most of the Apollo samples are rocks, and this particular test is a study of soil samples. Do you understand the difference?
Second, just because scientists study samples doesn't mean that every sample is subjected to every possible scientific test. Scientists are specialists, so the tests they conduct on a sample are going to be related to their specialisation. Then they send the sample back to NASA so other scientists can conduct other tests related to their specialisation. If no scientists are interested in performing a certain test on any lunar samples, then that test doesn't get performed.
Therefore, we have two data points for average soil particle size - one collected in 1969 and one in 2012. And that means we have no idea of the shape of the curve between those two years. Therefore, your assertion that the "DEGRADATION" happened "SUDDENLY" isn't supported. (And sorry, but putting those words in caps doesn't give any additional strength to your assertion.)
-
Aye Yai Yai, this place is quite for weeks, months, or years at a time, and then all of a sudden a live one shows up.
Not sure why any proof beyond the first post in this thread is needed though . . .
-
You have ZERO knowledge or experience in conducting test flight regimes for cutting edge aeronautical or space programs, so please STFU with the "they should have done it this way" bollocks.
ADMIT that the problem is your complete lack of experience and knowledge and not an issue with the LLTV/LLTV.
All people experienced with "complex product development" need to know is that the stuff they were trying to do with the Landing were SO complex that we'd never done them before, nor for years after (and those were in much easier contexts). And yet we sent dozens of humans 240,000 miles away to do them for the first time -- straight from "build it" to "field test it", skipping the uber important System Test with recycle.
Magically, NASA didn't need ANY system testing for anything close to real-world conditions.
LLTV would have been an OPTIMUM vehicle for a Proof-of-Concept (POC). NASA didn't even complete a Proof-of-Concept for this LM being navigated/balanced by an AGC.
If NASA could have successfully pulled off this POC, they would have proudly touted it -- MAGIC - a computer flying a precarious aircraft!... No such POC was even shown or even documented.
This is how bleeding edge complex product development ALWAYS works, for ALL fields of development. You don't skip "System Testing in approximated real-world environments", unless you aren't really going to do it.
-
LLTV would have been an OPTIMUM vehicle for a Proof-of-Concept (POC). NASA didn't even complete a Proof-of-Concept for this LM being navigated/balanced by an AGC.
How many more times must you be told what the LLTV was actually meant to be before you stop with this absurd idea that it is suspect because it's not what YOU think it should have been? It. Was. Not. A. LM. Simulator. It was a training aid for the astronauts to get a feel for the physical aspects of piloting a craft to a landing in 1/6th G. That is all it was ever intended to be and all it has ever been claimed to be. It is literally only you and other hoax believers who keep insisting it was supposed to be an accurate simulator for the actual lunar module.
And again, the LM was test flown THREE TIMES before Apollo 11, showing that all the systems worked as intended. Apollo 11 was the final test.
-
the stuff they were trying to do with the Landing were SO complex that we'd never done them before
Absolute rubbish, and writing off a huge amount of work and number of preceding space flights.
-
I'll be the judge of that, thanks.
If you want to end any of your threads you can do so by posting the following exactly:
"I have failed to make my case and I am unable to defend the claim(s) that I made in the original post of this thread. I withdraw this claim."
"Judge" - you are running this the same as the Salem Witch Trials. There is only one conclusion permitted... From the get-go - one conclusion. Period. End of Story.
If I don't agree with you, I am no longer allowed to raise topics.
I have defended my points to-the-end for each thread. But I'm held hostage to existing threads until I come to YOUR conclusions, even if I firmly believe the evidence doesn't support your side of the case.
Example:
For the 8-flag movements - you are forcing me to say "I have FAILED to make my case that the 8-flag movements, and currently have no known viable physics explanation."
But if this were true - which viable physics explanation can ANYONE present to prove my point false?? So far, there have been NONE.
(People had said some GENERIC statements -- but when questioned, back off entirely, because their explanation falls completely apart under scrutiny.)
You are forcing me to make a FALSE conclusion, in order to move on.
-
I have defended my points to-the-end for each thread. But I'm held hostage to existing threads until I come to YOUR conclusions, even if I firmly believe the evidence doesn't support your side of the case.
What a liar.
https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2019.msg59120#msg59120
You have done everything possible to evade this with obfuscation and daft claims. The ones listed have just been evaded!
-
2 seconds into this one it's pretty clear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC5GDFKDYBA&t=2s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC5GDFKDYBA&t=2s)
Thanks for the link! This is one of the few times we EVER see this jet begin to fire. But watch it in stop frame, and you'll see that ONLY ONE FIRES, no others.
And then we also have ALL THE REST of the videos - mostly without any signs of these jets begin started or used.
Do you have any science evidence to indicate that the exhaust from this fuel (hyd peroxide) should be white just for 0.5 second and then go completely invisible, in an instant? I'd like to know if this theory has any science (that we know of) behind it.
If these jets are not being used to provide upward lift -- then I'd say "LLTV was not functioning as they claimed/designed/intended".
-
What a liar.
You would have fit in well as a Puritan at the witch trials - front row.
For the dust, I DID AGREE that this was "too ambiguous to clearly prove either way"... .because we're dealing with millions of tiny particles that cannot be tracked.
I still firmly believe the videos show thick dust clouds doing up-to-the-bottom of the boot (and you agreed to this part) - and then falls way faster than the astronaut. But because of the "dusty context" and microparticles involved - I'm willing to drop my views. I get it, if you don't see it as I do.
So I've dropped this point, mostly because I was FORCED to, but also because I can at least see that "other points of view are not easy to disprove" -- too much ambiguity.
You, with Puritan mindset, can't seem to grasp this concept.
-
Do you have any science evidence to indicate that the exhaust from this fuel (hyd peroxide) should be white just for 0.5 second and then go completely invisible, in an instant?
Do you have any science to say it shouldn't? It's quite possible that's actually an anomaly and that generally those things don't produce visible exhaust (the exhaust products are water and oxygen). I don't know, but that video definitely shows that rocket nozzle firing.
If these jets are not being used to provide upward lift
IF. And your only basis for supposing they're not is 'I can't see them doing it', which is just naive, frankly. I can't see that big jet engine doing anything, because its exhaust is, get this, invisible! But clearly something is making that vehicle go up and come down in a controlled fashion, and if you think just looking at a video enables you to see every facet of how something is functioning you are staggeringly naive.
What else, exactly, would downward pointing rocket nozzles like those be used for other than generating lift?
-
Magically, NASA didn't need ANY system testing for anything close to real-world conditions.
LLTV would have been an OPTIMUM vehicle for a Proof-of-Concept (POC). NASA didn't even complete a Proof-of-Concept for this LM being navigated/balanced by an AGC.
If NASA could have successfully pulled off this POC, they would have proudly touted it -- MAGIC - a computer flying a precarious aircraft!... No such POC was even shown or even documented.
This is how bleeding edge complex product development ALWAYS works, for ALL fields of development. You don't skip "System Testing in approximated real-world environments", unless you aren't really going to do it.
Utter nonsense. It's no wonder that Jay is having to take it slowly, as you really are a slow learner.
What do you think A7, 8, 9 and 10 were for?
Have you heard of the Gemini program? If not, then you'll be amazed that it was a test program for Apollo, to test all of the core needs for a Lunar program: orbital mechanics and navigation, rendezvous and docking, EVA, extended stay missions and global Comms.
-
Do you have any science evidence to indicate that the exhaust from this fuel (hyd peroxide) should be white just for 0.5 second and then go completely invisible, in an instant?
Do you have any science to say it shouldn't? It's quite possible that's actually an anomaly and that generally those things don't produce visible exhaust (the exhaust products are water and oxygen). I don't know, but that video definitely shows that rocket nozzle firing.
If these jets are not being used to provide upward lift
IF. And you're only basis for supposing they're not is 'I can't see them doing it', which is just naive, frankly. I can't see that big jet engine doing anything, because its exhaust is, get this, invisible! But clearly something is making that vehicle go up and come down in a controlled fashion, and if you think just looking at a video enables you to see every facet of how something is functioning you are staggeringly naive.
What else, exactly, would downward pointing rocket nozzles like those be used for other than generating lift?
No doubt it'll be another case of those magical, invisible suspension wires.....
/s
-
What do you think A7, 8, 9 and 10 were for?
Have you heard of the Gemini program? If not, then you'll be amazed that it was a test program for Apollo, to test all of the core needs for a Lunar program: orbital mechanics and navigation, rendezvous and docking, EVA, extended stay missions and global Comms.
I'd be amazed if he knows anything about Mercury or Gemini, or how they supported the Apollo programme. Or about the development process for the Saturn V, or the Saturn IB. Little Joe II and boilerplate spacecraft are probably new terms to him. Basically I think he is unfamiliar with anything that provides context to the Apollo programme as part of an overall development of spaceflight capability and not the standalone 'get a bloke on the Moon' plan he seems to think it is.
-
I'll be the judge of that, thanks.
If you want to end any of your threads you can do so by posting the following exactly:
"I have failed to make my case and I am unable to defend the claim(s) that I made in the original post of this thread. I withdraw this claim."
"Judge" - you are running this the same as the Salem Witch Trials. There is only one conclusion permitted... From the get-go - one conclusion. Period. End of Story.
If I don't agree with you, I am no longer allowed to raise topics.
If you make a claim then you defend it. Declaring all of the explanations you have been given wrong just because you say so IS NOT DEFENDING YOUR CLAIM.
I am banning you until the new year. I am not wasting my holiday watching over you.
-
For the dust, I DID AGREE that this was "too ambiguous to clearly prove either way"... .because we're dealing with millions of tiny particles that cannot be tracked.
I don't give a monkey's what you "agreed" on.
I still firmly believe the videos show thick dust clouds doing up-to-the-bottom of the boot (and you agreed to this part) - and then falls way faster than the astronaut. But because of the "dusty context" and microparticles involved - I'm willing to drop my views. I get it, if you don't see it as I do.
I don't care what the hell you "firmly believe" either. The video (for Cernan) shows it rising and hitting the deck in a progressive wave. Everyone else sees it - you are afraid to admit it because that tiny segment is a show-stopper.
So I've dropped this point, mostly because I was FORCED to, but also because I can at least see that "other points of view are not easy to disprove" -- too much ambiguity.
Quit being a coward and go and answer direct questions you have so far completely evaded:
https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2019.msg59120#msg59120
You, with Puritan mindset, can't seem to grasp this concept.
Oh do shut up. My mindset is honest debate, not your rookie observations and wilful evasion.
Happy Christmas everyone - back in the New Year it seems.
-
Just a note of the Lunar Modules that had issues, which he basically hand waved away, effectively moving the goal post. When he is allowed back of course. His initial premise was it was all too perfect, there were no issues, when pointing out there were actually issues, he changed to, well of course they’ll say there was issues, to make it look more realistic. Sort of a heads I win, tails you lose outlook.(edit): -
Apollo 10: I already mentioned.
Issue: Test flight in lunar orbit, the Lunar Module (LM-4, "Snoopy") entered an unexpected roll.
Cause: A crew error occurred when the astronauts inadvertently switched the Abort Guidance System (AGS) to the wrong mode.
Resolution: The crew quickly regained control of the spacecraft, and the incident had no long-term impact.
Apollo 11: Alarm Codes
Issue: During the historic first lunar landing, the Lunar Module (LM-5, "Eagle") generated several 1202 and 1201 program alarms on its guidance computer.
Cause: The LM's computer was overloaded with tasks due to a radar switch being left in an incorrect position, causing excessive data input.
Resolution: Mission Control confirmed the alarms could be safely ignored, allowing Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin to proceed with the landing.
Apollo 14: Docking Probe and Abort Switch
Docking Issue:
Issue: The Lunar Module (LM-8, "Antares") docking probe encountered difficulties, delaying its separation from the Command Module.
Cause: A minor mechanical issue required the crew to cycle the docking mechanism multiple times.
Resolution: The problem was resolved manually.
Abort Switch Malfunction:
Issue: An abort signal was intermittently triggered by a faulty switch.
Cause: A short circuit in the switch threatened to initiate an unwanted abort sequence.
Resolution: Engineers devised a workaround by reprogramming the computer to ignore false abort signals.
Apollo 15:Engine Covering Damage
Issue: During the descent of the Lunar Module (LM-10, "Falcon"), a piece of debris or insulation briefly obscured the view of the landing radar.
Cause: Minor damage to the LM's insulation during flight.
Resolution: The problem was transient and did not significantly impact the landing.
Apollo 16: Landing Radar
Issue: The LM (LM-11, "Orion") experienced a failure in its landing radar, threatening the descent phase.
Cause: A malfunction in the radar system delayed critical data needed for a safe landing.
Resolution: Engineers on the ground guided the astronauts to reset the system, restoring functionality just in time for landing.
If anyone knows any others to give to our intrepid goal post mover feel free..
-
A12 had unintended starboard lateral movements that were code corrected for A13 forward nulling out these movements.
