Author Topic: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch  (Read 203106 times)

Offline jfb

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 407
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #510 on: April 02, 2019, 05:36:30 PM »
Hi Onebigmonkey,

100 percent that is the Apollo 11 LM. There are photos and video with documentation. This is not a random as Jay suggests. At the start of this thread, the very first post, I attached the NASA photo that accompanys this video. Further I attached a NASA photo of the LM already inserted in the sleeve being hoisted up to mates to the Saturn stage. They did not change in appearance.

I think you need to look more closely to the photos. The legs, for instance, were not even wrapped part way up the leg pre flight. And wrapping post flight is different colour and material. Take a close up of the ladder. Wrapped completely different pre vs post. The undercarriage is also wrapped differently etc etc. Plus the plume deflectors were added. Should I go on?

I thought we covered this already - work continued to be done on the LM after it was encased in the SLA, and IINM continued to be done after the whole stack was rolled out to the pad.  Plume deflectors, extra insulation, and other external items were added after mating. 

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #511 on: April 03, 2019, 11:40:11 AM »
I can't get beyond "if it was fake, why would they do something you claim proves it was fake?"  Because if all this is a proof the missions were faked, it's so obvious.  This isn't hidden.  This isn't revealed after extensive effort, because it's quite clear no effort has been expended to understand the Apollo missions.  This is a whole bunch of readily available information.  So either NASA was spectacularly bad at faking a Moon mission yet somehow fooled everyone who had a reason to want to make NASA look bad at the time or else the whole idea that it proves a hoax is based on faulty expectations.  Now, I ask you--which is the more logical answer?

Though I expect jr Knowing to ignore me again.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3814
    • Clavius
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #512 on: April 03, 2019, 12:10:31 PM »
other external items were added after mating.

Internal items too.  There is no "rule" that says the vehicle is immune or exempt from further work after rollout.  In fact, there's a whole service structure -- a major piece of engineering -- that was built to facilitate work that was planned to take place after rollout.  One for the space shuttle too, although it worked differently.  The LM design calls for a half-dozen or so pyrotechnical items to facilitate its staging.  For various safety and mission-assurance reasons, you always wait until the last minute to install the pyros.  You design your ship and the supporting equipment to allow access to those pyros after assembly and integration, but before launch.  To install the umbilical guillotine, for example, you had to reach under the forward-hatch porch, but it was designed so you could do it while the LM was enshrouded in the SLA, on the pad, the morning of liftoff.

Jr Knowing is simply making up new "rules" for how to build and operate spacecraft and then expecting the industry to obey him.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3132
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #513 on: April 03, 2019, 12:20:44 PM »
other external items were added after mating.

Internal items too.  There is no "rule" that says the vehicle is immune or exempt from further work after rollout.  In fact, there's a whole service structure -- a major piece of engineering -- that was built to facilitate work that was planned to take place after rollout.  One for the space shuttle too, although it worked differently.  The LM design calls for a half-dozen or so pyrotechnical items to facilitate its staging.  For various safety and mission-assurance reasons, you always wait until the last minute to install the pyros.  You design your ship and the supporting equipment to allow access to those pyros after assembly and integration, but before launch.  To install the umbilical guillotine, for example, you had to reach under the forward-hatch porch, but it was designed so you could do it while the LM was enshrouded in the SLA, on the pad, the morning of liftoff.

Jr Knowing is simply making up new "rules" for how to build and operate spacecraft and then expecting the industry to obey him.

It doesn't look right, therefore it is fake.
I don't understand it, therefore it is fake.
Take your pick.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline mako88sb

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 293
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #514 on: April 03, 2019, 01:06:11 PM »
I thought they were offering $50000 bonuses to the manufacturers to eliminate one pound of weight and here they go tacking on a bunch a weight post production.   

Mind explaining were you got that $50,000 per lb of weight eliminated figure from and also explain why it differs so much from Tom Kelly's "Moon Lander: How We Developed the Apollo Lunar Module" book that states the bonus was set at $10,000 per lb of weight reduction?


Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3814
    • Clavius
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #515 on: April 03, 2019, 01:43:08 PM »
I can't get beyond "if it was fake, why would they do something you claim proves it was fake?"  Because if all this is a proof the missions were faked, it's so obvious.  This isn't hidden.  This isn't revealed after extensive effort, because it's quite clear no effort has been expended to understand the Apollo missions.  This is a whole bunch of readily available information.  So either NASA was spectacularly bad at faking a Moon mission yet somehow fooled everyone who had a reason to want to make NASA look bad at the time or else the whole idea that it proves a hoax is based on faulty expectations.  Now, I ask you--which is the more logical answer?

[Applauds.
Yes, this is the inherent contradiction of almost every conspiracy theory.  The alleged perpetrators were clever enough to fool so many people for so long, including eminent practitioners of the various professions, trades, and sciences that pertain to it.  But those same perpetrators can't fool some particular claimant who has little if any correct understanding of the facts or the relevant sciences and trades.  The ways in which various claimants explain it, if they address it at all, is often comedy gold.

Before I point those ways out, I reiterate that the purpose of conspiracism (or really any fringe theorization) is rarely to establish an alternative narrative on its own merits.  It's almost always instead ego reinforcement for the claimant.  He wants to elevate his status within a particular worldview.  You point out that the claim is not based on deep research because the claimant here, true to form, hasn't done any deep research.  And that's because the ego-reinforcement objective requires the elevation of status based on the knowledge the claimant presently has.  It's not that he can become an eminent commentator on the validity of space exploration, but that he already is.  Thus any theory that requires substantial extra effort doesn't fit the bill.  The mission to buttress the claimant's ego is much easier served by supposing that the circumstances must change to accommodate his knowledge.  Whatever little knowledge he now possess, or can Google-and-regurgitate with little mental effort, must be sufficient to fully discuss the authenticity of Apollo.

Now back to how claimants respond to the core contradiction.  Continued bluster is usually the first defense.  "Is that all you've got?  Parading your degrees and real-world experience around as if that means anything or challenges my opinions in any way!"  The pawn of this argument is usually a premise along the lines, "Common sense says..." or "It's obvious that..."  Begging the underlying expectations in this way suggests that no special understanding is needed to see egregious flaws in the conventional narrative.  But this eventually runs afoul of the core contradiction again.  It just kicks that problem down the road a few more meters.  And it ultimately fails to reinforce the ego, since all that comes of it is that the claimant feels he is more commonsensical than some.

Sometimes a claimant will aspire to different knowledge.  This is where Jr Knowing seems to be, and it's the rationale that operates most commonly in alternative medicine.  In this mode of reasoning, the claimant plainly affirms that his knowledge and understand are somehow inherently more attuned to questions of authenticity.  In its mildest form, it's the argument that goes, "If you were more of a free thinker like I am, you'd be open to this new evidence."  This hits the ego-reinforcement target a little more center-mass because no matter what facts are presented, the claimant can still believe that the "right" conclusion would be reached by anyone operating according to his enhanced paradigm of thought.  If his critics can't see his special genius, it's just because they're too constrained by conventional thinking.  Since most opposition to fringe theories comes from mainstream sources, a certain congruence emerges.

The problem comes, as it has in this case, when the claimant has first made arguments that allude to mainstream knowledge.  Jr Knowing asserted that the science of free-body stability precluded a stable lunar module with the plume deflectors attached.  In his other thread he asserted that the behavior of aerosols and projectiles guaranteed his expectations.  When one has started out on that footing, transitioning to the wholly opposite footing is a blatant shift.  If the rebuttal is a learned treatise on how the sciences actually work, the claimant can't credibly excuse his ignorance by saying that others are just defending their worldview.  The mathematics of free-body dynamics don't suddenly change or stop being predictive just because of a mental paradigm shift or a socio-political epiphany.

