Conclusive Proof the Moon Landings were Faked

[Jason Thompson]

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.

[najak]

#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.

[najak]

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) ??

[ApolloEnthusiast]

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.

[Jason Thompson]

#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.

[najak]

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.

[Zakalwe]

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

[ApolloEnthusiast]

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.

[BertieSlack]

#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.........

[Jason Thompson]

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?! 

[onebigmonkey]

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.

[najak]

#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?

[najak]

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.

[Zakalwe]

#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.

[Jason Thompson]

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]