-
Apollos 11 and 12 had problems with fuel slosh. In the case of Apollo 11, this caused the activation of the low-fuel alarm something like 30 seconds early. In the case of Apollo 12, it made Pete Conrad's reading of the LPD inaccurate, as well as activating the low-fuel alarm early.
-
#1: Well, I can think of a pretty straightforward explanation. But I'm going to read the relevant thread first and do some research to see if it works in the circumstances.
#2: Well, that's why I asked you to state what the three pre-Apollo hypotheses were for the formation of the Moon, and why I've specifically asked you to answer a question from the Taylor interview. Trust me, they're relevant.
#3: Who is "they"?
#1: Awesome, I can't wait to hear your response. Maybe you can ask LunarOrbit to re-open this thread, and remove his damning/inaccurate final statements about me not being willing to address the counter claims.
Yeah, I'm still looking.
#2: I'll put this on my list.. Please send me the link, and maybe give me a couple highlights, so that I can maximize the value I get from this time spent.
Link? How about you just put "early hypotheses for the formation of the moon" into your search engine of choice. Like others, I'm a bit tired of spoon-feeding you information you then go on to ignore or misrepresent. You can claim you want value for time all you like, but JayUtah's point about making you earn and own your knowledge applies here too.
#3: "They" is NASA.
Here is the NASA summation of Baron:
https://www.nasa.gov/history/Apollo204/barron.html (https://www.nasa.gov/history/Apollo204/barron.html)
And here is the congressional testimony transcript, look for "500":
https://www.nasa.gov/history/Apollo204/baron.htm (https://www.nasa.gov/history/Apollo204/baron.htm)
Near the end.
I find this to be horrific, that NASA is pretending that this 500-page report never existed!... It's perhaps one of the more damaging pieces of evidence against them, and the corruption involved with Apollo.
As others have pointed out, no one knows for sure what was in the report, so it's impossible to draw any firm conclusions about how "damaging" it was.
In any case, Baron himself describes the 500 page report in these terms: "I have a 500-page report. I have an opening statement which I wanted to read, which described this 500-page report, and in this I think you can get all the possible names that there are, the times, the dates, the tests that were being run and the internal letters of the company, proper specifications, especially in regard to flamability of materials."
To me, Baron is saying the 500 page report simply reports the same incidents from the 55 page report in more detail.
1960's was a very corrupt period in time for USA Politics.
1. Two Kennedy's assassinated - the most honest of candidates.
LOL! Some of JFK's numerous extramarital liaisons caused national security concerns, and the guy was on a shopping list of drugs. Yes, he was charismatic, and yes, his presidency was probably above average in terms of achievements, but he wasn't some sort of Presidential Paladin and "Camelot" was a musical not a documentary.
2. Bay of Pigs
What about it? An incident in which the US government helped with trying to overthrow a...[drumroll] Communist government.
3. Gulk of Tonkin -> fake evidence, known to be fake - justifying 2 million drafted, and 250K dead, others screwed up for life -- for Military Machine profits?
Yeah, those people who were drafted, and the people who were killed...they were involved in a war against a...[drumroll] Communist insurgency supported by a Communist government, which was in turn supported by two other Communist governments.
Did you know that the USA wasn't the only country which sent troops to support South Vietnam. Other countries included South Korea, the Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand, Australia and New Zealand - all of them non-Communist.
4. Vietnam - reporting total sham -- Daniel Ellsberg leaks it, else we may have never known.
And what do the Pentagon Papers tell us: a consistent history of the USA's attempts to support anti-communist forces and suppress Communist forces, both overtly and covertly.
See a trend here? Still want to stick to the line that the Cold War was fake?
5. Apollo... yeah, this one was 100% real.
So, you don't accept the idea that a person can do both good and bad things? President Johnson was the guy who both drove the Civil Rights Act and sent troops to Vietnam.
Or are you like so many USAnians who have a purely dualist view of the world - everything is either good or bad, black or white, moral or corrupt?
-
Then present the evidence for this. At the moment, all you've done is claim something that needs to be true in order for you to reconcile what he said with your hoax hypothesis.
When it comes to claims by people with vested interest - we should NOT consider their claims as particularly meaningful. Your theory rests on this guy's claim. My doesn't. I claim "uncertainty" as should you and others.
In Reply #375 you said of Mike Dinn: "He's definitely paid to speak for NASA." Then, when you're asked for evidence, you claim "uncertainty". You don't get to claim "definitely" and "uncertainty" about the same issue, as the words have colossally different implications. So which is it? Are you definite he's paid to speak for NASA? Or are you uncertain about it?
And so I stick look at the things where it doesn't involve a person with vested interest making statements.
Dinn's statements are testable. Your hoax hypotheses are anything but. Or, more precisely, your hypotheses are a mish-mash of mutually contradictory explanations, and you seem to be the only person who can't/won't see them.
To me, the substantial difference in Chinese samples (1/4th the size-in-weight of Apollo's average particle size, and the immense difference in composition) - is more meaningful than the words of various spoke people, who of course are going to proclaim NASA's truth.
"Chang'e-5, China's first lunar sample return mission, is targeted to land in northern Oceanus Procellarum, within a region selected on the basis of 1) its location away from the Apollo-Luna sampling region..."
That is literally the first sentence in the scientific paper "Young lunar mare basalts in the Chang'e-5 sample return region, northern Oceanus Procellarum", published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters.
So, would you like to explain why samples from a location geologically distinct from the Apollo and Luna sampling sites shouldn't be different in composition? Or are you going to claim the paper's authors are lying because they have a "vested interest"?
So I look for the dull facts.... and the instances of breaking physics -- like Flags blowing towards the LM with no atmosphere, and no physical way for this to happen, among a LIST OF THINGS...
Yeah, the problem here is that you cling to your belief in these instances of "breaking physics" to the extent that you'll calmly accuse the world's politicians, aerospace engineers, scientists and historians of perpetrating a humongous conspiracy rather than admit the possibility that your amateur knowledge isn't up to the standard of experts in those fields. Is there any field of knowledge where you don't feel confident to take on the experts in that field when you detect what you think is an example of something "broken" in that field?
-
So you're suggesting that because NASA is in danger of being defunded by the US government, a viable strategy for it is to approach the US government...for more money.
The funds from Congress were to fund NASA. Without NASA funding, all is lost. Baron and his 500-page report needed to not be in the spotlight, else it cast more doubt on NASA as a whole. But Baron was relentless, and was roping in more witnesses -- until he wasn't.
NASAX didn't have a public budget - it was rolled into the NASA budget and maybe even some from the DoD. Shifting money around is an easy govt task.
Yeah, sorry, WHAT?? If Congress ceases NASA's Apollo funding, Apollo is finished, "NASAX" or not. Do you seriously think that people won't ask what's going on if work on Apollo continues after NASA's funding for it has been cut off?
-
#1: And this is why you make it seem pointless to just explain stuff to you - you ignore it. See reply #372 in this thread for the explanation for Webb's resignation - the sort of politics that happens in the US government every time a new President is elected:
#2: Again, you'd know this if you paid the slightest attention to actual evidence.
#1: The election was a month away, and 3.5 months away from the transition of power. In the meantime, why not stick around to be a part of this GRAND VICTORY (which is the FIRST TIME EVER that Astronauts have been launched through the Van Allen Belts, and then into orbit around the moon!)...
I hear your "evidence" - but equating "words given from top leaders about reasons for resignation" as Truth - -is a big stretch.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I'm sorry but you're just being argumentative.
If you weren't biased, you might see this as fishy too. Think about it more. Webb was like the "Father of Apollo" - it was his brain-child. He championed it. It was based upon his zeal and confidence that Congress approved of the program.
Not only have I thought about it, I've been studying Apollo as history for more than 25 years, so I've examined it in far more detail than you have. Apollo wasn't Webb's "brain-child". It was devised before he was Administrator. Yes, he championed it with Congress, because that was his job as Administrator. But if you read his biography and read his NASA oral history you see that he was very much an eminence grise - a power behind the scenes, and not a rocket fan-boy.
Then he makes what should have been a reckless decision to change the Apollo 8 mission into a Moon Orbit late-in-the-game - and you think that this was "his decision". In order to make such a bold decision, you must have some real conviction about it... but, instead he resigns 2 months later -- and does not even attend the launch! Hmmm.... no fish here.
And once again your lack of knowledge leads you to draw conclusions that you think are suspicious. Webb didn't "make" the Apollo 8 decision. George Low made it and convinced other Apollo senior managers, and between them they convinced Webb, who was the most skeptical of the lot. So we know that your statement "you think that this was "his decision"" is incorrect.
As for not attending the launch, others have already pointed out to you Webb's record on attending launches.
#2: "Paid attention to evidence..."
If you didn't simply give full credence to the narrative they "tell you" and instead looked at the actions/events that are transpiring -- you might see more compelling evidence.
Webb's actions indicate something different than the "excuse" he gave for resigning. His excuse makes little sense.
And if Apollo 8 was a success, why on earth would Nixon replace the "Father of Apollo"?? Under his leadership/inspiration, wasn't Apollo 8 itself a miracle? Would Nixon disrupt this leadership 6 months before Apollo 11?
Webb didn't want a part of Apollo anymore... this is pretty blatant to neutral eyes. GenZ won't fall for his "excuse" and call it "fact/evidence".
The current Administrator, Bill Nelson, is the 14th Administrator of NASA, and he'll be leaving to make way for Trump's nominee. Of the preceding 13 Administrators, it's reasonable to say that six of them left due to a change of President (Glennan, Webb, Frosch, Griffin, Bolden and Bridenstine). So that would make 50% of NASA Administrators leaving their jobs because of a change of President.
See what happens when you look at "the actions/events that are transpiring"?
-
Seeing as NASA's failings are part of najaks's discussion, I happened across this publication while looking into something else:
https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-Electronic-Design/1969/Electronic-Design-V17-N17-1969-0816.pdf
In it there's an interview with George H. Hage, Apollo Program Deputy Director and Mission Director for Apollo 11.
Here are his responses to some pertinent questions:
After losing 22 months to unscheduled testing, how did you manage to place a man on the moon within the time schedule?
The Apollo program was stabilized before January 1967, so that there was leeway in scheduling until mid-summer of last year. Then, of course, we changed the mission sequence. The pre-fire version of the projected Apollo 7 had no launch designation. If the Apollo 7 had performed as planned, there is no question that we would have been on the moon by now. But when a program of this kind runs into a deficiency of the magnitude of the fire, you have no alternative but to do whatever is required to fix it. Only then were Apollos 8, 9 and 10 sent on their way. During the testing and redesign of the spacecraft, three unmanned flights were launched.
What effort was necessary to compensate for management mistakes?
Any program of this size is going to be faced with errors in human judgment. I suspect there are those who would be critical of this management in trying to determine the cause of the fire that killed the three astronauts three years ago. I suggest that circumstance was created by a technical blind spot—because we did not recognize the hazard in having present simultaneously all the conditions that could lead to a catastrophic fire of that type. The three conditions are: fuel, and we had materials in the spacecraft that were combustible; ignition sources, and any time you have an electrical system inside a machine you have potential ignition sources; and tmosphere, that will cause the fire to propagate. If all three of these elements are present, you have a potential fire threat. Actions taken as a consequence of that circumstance have been extremely thorough. The interior of the spacecraft, both the Lunar Module and the Command Module, have been redesigned to rigorously remove flammable material. Wiring has been carefully protected to minimize the possibility of shortcircuits, and great care has been taken to protect against over loading circuits. Finally, the atmosphere of the spacecraft at launch was changed to be less of an oxidizing agent. We changed the mixture from pure oxygen to 40% nitrogen and 60% oxygen, an environment that is less sensitive to propagating a fire. Also, a very demanding test program was conducted after this redesign: the interior of an actual boilerplate spacecraft was built with materials, wiring, etc., to duplicate the flight unit. By spotting various ignition sources, we set fires in many places throughout the spacecraft to determine if, in fact, they would propagate. Resolution of this problem cost us time between January, 1967, and October, 1968.
Is it ever possible to correct minor mistakes before they become public knowledge?
The policy of the spaceflight program has been one of complete exposure, not only nationally, but to the world. That’s a very powerful incentive for those of us who are involved in turning out these programs to be extremely careful, and critical, and to do everything that’s reasonably within our power to make every flight a success. Our “power” takes the form of a very complete and extensive ground test program.
There's a couple of other interesting Apollo articles in the edition as well.
-
First, the link was broken for me - missing a trailing "f".
Thanks for this magazine link. Why do I get the feeling that JayUtah went straight to magazine page 254 and hasn't been seen since?
Did you know you can get a data modem up to 150 baud for only $349? - wow! (The 2400/4800 baud ones are outside my price range.)
-
Seeing as NASA's failings are part of najaks's discussion, I happened across this publication while looking into something else:
https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-Electronic-Design/1969/Electronic-Design-V17-N17-1969-0816.pdf
In it there's an interview with George H. Hage, Apollo Program Deputy Director and Mission Director for Apollo 11.
