Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast

[Peter B]

"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involved...[Najak] has gone to comical lengths to assure us the subject needs no further elaboration since he has withdrawn the claim that LM liftoff performance is evidence of a hoax.

I absolutely get this. I was wanting to call out Najak for his casual rejection of Bob's knowledge of the topic. Back on 19 December in the 'Conclusive Proof' thread I made this comment (Reply #549):

LOL, it's funny watching you patiently explain aspects of rocket science to actual rocket scientists...

Najak replied (Reply #550):

...Why do you think Braeunig could produce a reasonable trajectory estimation using a spreadsheet with algebraic math?

At Reply #577 I invited Najak:

Just visit his website and you'll see.

I've visited Bob's website and I'm blown away by the comprehensiveness of his explanation of rocketry and orbital mechanics. And while I can't find it, I remember the accuracy of the 2D animation he created of an Apollo free-return trajectory.

This is why, when I saw Najak's throwaway characterisation in this thread of Bob's website as "unsupported text", I was annoyed enough to remind him of our earlier conversation.

So, Najak, do you stand by your characterisation of Bob's website as "unsupported text"?

[bknight]

"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involved...[Najak] has gone to comical lengths to assure us the subject needs no further elaboration since he has withdrawn the claim that LM liftoff performance is evidence of a hoax.

I absolutely get this. I was wanting to call out Najak for his casual rejection of Bob's knowledge of the topic. Back on 19 December in the 'Conclusive Proof' thread I made this comment (Reply #549):

LOL, it's funny watching you patiently explain aspects of rocket science to actual rocket scientists...

Najak replied (Reply #550):

...Why do you think Braeunig could produce a reasonable trajectory estimation using a spreadsheet with algebraic math?

At Reply #577 I invited Najak:

Just visit his website and you'll see.

I've visited Bob's website and I'm blown away by the comprehensiveness of his explanation of rocketry and orbital mechanics. And while I can't find it, I remember the accuracy of the 2D animation he created of an Apollo free-return trajectory.

This is why, when I saw Najak's throwaway characterisation in this thread of Bob's website as "unsupported text", I was annoyed enough to remind him of our earlier conversation.

So, Najak, do you stand by your characterisation of Bob's website as "unsupported text"?

I have discussed with Bob concerning the  velocity profile of the Saturn V, A11.  One attribute I will add about Bob's work, he is meticulous.  And he did not pull his web page down because the Blunder posted a different set of radiation numbers than what Bob had, he pulled it for personal resons.

[Peter B]

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.

What exactly made Apollo "IMPOSSIBLE"?

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.

Such generalisations suggest you don't know anything about Artemis. If you think you do, please list three differences between Apollo and Artemis missions which make Artemis more challenging than Apollo.

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?

There was no "alliance". Prove me wrong.

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.

And you still haven't demonstrated that Apollo needed to be faked. Please provide evidence that Apollo needed to be faked.

[najak]

So, Najak, do you stand by your characterisation of Bob's website as "unsupported text"?

Yes.  It was unsupported.   Unsupported does not mean "false", it just means unsupported.  So for a long-standing claim with no numerically-supported-debunk, this claim remained undebunked.   I realize my own self-debunk is not fully correct, but provides enough of an estimate for a component I didn't imagine to be much (mostly because no one ever supported it with a numeric-based analysis) - that I consider this "debunked enough" - as I can now imagine the full-debunk will suffice.

I would have accepted nearly ANY numerical analysis of Static Pressure, if one had been provided.  I just wasn't wanting to be "the one who did it" because I realize that the fluid/thermo/rocket dynamics involved were specialized.   I've learned a fair amount now, that really equates to about 1 hour of learning + a few hours of applying a very simple fluid dynamics equation concept.  If someone else had already done SOME numerical analysis here, I'd have GLADLY accepted it, and plugged it into my model.

I am not resistant to learning here.  Never have been.   People confused my approach, "strong stick man", with unwavering conviction.  I don't dig my heels in when new information or logic is presented, but my approach is to "present a stick man strongly, and defend it -- see if it can survive".  It's a viable method to get answers... and is similar to how Bill Gates ran his meetings -- "always make a decision, never defer" -- then you can throw stones at the stickman and improve it or tear it down for replacement.   I prefer this method.

