Faking the moon landings

[Von_Smith]

Hey Cambo...what is, in your opinion, the strongest piece of "evidence" that lead you to believe in the hoax nonsense? Just one please..the one that you think is the absolute strongest and the most solid

It has to be the fact that not one other country has attempted to send humans out into deep space, not even a trip around the moon and back.

In order to draw conclusions from evidence, you need a few things other than just making observations. 

You need to show some sort of cogent method for interpreting observations and drawing conclusions from them.

You need to establish the *relevance* the specific observations you are making have to the conclusion you are trying to draw from them..

You need to argue for why one should prefer your conclusions to others one might draw from the same observations.

You need to ensure that the observations themselves are accurate.

You need to ensure that your explanation fits all the other observations, and not just some ones you cherry picked.

For example:  you observe that no other country ran manned missions to the moon, nor has the US returned in that time.  From this, you conclude that the missions were faked.  But drawing this conclusion from that observation requires a rule.  Something like:  For any X, if no other country has done X, and the US hasn't done it in 50 years, than X wasn't actually done.

In addition to there not being any reason to think that such a rule is actually a thing, there is the fact that it has inconvenient implications to your position if you apply it to cases where X equals "faking moon landings".  No other countries have *faked* a moon landing, either.  Nor has the US *faked* any moon landings in the last 50 years.  This argues at least as strongly against the idea that we faked the moon landings as it does against the idea that we went.  You need to explain why the rule applies to actually doing moon landings, but not to faking them. 

I could go on.  There is no need.

[LunarOrbit]

That is probably the dumbest f***ing thing you've said to date, and God knows that's a high bar to clear. Seriously, dude, you are an idiot.  Moron.  Jackass. 

Knock it off with the swearing and insults, please. I expect everyone to be better than that.

[cambo]

Another video for cambo, this one from Apollo 7.  Interested to hear what kind of wire rigs were used to fake this one.

Wire rigs? I think you’re confusing the Apollo craft with the ISS, as all the Zero G stuff was performed in a vomit comet back then. There is a clip from around the seven minute mark, which runs for just under two minutes. The first 40 seconds, where a bloke is floating in what seems to be slow motion is the only part of the clip that we can definitely be sure is in Zero G, as after he lays down in readiness for the return of gravity, we don’t see any real conclusive proof of a weightless environment. Having said that, if we play the clip at 2x speed, it looks perfectly acceptable, which ties in with the 58 second clip I was shown from Apollo 10, which was at normal speed, so it looks perfectly feasible to me, that a one minute stint would be doable in a vomit comet.

Why do you readily accept that a vomit comet can only give us 25 to 30 seconds of Zero G? Those planes are essentially commercial flights to give members of the public a chance to experience weightlessness, so it’s obvious that these planes are flying well within their safety limits. What would these planes be capable of if they were pushed to their limits and beyond? You all need to give yourselves a shake and stop swallowing everything you are told at face value and use your noggin and apply a bit of logic for a change.

Why are all the clips so short? With all the hours of on-board footage, why would they not put the camera down once in a while and leave it running while they went about their business? Show me an Apollo astronaut floating around the capsule for three minutes and I may need to have a rethink, so until then, stop posting these ridiculous vomit comet videos. 

Here’s that clip with sound at around 6 minutes in. What’s that background noise? Is it the air conditioning, or maybe it’s just audio interference. It can’t be an aircraft engine because they are in space, right? 

[molesworth]

…

Why do you readily accept that a vomit comet can only give us 25 to 30 seconds of Zero G? Those planes are essentially commercial flights to give members of the public a chance to experience weightlessness, so it’s obvious that these planes are flying well within their safety limits. What would these planes be capable of if they were pushed to their limits and beyond? You all need to give yourselves a shake and stop swallowing everything you are told at face value and use your noggin and apply a bit of logic for a change.
…

Do you understand the mechanism, i.e. the flight trajectory, which is responsible for the reduced or zero gravity experiences on these aircraft?  If not, I suggest you research it, because there is a reason for the limited duration of the effect.

If you think there is some way to extend it, please provide a coherent explanation as to how it could be achieved, and what you think the maximum possible duration should be.

[MBDK]

use your noggin and apply a bit of logic for a change.

It can’t be an aircraft engine because they are in space, right? 

If you could only follow your own advice.  Of course it can't be an aircraft engine, because they are not aboard an aircraft, they are on a SPACESHIP.  And how can you hear a spaceship's engine when travelling through space?  Using your noggin, and appropriate logic, you SHOULD be able to understand that since sound is caused by vibrations through a medium (i.e., you can hear sounds underwater), the spacecraft's engine vibrations can reverberate through the vehicle, interact with the on-board atmosphere, and produce sound.  You can think of the hull of the ship as a stylus, the engine the record, and the cabin the speaker in a funky kind of phonograph system.  Get it?

[Allan F]

Tape hiss. No mystery there.

Remember: THE CAMERA USED DIDN'T RECORD SOUND. The sound has been added LATER. So whatever sound you hear, does not reflect the ambient noise of the spacecraft.