Here are his responses to some pertinent questions:
After losing 22 months to unscheduled testing, how did you manage to place a man on the moon within the time schedule?
The Apollo program was stabilized before January 1967, so that there was leeway in scheduling until mid-summer of last year. Then, of course, we changed the mission sequence. The pre-fire version of the projected Apollo 7 had no launch designation. If the Apollo 7 had performed as planned, there is no question that we would have been on the moon by now. But when a program of this kind runs into a deficiency of the magnitude of the fire, you have no alternative but to do whatever is required to fix it. Only then were Apollos 8, 9 and 10 sent on their way. During the testing and redesign of the spacecraft, three unmanned flights were launched.
What effort was necessary to compensate for management mistakes?
Any program of this size is going to be faced with errors in human judgment. I suspect there are those who would be critical of this management in trying to determine the cause of the fire that killed the three astronauts three years ago. I suggest that circumstance was created by a technical blind spot—because we did not recognize the hazard in having present simultaneously all the conditions that could lead to a catastrophic fire of that type. The three conditions are: fuel, and we had materials in the spacecraft that were combustible; ignition sources, and any time you have an electrical system inside a machine you have potential ignition sources; and tmosphere, that will cause the fire to propagate. If all three of these elements are present, you have a potential fire threat. Actions taken as a consequence of that circumstance have been extremely thorough. The interior of the spacecraft, both the Lunar Module and the Command Module, have been redesigned to rigorously remove flammable material. Wiring has been carefully protected to minimize the possibility of shortcircuits, and great care has been taken to protect against over loading circuits. Finally, the atmosphere of the spacecraft at launch was changed to be less of an oxidizing agent. We changed the mixture from pure oxygen to 40% nitrogen and 60% oxygen, an environment that is less sensitive to propagating a fire. Also, a very demanding test program was conducted after this redesign: the interior of an actual boilerplate spacecraft was built with materials, wiring, etc., to duplicate the flight unit. By spotting various ignition sources, we set fires in many places throughout the spacecraft to determine if, in fact, they would propagate. Resolution of this problem cost us time between January, 1967, and October, 1968.
Is it ever possible to correct minor mistakes before they become public knowledge?
The policy of the spaceflight program has been one of complete exposure, not only nationally, but to the world. That’s a very powerful incentive for those of us who are involved in turning out these programs to be extremely careful, and critical, and to do everything that’s reasonably within our power to make every flight a success. Our “power” takes the form of a very complete and extensive ground test program.
There's a couple of other interesting Apollo articles in the edition as well.
The problem is that while most people would consider the interviewee as being honest and open about NASA's shortcomings, I predict Najak's response would be like this:
Paid by NASA, and probably is best paying client/boss. If he was "inept" they'd find someone else to earn this good money.
Before taking the job, probably had to sign away a few Rights (NDA stuff, etc) -- so that if he decided to "choose honesty over very good money" - he couldn't legally be honest... He'd be breaking the law against NASA (not just a normal commercial company).
So you are correct -- these type results that can only be proclaimed by "those working for NASA" -- are not so compelling to me either way. To me - it's "just words" - predictable words.
(And yes, that's a direct quote of Najak after I linked a different interview for his reading pleasure.)
-
Toe be clear all manned spacecraft went through a 100% oxygen test prior to launch, NASA's luck just ran out .
-
Toe be clear all manned spacecraft went through a 100% oxygen test prior to launch, NASA's luck just ran out .
Exactly.
100% O2 was used relatively safely throughout military aviation which probably led to an insidious sense of complacency - people didn't think about the requirement to over-pressurise the CM *with an 100% O2 atmosphere* and what that meant to the risk; the complacency led to people not considering what if there was an emergency on the ground - in the capsule - and would 2-3 minutes be quick enough for a crew to safely egress? This was meant to be an egress test on completion of the Plugs Out Test - how many egress tests had been conducted previously & under what conditions? The pressure to 'keep moving' just added to the conditions affecting the planners, the designers, the builders & the crew.
It is not the only example in the Apollo programme but sadly it is the one that took the most lives.
-
#11: Ross Taylor interview - I've provided the link. All you have to do is read the interview.
Found your link, and it's on my list to check out. Thank you.
UPDATE:
Skimming it -- very long. I get it -- "lots of qualifications", but also "You remained a consultant for NASA for 20 years, didn't you?"...
Paid by NASA, and probably is best paying client/boss. If he was "inept" they'd find someone else to earn this good money.
Before taking the job, probably had to sign away a few Rights (NDA stuff, etc) -- so that if he decided to "choose honesty over very good money" - he couldn't legally be honest... He'd be breaking the law against NASA (not just a normal commercial company).
So once again you casually invent negative character traits while providing no evidence, in order to make the man fit your narrative. Of course, anyone who’s read the interview would know how unlikely those character traits would’ve been in Taylor. It’s also particularly noticeable that you do this while with an equal lack of evidence you beatify Thomas Baron.
Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that Taylor was “paid by NASA”?
So you are correct -- these type results that can only be proclaimed by "those working for NASA" -- are not so compelling to me either way. To me - it's "just words" - predictable words.
And now we have the circular argument that any scientist studying Apollo rocks is “working for NASA” therefore will toe the NASA line; and that because all the scientists agree with each other about the Apollo rocks, they must be “working for NASA”.
Do you have any evidence that these results “can only be proclaimed by those working for NASA”?
I look for the "actions", and holes in the story, and the unlikeliness of certain events, or in some cases, seeming impossibilities.
In your opinion, is there anything “unlikely” or “impossible” about scientists working independently from each other reaching identical conclusions about the Apollo rocks? If so, what is the logic hole?
I also Follow the Money - and do not trust "political/world narratives" -- I think to a large degree they are manufactured, and "turned into reality" via media/propaganda -- telling everyone how to think... and they do. Making it look easy, IMO.
Apart from saying that you “think to a large degree they are manufactured”, do you have any evidence?
EDIT#2 - if you have specific things he said in mind that you want to highlight -- please do. I'd be happy to discuss various points -- I am not suggesting he's "just outright lying about everything" - I do not believe this. I simply believe that he's apply a subject-pro-nasa filter to his views, where this pertains.
This is why I shifted this part of your post to the top – to address this request. No, I’m not going to highlight anything. I want you to read the whole article. I want you to learn what sort of person Taylor was (to show how inaccurate your character assessment is). And I want you to find the answer to the question I’ve asked a couple of times about the significant finding scientists made about the lack of a particular group of metals in the Apollo rocks.
But I’d also like you to stop trying to do the speed-run version of learning. Do all the reading and learning yourself, and use it to present evidence. Your current flurry of evidence-free claims is getting tiresome.
#1: In the meantime, I'll assume from other comments you've made that non-USAnian scientists can study the Apollo rocks, or rather, "study" them, as long as they write scientific papers which align with the mainstream view. Would that be an accurate characterization of your view?
It's a general notion currently. I also don't think things are clear cut. I don't think they sat anyone down and specifically told them what their findings needed to be. When I looked for "who did the research", I didn't see any good proof of much being done outside of Johnson Space Center ... so if you have some links, I'll mark them and read them. And learn more. And then have a better assessment.
I’ve shown you how to find the information about the hundreds of scientific articles written about the Apollo rocks, and you’ve had time to check them out. Do you accept that your statement that you “didn't see any good proof of much being done outside of Johnson Space Center” is incorrect?
#2: The existence of the ideological conflict is undeniable, as it was argued out by people in many countries across the world, ...
Thing is - the media (driven by govt at times?) - drives the narrative, which people latch onto, then it becomes REAL - at the ground level. People are told this/that with fear motives - and poof, they start believing it. So sure, it all seemed real to the masses of people - but was it based upon truth?
For example, close to half of Americans believe the 2020 election was rigged; and half don't. Depending upon who you ask - you'll get a different story.
As you say, the masses believed the Cold War and the ideology behind it was real, and the political divide that created in many countries therefore makes it real. Real people voted in real politicians espousing a range of political views into parliaments and congresses across the world. The idea that these politicians were somehow faking their political views doesn’t pass any sort of sniff test.
And the militaries on both sides also believed it was real: you’re apparently too young to know about the nuclear bomb-carrying B-52 bombers which constantly existed in a state of high alert; the cat-and-mouse duels between nuclear submarines; that Che Guevara was a real guerilla fighter and not just a two-tone image on T-shirts; the occasional gun battles between North Korean troops and South Korean and USAnian troops; the Soviet spy trawlers hanging by NATO naval wargames; the East German soldiers who literally shot to kill people attempting to cross the Inter-German border from East to West; the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The idea that these activities could be undertaken by people who knew it was all fake again doesn’t pass the sniff test. To use a current example, it would be like saying that the Syrian Civil War of the last decade was fake.
And who gave the orders to the militaries during the Cold War? The political elites of the USA and USSR. Do you think they were playing make-believe? Sure, the Soviet leadership lived lives of luxury which had little to do with Marxism-Leninism or the shortages ordinary Soviet citizens lived with. And sure, the US leadership got the USA involved in South Vietnam on shaky grounds. But that doesn’t make thousands of dead soldiers from each country fake.
Or do you still hold the view that the Cold War was fake?
In 1969 - it was easier for gov't to control the narrative. Walter Cronkite was generally regarded as fully honest- if he said it, people trusted it. Just as half of Americans in 2020 were 100% fooled into believing a lie, and to them, their beliefs were "real" -- the same dynamic was active in 1969 - except back then, it was easier to have a more singular unified narrative... such as with Communism (told to fear it - and so we did) ... and Apollo.
You’re making the mistake of assuming the intended audience for Apollo was just the USAnian public. It wasn’t. The audience was literally the world. And the world sent its own journalists to cover Apollo, journalists with their own agendas. And despite that, they were all welcomed by NASA to stick their noses into all the nooks and crannies they wanted to. Why else do you think the crew of Apollo 11 were allowed to speak un-mediated to an auditorium full of the world’s media after the mission? Do you have any evidence to dispute this?
#3: Now, in your post-Christian life, you instead believe in the all-powerful "unelected unknowns". You took God on faith. How is "speculating on a narrative" any different from faith?
All-Powerful is an absolute. I rarely think in absolutes. I think the "elected unknowns" have power, and that it's out of the public view, and something rarely acknowledged.
And? You’re dodging the question. Throughout this discussion, every time you’re cornered by evidence you just handwave into existence some new ability of The Powers That Be in order to allow your version of reality to continue to exist:
- NASA can’t make Apollo work (you’ve never explained how and you’ve never provided evidence of this inability), so you conjure up NASAX that can just magically make a seamless hoax work;
- the USSR would leap at any opportunity to humiliate the USA for faking Apollo, so the entire Cold War is stage-managed by “Them”;
- the world’s science community would be genuinely seeking to uncover secrets of the Moon by studying rocks (to test those hypotheses about the Moon’s formation), so according to you the USA achieves scientific consensus by paying them off to stick to some arbitrary party line;
- an engineer working at the Honeysuckle Creek tracking station says the staff would know whether they were receiving fake or genuine signals, so you just claim he’s being paid to lie.
None of these claims have any evidence from you to back them up. Therefore, given this lack of evidence, do you acknowledge your Apollo hoax hypothesis is based on faith?
#4: Or are you going to now say the entire US government consists of people who don't realize they're being controlled by these "unelected unknowns"?
One set of "unelected unknowns" are Lobbyists - controlling govt' via legal bribery called "Campaign donations". In 1969, who knows what type of money kickbacks were set up, with the profitable NASA contracts.
So your only evidence is “who knows”? Do you agree that means you have no evidence?
I think Webb's hand was twisted into making Apollo 8 "go around the moon" - He resigned a month later, and didn't attend anymore launches... total loss of interest, it seems.
How many launches did Webb attend prior to his resignation? (The answer is in that oral history interview linked earlier in this thread.)
So those "making decisions" have strings being pulled on them that they do not talk about or admit.
Are those lobbyists somehow also stage managing the Cold War?
#5: So please explain, exactly what power does the US government have? How many decisions they make are their own, and how many are made by the "unelected unknowns"?
I believe JFK assassination was a conspiracy of an institution. This institution was never found out... dropped. Papers STILL sealed. I think JFK was being eliminated ... possibly for one or more reasons... as he opposed some powerful (unelected) institutions -- Fed Bank, CIA, DIA, Vietnam War Machine... and instead of feigning the Red Scare/Cold War -- in 1963 he asked the Russian to partner with them on the Moon Landing!... oops, this breaks the charade of a "nasty scary Cold War". Who benefitted from the Cold War?? Contractors... Military, etc. Follow the money...
Yes, Kennedy approached the Soviets about a partnership to land on the Moon. Do you know who rejected this plan, and why?
#6: We've already explained to you that the differences between lunar meteorites and Apollo rocks are so obvious that even non-scientists could tell them apart.