It's how I became MLH in the first place... responding to new information, and swallowing a semi-world-view transforming pill, a piece at a time.  It was a senior engineering friend from Rose-Hulman Inst of Tech who had spent most of his life traveling the world as an engineering representative for various automotive/trucking engine manufacturers...  and the views overseas aren't as uniform as it is here.  He tried to convince me at the bar side of his indoor pool.   I told him he was crazy, and laughed it off.  We lived next door to him from 2012 to 2018... so periodically we chatted on it, and I challenged him.

In the end, I see enough that "smells far to fishy" for me to not investigate further/deeper.

This process isn't science/engineering as much as it is "detective work", which relies a lot more on behaviors/motives/means/patterns to create your theories.   Then you try to see if you can make the shoe fit.  I'd really appreciate the chance to talk through the rest of the items on my list, to see which ones hold water, which ones don't.

[najak]

And you still haven't demonstrated that Apollo needed to be faked. Please provide evidence that Apollo needed to be faked.

I've LOVE to do that.  But it's multi-faceted, and LO won't allow it.

[LunarOrbit]

And you still haven't demonstrated that Apollo needed to be faked. Please provide evidence that Apollo needed to be faked.

I've LOVE to do that.  But it's multi-faceted, and LO won't allow it.

The only person stopping you from moving on to new topics is you. As long as you keep dismissing good explanations for your claims as "not viable" you're telling us there is still work to be done.

[najak]

The only person stopping you from moving on to new topics is you. As long as you keep dismissing good explanations for your claims as "not viable" you're telling us there is still work to be done.

Salem.Witch.Trials - also were run this way.   Your idea of "good explanations" is one-sided...  if I do not agree with you, then I'm not allowed to post more threads.

BUT, I HAVE conceded THIS THREAD LONG AGO...  fully accepted that my claim was NON-VIABLE.   So may I create a new thread, to honor my "good behavior"?

[ApolloEnthusiast]

I am not resistant to learning here.  Never have been.   People confused my approach, "strong stick man", with unwavering conviction.  I don't dig my heels in when new information or logic is presented,

You must have zero self awareness. The impression you have of yourself has absolutely nothing in common with the impression the rest of the world has of you.

This process isn't science/engineering as much as it is "detective work", which relies a lot more on behaviors/motives/means/patterns to create your theories.   Then you try to see if you can make the shoe fit.

This is not how rational people do things. You don't start with a conclusion and then see if you can gather data that makes it seem real. You gather information and allow the conclusion to follow naturally from the analysis of the data. If you are trying to "make the shoe fit" you're doing it completely backwards.

I'd really appreciate the chance to talk through the rest of the items on my list, to see which ones hold water, which ones don't.

Let's just skip the list and go right to the end. None of the items on your list hold water. Any speculation that attempts to deny reality will be inherently false. And despite that, nothing anyone can say or do will change your mind about any of them. If someone flew you to the Moon right now and showed you the actual landing sites you would almost certainly say that they were planted there after the fact in order to preserve the lie.

[LunarOrbit]

The only person stopping you from moving on to new topics is you. As long as you keep dismissing good explanations for your claims as "not viable" you're telling us there is still work to be done.

Salem.Witch.Trials - also were run this way.   Your idea of "good explanations" is one-sided...  if I do not agree with you, then I'm not allowed to post more threads.

BUT, I HAVE conceded THIS THREAD LONG AGO...  fully accepted that my claim was NON-VIABLE.   So may I create a new thread, to honor my "good behavior"?

Say your goodbyes. I'm done with you.

[Jason Thompson]

This process isn't science/engineering as much as it is "detective work", which relies a lot more on behaviors/motives/means/patterns to create your theories.   Then you try to see if you can make the shoe fit.

No, that really isn't how logic and reasoning work. Either Apollo happened as advertised or it didn't. Your approach is akin to expending huge amounts of time on establishing if I have the means, motive and opportunity to murder someone and trying to convict me before taking the steps of establishing if the alleged victim is actually dead in the first place.

[Peter B]

This process isn't science/engineering as much as it is "detective work", which relies a lot more on behaviors/motives/means/patterns to create your theories.   Then you try to see if you can make the shoe fit.

No, that really isn't how logic and reasoning work. Either Apollo happened as advertised or it didn't. Your approach is akin to expending huge amounts of time on establishing if I have the means, motive and opportunity to murder someone and trying to convict me before taking the steps of establishing if the alleged victim is actually dead in the first place.

Similar approach to the argument Najak presented in the 'Conclusive Proof' thread:

...I will purposefully discount the weight of NASA/historic claims and Moon-Science Claims, as I believe it's possible that NASA has maintained control of "Scientific Consensus" for this field.  (which is true, if MLH is true)

To which I replied:

First, regarding your claim that “NASA has maintained control of the scientific consensus for this field”, you (once again) haven’t provided any evidence for this.

