And... where is the pilot?

[onebigmonkey]

I thought we had reached some sort of limit for The Stupid, but I have learned from reading the rantings and ravings of this thread's OP, is that The Stupid knows no bounds. Like the Universe, it is unlimited in its extent.

YOU ARE ONLY YOU INSULTS, BETTER LEAVE AT LEAST TRY OTHER MORE EDUCATION, CLOWN.

Then stop posting stupid badly researched comments, and answer questions put to you. If you refuse to answer questions while demanding answers yourself it just makes you look like an ill-educated trolling moron.

[tarkus]

We are all familiar with what it means to drive a car, truck and all kinds of carriages ...


A real shame that we could not see our intrepid space heroes performing this feat ... just trash film projected behind the triangular window:


?

We just have a dubious story about the greatest feat in the history of mankind, was to not spend movie?
Nor have no film records for maneuvering reentry, why? only are drawings or artistic interpretations.


Yet they spent precious meters and meters of film such scenes:



Why do astronauts have avoided driving show their spaceships? I do not remember seeing them at the controls of the shuttle ... and now that I think the Russians have also been reluctant to show how a spaceship driving.

Why do you start a new thread when you haven't a clue to answer your questions in two other threads?  Now for filming to occur, there need to be a camera pointed at the pilots/copilots. running probably on automatic, since they are rather busy flying the craft and or calling out speed and fuel data.  which do you think is more appropriate film or actually landing 240 miles from home and no second chance to return home if they crash?

On the other threads need time to reply to all, I'm only against a dozen like you. If you think my delay in responding I have no answers, you're wrong, wrong.
With a fixed camera placed inside the car enough, in fact there have been scenes like that, but no filming the show leading the LM or CM. What Armstrong is just a story, there is no evidence that the spatial shanty engines have never worked in space, visually or acoustics.

[Zakalwe]

Tarkus,

You are just embarrassing yourself at this stage. If you have a shred of self-respect left then you should stop now.

[tarkus]

Uh, it's not the least dubious.  The only people who pretend to doubt it are the very lunatic fringe, and for reasons entirely traceable to their own ignorance and laziness.

No, people who doubt expressed those doubts, those who believe (like you) or lie on salary, are those who must clear those doubts with respect and without calling ignorant to the other, because until now all I have is you and your friends say "go get" or "that's not important," really does not make much sense to belong to a forum that produces such fury answer simple questions.

And as you treat me crazy or ignorant, whoever reads this discussion could actually assume that you are an immature believer who refuses to accept that Santa Claus does not exist ... and the discussion would end in insults, is that what you propose?

[JayUtah]

those who believe (like you) or lie on salary, are those who must clear those doubts...

I would have a responsibility to address rational doubts.  Yours are irrational, for the reasons I and others have belabored.  Your "doubt" arises on the one hand from your willful ignorance and on the other hand from your stubborn denial.  These are not positions that obligate others to play your game.

And as you treat me crazy or ignorant, whoever reads this discussion could actually assume that you are an immature believer who refuses to accept that Santa Claus does not exist ... and the discussion would end in insults, is that what you propose?

You are ignorant.  At this point that's simply a statement of fact, not an insult.  I and many others have made several attempts to educate you, but you are simply not interested.  Your ongoing ignorance -- whether real or feigned -- is the root cause of your doubts.  You have been directed to evidence that contradicts your statements and beliefs.  You have been shown demonstrations that contradict how you say you expect the natural world to behave.  You assiduously ignore all of that, and as such must be deemed impervious to facts and reason.

[Zakalwe]

By the way...you have questions to answer:
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=864.msg34623#msg34623

[tarkus]

Tarkus, you have made three different kinds of errors in this thread.  Others have already pointed these out, but they bear reiteration.

First, you made a source error (identifying video imagery as "film").  Not really a big deal, but it does demonstrate once again your unfamiliarity with the Apollo record.

Second, you asserted that things should be done a certain way for space missions, but you manifestly have no insight into how actual space operations work.  This is, again as already pointed out, the "If I ran the zoo" fallacy.  You have no experiential or factual basis for your assertions of how things "should be done" or "should have been done".  Bluntly speaking, you have no idea what you are talking about, but you presume to tell a group of well-educated laymen and engineers with actual space operations experience (like me) that we are just taking things on faith.  That's arrant nonsense.

Third, of course, is the simple error of fact you made in asserting that in-cabin motion imagery was unavailable from various missions.  That was simply wrong, and everyone here knew that.  You based your claim on this supposed fact, which in reality - quickly demonstrated - was nothing more than your ignorance of the subject.  Therefore, your claim immediately failed because its fundamental premise was wrong.

Please explain if being wrong like this ever causes you to reconsider your position, and if not, why anyone should expend any effort in trying to educate you.

You contradict when they say that Apollo was the fact and best documented history on the one hand are the films, audio as well (why astronauts sound so bad from space? Nasal and metallic voice because they are "far away" ?) and secondly the documents with information, but most of what is said there is not proven, you will read that data with reverence produced in his mind the authority that has been written, but history is full of lies and science has often complicit in the lies promoted by the government, reasons for mistrust abound.
And of course those who distrust Apollo, observe critically graphic evidence, that's what it is. And not only the evidence but the absence of evidence, because there is no verifiable evidence of piloting a spaceship ... this is serious.

[JayUtah]

What Armstrong is just a story, there is no evidence that the spatial shanty engines have never worked in space, visually or acoustics.