Here's a counter reference, where a champion Geologist Apollogist, contradicts your claims:
https://sites.wustl.edu/meteoritesite/items/how-do-we-know-that-its-a-rock-from-the-moon/ (https://sites.wustl.edu/meteoritesite/items/how-do-we-know-that-its-a-rock-from-the-moon/)
quote: Lunar mare basalts, as well as basaltic meteorites from Mars, bear a strong resemblance to basalts from Earth. In the absence of a fusion crust, there is little about a lunar mare basalt that would provoke much interest in a geologist who was handed the rock by someone asking, “What is this?”
You’ve completely misrepresented the point the author made. The author was pointing out that lunar basalts are similar to Earth basalts. I’m talking about the difference between Apollo rocks and lunar meteorites. The irony is that your quote contains a significant pair of words: “fusion crust”. Go back and read the whole article again, along with the related article about lunar meteorites which is linked within your article, then explain to us how NASA could pretend that lunar meteorites were Moon rocks.
#7: Yes, the rocks were cataloged by NASA, because they hold them.
And my concern is - if these are rocks from Antarctica - their manner of study and qualifications can be such that it produces results that show "these are from the moon". Without motivated skeptics, paid to be skeptics, rewarded for being skeptics -- I do find the "results" suspect, in an industry where all people paid to do this stuff - are funded by the govt.... not the commercial world.
“If these rocks are from Antarctica” they will have very obvious signs of having sat in an Earth environment, regardless that they’re from the Moon. Read the article you linked above (‘How do we know that it’s a rock from the Moon’) – it explains this. Having read it, do you want to withdraw your claim that results could be faked to “show these are from the moon”?
Similar to "Polls" - the manner in which questions are asked (or to whom they are asked) - can produce an erroneous result - often intended to favor one side to begin with. The same concept can apply to "moon rock studies" --- so I take results with a grain of salt.
Wrong. It can’t apply to “moon rock studies” because of the inter-connected nature of the evidence, as pointed out in the article you linked, and the lunar meteorites article linked within it. You’re missing this because you keep picking one sentence out of context and ignoring the other 5000 words in the article. That’s pretty egregious cherry-picking.
The recent HUGE difference in composition/size of Chinese regolith vs. Apollo -- is more fuel to support MLH.
No, I’ve already provided the evidence which explains why the Chinese regolith isn’t the smoking gun you claim it to be. Having read that article, do you want to withdraw your claim that the difference in results is “more fuel to support MLH”?
#8: "2012 - particle size by weight to be 1/8th of what they were in 1970's"
I've already explained your faulty logic here.
Explain it again please. This is a DRASTIC change. If they are reducing to 1/8th size -- this is DRASTIC -- but they didn't notice? Their excuse was "water degradation?" -- in which case there would be OTHER changes -- not JUST SIZE. This explanation has no names attached to it -- no real explanation.
You really have a problem with remembering evidence which contradicts your hypothesis.
First, there are two data points, so you don’t know the shape of the curve between them. This provides no information about when the size change happened, or whether the size change was sudden or gradual.
Second, they didn’t notice the size change before the second test because no one conducted a similar test between those two tests.
Do you want to challenge either of these points?
I'd like to see some skeptic geologists paid to find out "what's wrong with this picture"... but this isn't how this industry works. People serve those who pay them. And if they don't, they get fired and discredited...
Then how did the results of the second test get released if they’re such a challenge for NASA? You can’t have it both ways.
#9: "Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for Peaceful Purposes". In other words, it's an agreement, not an alliance. Prove me wrong.
"Cooperation" is a form of Alliance.
No it isn’t. You’re just stretching the meaning of the word to suit your agenda. Ukraine and Russia are co-operating to swap prisoners, but they’re still at war.
Agreed to hold hands and cooperate. Within a few years, our astronauts were hugging it out in orbit! This was a refreshing "win".
It’s been pointed out to you that the level of animosity between the USA and USSR varied over the course of the Cold War. Nixon’s presidency was a period of generally decreasing animosity. I’d tell you to go and read a book on the Cold War, but you’ve already poisoned that well by claiming (once again without evidence) that historians don’t know what they’re doing.
#10: Well, no. As I've explained elsewhere, this exact type of test appears to have been conducted twice - once in 1969 and once in 2012. Conducting a test twice gives us two data points, and two data points don't tell us anything about the shape of the curve between them. Prove me wrong.
See above. You won't get "unbothered breakdown of particle size from atmospheric problems" (as though they couldn't keep it in a vacuum) THIS dramatic without other changes ALSO happening... all of which would have been noticed. Big hole in their story, IMO.
I said “Prove me wrong”. You provided no proof, just an assertion. Try again.
If it were just a smaller change -- sure. But not when each particle is essentially being divided into 8 parts! THIS IS HUGE -- a bigger deal and investigation should be made from this... but NASA wouldn't fund that. So it'll never get done. It costs money to do this stuff - and there is no money in Atheism.
Still no evidence. Keep trying.
As I write this all out, the one thing that stands out to me is the number of times you’ve failed to provide evidence to back your claims. Do seriously expect to convince people that you have a viable hoax hypothesis when (a) you can’t even explain why the hoax was necessary in the first place, and (b) for your hypothesis to work it relies on so many suppositions for which you have no evidence.
-
I want you to read the whole article. I want you to learn what sort of person Taylor was (to show how inaccurate your character assessment is). And I want you to find the answer to the question I’ve asked a couple of times about the significant finding scientists made about the lack of a particular group of metals in the Apollo rocks.
Hey, would you mind relinking the article in question? I'm not sure which post it was originally in, and you've peaked my interest with the reference of specific metals being on the lack lustre side. A small conversation I had with Randy Korotev (yes, the one from the links about lunar meteorites) also noted specific metals being on the lighter side, I was wondering if they are the same ones.
-
1. .. Taylor / Moon Scientists ...
2. .. Trusting "History/government"...
1. Employers are permitted to add clauses to contract that limit your ability to speak badly about your employer in the future. Also, in the narrow scope of Geology and Moon Science - most jobs are tied to government funding. If a scientist becomes classified as pseudo-scientist by denying "man's greatest and well-documented achievement" - this may prevent them from getting work, or rising up in the ranks. This doesn't indicate "bad character" - it's just how things work. We are wired for a fair amount of self-interest. And also, we are wired to "truly believe" things that help us... so confirmation bias plays a role throughout. So I don't entrust my faith to "Scientific Consensus" when it comes to moon science. This is my right. If you want to have this faith - go for it. I won't stop you.
2. I don't trust history, IMO for good reason... especially where govt is involved.
If Bay of Pigs hadn't blundered, "history" would have been recorded differently.
If Gulf of Tonkin hadn't been confessed as false -- history would say it was real.
If Daniel Ellsberg hadn't taken on the risk of whistleblowing -- historic records would have been more false.
Govt' records indicate JFK and RFK assassinations were lone gunmen.
Prison records indicate Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide.
Have you ever heard of "Operation Dirty Trick"?? It was proposed by our DoD to JFK to "blame the Cubans if the next Gemini Mission failed/blew-up", to justify military action. And THIS is what History would have recorded.
So forgive me for not putting my trust into government reports/documents/claims.
===
What I see is an operation that switched to "Plan B - Slam Dunk - Fake it" in 1967... following the A1 tragedy, exposure of rampant QC/QA issues even at the "end of the production line!" (what about everywhere else, was it peachy?) This is followed by a 50% rushed schedule instead of slowing down to "get it right" they cut MORE CORNERS - to the point of making people say "That's CRAZY! you can't do that! No Way!" (Alan Bean's account)... And from that point on, more and more difficult milestones were achieved in succession, never slipping the final date again.
Amidst this acceleration and renewed success- we see BOTH heads of NASA RESIGN!... Seamans then Webb... Just before achieving ultimate success. These resignations are what first convinced my wife to smell the fish, and break free from her current mainstream views.
I also see Baron's testimony where he gave Congress a 500-page report, then he's killed, and ALL Copies of this report not only go missing, but NO ONE MENTIONS IT... and even today, NASA's site declares it to have NEVER EXISTED. Then I see NASA lose ALL Telemetry tapes... And NG discard most of the LM documentation. And see the AGC+IMU+DAC ability to auto-pilot a complex aircraft completely disappear (a very marketable tech for the military esp).
... and there is much more... that I am not allowed to share in detail. The fear factor I sense here - is also disconcerting... the bias should be unwarranted if TD's are truly standing on the truth.
So forgive me if I have doubts, and smell some fish here. I think this is worth investigating.
My approach is to take smaller incidents, and examine them for integrity. MANY things MLH claims are bad claims. I'm trying to figure out which ones are bad/crap vs. good.
So far, here on these forums, I believe I've established one very solid one -- the 8 flag motions. And the A12 Dish Flinging is not as solid (because the context isn't as simple), but still good.
I have more that I'd like to investigate. Meanwhile, I will purposefully discount the weight of NASA/historic claims and Moon-Science Claims, as I believe it's possible that NASA has maintained control of "Scientific Consensus" for this field. (which is true, if MLH is true)
-
My approach is to take smaller incidents, and examine them for integrity. MANY things MLH claims are bad claims. I'm trying to figure out which ones are bad/crap vs. good.
They are all bad, because the Apollo program wasn't faked. If it were even possible to fake, it would have cost more time and money than the actual landings, and would have been impossible to hide.
Each one that you think is a good claim is because you lack the understanding to explain what's really happen and are unwilling to accept that anything you don't understand can be true.
-
I want you to read the whole article. I want you to learn what sort of person Taylor was (to show how inaccurate your character assessment is). And I want you to find the answer to the question I’ve asked a couple of times about the significant finding scientists made about the lack of a particular group of metals in the Apollo rocks.
Hey, would you mind relinking the article in question? I'm not sure which post it was originally in, and you've peaked my interest with the reference of specific metals being on the lack lustre side. A small conversation I had with Randy Korotev (yes, the one from the links about lunar meteorites) also noted specific metals being on the lighter side, I was wondering if they are the same ones.
Sure, it's here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120905025108/http://www.science.org.au/scientists/interviews/t/rt.html
I hope you don't mind if I don't show you exactly where the relevant point is, due to my desire to make Najak read the whole interview. But I think you'll know how to find it quickly.
-
I hope you don't mind if I don't show you exactly where the relevant point is, due to my desire to make Najak read the whole interview. But I think you'll know how to find it quickly.
Thanks. Different material in the end, but we were talking about surface samples versus lunar-meteorites, and some of the interesting differences.
-
1. .. Taylor / Moon Scientists ...
2. .. Trusting "History/government"...
1. Employers are permitted to add clauses to contract that limit your ability to speak badly about your employer in the future.
Do you have any evidence of this in the cases of Ross Taylor, Mike Dinn (Deputy Director at Honeysuckle Creek), or any scientist who investigated Apollo rocks?
Also, in the narrow scope of Geology and Moon Science - most jobs are tied to government funding. If a scientist becomes classified as pseudo-scientist by denying "man's greatest and well-documented achievement" - this may prevent them from getting work, or rising up in the ranks. This doesn't indicate "bad character" - it's just how things work. We are wired for a fair amount of self-interest. And also, we are wired to "truly believe" things that help us... so confirmation bias plays a role throughout. So I don't entrust my faith to "Scientific Consensus" when it comes to moon science. This is my right.
Once these people leave the industry or retire, what is to stop them from revealing what they know? What stops them from providing a post-death confession?
If you want to have this faith - go for it. I won't stop you.
Yeah, sophistry noted. The science community is pretty good at self-policing to maintain reliability. There is no requirement to take anything in science on faith. That's the sort of argument creationists and flat earthers use.
2. I don't trust history, IMO for good reason... especially where govt is involved.
If Bay of Pigs hadn't blundered, "history" would have been recorded differently.
Please expand on this statement. When you say "blunder" do you mean the decision to invade (which was made by JFK) or the size of the invasion force or the decision to not send USAnian troops after the initial invasion? When you say "would have been recorded differently" how would it have been recorded differently?
In any case, BOP invasion was an attack against a Communist state. Yet you reckon the Cold War was fake?
If Gulf of Tonkin hadn't been confessed as false -- history would say it was real.
Which, as I’ve already pointed out, drew the USA into a war against a Communist insurgency; an insurgency supported by a neighbouring Communist state; a state itself supplied with material by two Communist superpowers. Yet you reckon the Cold War was fake?
If Daniel Ellsberg hadn't taken on the risk of whistleblowing -- historic records would have been more false.
Historic records which again show the US government’s involvement in fighting against a Communist insurgency. Yet you reckon the Cold War was fake?
Govt' records indicate JFK and RFK assassinations were lone gunmen.
Prison records indicate Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide.
Have you ever heard of "Operation Dirty Trick"?? It was proposed by our DoD to JFK to "blame the Cubans if the next Gemini Mission failed/blew-up", to justify military action. And THIS is what History would have recorded.