The last recourse in resolving the core contradiction is sometimes just to do deeper down the rabbit hole.  People can't see the "obvious" truth of the conspiracy because they've been brainwashed not to.  In the case of relevant professionals like me, this extreme argument has even gone so far as claiming that we were all ushered into a room at some point and told about the terrible consequences of revealing the truth about Apollo.  And we spend our whole careers looking over our shoulders for the agents shadowing us, and we fulfill our dark duty by coming onto these forums and arguing a bunch of pseudo-technical mumbo jumbo to keep the masses fooled.  Granted that's the vivid extreme of such an approach, but paler version of it sometimes rear their ugly heads even when the discussion is otherwise reasonable.  Any argument fits this pattern if it boils down to expanding the alleged conspiracy as wide as it needs to be to substantiate the claimant's belief in himself as a lone genius.

Quote
Though I expect jr Knowing to ignore me again.

My hard questions challenge his fantasy.  Your hard questions shatter it.  I ask hard questions that come from certain specialized fields of knowledge that apply to his claims.  Paradoxically those are easier for him to argue around.  He can just make up new speculative rules or properties for those fields that restore his belief.  Who's to know they won't work?  "Well maybe it's the RCS jets themselves that are causing the visible flow separation."  Ludicrous, if you know the field.  But -- as he insinuated -- sufficiently reasonable(-sounding) if you don't.  That's how science fiction works.  The Epstein drive sounds plausible enough to people with a smattering of science knowledge.  But its real purpose is just to get people around the Expanse series solar system in days or weeks instead of years.  It only needs to be plausible enough to tell that story, not to actually work.  In like manner, Jr Knowing is writing a science fiction novel in his head.  Who's to know that most of it is implausible, if not downright impossible?  It doesn't matter, as long as it serves a compelling story.

Instead you ask hard questions that come from ordinary critical thinking.  You bare the inherent contradictions in his narrative that are rightly in everyone's ken.  There's no way to argue around them because everyone can see them for what they are.  Readers don't need special training or degrees to see that his story makes fundamentally no sense.  Since he can't build a plausible alternate reality as a pretext to answering your questions, your questions just don't exist in his universe.  Yes, we have magical storytelling devices that get us easily to other planets and stars, but you point out that the circumstances and characters he's built the plot around are absurd and contradictory.  That's far more fatal to his narrative than whether plume deflectors are plausible technology.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #516 on: April 03, 2019, 02:12:35 PM »
In fact, there's a whole service structure -- a major piece of engineering -- that was built to facilitate work that was planned to take place after rollout.

Indeed, I made this point way back on page 2 of this thread, complete with a picture illustrating that this service structure is even bigger than the umbilical tower (not to get at you for pointing it out again, some thirty pages later I'm not expecting everyone to remember that!)

Quote
For various safety and mission-assurance reasons, you always wait until the last minute to install the pyros.

What, you don't want your vehicle full of explosives while it's in the assembly building or rolling out to the pad? It's health and safety gone mad, I tells ya! :)
"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

Offline Zakalwe

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1598
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #517 on: April 03, 2019, 02:22:02 PM »
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3814
    • Clavius
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #518 on: April 03, 2019, 02:35:01 PM »
It doesn't look right, therefore it is fake.
I don't understand it, therefore it is fake.
Take your pick.

According to some ways of thinking about it, I don't have to pick.  "It doesn't look right," naturally invokes some set of expectations.  Expectation is based on knowledge.  Thus the reduced premises are the completeness and accuracy of the knowledge.  The apparent changes in the LM's appearance don't "look right" because the expectation is that the spacecraft will be completely finished before it is attached to the rocket and rolled out to the pad.  The relevant "knowledge" in that case is wrong.  Ditto the plume deflectors and the RCS quads on the SM.  All that boils down to knowledge that is either incomplete or incorrect or both.  As I wrote in response to Gillianren above, Jr Knowing wants the resolution of that suspicion to be "Apollo was faked," not "I don't know what I'm talking about."  The answer can never be that his knowledge is provably wrong.  "Doesn't look right" has to resolve as "What I think should look right is based extensive correct understanding."  Or, stated more bluntly, it has to resolve to "I'm really smart."

