Apollo XIII-inconsistences

[JayUtah]

...time to open a thread about it.

Learn something first.  Recitations of your incompetence are unconvincing.

[onebigmonkey]

Best not to mention the Russian and American probes ... are a joke, there is the case of surveyor III, examine those three small motors with three fixed nozzles oriented in the same direction ... how he would maneuver in space? see the "robotic arm" and tell me if not for a laugh.

The joke is that you have just demonstrated how little you know about the SUrveyor missions.

We must accept by faith that in the '60s, the US and the USSR were able to land the rocket engine driven devices that were not controlled by computer (not yet existed that capacity).

Nope, we must accept that they did that, because they did, and your complete lack of knowledge in yet another field of human endeavour is no proof that anything different happened.

I do not think so,

Well that's just tough...

I never saw a single prototype manned spacecraft or not able to land safely and controlled here on Earth, then how can we believe that they got done on other planets?

Don't translate "I" to "we".  You've demonstrated time and again that you are completely ignorant of anything on which you claim to have expertise, so your belief doesn't really count for anything. Prove it's impossible.

[ka9q]

Mae hyn yn hwyl.

Sí. Oui. Ja. Да. Vâng. はい。Oo. Tak. 是。Kyllä. Ναι. हाँ।

[Jason Thompson]

The individual testimonies can be arranged with money

You know what else can be arranged with money? Building stuff to go to the Moon. A lot of money was very visibly spent on Apollo, so how much more do you think was needed to pay off every single person involved to keep quiet? Why do you think every single person involved would accept such a payout to lie rather than exposing the fraud? Are you that easily bought?

prefer watching photos and videos, and draw my own conclusions.

The ability to draw conclusions requires the ability to understand what you are watching. So far you have not demonstrated any ability to do so. For example, what have you to say about the demonstrations on this thread that your claim about the 'missing' service module in the Apollo 13 pictures is wrong?

I do not believe in the moon landings for many reasons, it would be long to describe here, but hopefully next week me time to open a thread about it.

You have questions outstanding in your existing threads. Answer them, or must we conclude that opening a new thread instead is a concession that you actually cannot address those questions?

Just from me, the outstanding questions on both threads are:

Why have you not addressed the demonstrations regarding the visibility of the service module?

If Earth appears to be 2 degrees across from 400,000km away, how big would it appear to be from 800,000km away?

[ka9q]

During and after the French revolution, high society on London became infatuated with their new found French aristocrat asylum seekers and adopted more French ways of spelling.

Zing! Accusing the Brits of being corrupted by the French! That's gotta hurt.

[ka9q]

Best not to mention the Russian and American probes ... are a joke, there is the case of surveyor III, examine those three small motors with three fixed nozzles oriented in the same direction ... how he would maneuver in space?

You know, all you have to do is a little reading and you'd have your answer. You don't even have to get deep into the many technical reports openly published on Surveyor by NASA; it's right in the Press Kit distributed to the media and the public before the launch.

If you'd read it, you'd know that attitude control in space was performed with pairs of nitrogen gas jets on the ends of each leg, pointed in opposite directions. Midcourse corrections were performed with a separate set of larger bipropellant "vernier" engines that could be rapidly turned on and off to control average thrust and thereby provide pitch and roll control. One of the vernier engines was on a swivel to control yaw attitude. These same vernier engines were used for the final landing after the big solid-fuel retrorocket was fired and jettisoned.

All you have to do is read and you'd have your answers. But you have to actually want them.

[Peter B]

Best not to mention the Russian and American probes ... are a joke...

Which ones? All of them? Either way, why didn't the losers demonstrate the winners had faked it? If the Soviets faked sending a spacecraft to the Moon, why didn't the Americans prove the fakery? That would have been a huge propaganda coup at the height of the Cold War.

Or is the Cold War a fake to you too?

...there is the case of surveyor III, examine those three small motors with three fixed nozzles oriented in the same direction ... how he would maneuver in space? see the "robotic arm" and tell me if not for a laugh.

Others have already pointed out your ignorance, so I'll leave that.

We must accept by faith that in the '60s, the US and the USSR were able to land the rocket engine driven devices that were not controlled by computer (not yet existed that capacity).

No. Other countries had the ability to track spacecraft. If you watch the TV series "The Planets" you'll find the British tracked a Soviet spacecraft to the Moon. Even private individuals were able to obtain signals from Apollo spacecraft at the Moon: Google the name Sven Grahn.

Then there's the evidence the Apollo astronauts brought back from the Moon - the rocks - which have been examined by scientists from around the world, almost certainly including whichever country you call home. All of them accept that these rocks are genuinely from the Moon and were retrieved from there by astronauts.