So forgive me for not putting my trust into government reports/documents/claims.
Do you still hold the view that the Cold War was fake?
What I see is an operation that switched to "Plan B - Slam Dunk - Fake it" in 1967... following the A1 tragedy, exposure of rampant QC/QA issues even at the "end of the production line!" (what about everywhere else, was it peachy?)
It’s already been explained to you that the delay caused by the Apollo 1 accident allowed work to continue on other parts of the Apollo program, including the lunar module and the Block 2 command module. Do you dispute this?
This is followed by a 50% rushed schedule
Please show your calculations for how you arrived at the figure of 50%. Or please state clearly that this is a metaphor.
instead of slowing down to "get it right" they cut MORE CORNERS - to the point of making people say "That's CRAZY! you can't do that! No Way!" (Alan Bean's account)... And from that point on, more and more difficult milestones were achieved in succession, never slipping the final date again.
Okay, so you have a narrative. That’s nice. But where’s your evidence?
Amidst this acceleration and renewed success- we see BOTH heads of NASA RESIGN!... Seamans then Webb... Just before achieving ultimate success.
We have provided evidence in which each man explains why he resigned when he did. You can repeat the claims above as much as you like, but where’s your evidence?
These resignations are what first convinced my wife to smell the fish, and break free from her current mainstream views.
Has your wife read the evidence we’ve provided?
I also see Baron's testimony where he gave Congress a 500-page report, then he's killed, and ALL Copies of this report not only go missing, but NO ONE MENTIONS IT... and even today, NASA's site declares it to have NEVER EXISTED.
I’ve already quoted to you what Baron said about his 500 page report, and my take on it. Would you like me to repeat myself?
Then I see NASA lose ALL Telemetry tapes... And NG discard most of the LM documentation. And see the AGC+IMU+DAC ability to auto-pilot a complex aircraft completely disappear (a very marketable tech for the military esp).
It took me less than a minute to confirm you’re wrong about the AGC disappearing, and another couple of minutes to confirm why it wouldn’t be particularly marketable. If I can find it online, so can you.
... and there is much more... that I am not allowed to share in detail.
Please give us one good reason why we should believe you.
The fear factor I sense here - is also disconcerting... the bias should be unwarranted if TD's are truly standing on the truth.
An alternative explanation is that we’re describing a real event.
So forgive me if I have doubts, and smell some fish here. I think this is worth investigating.
My approach is to take smaller incidents, and examine them for integrity. MANY things MLH claims are bad claims. I'm trying to figure out which ones are bad/crap vs. good.
So far, here on these forums, I believe I've established one very solid one -- the 8 flag motions. And the A12 Dish Flinging is not as solid (because the context isn't as simple), but still good.
And in the meantime you (a) don’t provide evidence to back up your claims, and (b) dismiss the evidence we provide when it turns out inconvenient for you. Plain and simple, that’s hypocrisy.
In any case, even if for argument’s sake you were right with both those claims (which I don’t agree with), neither is evidence that Apollo was fake. Do you agree?
I have more that I'd like to investigate. Meanwhile, I will purposefully discount the weight of NASA/historic claims and Moon-Science Claims, as I believe it's possible that NASA has maintained control of "Scientific Consensus" for this field. (which is true, if MLH is true)
Sorry, but your intended approach is about as wrong as you can get.
First, regarding your claim that “NASA has maintained control of the scientific consensus for this field”, you (once again) haven’t provided any evidence for this.
Second, you don’t get to a priori dismiss evidence supporting a claim, solely on the basis that if the claim were false then the supporting evidence would consequently be false. That’s a circular argument.
“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you should disregard the CCTV video of my client punching the victim, because if he’s innocent then this video must be fake.”
= = = =
Finally, I note you’ve failed to answer a number of other questions I posed in my previous posts. So here they are. I’d appreciate it if you’d answer them:
In your opinion, is there anything “unlikely” or “impossible” about scientists working independently from each other reaching identical conclusions about the Apollo rocks? If so, what is the logic hole?
In the Ross Taylor interview, what significant finding did scientists make about the lack of a particular group of metals in the Apollo rock samples?
Pre-1950, what were the three main hypotheses for the origin of the Moon?
Do you accept that your statement that you “didn't see any good proof of much being done outside of Johnson Space Center” is incorrect?
Do you accept that the Apollo 11 crew were allowed to speak un-mediated to an auditorium full of the world’s media after the mission?
How many launches did Jim Webb attend prior to his resignation?
After Kennedy approached the Soviets about a partnership to land on the Moon, do you know who rejected this plan, and why?
Can you explain to us how NASA could pretend that lunar meteorites were Moon rocks?
Having read the article you linked titled ‘How do we know that it’s a rock from the Moon’, do you want to withdraw your claim that results could be faked to pretend a rock from Antarctica is from the Moon?
Given that I’ve already provided the evidence which explains why the Chinese regolith isn’t the smoking gun you claim it to be, do you want to withdraw your claim that the difference in results is “more fuel to support MLH”?
Given that I’ve provided two reasons why the change in average particle size between two studies isn’t the smoking gun you claim it to be, do you want to challenge either of these reasons?
If the results of the second study are such a challenge for NASA, how did the results get released?
-
And see the AGC+IMU+DAC ability to auto-pilot a complex aircraft completely disappear (a very marketable tech for the military esp).
-
And see the AGC+IMU+DAC ability to auto-pilot a complex aircraft completely disappear (a very marketable tech for the military esp).
Hang on, do you think the computer plus inertial measurement unit system on Apollo was brand new technology? The basic concept had been used before Apollo. The innovations for Apollo were primarily in miniaturisation to make it as small and light as possible, and the programming of a very specific set of requirements that are not transferrable to an aircraft. As for the technology 'disappearing', do you expect them to just take the AGC as it was and stick it in another craft?
The technology hasn't 'disappeared', it's been in a state of continual application and development from a time well before it was used in Apollo. Unsurprisingly, it's not called the Apollo guidance computer any more.
-
And see the AGC+IMU+DAC ability to auto-pilot a complex aircraft completely disappear (a very marketable tech for the military esp).
Hang on, do you think the computer plus inertial measurement unit system on Apollo was brand new technology? The basic concept had been used before Apollo. The innovations for Apollo were primarily in miniaturisation to make it as small and light as possible, and the programming of a very specific set of requirements that are not transferrable to an aircraft. As for the technology 'disappearing', do you expect them to just take the AGC as it was and stick it in another craft?
The technology hasn't 'disappeared', it's been in a state of continual application and development from a time well before it was used in Apollo. Unsurprisingly, it's not called the Apollo guidance computer any more.
It's almost like they had someone on the staff who could target rockets...
-
The technology hasn't 'disappeared', it's been in a state of continual application and development from a time well before it was used in Apollo. Unsurprisingly, it's not called the Apollo guidance computer any more.
"Disappeared" is a bit of hyperbole on my part... but effectively true. They went from being confident enough to having the AGC+IMU+DAC auto-pilot the LM, including the maintaining of balance (via a 2-second update cycle, AFAIK) for a top-heavy LM -- to doing MUCH MUCH LESS... as MLH would suspect. The X-14 plane, cancelled in 1981, still couldn't do much, even 10 years later, and this is after decades of prototyping and live testing.
For the LM, they didn't even bother to create a POC (Proof of Concept) to show this trio in action -- that it was capable of balancing even an EASIER craft to fly, such as the LLTV (it was not top heavy)... but nope, no POC. And this tech went WAY BACKWARDS afterwards (so this "advancement in tech" disappeared).
The absence of a POC for this trio, prior to doing the singular "on mission field test with A10" - is one of the things that breaks all "bleeding edge product development" logic. Why skip this POC step, unless you couldn't actually do it? Why would this tech advancement "disappear" afterwards, unless you actually didn't do what you said you did? Why did NG throw out most of the docs for the LM? (unless they didn't want people digging it up later to see that the appropriate amount of work/test/validation/design wasn't actually workable). Why get rid of all Telemetry tapes, unless you are hiding the fact that this data may not have existed, or that the data on these tapes didn't fully make sense, etc.
Why are the Regolith samples now suddenly shrunk to 1/11th their original volumes? (without a viable scientific explanation) Why did the Astronauts claim moon dust was like soft "graphite powder" sticky, but easy to wipe off, and no serious problem when it got in your eyes? (when today NASA acknowledges that this dust is very sharp/spiky, and would EMBED into the skin and eyes - especially if wiped/rubbed as they did)
These are SOME of the things that make me smell fish... which I'd like to discuss more in depth. Each topic deserving a new thread.
-
Hang on, do you think the computer plus inertial measurement unit system on Apollo was brand new technology? The basic concept had been used before Apollo.
Indeed, Eldon Hall's book goes into some depth about the specific missile guidance systems that his team relied upon to develop the computer. The AGC built solidly on existing principles. At the museum where I volunteer we have on display a number of pre-Apollo missile guidance systems and inertial measurement equipment. We also have some post-Apollo systems.
The innovations for Apollo were primarily in miniaturisation to make it as small and light as possible, and the programming of a very specific set of requirements that are not transferrable to an aircraft. As for the technology 'disappearing', do you expect them to just take the AGC as it was and stick it in another craft?
NASA did exactly that. They reprogrammed the AGC to work as a fly-by-wire system for a military jet. While the AGC itself was a special-purpose package, the hardware, software, and construction techniques very much lived on in subsequent designs.
The technology hasn't 'disappeared', it's been in a state of continual application and development from a time well before it was used in Apollo. Unsurprisingly, it's not called the Apollo guidance computer any more.
Correct. The design requirements for new spacecraft, aircraft, and delivery vehicles usually mean that the hardware has to be made to fit each new case, but the principles existed long before Apollo (as evidenced in MIT's paper designs) and long after in such things as the AP-101 used in the space shuttle orbiter.
-
"Disappeared" is a bit of hyperbole on my part... but effectively true.
No, it's just ignorant and wrong.
...for a top-heavy LM
Asked and answered. That you believe the LM is "top-heavy" and therefore uncontrollable is a fundamental misunderstanding of the attitude control problem.
The X-14 plane, cancelled in 1981, still couldn't do much, even 10 years later, and this is after decades of prototyping and live testing.
The goal of that program was not to adapt the AGC.
For the LM, they didn't even bother to create a POC (Proof of Concept) to show this trio in action -- that it was capable of balancing even an EASIER craft to fly, such as the LLTV...
Asked and answered. The LLTV was not a lunar module prototype and there was nothing to be gained by teaching the AGC to fly the LLTV. LM-1 was tested in orbit and provided the assurance that the AGC's paper solution would work in flight for the combined LM. If you want to say that orbital testing is not the same as testing in gravity, then we can be absolutely sure you're not equipped to understand how stability control works.
The absence of a POC for this trio, prior to doing the singular "on mission field test with A10" - is one of the things that breaks all "bleeding edge product development" logic.
No, it's simply your attempt to paste your lay understanding and expectations over the problem.
These are SOME of the things that make me smell fish... which I'd like to discuss more in depth. Each topic deserving a new thread.
Stop trying to make the Gish gallop happen.
-
"Disappeared" is a bit of hyperbole on my part... but effectively true.
No, entirely wrong.
They went from being confident enough to having the AGC+IMU+DAC auto-pilot the LM, including the maintaining of balance (via a 2-second update cycle, AFAIK) for a top-heavy LM
You keep on calling the LM top-heavy when it is one of the least top heavy items in the entire Apollo system. Yes, the centre of mass was above the centre of thrust, but that is true for literally ALL rocket systems.
Here's a fun thing for you to consider: Robert Goddard's early liquid fuelled rockets were based on the belief that a top heavy rocket would be difficult to control, so the rocket motor was at the top of a metal frame assembly with the fuel tanks below, putting the centre of mass well below the centre of thrust. And then some experiments proved that a rocket works just as well with the engines right at the bottom. And this was literally a hundred years ago. Your concept of 'balancing' a rocket on its thrust has been known to be wrong for a century at least.
And I gather you believe a '2-second update cycle' in some way means it takes 2 seconds to respond to an input? Otherwise what has this to do with anything?
For the LM, they didn't even bother to create a POC (Proof of Concept) to show this trio in action
LM-1 was the concept. It flew on Apollo 5, uncrewed, and it worked. Can you think of a better way to prove the system works than putting it in the actual spacecraft it is designed to operate and flying it in the environment it is supposed to operate in?
And that 'designed to operate' part is significant. You can't just chuck the same computer with the same software in a completely different vehicle and expect it to perform. And after 20 years of dealing with people making such claims as yours I feel pretty confident in saying if they had done as you suggested, hoax believers would call it an invalid test because it's not flying the same vehicle in space as they said it could.
The absence of a POC for this trio, prior to doing the singular "on mission field test with A10"
Nope, not even close. The LM was flown, with the AGC, on Apollo 5, 9 and 10, and Apollo 11 WAS the final test. The issue is not an absence of POC, it's an absence of what you think POC should involve, which carries no weight whatsoever.