Clearly such smarts won't hold up in the real world.  If you don't actually know how to drive a Formula 1 racing car, then attempting it will almost certainly result in expensive and painful failure.  But if you were instead to claim Formula 1 racing is fake, and you limited your audience to people who don't know any better, there is actual activity you can pursue that focuses attention on you.  If we allow that each person in the world aspires to greatness, but defines greatness in different ways, then there will be people who find some measure of greatness in skipping all that pesky, time-consuming experience-gathering and finding a shortcut to the illusion of erudition -- if erudition is how they define greatness for themselves.  There are people who build temples and people who spray-paint El Barto on those temples.

"I don't understand" can mean a few things in conspiracism.  Often it means, "Well, I don't understand this, but neither do you.  Therefore I have just as much chance as you do of being right."  This feeds into the different-thinking excuse I mentioned to Gillianren.  The claimant is willing to concede the facts, and even compromise a little bit on the interpretation.  Slightly less often, as I see it, it means "I don't understand your explanation, therefore I'm not responsible for it."  This is what I think you intended.  Jr Knowing doesn't understand free-body dynamics in linearized form, so he doesn't have to accept that someone using those tools can conclusively refute his beliefs.  He's therefore free to keep believing that the LM is inherently unstable with the plume deflectors attached.  Or he doesn't understand Prandtl's fluid mechanics, so he doesn't have to believe that the RCS quads are in the lee of a separated flow.  Or that the flow separates where Prandtl says it must, and can therefore separate at any arbitrary point that fits his belief.

What's really being said there is, "I don't believe you."  The facts stated do not incorporate well into the set of desired beliefs, so it devolves into the same audience-choosing exercise as in the previous case.  If I claim Formula 1 racing is fake based on a simplistic treatment of it, then someone who can show that a more accurate, more detailed treatment resolves the "anomalies" I've identified, then that someone is not the audience I seek.  I would prefer my simplistic interpretation because (1) it takes less effort to arrive at, and (2) it makes me and my beliefs special in contrast to the millions of rubes who accept Formula 1 racing as authentic.  It's surprisingly easy for claimants to get third parties to buy into simplicity over correctness.  Lay audiences want to be taught a little, but not too much.  If I can convince someone I'm teaching him more about Formula 1 than he knew before, even though I don't really know much more than a layman, then I endear him to me.  I still get to believe, "I'm really smart."

Mostly, I think "I don't understand" is a veiled accusation.  "I don't understand how that was supposed to work" -- the unstated corollary being, "...and my understanding is probative."  That interpretation is the same as saying, "It doesn't look right to me."  It speaks to the notion that people like to understand the world around them, and largely the world doesn't present them with problems they can't reason through.  If you accept that, then it's not hard to extend it to mean that everything you observe should have a simple enough explanation.  I think people reach for the paranormal, the spiritual, the diabolical, and the supernatural to soothe themselves when their reason fails.  Here, the quite-understandable inability to grasp the gritty details of our species' greatest accomplishment in space is answered by an appeal to the diabolical:  it's not easily seen how it was done, therefore there was trickery.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2019, 03:09:49 PM by JayUtah »
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3814
    • Clavius
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #519 on: April 03, 2019, 03:02:24 PM »
Indeed, I made this point way back on page 2 of this thread, complete with a picture illustrating that this service structure is even bigger than the umbilical tower (not to get at you for pointing it out again, some thirty pages later I'm not expecting everyone to remember that!)

Our zealous persuasion that Jr Knowing pick up his flounced thread was answered by his having simply reset it.  And now his failed regolith thread has gone fallow.  In any case, I expect there will be a group effort in re-raising all the prior rebuttals he has ignored in order to create the illusion of progress.

Speaking of the LUT -- they had to drop the "Saturn" from the front of the acronym -- there's a peculiar way we cope with vertical integration and fueling, the American idiom of rocket-launching.  The LUT is integrated to the MLP, but the MLP is, of course, mobile.   Hence the M.  The pad service facilities await the arrival of the MLP, which inches its way into final position and is lowered on jacks to the pad supports.  But then begins the whole process of connecting the ground services to the MLP, which necessitates checkouts and adjustments along the entire height of the stack, from the tail fins to the top of the LES.  There was no presumption whatsoever that rollout ended all the installation, adjustment, and repair activity in all parts of the vehicle.  For Jr Knowing to keep presuming this is, at this point, just plain absurd.