Second, you don’t get to a priori dismiss evidence supporting a claim, solely on the basis that if the claim were false then the supporting evidence would consequently be false. That’s a circular argument.

“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you should disregard the CCTV video of my client punching the victim, because if he’s innocent then this video must be fake.”

[Jason Thompson]

This process isn't science/engineering as much as it is "detective work", which relies a lot more on behaviors/motives/means/patterns to create your theories.   Then you try to see if you can make the shoe fit.

No, that really isn't how logic and reasoning work. Either Apollo happened as advertised or it didn't. Your approach is akin to expending huge amounts of time on establishing if I have the means, motive and opportunity to murder someone and trying to convict me before taking the steps of establishing if the alleged victim is actually dead in the first place.

Meant to add this when I posted, but also if your arguments relate to how the equipment worked, whether it be a steerable S-band antenna, the LLTV, the AGC, then it very much IS science/engineering.

[najak]

No, that really isn't how logic and reasoning work. Either Apollo happened as advertised or it didn't. Your approach is akin to expending huge amounts of time on establishing if I have the means, motive and opportunity to murder someone and trying to convict me before taking the steps of establishing if the alleged victim is actually dead in the first place.

For MLH, it's more like a crime investigation, dealing with deception... "testimonies that aren't honest or complete" -- the detective's main tool is to "look for holes in the story".   When there are holes, they have to theorize other storylines that accommodate those holes, and use means/motive as a key contributor to imagining what the actual truth might be... then it's iterative.  In science, we aren't dealing with "human deception" -- but rather repeatable, measurable behavior - which is "honest".

[najak]

Meant to add this when I posted, but also if your arguments relate to how the equipment worked, whether it be a steerable S-band antenna, the LLTV, the AGC, then it very much IS science/engineering.

Correct... but the rationale for examining this evidence is more like criminal investigation.  This behavior is highly unlikely in the presented normal context.   Noting the behavior that is consistent with the MLH theory (signs of gravity) makes it a piece evidence for MLH, for which the best rebuttal is what you explained.   So we present BOTH sides for this evidence, and MOVE ON.  This thread is dead, complete, with nothing new to be said.

I get that the people here don't want to see more such claims - which is why no one else is encouraging LO to allow some new threads with new content -- instead of beating these dead horses.

[Mag40]

Correct... but the rationale for examining this evidence is more like criminal investigation.  This behavior is highly unlikely in the presented normal context.   Noting the behavior that is consistent with the MLH theory (signs of gravity) makes it a piece evidence for MLH, for which the best rebuttal is what you explained.   So we present BOTH sides for this evidence, and MOVE ON.  This thread is dead, complete, with nothing new to be said.

That is just bollocks. You know and everyone her knows that your overall weight of knowledge on the Apollo missions is appallingly low.

Compared to many here, I reckon I'm at around 40% and that has taken considerable effort. A long time ago I was of the opinion it didn't happen, so clueless was I that I didn't even know about things like the rocks or surface experiments. As I looked into it, it became clear that there was an ever increasing case that it most certainly did occur. I was not tied in to my belief, it was just a suspicion.

You have a major problem. You are completely locked into this confirmation bias. If you were to approach every detail with some sort of neutrality and with more objectivity, your knee-jerk denial removed!, that would be a far better way to conduct yourself.

I get that the people here don't want to see more such claims - which is why no one else is encouraging LO to allow some new threads with new content -- instead of beating these dead horses.

Not true. It's not the claims at all. It's the repetition and your very bad attitude. You simply are oblivious to how badly you have come across. How can you possibly stand there lecturing people who have complex knowledge of the machinery when you clearly just read some of it?

I urge LunarOrbit not to kick you out just yet and I urge you to apologise for the "Salem witch" comment (which appeared to tip the scales) and ask for one more chance. I'm ok with a bit of debate, not because I find your comments or observations helpful, but because every time without fail there are new aspects of Apollo I get to find out about.

Nobody expects any HB to suddenly reverse direction but there's ways of disagreeing about things that involve more diplomacy than you are currently exhibiting. This thread is not done by far.

Why don't you work with JayUtah and let him put this claim 100% to bed. An absence of firm evidence is ok but nothing beats irrefutable. Your hurry to blast into more threads is bizarre - this is 50+ years old, it's not going anywhere.