Apollo XIII-inconsistences

[smartcooky]

I saw a very interesting programme by pretentious knob erudite thinker Melvyn Bragg on the English language.

He suggested (not sure if it was his idea or other scholars) that actually American English is closer to the original British English as brought over by the Pilgrim Fathers with their spelling of such words as 'color',' labor' and 'center',  the use of 'z' instead of 's', 'Fall' instead of Autumn and so on. 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.

Melvyn Bragg and the other one Alan Wicker, what Sundays used to be all about in the UK..

In the late 1970's, Alan Whicker did a TV Commercial and product endorsement for Air New Zealand, associated with their DC-10 fleet. Whicker's face was plastered up on billboards throughout NZ. The TV commercial featured Carly Simon's "Nobody Does It Better" (which was also a Bond movie theme IIRC).

Unfortunately, Air New Zealand then showed how well they did it by flying one of their DC-10s into a mountain in Antarctica, and to add insult, proceeded to cover up the reasons why it happened by employing what Judge Mahon was to later call "an orchestrated littany of lies" 

I don't think Alan Whicker ever promoted another product after that.

[Echnaton]

arkusTay oesnday'tay owknay atwhay ehay isyay alkingtay aboutyay.

Onay hitsay, Herlocksay!

Ytray againway, Atsonway.   

[Sus_pilot]

There are times like this that make me happy to be an English speaker.

Try explaining to a new English speaker why the following words are all pronounced differently:

rough
bough
through
trough
dough

One of my favorite book titles is "The Tuff Cuffs As He Pluffs The Duff"

I'll leave it y'all to look up.

[tarkus]

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.

Why would you think that it didn't go to the Moon. Have you done any analysis of the launch velocity, for example?
How can you reconcile that the cisLunar fuel dumps were seen (and photographed) by independent observers-namely amateur astronomers in England?

Its a start acknowledging that a big rocket took off though. I wonder if you have seen this comedy sketch on your extensive YouTube research??

Of course, you are right that the launch, on it's own, doesn't prove that it (or at least a part of it) went to the Moon. There are thousands of other pieces of evidence that do directly prove that man went to the Moon. If you stick around, you might even learn about some of them (though I doubt that you will stick around...this isn't YouTube after all. The natives answer back with better responses than "hur-hur-hur )

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.

[bknight]

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.

Why would you think that it didn't go to the Moon. Have you done any analysis of the launch velocity, for example?
How can you reconcile that the cisLunar fuel dumps were seen (and photographed) by independent observers-namely amateur astronomers in England?

Its a start acknowledging that a big rocket took off though. I wonder if you have seen this comedy sketch on your extensive YouTube research??

Of course, you are right that the launch, on it's own, doesn't prove that it (or at least a part of it) went to the Moon. There are thousands of other pieces of evidence that do directly prove that man went to the Moon. If you stick around, you might even learn about some of them (though I doubt that you will stick around...this isn't YouTube after all. The natives answer back with better responses than "hur-hur-hur )

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.

You are going to need to prove anything you say about Apollo.  Just waving your hands and saying you don't believe is not going to impress anyone.

[Nowhere Man]

One of my favorite book titles is "The Tuff Cuffs As He Pluffs The Duff"

I'll leave it y'all to look up.

Actually it's spelled The Tough Coughs as He Ploughs the Dough, a collection of early humor articles and illustrations by one Theodor S. Geisel.  Although the Chrome spell checker doesn't like "plough."

Darn it, why don't we have spoiler tags in this board?

Fred

[tarkus]

Tarkus, so your claim is that Apollo 13 didn't happen as described. So what did happen then?
What took off on April 13th 1970? Or are you claiming that the launch was fake? The whole mission was fake? What exactly?

What it was a rocket took off, and it was filmed, but that does not prove that the rocket reached the moon.

What about tracking? How do you account for that?

¿Seguimiento dice? si se refiere al seguimiento de los rusos, ellos no enviaron ninguna sonda para espiar los alunizajes... simplemente eligieron aceptar la derrota en silencio, como quien cree por fe.

They didn't send any spy probe because they had the ability to actually track the Apollo missions. That ability includes from lunar orbit to the surface of the moon. How else would they have been able to land their own lunar landers including the 2 Lunokhod's.

Now explain the other 3rd party evidence that confirms the landings were real:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

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.
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). 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?

[frenat]

Tarkus, so your claim is that Apollo 13 didn't happen as described. So what did happen then?
What took off on April 13th 1970? Or are you claiming that the launch was fake? The whole mission was fake? What exactly?

What it was a rocket took off, and it was filmed, but that does not prove that the rocket reached the moon.

What about tracking? How do you account for that?

¿Seguimiento dice? si se refiere al seguimiento de los rusos, ellos no enviaron ninguna sonda para espiar los alunizajes... simplemente eligieron aceptar la derrota en silencio, como quien cree por fe.

They didn't send any spy probe because they had the ability to actually track the Apollo missions. That ability includes from lunar orbit to the surface of the moon. How else would they have been able to land their own lunar landers including the 2 Lunokhod's.

Now explain the other 3rd party evidence that confirms the landings were real:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

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.
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). 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?

Just because YOU can't figure out how it worked doesn't mean it didn't.