I do not think so, I never saw a single prototype manned spacecraft or not able to land safely and controlled here on Earth, then how can we believe that they got done on other planets?

Again, others have pointed out the error of your theorising. Designing a spacecraft to land on the Earth is very different from designing a spacecraft to land on the Moon. Testing a lunar landing by trying to land it on the Earth makes no sense.

[Peter B]

Ah, good. At least you acknowledge that a big rocket took off. A rocket that was big enough to get to the Moon.

No, the size of a rocket does not demonstrate its reach, impresses to give a good show but nothing more.

True. But the Saturn V has been used as a basis for study by rocket engineers around the world for decades. If you think it was a fake in some way, don't you think the people who designed Ariane would have noticed? Or the Japanese or Indians or Chinese or Israelis or even North Koreans, all of whom have sent rockets into space? What incentive do they have to keep quiet?

The individual testimonies can be arranged with money, 9/11 is full of false witness, prefer watching photos and videos, and draw my own conclusions.
I do not believe in the moon landings for many reasons, it would be long to describe here, but hopefully next week me time to open a thread about it.

Okay then, what about the scientists from around the world who have examined Apollo rocks? They universally agree that the Apollo rocks show signs of having formed in a low-gravity vacuum, and of being exposed to varying extents to the solar wind. These are features which simply can not be created on Earth. As far as the scientists are concerned, the Apollo rocks are rocks genuinely from the Moon. What do thousands of scientists from around the world have to gain by agreeing to go along with a NASA fake?

[Dalhousie]

Okay then, what about the scientists from around the world who have examined Apollo rocks? They universally agree that the Apollo rocks show signs of having formed in a low-gravity vacuum, and of being exposed to varying extents to the solar wind. These are features which simply can not be created on Earth. As far as the scientists are concerned, the Apollo rocks are rocks genuinely from the Moon. What do thousands of scientists from around the world have to gain by agreeing to go along with a NASA fake?

There is absolutely no doubt that the Apollo samples are from the Moon but I wish people would not keep repeating the false claim you can tell they formed in a low gravity environment.

[bknight]

Okay then, what about the scientists from around the world who have examined Apollo rocks? They universally agree that the Apollo rocks show signs of having formed in a low-gravity vacuum, and of being exposed to varying extents to the solar wind. These are features which simply can not be created on Earth. As far as the scientists are concerned, the Apollo rocks are rocks genuinely from the Moon. What do thousands of scientists from around the world have to gain by agreeing to go along with a NASA fake?

There is absolutely no doubt that the Apollo samples are from the Moon but I wish people would not keep repeating the false claim you can tell they formed in a low gravity environment.

And the zap pits on the exposed surfaces.

[twik]

Going completely off topic now, the evolution of languages can be fascinating. Ever notice that Shakespeare seems to get a lot of rhymes wrong? That's because, in his day, the words did rhyme. The pronunciation that his actors would have used would have been far from the standard "received pronunciation" that the Royal Shakespeare Company uses - it has been described as "sexy pirate".

Which, incidentally, is one reason for the Hollywood "pirate" accent. Apparently, the old pronunciations lingered in outflung areas like Cornwall long after the modern accents became the rage in London. Cornwall is where many British sailors came from in the age of piracy. So, the "arrrh!" accent is not just a Hollywood oddity. It's actually close to the way pirates like Long John Silver would have spoken.

That Hollywood got it approximately right quite boggles my mind.

[Count Zero]

Mynd you, møøse bites Kan be pretti nasti...

[gillianren]

That Hollywood got it approximately right quite boggles my mind.

Coincidence, in fact.  The most famous Long John Silver, Robert Newton, was born in Dorset.  His "pirate voice" was just an exaggeration of his actual accent.

[PetersCreek]

Irrelevant.  Computers are not the be-all and end-all of technology.  We did (and still do) many things without computers.

And we do things with computers today that we did just fine (or at least well enough) without.  My toaster is equipped with a microprocessor.  That doesn't mean toast was a hoax in the 1960s.

[Sus_pilot]

Irrelevant.  Computers are not the be-all and end-all of technology.  We did (and still do) many things without computers.

And we do things with computers today that we did just fine (or at least well enough) without.  My toaster is equipped with a microprocessor.  That doesn't mean toast was a hoax in the 1960s.

Actually, sometimes I'd rather do without.  I'm still arguing with my toaster's microprocessor as to the right settings for bagels vs. English muffins.  The old rheostat-based one seemed to do better...