Nonsense.  You identify one of literally infinite ways to document something and claim that because this one thing wasn't done in this case, there's "no evidence."  Despite what you may believe, there is copious evidence that the Apollo spacecraft worked as advertised.  And this evidence is accepted as genuine by the unanimous consensus of the relevant professions over a period of decades, including America's erstwhile enemies.  Your personal denial and disbelief is simply irrelevant.

[JayUtah]

...secondly the documents with information, but most of what is said there is not proven[.]

The documents are the proof.

...you will read that data with reverecia produced in his mind the authority that has been written...

No, your critics are not simply engaging in hero worship.  Some of us are professionally qualified in these sciences.

...but history is full of lies and science has often complicit in the lies promoted by the government, reasons for mistrust abound.

If you believe Apollo is a lie, it is your burden to prove it.  Simply saying it could be is not sufficient.  Simply failing to make an effort to study it is not sufficient.  Simply condemning all scientists is not sufficient. Ignorance is not a position from which you can argue that someone else is lying.  None of that pseudo-political handwaving matters.  If someone has lied, then his statements can be shown in contradiction of fact.  Casting aspersions on his character does not prove he is lying.

And of course those who distrust Apollo, observe critically graphic evidence, that's what it is.

You don't understand that evidence.  Your inability to interpret it has been made very apparent.

And not only the evidence but the absence of evidence, because there is no verifiable evidence of piloting a spaceship ... this is serious.

No, it's just a red herring, the latest in your laughable efforts to trump up any complaint against Apollo, no matter how arrogant or ridiculous.

[dwight]

I take it Tarkus, you will want a dvd of the footage you say doesnt exist. Do you have a paypal account to send me the agreed 300 euro duplication cost.

[bknight]

I take it Tarkus, you will want a dvd of the footage you say doesnt exist. Do you have a paypal account to send me the agreed 300 euro duplication cost.

Too cheap IMO.

[Tedward]

Thought all you heard in space was The Blue Danube.

[onebigmonkey]

Tarkus, you have made three different kinds of errors in this thread.  Others have already pointed these out, but they bear reiteration.

First, you made a source error (identifying video imagery as "film").  Not really a big deal, but it does demonstrate once again your unfamiliarity with the Apollo record.

Second, you asserted that things should be done a certain way for space missions, but you manifestly have no insight into how actual space operations work.  This is, again as already pointed out, the "If I ran the zoo" fallacy.  You have no experiential or factual basis for your assertions of how things "should be done" or "should have been done".  Bluntly speaking, you have no idea what you are talking about, but you presume to tell a group of well-educated laymen and engineers with actual space operations experience (like me) that we are just taking things on faith.  That's arrant nonsense.

Third, of course, is the simple error of fact you made in asserting that in-cabin motion imagery was unavailable from various missions.  That was simply wrong, and everyone here knew that.  You based your claim on this supposed fact, which in reality - quickly demonstrated - was nothing more than your ignorance of the subject.  Therefore, your claim immediately failed because its fundamental premise was wrong.

Please explain if being wrong like this ever causes you to reconsider your position, and if not, why anyone should expend any effort in trying to educate you.

You contradict when they say that Apollo was the fact and best documented history on the one hand are the films, audio as well (why astronauts sound so bad from space? Nasal and metallic voice because they are "far away" ?) and secondly the documents with information, but most of what is said there is not proven, you will read that data with reverence produced in his mind the authority that has been written, but history is full of lies and science has often complicit in the lies promoted by the government, reasons for mistrust abound.
And of course those who distrust Apollo, observe critically graphic evidence, that's what it is. And not only the evidence but the absence of evidence, because there is no verifiable evidence of piloting a spaceship ... this is serious.

blah blah blah...where are the answers to the questions that have been put to you? Where are the acknowledgements of your abysmal failure to carry out even basic searches for source material?

There is no evidence supporting your case, none. Absence of evidence is all you have provided, together with absence of understanding and absence of research.

There is verifiable evidence of piloting a spaceship, you just refuse to accept it. That's your problem - not absence of evidence, just a refusal to accept anything that proves you wrong, which happens every time you make a spurious claim on this forum.

[bknight]

You contradict when they say that Apollo was the fact and best documented history on the one hand are the films, audio as well (why astronauts sound so bad from space? Nasal and metallic voice because they are "far away" ?)

When there was good line of sight for the antennas the voice were pretty clear.  sometimes MCC over road the conversations but that was delay.  The voices don't seem metallic or nasal to me.

and secondly the documents with information, but most of what is said
there is not proven, you will read that data with reverence produced in his mind the authority that has been written,

Data is recorded not thought up by someone.

but history is full of lies and science has often complicit in the lies promoted by the government, reasons for mistrust abound.

please provide evidence of lies or complicity or lying, not just your imagination

And of course those who distrust Apollo, observe critically graphic evidence, that's what it is. And not only the evidence but the absence of evidence, because there is no verifiable evidence of piloting a spaceship ... this is serious.

You believe you are critical, I believe you are ignorant of the facts presented by others and refuse to accept those documented by others

[Apollo 957]

And of course those who distrust Apollo, observe critically graphic evidence, that's what it is. And not only the evidence but the absence of evidence, because there is no verifiable evidence of piloting a spaceship ... this is serious.

There's no verifiable 'evidence' that they actually used the space toilet during the trip either. Do you take that as 'evidence' that the toilet facilities didn't exist? Does this prove anything? No. 

There's no verifiable'evidence' of the readings on the Command Module panel showing the state of the oxygen supplies, the fuel. Does this prove anything? No, they just didn't photograph or film it because they had better things to do.