Why did NG throw out most of the docs for the LM? (unless they didn't want people digging it up later to see that the appropriate amount of work/test/validation/design wasn't actually workable).
Because, as with many companies, they were not making it any more, and the vast majority of those documents are very specific construction plans that they don't need any more and can't justify the storage space for decades later when they have active projects with a higher call on the available resource. There is still a huge amount of published documentation about the LM and every other aspect of Apollo.
Why get rid of all Telemetry tapes, unless you are hiding the fact that this data may not have existed, or that the data on these tapes didn't fully make sense, etc.
Or that it's just of no use any more, and in any case the particular data format requires machinery that isn't made any more to read it. Why did I chuck out my entire VHS collection when my last VHS player broke and I can't get a new one any more?
Once again, the problem here is squarely your inability to conceive that people and organisations don't have to work the way you think they should, that your ideas are not always right, that your experience in no way makes you an expert in Apollo or space flight of any kind.
-
For the LM, they didn't even bother to create a POC (Proof of Concept) to show this trio in action -- that it was capable of balancing even an EASIER craft to fly, such as the LLTV (it was not top heavy)... but nope, no POC. And this tech went WAY BACKWARDS afterwards (so this "advancement in tech" disappeared).
The absence of a POC for this trio, prior to doing the singular "on mission field test with A10" - is one of the things that breaks all "bleeding edge product development" logic. Why skip this POC step, unless you couldn't actually do it? Why would this tech advancement "disappear" afterwards, unless you actually didn't do what you said you did? Why did NG throw out most of the docs for the LM? (unless they didn't want people digging it up later to see that the appropriate amount of work/test/validation/design wasn't actually workable). Why get rid of all Telemetry tapes, unless you are hiding the fact that this data may not have existed, or that the data on these tapes didn't fully make sense, etc.
Again, you are guilty of ignoring the prior responses to this.
Magically, NASA didn't need ANY system testing for anything close to real-world conditions.
LLTV would have been an OPTIMUM vehicle for a Proof-of-Concept (POC). NASA didn't even complete a Proof-of-Concept for this LM being navigated/balanced by an AGC.
If NASA could have successfully pulled off this POC, they would have proudly touted it -- MAGIC - a computer flying a precarious aircraft!... No such POC was even shown or even documented.
This is how bleeding edge complex product development ALWAYS works, for ALL fields of development. You don't skip "System Testing in approximated real-world environments", unless you aren't really going to do it.
Utter nonsense. It's no wonder that Jay is having to take it slowly, as you really are a slow learner.
What do you think A7, 8, 9 and 10 were for?
Have you heard of the Gemini program? If not, then you'll be amazed that it was a test program for Apollo, to test all of the core needs for a Lunar program: orbital mechanics and navigation, rendezvous and docking, EVA, extended stay missions and global Comms.
I am really, really, REALLY bored of watching you trash about trying to wriggle away from or just blatantly ignoring the responses to your threads. I can't imagine how much more of this shenanigans that LunarOrbit will put up with. A 14 day ban has not changed your approach one jot. It's actually very tedious now.
I can forsee this featuring in your short-term future.
(https://sonichu.com/w/images/5/57/BANHAMMER.png)
-
You keep on calling the LM top-heavy when it is one of the least top heavy items in the entire Apollo system. Yes, the centre of mass was above the centre of thrust, but that is true for literally ALL rocket systems.
To land this LM, it had to maintain balance from 3000 mph 90 deg horizontal to 0 mph upright. None of our other rockets "landed", until modern day, like Starships.
So taking it to 45 mph with a tilt is what AGC+IMU+DAC needed to do, for a craft that was top-heavy. Why not build ANY POC here to test out this trio to conduct "movement, tilt, balance, landing" maneuvers. Armstrong "took over" the landing -- meaning the AGC was supposed to also do the landing as well?
To show such POCs in the 1960's would have been astounding. But we never got to see it, did we? And afterwards, in the 1970's -- this would have been incredible tech to showcase.
Airplanes are much easier to fly - and practically fly themselves, and only need guidance (e.g. paper airplanes, foam airplane, and remote control airplanes came out long before the drone-looking ones). But for the top-heavy LM, it requires continual "balancing" like on a Pogo-stick.... else it falls over.
No POC for bleeding-edge tech, entrusting the lives of men to this unproven tech for first-time-ever maneuvers of this trio. I smell fish.
-
Airplanes are much easier to fly - and practically fly themselves, and only need guidance (e.g. paper airplanes, foam airplane, and remote control airplanes came out long before the drone-looking ones).
Lets add flying and aeronautics to the long list of things that you know nothing about. Let me guess....you have zero hours as a Pilot In Command?
-
...for a craft that was top-heavy.
Please provide the mass moment diagram that proves this claim.
Why not build ANY POC here to test out this trio to conduct "movement, tilt, balance, landing" maneuvers.
Because it is unnecessary to do so in order to test the computer's ability to maintain attitudinal control.
And afterwards, in the 1970's -- this would have been incredible tech to showcase.
According to you.
Airplanes are much easier to fly - and practically fly themselves, and only need guidance (e.g. paper airplanes, foam airplane, and remote control airplanes came out long before the drone-looking ones).
Are you a pilot? What aircraft types are you qualified to fly?
But for the top-heavy LM, it requires continual "balancing" like on a Pogo-stick.... else it falls over.
No.
You already tipped your hand by invoking the classically wrong image of balancing a broom handle. And in a different thread you used the phrase "inertia moment," rather than the ubiquitously correct "moment of inertia." Had you been taught these concepts before, or had practiced them, you would have been quickly disabused of common lay misperceptions and you would have adopted the correct terminology as second nature. You do not get to enjoy the presumption that you know what you're talking about.
No POC for bleeding-edge tech, entrusting the lives of men to this unproven tech for first-time-ever maneuvers of this trio.
No one cares that you disagree with the Apollo development program. Those who do this for a living don't, and with good reasons.
I smell fish.
Check your own breath.
-
Lets add flying and aeronautics to the long list of things that you know nothing about. Let me guess....you have zero hours as a Pilot In Command?
I've been developing aviation software for pilots near full-time for over 10 years. I've also seen no-tech paper airplanes fly, have you?
But the 4+ propeller style drones we see today are new-tech, post-2000... much harder to balance, and they are NOT top-heavy; like the LLTV, they are bottom-heavy (slightly).
The tech to balance-while-maneuvering the LM in real-life didn't get developed for years -- because it's much harder. It would have been astounding to see this tech roll out in the 1970's...
-
I've been developing aviation software for pilots near full-time for over 10 years.
Are you a pilot? What are your type qualifications? What specifically does your "aviation software" do? Is it embedded in the aircraft? Is it controlling actual aircraft?
I've also seen no-tech paper airplanes fly, have you?
Uncontrolled winged aircraft rely on well-known principles of passive aerodynamic stability. While those principles are not directly related to spacecraft, the concept of passive stability is. You are being asked to incorporate congruent principles of passive stability into your criticism of the LM control problem. You seem unwilling or unable to do so.
It would have been astounding to see this tech roll out in the 1970's...
According to you.
-
...for a craft that was top-heavy.
Please provide the mass moment diagram that proves this claim.
See attached diagram, with lines and labels 1-4:
1. AM COM, +5', 5,000 lbs
2. AM Fuel COM, +3', 5,000 lbs
3. Center of Thrust, 0' - origin (1' below the top of Lander, combination of pressures exerted at top of chamber + along the nozzle)
4. LandingBase COM, -2', 8,000 lbs
5x5000 + 3x5000 - 2x8000 == 25000 + 15000 - 16000 = 24,000 / 10 = 2.4' (COM above COT)
Result: Combined COM for the LM on landing was at least 2.4' ABOVE the center of Thrust.
I used estimates for COT that were generous towards Apollo. The COT is likely considerably lower, due to the distribution of the thrust force exerted along the interior of the nozzle surface. I generously put the COT at only 1' below the top of the lander... to show that even with this generous estimate, it's STILL top-heavy... unlike the LLTV.
-
I've also seen no-tech paper airplanes fly, have you?
Uncontrolled winged aircraft rely on well-known principles of passive aerodynamic stability. While those principles are not directly related to spacecraft, the concept of passive stability is. You are being asked to incorporate congruent principles of passive stability into your criticism of the LM control problem. You seem unwilling or unable to do so.
This is a bigger topic. If you aren't scared of a new thread to discuss it, rather than page-42 of a pot-luck/generic thread -- let's delve into this more.
It would have been astounding to see this tech roll out in the 1970's...
According to you.
But NOT TO YOU?? Really....
-
This is a bigger topic. If you aren't scared of a new thread to discuss it, rather than page-42 of a pot-luck/generic thread -- let's delve into this more.
I'm not sure you'll have much time, given the same posturing, weaselling posts, the same constant evasion of points made to you and ignored by you. I suggest right now that you start showing a little more closer to the "100% integrity", because I'm positive every person here is seeing you hopelessly far off it.
Watching you type these useless claims towards people who have forgotten more than you know, is just tedious.
-
To land this LM, it had to maintain balance from 3000 mph 90 deg horizontal to 0 mph upright.
How many more times: Rockets. Do. Not. Balance. On. Thrust. This has been known for a very long time.
-
Result: Combined COM for the LM on landing was at least 2.4' ABOVE the center of Thrust.
And?
The centre of mass of a Saturn V is about 90 feet above the engines when it launches, and yet even in the first seconds of flight it doesn't fall over. And believe it or not it wasn't even lifting off vertically, but had a small tilt to take it away from the launch tower. So with a centre of mass 90 feet up and not even centred over the engines, the Saturn V very obviously had no issues with 'balance'. Furthermore, as the rocket burned fuel the centre of mass moved even higher, so the vehicle got even more top heavy.
The LM is quite simply the least top-heavy part of the entire Apollo system. This is a non-issue.
-
How many more times: Rockets. Do. Not. Balance. On. Thrust. This has been known for a very long time.
When gravity is involved (on a slower moving vehicle without much centrifugal force), there is a constant downward force applied on the COM.... so for a pitched LM, this throws it off balance, requiring the RCS to maintain it's balance... remove the RCS, and it would fall over to a nose-dive.
So term it how you like - this Trio needs to execute correct balance (i.e. attitude control) between 3 forces -- gravity, main engine thrust, and RCS --- all while achieving high fidelity control over the trajectory of the LM to landing.... and while maintaining control of Yaw angle, with imperfect RCS jets that don't have EXACT predictable/consistent outputs.
It was bleeding edge tech -- without even a POC to test it... And afterwards, these capabilities at this level, disappeared... not to return until post-2000.
-
The LM is quite simply the least top-heavy part of the entire Apollo system. This is a non-issue.
SaturnV wasn't trying to "land" -- like Elon's Starship.
-
The LM is quite simply the least top-heavy part of the entire Apollo system. This is a non-issue.
SaturnV wasn't trying to "land" -- like Elon's Starship.
So? You literally just said:
When gravity is involved (on a slower moving vehicle without much centrifugal force), there is a constant downward force applied on the COM.
The Saturn V, like any rocket, in the first moments of flight is a slower moving vehicle pitched over with gravity acting on its COM. The Little Joe rockets used in Mercury test flights took off at an angle of about 20 degrees. Again, they didn't cartwheel into the ground.
Rocket do not balance on thrust. That is a fact however many times you keep insisting it isn't.
-
Lets add flying and aeronautics to the long list of things that you know nothing about. Let me guess....you have zero hours as a Pilot In Command?
I've been developing aviation software for pilots near full-time for over 10 years. I've also seen no-tech paper airplanes fly, have you?
But the 4+ propeller style drones we see today are new-tech, post-2000... much harder to balance, and they are NOT top-heavy; like the LLTV, they are bottom-heavy (slightly).
The tech to balance-while-maneuvering the LM in real-life didn't get developed for years -- because it's much harder. It would have been astounding to see this tech roll out in the 1970's...
So you have zero hours flying a plane? Yet you have the confidence to claim
Airplanes are much easier to fly - and practically fly themselves,
You are the gift that constantly proves this quotation
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”
-
So you have zero hours flying a plane? Yet you have the confidence to claim
Airplanes are much easier to fly - and practically fly themselves,
You are the gift that constantly proves this quotation
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”
SOmeone I know very well is currently learning to fly a plane and would certainly take issue with the suggestion that they fly themsevles!
-
See attached diagram...
Why do you think you can just string them along in a one-dimensional solution? That's going to wreak all kinds of error when you start using this diagram to reason about moments of inertia.
Result: Combined COM for the LM on landing was at least 2.4' ABOVE the center of Thrust.
So your definition of "top heavy" seems to be any arrangement in which the center of mass is above the center of thrust. So yes, you're still laboring under the broomstick fallacy. Several other people have tried to disabuse of this common layperson's misconception. I'm very busy today, but I'll take a stab at it. It is a fact that putting arranging for the center of mass to be below the center of thrust does not result in passive stability. This is a fact according to the analysis and it is a fact according to 100 years worth of empirical experience.