[sts60]

... If you believe that fifty years ago, a big rocket and a shitty computer with a 1.024 MHz processor, 2k memory and 32k storage was enough to launch men into space and navigate to and land on the moon and then take off again and dock with the command module and then navigate back to earth, then you are simply deluded...

Hello, cambo.  Why, exactly, was the Apollo computing infrastructure inadequate to the task?  I’m an aerospace engineer with almost three decades in the field, so I’ll be very interested in your detailed answer backing up your claim.

[onebigmonkey]

Here is my prediction:

Someone, possibly lots of people, will post clips showing Apollo astronauts in zero G conditions for and over the time limit specified by cambo.

He will then either find some specious excuse to claim they do not meet previously unspecified requirements, or he will pretend he never saw them.

I have a better idea cambo: post a video from an Apollo mission in progress, prove it was done in a plane.

[raven]

Do you understand the mechanism, i.e. the flight trajectory, which is responsible for the reduced or zero gravity experiences on these aircraft?  If not, I suggest you research it, because there is a reason for the limited duration of the effect.

If you think there is some way to extend it, please provide a coherent explanation as to how it could be achieved, and what you think the maximum possible duration should be.

Sounds like something that would result in an unplanned disassembly from an overaggressive lithobraking manoeuvrer as well as high speed oxidation of the plane and all contents.

Hello, cambo.  Why, exactly, was the Apollo computing infrastructure inadequate to the task?  I’m an aerospace engineer with almost three decades in the field, so I’ll be very interested in your detailed answer backing up your claim..

 
I'm not an aerospace engineer, nor do I play one on TV, but I asked this very same question last page.
So far the only answer has been crickets, tumbleweeds, and tumbleweeds carrying crickets.

[Von_Smith]

Why do you readily accept that a vomit comet can only give us 25 to 30 seconds of Zero G?

Because an airplane starting at 32000 feet can only stay in freefall so long before something bad happens.  C'mon, cambo, this one isn't even hard for a liberal arts major like me.

eta:  I see raven beat me to it.

[bknight]

Why do you readily accept that a vomit comet can only give us 25 to 30 seconds of Zero G?

Because an airplane starting at 32000 feet can only stay in freefall so long before something bad happens.  C'mon, cambo, this one isn't even hard for a liberal arts major like me.

eta:  I see raven beat me to it.

Wait, are you telling us that the plane might experience a transition from zero g to a huge negative  as the plane encounters the ground/water?? 

[twik]

I'd be interested in knowing how long cambo thinks a plane can remain in free-fall. Without, you know, actually being in orbit.

[JayUtah]

Why do you readily accept that a vomit comet can only give us 25 to 30 seconds of Zero G?

Because I know the specifics of how airplanes generate the zero-gravity effect, and you evidently do not.

Those planes are essentially commercial flights to give members of the public a chance to experience weightlessness, so it’s obvious that these planes are flying well within their safety limits. What would these planes be capable of if they were pushed to their limits and beyond?

The robustness of the airplane has little to do with it until it's time to pull out of the dive at the end of the parabola.  It's the precise trajectory flown that generates the effect.  My first flight instructor could routinely produce periods of zero-gravity effect in a light Cessna.  That doesn't stop the ground from being there at the end if you do it for too long.

You all need to give yourselves a shake and stop swallowing everything you are told at face value...

Why do you think that's how we know what we know?  You tried to bluff your way through a discussion of wire rigs only to be told by several people with professional theater experience that what you were proposing was impossible.  You tried to write it off as merely "two-bit theater," but in fact I'm talking about my fly rig at an $80 million performing arts facility.  Now you're trying to write off people's actual experience with flight dynamics as merely something they've been told and have chosen to believe, rather than something that can be known, experienced, and is subject to irrevocable laws of physics.

Are you a pilot?  No, I didn't think so.

...and use your noggin and apply a bit of logic for a change.

Logic tells us that a plane in a dive has a limited time before it hits the ground.  You need to quit trying to bluff your way through this discussion.  You need to realize that most of us can tell when you're making stuff up or when you don't really know what you're talking about.

[Rob48]

NASA say they travelled to and from the moon nine times in less than four years, and all they did was bring back more moon rocks.

Umm... there's not really a whole lot else on the moon to bring back other than moon rock (although, as previously pointed out, it wasn't just rocks, it was also core samples, regolith, oh and of course a fair few bits of the Surveyor 3 probe).

What should they have brought back? Cheese? String soup? An actual Clanger?

[mako88sb]

NASA say they travelled to and from the moon nine times in less than four years, and all they did was bring back more moon rocks.

Umm... there's not really a whole let else on the moon to bring back other than moon rock (although, as previously pointed out, it wasn't just rocks, it was also core samples, regolith, oh and of course a fair few bits of the Surveyor 3 probe).

What should they have brought back? Cheese? String soup? An actual Clanger?

Some hoax believers think they should have brought back the valuable helium 3 for the fusion power plants we've had for decades. I kid you not.