why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?

[Bob B.]

Alex, how many socks are in your drawer?

[Abaddon]

Come on alexsanchez, why are you afraid? Up thread, I identified me and my patent. Why are you scared?

[raven]

Oh boy, when conspiracy theorists say they didn't test things.
It's like when they say every photo was perfect, as it shows a critical lack of research.
"Alex", are you aware of Apollo 5, testing the LM unmanned in orbit? How about Apollo 9, where it was tested manned in Earth orbit? No? What about Apollo 10, testing the whole smash in lunar orbit and had an intentionally short fuelled LM ascent stage so that Snoopy's crew would not get any funny ideas about taking that LM down for the final descent?
Apollo 11 you obviously heard of but seem to be unaware its position as literally the final possible test. As has been asked before, just what in heck was left to test?

[alexsanchez]

I'm a layperson too. But you don't have to be an engineering expert to contest such obviously wrong claims as "the LM was untested."

What is the obvious part?  That it worked?  Only if you take NASA's word for it.  Is there any video of it being tested in flight?  There's video of the LM research vehicle crashing and Armstrong ejecting.

[JayUtah]

Only if you take NASA's word for it.

You keep asserting this is why we disagree with you.  Point to anywhere where any poster here has said simply that they believe NASA and take their word for it.  If you cannot, stop using this straw man.

Is there any video of it being tested in flight?

Apollo 9, 10, and 11.

There's video of the LM research vehicle crashing and Armstrong ejecting.

Why is this relevant to the LM?

Why is this indicative of anything?

[nomuse]

So how much do you really know about movies?  Give me $30 billion and I'll fake it.  Watch 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

Which part?

Do you mean the part where the Earth is lit from the wrong side, is too large, and is in the wrong place in the sky?

Do you mean the part where the lunar terrain is craggy and sharp and quite unlike the Moon we know?

Do you mean the part where stars are perfectly visible in scenes featuring spacecraft with white (or light-colored) hulls (even though said stars form into no recognizable constellations and indeed resemble no part of the night sky).

Do you mean the part where men on a craft traveling across the surface of the Moon move as if in 1G, or the part where men on the surface of the Moon aren't shown in any way being under lunar gravity (aka, the shots are cropped so you often can't even see their lower bodies), or perhaps the part where a pen in zero-G rotates around something other than its own COG?

Perhaps you mean the part where a spacecraft clearly reveals the presence of an atmosphere (in Kubrick's defense, the shot does take place in the depths of an artificial structure that probably does have non-zero contamination by exhausts and similar).

[alexsanchez]

Oh boy, when conspiracy theorists say they didn't test things.
It's like when they say every photo was perfect, as it shows a critical lack of research.
"Alex", are you aware of Apollo 5, testing the LM unmanned in orbit? How about Apollo 9, where it was tested manned in Earth orbit? No? What about Apollo 10, testing the whole smash in lunar orbit and had an intentionally short fuelled LM ascent stage so that Snoopy's crew would not get any funny ideas about taking that LM down for the final descent?
Apollo 11 you obviously heard of but seem to be unaware its position as literally the final possible test. As has been asked before, just what in heck was left to test?

Well, I guess, if NASA said so.

[Laurel]

Only if you take NASA's word for it.

You keep asserting this is why we disagree with you.  Point to anywhere where any poster here has said simply that they believe NASA and take their word for it.  If you cannot, stop using this straw man.

Did you miss Jay's request here?

[JayUtah]

Well, I guess, if NASA said so.

Straw man.  Why can't you speak in any detail about LM testing?  Why do you keep resorting to calling everyone gullible sheep?

You're saying the LM wasn't appropriately tested.  We want to know from you to what extent you are aware the LM was tested.  We also want to know from you what you believe would have constituted a valid LM test, why your test program would be the proper one, and what evidence you can give that the aerospace industry would agree with your reasons.

Put up or shut up.