The broomstick analogy is a fallacy because your hand always applies "thrust" upwards, not often along the broomstick axis. This means the as the broomstick tips and its center of mass departs the footprint of your hand, the rotational component of the force you are applying increases; the solution diverges rapidly and you lose control. This is the classical balancing problem. However, rockets do not operate this way. The thrust is always along the axis of the rocket. Any departure from the ideal situation in which the thrust vector points through the center of mass is preserved through the rotation. The controlling moments do not diverge, and this makes all the difference in the world. This is because the engine (and its thrust vector) rotate with the craft, which is not what happens in the balancing problem. While it remains true that the error moment increases in gravity as the tilt increases, this is not solved by moving the center of thrust to a point above the center of mass. Why? because the thrust vector is still fixed, the corrective moments are still fixed, and the dynamics remain literally unchanged.
Putting the center of drag behind the center of mass in a rocket flying through air achieves passive aerodynamic stability, but this is not meant to correct somehow for an inherently unstable thrust dynamic.
-
Jay has explained the centre of mass and centre of thrust misconception. There's also something else about the three dimensional world that najak doesn't understand, and it is has everything to do with one of the heaviest parts of the LM and just how those brilliant engineers considered moments of inertia in their design.
-
The broomstick analogy is a fallacy because your hand always applies "thrust" upwards, not often along the broomstick axis. This means the as the broomstick tips and its center of mass departs the footprint of your hand, the rotational component of the force you are applying increases; the solution diverges rapidly and you lose control. This is the classical balancing problem. However, rockets do not operate this way. The thrust is always along the axis of the rocket. Any departure from the ideal situation in which the thrust vector points through the center of mass is preserved through the rotation. The controlling moments do not diverge, and this makes all the difference in the world. This is because the engine (and its thrust vector) rotate with the craft, which is not what happens in the balancing problem. While it remains true that the error moment increases in gravity as the tilt increases, this is not solved by moving the center of thrust to a point above the center of mass. Why? because the thrust vector is still fixed, the corrective moments are still fixed, and the dynamics remain literally unchanged.
Putting the center of drag behind the center of mass in a rocket flying through air achieves passive aerodynamic stability, but this is not meant to correct somehow for an inherently unstable thrust dynamic.
I was aware of this, and realize that the rotating direction of thrust to always point through the COM is BETTER than the traditional broomstick model (with force always upwards). If you draw out the static diagram of forces acting upon this rigid body, gravity pulls down "uniformly" on all mass, so can be modeled as pulling down on the COM, correct? While the thrust, which is "behind the COM" (or below when upright), is NOT providing a counter balance to gravity when LM is pitched at an angle. Therefore the RCS + Engine thrust must work together to maintain balance (attitude) along with maintaining a high-fidelity targeted trajectory to landing.
During Landing with LM pitch over, Gravity is ACTIVELY pulling on the LM. In this case, it MATTERS VERY MUCH the relative location of the Center-of-Thrust. If Above the LM COM, then this thrust would REDUCE the amount of RCS force required to maintain attitude/pitch. If "Exactly AT the COM", then RCS itself could be mostly passive.. But if BELOW the COM, then the Gravity becomes a DESTABILIZING FORCE, against which the RCS must constantly counter-act!
In the case of the LLTV, the Jet Engine was much closer to the COM... such that this instability from Pitching did NOT occur, making it easier to fly.
===
This would have been beyond-bleeding-edge-tech for the 1960's... not coming to fruition until decades later.
But Apollo skipped this POC entirely. Real-world performance isn't the same as "theory on paper"... and requires a lot of rework and adjustments -- especially for bleeding-edge tech.... never done before, and not to be done again for decades.
-
Jay has explained the centre of mass and centre of thrust misconception. There's also something else about the three dimensional world that najak doesn't understand, and it is has everything to do with one of the heaviest parts of the LM and just how those brilliant engineers considered moments of inertia in their design.
Have you ever seen the LM "moment of inertia" analysis? I've been searching for it. I think it's one of the "majority of LM docs" discarded.
For the RCS to "estimate firing time", it would need to be aware of the current inertial state of the LM and AM, which would be ever changing, as the fuel burns. I don't believe the AGC program itself accounts for this -- which induces more questionability for the ability of this TRIO to conduct this bleeding edge tech for auto-pilot.... without a POC.
Even for the Rendezvous - for Apollo, from a 400 meter distance (approx) it was a 5 minute operation to dock. While for CST/Crewdragon today - it goes MUCH SLOWER for the docking as they are REALLY doing it.... using tech with 1000x the fidelity tech (sensors + computing).
All without a POC. Mag40 asked me what I'd like my next thread to be about - it would probably be "the LM" itself.
-
Even for the Rendezvous - for Apollo, from a 400 meter distance (approx) it was a 5 minute operation to dock. While for CST/Crewdragon today - it goes MUCH SLOWER for the docking as they are REALLY doing it.... using tech with 1000x the fidelity tech (sensors + computing).
I've asked you at least twice to produce a source for this claim. Please provide documentation of the docking procedures for both Apollo and ISS, with some kind of time stamps for the steps. If you can't or won't, then stop restating this as fact. I suspect you have no idea how to compare the docking procedures for Lunar ascent and for the ISS and are making mistakes, like you so often do.
I am directly challenging the veracity of your statement. If you believe what you're saying than support it with evidence. The burden is yours.
-
Mag40 asked me what I'd like my next thread to be about - it would probably be "the LM" itself.
Nope, I asked a list on an external document to see how much is new. The problem is not what you present, it is a whole host of bizarre behaviours. An honest scientist would not take a stance on something in complete ignorance. You have. We are getting post after post where you show a basic knowledge of Apollo that is woeful. You are arguing with people who have been studying this for decades.
The LM was designed for purpose by engineers working at Grumman, not NASA. Neither engine was built by NASA either.
I suggest you actually read this and try to (for once!) dispense with your crazy confirmation bias:
https://www.clavius.org/scale.html
(The site is safe, I believe it needs a certificate for the httpS part.)
-
Have you ever seen the LM "moment of inertia" analysis? I've been searching for it. I think it's one of the "majority of LM docs" discarded.
So you need the moment of inertia to prove your claim?
I don't believe the AGC program itself accounts for this.
I don't believe. That's your proof?
-
While the thrust, which is "behind the COM" (or below when upright), is NOT providing a counter balance to gravity when LM is pitched at an angle.
Seriously? I learned how to calculate horizontal and vertical components of a force acting at an angle in school. Any thrust angled even slightly upwards has a component working in opposition to the downward pull of gravity.
-
1. So you need the moment of inertia to prove your claim?
2. I don't believe. That's your proof?
1. No. This is needed to help the AGC+IMU+DAC to do their job more effectively. Without it -- it makes this "bleeding edge tech" even more impossible for 1960's. So I'm wondering where this is accounted for.
2. Proving "it doesn't exist" is harder to do. I've looked at the AGC code for a few hours - most of what I found looked crude/rudimentary, and similar to algorithms I'd put into a programmable calculator. So we should also then see programs for calculating this inertial moment as well, as a function of time and engine firing time. I didn't find this. So if someone did find it -- that's easier to prove "hey I found it" vs. "I searched and didn't find it".
Later I may do a deeper dive into the AGC code. But even then, I'll run into the issue of "no matter how much I search/do" it'll never satisfy the TD's mandate of "you still haven't proven it doesn't exist"... so it would be a lot of work for no fruit. Their code is tedious, and since we can't run/debug it within the system - that leaves us only to use "inspection" as the proof. Not so compelling for non-programmers. So lots of work, without much hope for fruit/results. Thus I only spent a couple of hours in this code so far -- looking for keywords in the comments to locate various algorithms.
-
Seriously? I learned how to calculate horizontal and vertical components of a force acting at an angle in school. Any thrust angled even slightly upwards has a component working in opposition to the downward pull of gravity.
Seriously. This is getting into Rigid-Body physics. Try to balance a basket-ball on your finger at an angle... try to keep it's balance by simply pushing through the center of mass. What happens? You have to accelerate it a LOT to maintain it's balance and even move your finger laterally (not possible with the LM).
Now imagine you have to do this with an untested RCS system (in this context), with (AFAIK) a 2-second update interval, using IMU inputs alone.
I think I'll include this demo into the 3D Lunar Physics app I've started. I can allow you to toggle the Center-of-Thrust low-mid-high, and see how it impact the stability of this pitched LM with gravity acting on it.
-
The LM was designed for purpose by engineers working at Grumman, not NASA. Neither engine was built by NASA either.
I suggest you actually read this and try to (for once!) dispense with your crazy confirmation bias:
https://www.clavius.org/scale.html
(The site is safe, I believe it needs a certificate for the httpS part.)
His article lost me at "Quality control officers from NASA must meticulously inspect the work."
Like the did for NA for A1? And then lose the 500-page QC/QA incident report, and now denying it's existence? We're talking about a QA system here that didn't even recognize what MANY non-scientists already know about "Pure Oxygen" ... and they stuck them into a capsule with 15+ PSI of it, along with electronics, and flammable products.... and a door that was KNOWN to be unsafe.
Compartmentalization allowed Theranos, even post-2010 to conduct an all out CRIMINAL SCAM without the employees knowing... And only got caught because they were "CRIMINALS". ... while for the USA Military/CIA -- they ARE THE LAW... Compartmentalization does wonders for keeping employees unaware of the big picture.
Thomas Baron's 55-page report summary gives us a pretty good idea of the "well-oiled machine" that was Apollo:
- Lack of coordination between people in responsible positions.
Lack of communication between almost everyone.
The fact that people in responsible positions did not take many of the problems seriously.
Engineers operating equipment instead of technical people.
Many technicians do not know their job. This is partly due to the fact that they are constantly shifted from one job to another.
People are lax when it comes to safety.
People are lax when it comes to maintaining cleanliness levels.
We do not make a large enough effort to enforce the PQCP.
People do not get an official tie-in time period.
We do not maintain proper work and systems records.
NAA does not give the working force a feeling of accomplishment.
There is not one procedure that I can remember that was completed without a deviation, either written or oral.
Allowing ill practices to continue when the Company is aware of them.
The constant transfer of QC and technical types of people to different types of tasks. Many of the techs will tell the QC man that they have never done that type of job before, or used that type of equipment before. This is one of the most prevalent problems NAA has.
Taken from here:
https://www.nasa.gov/history/Apollo204/barron.html (https://www.nasa.gov/history/Apollo204/barron.html)
Same page where this NASA site DENIES THE 500-page report ever EXISTED.
Smell fish?
-
In this case, it MATTERS VERY MUCH the relative location of the Center-of-Thrust.
Not in the way you think.
If Above the LM COM, then this thrust would REDUCE the amount of RCS force required to maintain attitude/pitch. If "Exactly AT the COM", then RCS itself could be mostly passive.. But if BELOW the COM, then the Gravity becomes a DESTABILIZING FORCE, against which the RCS must constantly counter-act!
No, you're conflating the length of the thrust moment arm with the orientation of the moment arm in a gravitational reference frame. Yes, a shorter moment arm will reduce the effect of off-axis thrust irrespective of gravity. However, it does not make a difference if the moment arm extends downward or upward, even in the presence of gravity. So long as the engine is fixed to the spacecraft, gravity acting on the center of mass will never be a passive stabilization factor. Under those conditions, a rocket cannot "hang" from its thrust any more than it can "balance" on it. You seem to be trading the broomstick fallacy for the pendulum fallacy. The rocketry principle you're trying to hand wave your way around has been a known fact for a hundred years.
Seriously. This is getting into Rigid-Body physics.
...which is a well-studied problem that you're getting wrong.
Try to balance a basket-ball on your finger at an angle...
Broomstick fallacy, only with a ball instead of a broomstick.
I think I'll include this demo into the 3D Lunar Physics app I've started.
Sure, knock yourself out. The world will enjoy watching you insist that the most common fallacy we have to dispel for beginning rocketry students is still somehow governing physics.
-
Their code is tedious, and since we can't run/debug it within the system...
The popular space simulator Orbiter was adapted to use the AGC in its Apollo 11 landing simulator and has been flown several times to a successful landing using the actual reconstructed AGC and a gate-equivalent FPGA version running Luminary. Your insinuation that no one outside of Apollo has run this code is simply factually false.
...that leaves us only to use "inspection" as the proof. Not so compelling for non-programmers.
First, don't assume the people here are non-programmers. Second, what do you say to the programmers who have spent more than just a few hours with this code inspecting it and find nothing missing or wrong with it?
Thus I only spent a couple of hours in this code so far -- looking for keywords in the comments to locate various algorithms.
As we've discovered, what you expect to find in something hasn't been a good yardstick for what is actually needed.