Yes we are belaboring this, but apparently we have to.

Quote
What, you don't want your vehicle full of explosives while it's in the assembly building or rolling out to the pad? It's health and safety gone mad, I tells ya! :)

Sure, there are safety concerns.  If the umbilical and service structures are full of people working, you don't want accidental discharge of a pyro device to possibly hurl metal fragments at bullet speeds into them.  But from a practical perspective, you don't want lightning strikes or mistakes in electrical wiring to detonate them prematurely even if there are no people around.  If the interstage guillotine or docking-lug shears go off prematurely, the lunar module is ruined.  You can't fly it without disassembling it and rewiring all those miles of hard connections that were severed, or remachining the frame that sported the lugs.  For situations like the staging and range safety charges, the explosives must be built into the structures they are meant to sever and can't be charged easily on the pad.  But the detonators for them aren't present until just prior to launch.

These are examples of things that must be addressed after rollout.  If there are mandatory post-rollout activities, then the notion that the rolled-out configuration of the vehicle is somehow inviolate is immediately a non-starter.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3132
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #520 on: April 03, 2019, 03:03:43 PM »
It doesn't look right, therefore it is fake.
I don't understand it, therefore it is fake.
Take your pick.

<snip for brevity>

Well spoken and differentiated.  :)
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #521 on: April 03, 2019, 03:40:12 PM »
There was no presumption whatsoever that rollout ended all the installation, adjustment, and repair activity in all parts of the vehicle.  For Jr Knowing to keep presuming this is, at this point, just plain absurd.

Indeed, it makes no sense. Even the fact that the vehicle was stacked some two months prior to launch should be indicative that other things were being done after this point. In JR's world they apparently just had a fully prepped vehicle sitting around for weeks doing nothing.

Quote
For situations like the staging and range safety charges, the explosives must be built into the structures they are meant to sever and can't be charged easily on the pad.  But the detonators for them aren't present until just prior to launch.

Yes, those are the ones I was thinking of. The idea that you'd have anything like a staging or range safety pyro device primed and ready before the last practically possible moment is absurd. Especially things like the range safety charges, the whole purpose of which is to split open the fuel and oxidiser tanks on the vehicle and destroy it. I know I wouldn't want to be looking at the rocket on the pad weeks before launch only to see it suddenly and unexpectedly split down the side and crumple like a house of cards!

Quote
If there are mandatory post-rollout activities, then the notion that the rolled-out configuration of the vehicle is somehow inviolate is immediately a non-starter.

And it follows that if there are mandatory post-rollout activities, there is also the possibility of 'last minute' alterations that can be carried out because the infrastructure in place for the mandatory activities allows it. So, the work platforms inside the SLA may not have been put there specifically so technicians could add more thermal foil wrapping to the legs, or add plume deflectors, but when the suggestion that these things were required was made, the fact that such structures exisited made it practical and possible to make those alterations post-rollout.
"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

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #522 on: April 03, 2019, 03:57:13 PM »
It speaks to the notion that people like to understand the world around them, and largely the world doesn't present them with problems they can't reason through.  If you accept that, then it's not hard to extend it to mean that everything you observe should have a simple enough explanation.

Being a scientist, this I think is the key point. People do like to understand the world around them, but people can satisfy themselves with different levels of understanding. I took my desire to understand into the biological realms, primarily. I'm a biochemist. I deal with things on the molecular scale that explain why I can, say, mix a blood plasma sample from a person with a bunch of liquids in a plastic plate that will create a colour change that allows me to say that person has a particular illness. I chose to deepend my understanding via years of academic study and professional experience, and continuing interest in the developments in the field. On the other hand, I am happy to be typing this on a computer with a touchscreen and wi-fi and be blissfully ignorant of precisely how this thing works, whether that be the semiconductor quantum physics that makes the little magic black boxes with metal legs on that green board with copper lines all over it work, or the complex software coding that makes all this stuff do what I tell it to through tapping on this alphanumeric keypad or running my finger over the screen.

