Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast

[Luke Pemberton]

I cannot understand how any reasonable person can look at that and not see how ridiculous it would be to fake that in 1972.

I look at it and think how brave they were and how incredible the whole Apollo Program was to get them there and back.

[Peter B]

If there was NO STATIC PRESSURE component - I believe this would have been slam-dunk proof of the hoax.  I could have been made aware of this with a few paragraphs of good faith teaching.

No. You rejected Bob Braeunig's claim to that effect categorically on page 1 of this thread. That it's taken us 30 pages of remedial physics to convince you against your will that such a thing exists is not a sin you get to lay at your teachers' feet. That you've concocted a physically broken argument to justify your reversal does not entitle you to crow about your skill, knowledge, and forthrightness.

"rejected":  A post which only existed for 2 years, then yanked down 7 years ago....  with NO NUMERICAL ANALYSIS.  NONE.  And by a guy who claimed to be "an ordinary guy".  So pardon me for not taking his few-sentences of unsupported text as gospel.

"Unsupported text"?

I earlier suggested you should visit Bob's site. Can I assume from this statement that you haven't visited his site?

[JayUtah]

"Unsupported text"?

I earlier suggested you should visit Bob's site. Can I assume from this statement that you haven't visited his site?

Bob didn't provide any estimate of the magnitude of the effect of gas partially trapped between the stages. We left it at discussing and agreeing on a method to determine it, but no one carried it out because (as you can see) it's fairly involved. Najak asked me if I would actually carry it out and thereby supposedly win fame and glory as the person "finally" to have debunked what he seems to think is a longstanding problem in Apollo technical history. However, what he evidently expected was for me to do a lot of work on my own to produce a simple conclusion he could just brush aside as I had seen him do before. So I took a different approach in which I required Najak to sign off on the method as we go by participating in it. In the process of bringing him along, we discovered just how little he really knew about how rockets produce thrust. We had to peel back a lot of bluster and evasion to get him back on track. If you read the thread from the beginning, you see that Najak's particular student quirk is to "get out over his skis" as we say here in Utah and try to push each new partially mastered concept to some final solution on its own.

When his patience and knowledge ran out, he took a couple of the partially-mastered concepts and cobbled up a spreadsheet that he says gives plausible numbers and provides a "very simple" solution to his question—no thanks to anyone else. What he evidently didn't plan on was people from this forum watching while he took those same partially-mastered concepts over to Stack Exchange to get help on a related problem, and was politely laughed at. There, he had no problem admitting he didn't know what he was doing and would they please help him. The thrust model they laughed at is only one of many problems with his proposed solution, another being that he has strangely limited the scope of examination to the engine itself. That's akin to limiting your cookie recipe to the eggs, butter, and sugar alone. But his spreadsheet gets numbers he says he can be happy with, so according to him we're done and he wins because he figured it out all by himself and made a mealy-mouthed retraction. To forestall an examination of his method or the continuation of his education such as he sought at Stack Exchange, he has gone to comical lengths to assure us the subject needs no further elaboration since he has withdrawn the claim that LM liftoff performance is evidence of a hoax.

[najak]

I look at it and think how brave they were and how incredible the whole Apollo Program was to get them there and back.

I look at it, currently, and feel sorry for the burden carried by that astronauts who carried more conscience about lying - such as Armstrong..  and subversively Aldrin (alcoholism, life fell apart)... In my view, they were told "Failure is not an option; the engineers have failed.  Now WE, the military, have to finish-their-job for them."   Patriotically, they did their duty and held to their oaths.  I don't look down on the astronauts, nor the engineers.   This was an IMPOSSIBLE task in that era.   As we're seeing now... 20 years+, and still slipping schedule with 1000x more fidelity of tech... PLUS supposedly being able to build upon the success of Apollo.   Yet we STILL can't launch anything to the moon more than 60,000 lbs, just over HALF of what SaturnV claimed to have done (with minimal flight testing or validations).   Shouldn't we, by now, be able to at least MATCH this?   Instead, we're talking with Artemis about "15 refuelings in earth orbit" just to get there with double the load.

So there is no shame for these engineers.  Valiant attempt, and lots of new tech progress as a result, especially for rocketry, orbital mechanics, space-related stuff, and computing.  There is no shame for the Patriotic military men who kept their oath for sake of national interests.   And it's above my pay grade to criticize the world leaders -- we can view govt as good or bad, for various reasons.   And thus things that promote "better govt confidence" will likewise be good or bad.    Was the boost in human morale in that day-age justification for the hoax?  The Russian-USA space alliance worth it?  The continued confidence that permitted the Space Shuttle to continue (as Apollo's announced failure may have caused NASA to lose all budget).   Astronauts keeping their oath, were also protecting the future of NASA - our ability to continue towards space tech.  Lots of good reasons for the lie.

[najak]

I detailed one of them above where we see astronauts walking around the identical LM and backdrop on Apollo 17. Well, it didn't occur to me that Apollo 16 would also provide such clear and obvious evidence. But oh does it ever!