You don't get to start from the presumption that you're an expert. You don't get to presume whatever expertise you have is superior to that of others who have tackled this problem. You don't get to assume that the people in this forum are not qualified to adjudicate the reliability of any expert opinion you might wish to offer.
-
1. No. This is needed to help the AGC+IMU+DAC to do their job more effectively. Without it -- it makes this "bleeding edge tech" even more impossible for 1960's. So I'm wondering where this is accounted for.
The moment of inertia and a discarded document is something you have seized upon as a smoking gun. Did that document ever exist? Of course, if you took some time to understand how the LM was designed, where the main mass was situated and how the inertial measurement systems worked then it wouldn't be such a mystery. But of course, now your mistake of the top heavy LM has been discredited and Jay has provided you with the correct term to use when referring to moments you have moved the focus of your argument. As I explained to you with the Jarrah 1 = 1 debacle, this is how conspiracism always unfolds. A discredited argument, a regroup, followed by a new line of approach with snippets of new information gleaned from the discussion.
A quick perusal over the AGC code and dismissing it as crude doesn't really cut the mustard either. The idea that the code had to be elaborate and complex is misguided too, it's often based upon a fallacy of false equivalence with modem computing. It is also a slur to the brilliance of Margaret Hamilton who is recognised as a pioneer of software engineering. I believe you have also been told on another thread that people have demonstrated the AGC code does exactly what it says on the tin. In any case, why does the code need to be complex to guide a space craft?
2. Proving "it doesn't exist" is harder to do.
You missed my point. 'I don't believe' is not a standard of proof.
-
Try to balance a basket-ball on your finger at an angle...
Broomstick fallacy, only with a ball instead of a broomstick.
Nope. In the ball analogy, you are ALWAYS pushing towards the Center-of-Mass (COM).. For the Broomstick, once it pitches, the force is NOT pushing at the center-of-mass. With your finger you are changing the direction of force to always be at the COM. So it's very similar to the LM situation.
I'll create the physics demo in short time, and capture the result in video capture.
And I do accept your potential correction about the "location of the center of thrust" not making a difference on angular stability. In the simple model, there is sense to this, in that neither force is exerting an angular acceleration on the rigid body.
I believe you are correct, and I thank you for this correction. I consider this a "small miss" that you easily corrected.
This a bit mind-bending. Because there's a stability advantage for a helicopter to have it's rotors above it... so to reconcile why the same concept doesn't apply at all to a rocket engine is a bit perplexing. Care to shed more light on this?
The simplified concept logic would indicate that maintaining attitude/balance for a 300' rocket is the same as doing it for flat disk. Would you affirm or refute this derived conclusion?
-
You missed my point. 'I don't believe' is not a standard of proof.
I recognize the lack of weight for "I don't believe".. it simply tells you my current understanding.
The things we DO KNOW - are that the LM had no Proof-of-Concept (POC) for this TRIO doing auto-pilot. None.
The "I believe" comments are in ADDITION to this. It simple means I haven't seen positive proof to indicate the opposite. It's "in limbo". Positive proof would remove this "added source of doubt".
-
I recognize the lack of weight for "I don't believe".. it simply tells you my current understanding.
It simply tells you my current lack of understanding.
There, I've corrected if for you.
-
Nope. In the ball analogy, you are ALWAYS pushing towards the Center-of-Mass (COM)
It's that same stability problem as the broomstick. Just another object with a different moment of inertia.
-
Seriously? I learned how to calculate horizontal and vertical components of a force acting at an angle in school. Any thrust angled even slightly upwards has a component working in opposition to the downward pull of gravity.
Seriously. This is getting into Rigid-Body physics. Try to balance a basket-ball on your finger at an angle... try to keep it's balance by simply pushing through the center of mass.
Not what I was referring to at all. I was specifically addressing your statement that thrust at an angle is not countering gravity. Every angled thrust has a vertical component, and if the angle is even slightly upwards that thrust is working against gravity to some degree.
Now imagine you have to do this with an untested RCS system (in this context),
Not untested. 'Not used during a landing' is not equivalent.
with (AFAIK) a 2-second update interval,
Again I ask, do you think this '2-second update interval' (wherever you are getting that figure from) means it takes 2 seconds to respond to an input?
I think I'll include this demo into the 3D Lunar Physics app I've started.
I really question your ability to accurately program such an App, and in any case there are plenty of simulator apps and software packages already available, some of which actually use the AGC code.
-
With your finger you are changing the direction of force to always be at the COM. So it's very similar to the LM situation.
I don't see how. If you presume an RCS solution, the RCS doesn't have any more heinous a job to do if thrust is always directed through the center of mass. If you presume a thrust-vectored solution, then rotating the ball by adding a tangential force is the same regardless of where on the ball you apply it. Now if you add gravity, the object will fall faster in some thrust orientations than in others, but that's a different problem. Not only can you decouple them, you must do so in order to understand what's happening.
I'll create the physics demo in short time, and capture the result in video capture.
How do you plan to assure us that you won't simply be illustrating your misconception? Why not just write down the physics?
And I do accept your potential correction about the "location of the center of thrust" not making a difference on angular stability. In the simple model, there is sense to this, in that neither force is exerting an angular acceleration on the rigid body.
I believe you are correct, and I thank you for this correction. I consider this a "small miss" that you easily corrected.
Funny how every time you're caught making a glaring elementary mistake, it's somehow inconsequential.
This a bit mind-bending. Because there's a stability advantage for a helicopter to have its rotors above it.
Aerodynamic factors for stability do not apply. You can unbend your mind by not trying to argue by analogy and not interpolating irrelevant factors. Just do the math.
The simplified concept logic would indicate that maintaining attitude/balance for a 300' rocket is the same as doing it for flat disk. Would you affirm or refute this derived conclusion?
The problem has never stopped being only about moment arms, thrust vectors, and moment of inertia. Stick to those tools and you'll be able to solve all the problems.
-
Nope. In the ball analogy, you are ALWAYS pushing towards the Center-of-Mass (COM).
How do you reach that conclusion? It is just as possible for the COM to be displaced from the vector of thrust with a ball as it is for a broomstick, because the two are not connected.
This a bit mind-bending. Because there's a stability advantage for a helicopter to have it's rotors above it... so to reconcile why the same concept doesn't apply at all to a rocket engine is a bit perplexing. Care to shed more light on this?
I'm going to hazard a guess that it has something to do with a rocket expelling fuel out a nozzle to generate lift while a helicopter moves the surrounding air to do it. Given that they are two entirely different modes of action it really shouldn't be too hard to surmise the effects might be different. And in any case there's a bloody good reason not to have the rotors on the bottom of a helicopter, connected to objects or people getting out of it....
-
I don't see how. If you presume an RCS solution, the RCS doesn't have any more heinous a job to do if thrust is always directed through the center of mass. If you presume a thrust-vectored solution, then rotating the ball by adding a tangential force is the same regardless of where on the ball you apply it. Now if you add gravity, the object will fall faster in some thrust orientations than in others, but that's a different problem. Not only can you decouple them, you must do so in order to understand what's happening.
I understand now your reason for calling these the same. In the non-gimballed-engine case, there is NOTHING the engine can do to fix the attitude pitch.... all it can do is impact whether or not it changes altitude, but at the cost of horizontal acceleration. Attitude adjustments for both cases always falls back onto the RCS system. So the "finger on ball" case misses the mark on being a good analogy. Thank you for the "early correction".
-
I recognize the lack of weight for "I don't believe".. it simply tells you my current understanding.
Your current level of understanding continues to hover somewhere around "beginning student"—one with poor classroom manners. I'm constantly having to introduce you to the elementary concepts and correct your all-too-typical misconceptions of them.
The things we DO KNOW - are that the LM had no Proof-of-Concept (POC) for this TRIO doing auto-pilot. None.
No, "we" don't know any such thing. All we observe is a lay person with delusions of grandeur and a poor understanding of the relevant practices trying to foist nonsensical requirements onto a historic project that has been knowledgeably accepted for decades. Your expectations are not some gold standard.
Positive proof would remove this "added source of doubt".
Your doubt is your own problem. That some people are volunteering to correct you is not an acknowledgement of any obligatory burden of proof to do so. You are not important. Your doubts have been brought up by others and addressed many times over. You will not become the next Edward Snowden by treading through a well-trodden pile of manure.
-
The simplified concept logic would indicate that maintaining attitude/balance for a 300' rocket is the same as doing it for flat disk. Would you affirm or refute this derived conclusion?
The problem has never stopped being only about moment arms, thrust vectors, and moment of inertia. Stick to those tools and you'll be able to solve all the problems.
[/quote]
This'll be a good test for the Unity3D physics engine... see what it shows. My goal is NEVER to "show me to be right"... I'm trying to ALWAYS show what "is right".
Admittedly, my base understanding of the concept of "balancing on a center column of thrust" appears wrong. I would expect the physics simulation to confirm this concept.
Thank you again.
-
Admittedly, my base understanding of the concept of "balancing on a center column of thrust" appears wrong.
Oh, finally!
-
Admittedly, my base understanding of the concept of "balancing on a center column of thrust" appears wrong. I would expect the physics simulation to confirm this concept.
Thank you again.
It's cool to admit errors, we all make them, but come on! It's not just that is it! You're blundering into the science of rocketry and arguing with an acknowledged industry expert. You're making statements about the LM flight capabilities from a position of obvious ignorance.
-
The LM was designed for purpose by engineers working at Grumman, not NASA. Neither engine was built by NASA either.
I suggest you actually read this and try to (for once!) dispense with your crazy confirmation bias:
https://www.clavius.org/scale.html
(The site is safe, I believe it needs a certificate for the httpS part.)
His article lost me at "Quality control officers from NASA must meticulously inspect the work."
Like the did for NA for A1? And then lose the 500-page QC/QA incident report, and now denying it's existence? We're talking about a QA system here that didn't even recognize what MANY non-scientists already know about "Pure Oxygen" ... and they stuck them into a capsule with 15+ PSI of it, along with electronics, and flammable products.... and a door that was KNOWN to be unsafe.
This is meaningless rhetoric. The article questions the scale of the conspiracy and you side-step this with a complacency error, during a meticulous testing regime!
Smell fish?
I smell evasion of the premise of the article.
Now, which one applies out of those. If none, explain fully how it works. Factor in every NASA employee since, every major engineering expert and basically so many scientists it becomes totally insane.
-
So the "finger on ball" case misses the mark on being a good analogy. Thank you for the "early correction".
You're welcome.
If you want to see some truly elegant followups to problems like this, find Marcel Sidi's Spacecraft Dynamics & Control. It presents a holistic approach in linearized free-body dynamics. Even if you don't understand much or any of it, the takeaway is that if you properly model the problem, solutions you never thought tractable (e.g., fuel slosh) can be tackled. The magic to appreciate in his approach is that the same formulation can be used to express an astonishing variety of physical phenomena, whereupon the solutions collapse to a surprisingly minimal vocabulary. That's what it was like to be an Apollo engineer.
Admittedly, my base understanding of the concept of "balancing on a center column of thrust" appears wrong. I would expect the physics simulation to confirm this concept.
Learn it the way that seems best for you. Not to put too fine a point on it, but if your simulation doesn't agree, then debug the simulation. This is a solid enough nugget of knowledge in rigid-body dynamics that it can be the yardstick against which to measure program code, not the other way round.
Thank you again.
You're welcome again. And having fulfilled my instructor's duties for today, I will probably not be available for the rest of the day and probably not at all tomorrow.
-
It's cool to admit errors, we all make them, but come on! It's not just that is it! You're blundering into the science of rocketry and arguing with an acknowledged industry expert. You're making statements about the LM flight capabilities from a position of obvious ignorance.
I came here for the correction, scrutiny, and learning. The revelation with "Lunar Launch too Fast" was humbling. I was very certain of this one when I started. I'm VERY GLAD to have been corrected.
There are some things, like the 8-flag-motions that are SIMPLE CONTEXT -- no rocket science. There are other reasons for my current MLH belief, which are also NOT rocket science.
My bias tells me they are strong arguments, but my experience says to not trust them too much unless they've been scrutinized. I find little scrutiny within the MLH echo chambers... as the whole mindset within that chamber is biased towards believing things that support MLH. Likewise, the same effect is going on here. And Likewise -- BOTH groups think they are the TD's and the others are defending a Lie.
So bringing the groups together is a good thing.
-
So bringing the groups together is a good thing.
Nope. I refer you to the highly accurate and relevant signature of Jason Thompson:
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!" - Dara O'Briain
-
Very magnanimous najak, and refreshing. The debate here can be vociferous but this is refreshing for once.
-
Admittedly, my base understanding of the concept of "balancing on a center column of thrust" appears wrong. I would expect the physics simulation to confirm this concept.
Thank you again.
And it only took a mere 46 pages! See what I mean when I called you a slow learner?
-
They reprogrammed the AGC to work as a fly-by-wire system for a military jet.
I gave najak a clue about that further up the thread but he seems to have missed it.