[JayUtah]

Did you miss Jay's request here?

Of course he didn't.  He's just backed into a corner here, so the only thing he has left is to stick his fingers in his ears, close his eyes, and call everyone around him sheep.

He's way to inexperienced and undereducated to deal with the real topics of aerospace flight test.  I feel embarrassed for him.  He's failed this way so many other times.

[alexsanchez]

So how much do you really know about movies?  Give me $30 billion and I'll fake it.  Watch 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

Which part?

Do you mean the part where the Earth is lit from the wrong side, is too large, and is in the wrong place in the sky?

Do you mean the part where the lunar terrain is craggy and sharp and quite unlike the Moon we know?

Do you mean the part where stars are perfectly visible in scenes featuring spacecraft with white (or light-colored) hulls (even though said stars form into no recognizable constellations and indeed resemble no part of the night sky).

Do you mean the part where men on a craft traveling across the surface of the Moon move as if in 1G, or the part where men on the surface of the Moon aren't shown in any way being under lunar gravity (aka, the shots are cropped so you often can't even see their lower bodies), or perhaps the part where a pen in zero-G rotates around something other than its own COG?

Perhaps you mean the part where a spacecraft clearly reveals the presence of an atmosphere (in Kubrick's defense, the shot does take place in the depths of an artificial structure that probably does have non-zero contamination by exhausts and similar).

The parts in 2001: ASO that looks like they are in zero gravity (they're close enough.)  The scenes shot on the moon were intentionally made to look bad.  Kubrick would have been told to do an intentionally bad job showing them walking on the moon in 1968, a time when he would have been working for NASA.  The moon scenes are the only scenes in the movie that look fake.  The lack of continuity is obvious and sticks out like a sore thumb.  Kubrick knew walking on the moon wouldn't have looked like that.

[LunarOrbit]

NASA can give you all sorts of details about Apollo that I doubt anyone would think of if the whole thing was a hoax. For example, NASA can tell you the estimated weight of the ice that formed on the sides of the Saturn V rocket prior to launch. Now, who would have even thought to include that kind of detail in press kits about a fake moon rocket?

NASA can answer any question that we might ask them about Apollo. Hoax believers can only offer you speculation. That is why I asked Alex where the astronauts were on July 20, 1969. If he can't answer that then he hasn't given an alternative to NASA's version of events.

[Laurel]

The parts in 2001: ASO that looks like they are in zero gravity (they're close enough.)  The scenes shot on the moon were intentionally made to look bad.  Kubrick would have been told to do an intentionally bad job showing them walking on the moon in 1968, a time when he would have been working for NASA.  The moon scenes are the only scenes in the movie that look fake.  The lack of continuity is obvious and sticks out like a sore thumb.  Kubrick knew walking on the moon wouldn't have looked like that.

Oh goody, more unsupported assertion.

[JayUtah]

Kubrick would have been told to do an intentionally bad job showing them walking on the moon in 1968, a time when he would have been working for NASA.

Hysterical.  At first you tell us to look to Kubrick's 2001 for secrets of how to fake the Moon landings.  Then just a few posts later you're telling us NASA told him to make it look bad, lest he give away the secrets.

Are you just making stuff up now?

By the way, I've spoken at length to Anthony Frewin, Kubrick's long-time assistant.  He assures us that Kubrick himself and the Kubrick estate is alternately amused and enraged at the notion that Kubrick was in any way involved with faking a Moon landing.  He's even kind enough to show how the "facts" the hoaxsters tell about Kubrick are unsupported by evidence and in fact roundly contradicted.

Sorry, no one here buys the "Kubrick faked the Moon landings" claim, and that is an informed repudiation.

[Bob B.]

What is the obvious part?  That it worked?  Only if you take NASA's word for it.  Is there any video of it being tested in flight?  There's video of the LM research vehicle crashing and Armstrong ejecting.

For the record, the LLRV was successfully flown hundreds of times.