Conclusive Proof the Moon Landings were Faked

[Zakalwe]

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.

[BertieSlack]

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.

[onebigmonkey]

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.

[Peter B]

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.

[Jason Thompson]

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?

[najak]

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?

[najak]

#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".

[najak]

#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.

[onebigmonkey]

#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.

[Jason Thompson]

"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.

[najak]

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.

[Mag40]

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.

[najak]

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".

[Mag40]

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.

[najak]

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?