So you are saying that these two scenes are impossible to fake?  Left side is when astronauts were walking around...  then MANY CUTS LATER... we see the LM launch (right side).

This low rez.   Many cuts.  Still camera.  The ground is a different color.   Launch image lighting is blown-out... very hard to see details (on purpose to hide detail?).

To make a model/set to match what they saw in the Astronauts Walking clips - seems feasible to me.   Not to you?   That's OK - present this as your smoking-gun if you like.

Here your proof is that "specialist/expert/artist humans with a high budget" aren't able to reproduce a smaller replica scene to match real video - at LOW RESOLUTION.   Good luck with this 100% proof that you think this is.

Meanwhile, you reject the SIMPLE CONTEXT proof of the A14 5-flag motions TOWARDS the LM.   Here we aren't dealing with "humans trying to fool you" - just a vacuum of nothingness and a hanging piece of nylon cloth - being pushed on screen by NOTHING.

[Luke Pemberton]

I look at it and think how brave they were and how incredible the whole Apollo Program was to get them there and back.
So there is no shame for these engineers.  Valiant attempt, and lots of new tech progress as a result, especially for rocketry, orbital mechanics, space-related stuff, and computing.

So a leap in technology, but the things they built and coded didn't work. 

[Luke Pemberton]

So there is no shame for these engineers.  Valiant attempt, and lots of new tech progress as a result, especially for rocketry, orbital mechanics, space-related stuff, and computing.

So a leap in technology, but the things they built and coded didn't work. 

[Mag40]

Okie-dokie - magic models and a team to build them, a team to do the launch models which match the very "anomaly" you fumbled with ignorance.

Now bloody prove any of that shite. As usual the hoax claimant makes a claim of how they think something could be done and voila they think that is all they need!

The above "analysis" deliberately uses a crappy lunar liftoff image - that's deceit.



The footage all around the launch has camera pans, zooms and matching terrain exactly. Just imagine how much hassle and effort as NASA moved into the fifth/sixth (totally unnecessary) landings and increased footage and risk dramatically with staging a launch from the Moon. Occam must be turning in his grave at this apopalling logic vacuum being demonstrated.

[najak]

So a leap in technology, but the things they built and coded didn't work. 

Yes, leaps in tech.  But "landing humans on the moon" was the big stopper.  Some MLH argue that we never left LOE - as even NOW, our most powerful rocket, SLS, STILL can only lift 55% of the SaturnV load.   And Artemis' best plan for landing double the load (220klbs) is "15 refuelings".

Much work was done..  95%+ of Apollo work was real.  That's the MLH theory.  They REALLY REALLY TRIED, and due to compartmentalization, believed it worked.  And loved that they could put this "success" on their resume, vs. a failure.   Who'd want to face societal banishment/rejection for the sake of undermining your own resume, while at same time, attacking "World Peace/Unity" and the new wave of Russian/USA alliance, and the continued optimism of building a Space Station?   So any half-skeptics didn't have motivation to "do extra work, to destroy the ground beneath them".

So MOST of it worked.  Just not the LM... that's my belief.   And other MLH argues also that the SaturnV was incapable of delivering 110,000 lbs to the moon...  which does match up to the fact that even today, SLS can only do 59,000 lbs.

[najak]

The footage all around the launch has camera pans, zooms and matching terrain exactly. Just imagine how much hassle and effort as NASA moved into the fifth/sixth (totally unnecessary) landings and increased footage and risk dramatically with staging a launch from the Moon. Occam must be turning in his grave at this apopalling logic vacuum being demonstrated.

When dealing with "human deception on a high budget with high stakes" -- Occam isn't as applicable.

For example, JFK's assassination... simplest explanation is "single shooter"... done.   If Bay of Pigs had succeeded, here again... the simplest explanation would have been wrong.   For Daniel Ellsberg and Vietnam -- Occam would have failed again.    When human deception is afoot -- Occam's principle holds less relevance.

[Mag40]

that's my belief

Nobody gives a crap about your belief. Another thread where you show pure ignorance of rocket technology.

[Mag40]

When dealing with "human deception on a high budget with high stakes" -- Occam isn't as applicable.

Magic budget noted. No mention of the increasing numbers needed just for these needless lunar videos.

For example, JFK's assassination...

Pathetic comparison, orders of magnitude less complicated. 

If Bay of Pigs...

You have made that point previously - another pathetic comparison.

[jfb]

"get out over his skis" as we say here in Utah

The Netflix series "Landman" introduced me to a wonderful variation on the phrase that, being Texan and thus contractually obligated to worship all things football, I'm ashamed I hadn't heard before -- "son, I think you've out-kicked your coverage on this one." 

A few months ago I was privately lamenting the lack of traffic on this site; najak has just reinforced the aphorism "do not wish for things you do not want."   

No, I have nothing useful to contribute, but I don't think it matters much. 

[JayUtah]

When dealing with "human deception on a high budget with high stakes" -- Occam isn't as applicable.

But you're begging the question of human deception when the purpose of Occam's razor is to properly place such a hypothesis in perspective.

[bknight]

Indeed.  ^^^^^^