There is nothing wrong with this selective depth of understanding. There is far too much in the world for anyone to have a good depth of understanding of all of it. The difference comes in what I do with those different levels of knowledge. If someone wants my views on the subject of biochemistry I can talk quite a lot about it and be reaosnably confident that I am right (though open to correction or double checking). If someone wants my opinion on how to build a computer, I would have to decline and point to someone else I know who is more knowledgeable. With a conspiracist mindset, however, I'd insist I could build one because I read a book once and can google up some advice, and then I'd blame the operator when it failed because it must be right because my understanding is obviously enough, so if reality fails to behave as I expect some external force must explain it.
"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

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3132
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #523 on: April 03, 2019, 04:01:02 PM »
It speaks to the notion that people like to understand the world around them, and largely the world doesn't present them with problems they can't reason through.  If you accept that, then it's not hard to extend it to mean that everything you observe should have a simple enough explanation.

Being a scientist, this I think is the key point. People do like to understand the world around them, but people can satisfy themselves with different levels of understanding. I took my desire to understand into the biological realms, primarily. I'm a biochemist. I deal with things on the molecular scale that explain why I can, say, mix a blood plasma sample from a person with a bunch of liquids in a plastic plate that will create a colour change that allows me to say that person has a particular illness. I chose to deepend my understanding via years of academic study and professional experience, and continuing interest in the developments in the field. On the other hand, I am happy to be typing this on a computer with a touchscreen and wi-fi and be blissfully ignorant of precisely how this thing works, whether that be the semiconductor quantum physics that makes the little magic black boxes with metal legs on that green board with copper lines all over it work, or the complex software coding that makes all this stuff do what I tell it to through tapping on this alphanumeric keypad or running my finger over the screen.

There is nothing wrong with this selective depth of understanding. There is far too much in the world for anyone to have a good depth of understanding of all of it. The difference comes in what I do with those different levels of knowledge. If someone wants my views on the subject of biochemistry I can talk quite a lot about it and be reaosnably confident that I am right (though open to correction or double checking). If someone wants my opinion on how to build a computer, I would have to decline and point to someone else I know who is more knowledgeable. With a conspiracist mindset, however, I'd insist I could build one because I read a book once and can google up some advice, and then I'd blame the operator when it failed because it must be right because my understanding is obviously enough, so if reality fails to behave as I expect some external force must explain it.

Isn't that how it always is?
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline jr Knowing

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 127
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #524 on: April 03, 2019, 07:35:40 PM »
I can't get beyond "if it was fake, why would they do something you claim proves it was fake?"  Because if all this is a proof the missions were faked, it's so obvious.  This isn't hidden.  This isn't revealed after extensive effort, because it's quite clear no effort has been expended to understand the Apollo missions.  This is a whole bunch of readily available information.  So either NASA was spectacularly bad at faking a Moon mission yet somehow fooled everyone who had a reason to want to make NASA look bad at the time or else the whole idea that it proves a hoax is based on faulty expectations.  Now, I ask you--which is the more logical answer?

Though I expect jr Knowing to ignore me again.

Hi Gillianren,

What you say does make sense if you believe people in this world operate as one expects. But this world doesn't always operate this way. Overt, blatant, caught on film actions of governments such as the Saudi murder of the Washington Post columnist or literally 40 Mossad agents conspiring to kill a Hamas leader in a hotel barely creates a peep from governments even unfriendly governments. Why is that? And that is overt, blatant actions, what about less obvious actions? Hmmm... Hell you can have a complete genocide of millions of Rwandans and all countries become blind, deaf and dumb. To this day, you would probably be hard pressed to find even get 1 American in 100 that can tell you that Rwanda is even a country let alone the atrocity that went on. And you wonder how 6 or 7 fake manned flights to the moon might have been glossed over by other countries? Not saying it happened but countries, don't kid yourself, operate in ways we will never understand. So remember when Russia states they didn't shoot that Ukrainian passenger airline out of the air, they really didn't, wink wink, nudge nudge because the US government would have been all over them.