Reality is not defined by your lack of comprehension.

[Allan F]

Your lack of seeing spacecraft touch down under rocket power on earth does not prove anything. Except again you don't know what you are talking about. To have a spacecraft do that, you need:

Much more rocket power, because of gravity is greater.
Much more computing power, because of atmosphere and wind.
Much more fuel, because gravity is greater - and rocket power is greater.
Much bigger fueltanks because - you guessed it - gravity is greater.
Much more rocket power because more fuel needs to be carried.
Much more rocket power because bigger fuel tanks are heavier.
Much bigger fuel tanks because much more fuel is heavier.


Kind of bites it's own tail, doesn't it?

Not to mention the need for external aerodynamic cladding and movable surfaces to steer with. More mass, more rocket power, more fuel, more mass, more rocket power, more fuel, more ........

Landing a rocketpowered craft from orbital velocity or extra-orbital velocity (as a moon return trajectory) won't be possible.

Face it: Landing using only rocket power is only possible on an airless body. Like the moon. Even the mars missions use heatshields and parachutes to dump the energy before powered landing.

[bknight]

Tarkus, so your claim is that Apollo 13 didn't happen as described. So what did happen then?
What took off on April 13th 1970? Or are you claiming that the launch was fake? The whole mission was fake? What exactly?

What it was a rocket took off, and it was filmed, but that does not prove that the rocket reached the moon.

What about tracking? How do you account for that?

¿Seguimiento dice? si se refiere al seguimiento de los rusos, ellos no enviaron ninguna sonda para espiar los alunizajes... simplemente eligieron aceptar la derrota en silencio, como quien cree por fe.

They didn't send any spy probe because they had the ability to actually track the Apollo missions. That ability includes from lunar orbit to the surface of the moon. How else would they have been able to land their own lunar landers including the 2 Lunokhod's.

Now explain the other 3rd party evidence that confirms the landings were real:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

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.
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). 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?

Actually5 surveyors landed successfully, Surveyor III was visited by the Apollo 12 crew and several pieces of the craft were returned with the A12 crew.  The pieces were studied for environmental impact of the nearly 3 years on the lunar surface.  All the Surveyors, help the program with studies of the surface regolith.

[smartcooky]

No, the size of a rocket does not demonstrate its reach

Actually it does. Bigger rockets carry more fuel, and therefore have bigger engines and can carry bigger payloads longer distances.

The individual testimonies can be arranged with money

The problem with arranging paid testimony (quite aside for the fact that some people simply cannot be bought) is that you will find you have to keep paying, and paying, and paying in case they get a better offer.

If you believe that the US Government paid (and is still paying) 400,000+ people to keep quiet about Apollo then you are living in la-la land. Someone would have talked. FFS they couldn't even keep Watergate quiet, and only a few people knew about that. Many years later, only two people knew that the President was playing hide the sausage with a White House usher; the President and the usher, and they couldn't keep that quiet either.

[smartcooky]

This thread is really funny to read. Talking about biting his own tail Allen.

Every time tarkus posts, he reveals a little more of his complete ignorance on almost every subject he claims to be knowledgeable in... rather like The Blunder in some ways. Every time he his challenged to back up his outrageous claims, he make up an answer out of whole cloth, and then makes another, even more outrageous claim.

Tarkus me old China, its time to stop digging!!! 

[bknight]

This thread is really funny to read. Talking about biting his own tail Allen.

Every time tarkus posts, he reveals a little more of his complete ignorance on almost every subject he claims to be knowledgeable in... rather like The Blunder in some ways. Every time he his challenged to back up his outrageous claims, he make up an answer out of whole cloth, and then makes another, even more outrageous claim.

Tarkus me old China, its time to stop digging!!!

Not to inflate anything the Blunder does, but at least he tries.

[Sus_pilot]

One of my favorite book titles is "The Tuff Cuffs As He Pluffs The Duff"

I'll leave it y'all to look up.

Actually it's spelled The Tough Coughs as He Ploughs the Dough, a collection of early humor articles and illustrations by one Theodor S. Geisel.  Although the Chrome spell checker doesn't like "plough."

Darn it, why don't we have spoiler tags in this board?

Fred

Fred - yep, it's spelled correctly, with a great Geisel cartoon on the dust jacket, but I wanted to go phonetic here.  There's a story in the book about "Quality" that I wish I could make mandatory reading for every MBA candidate in the country.

My one claim to academic fame is that I was one of 300 or so graduating students that got to hear the briefest, most insightful commencement addresses ever, delivered by the late, great Dr. Suess.

[JayUtah]

...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?

The descent motors weren't for maneuvering in space.  They were for landing.

...see the "robotic arm" and tell me if not for a laugh.

Mocking things you don't understand doesn't make you smart.

We must accept by faith...

No.  Some of us have professional qualifications and experience those fields.  We don't have faith; we have knowledge.  Don't insult us with your ignorance.

...that in the '60s, the US and the USSR were able to land the rocket engine driven devices that were not controlled by computer...

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

I do not think so, I never saw a single prototype manned spacecraft or not able to land safely and controlled here on Earth...

How many submarines have you seen operate on land?  Try to work out how absurd your expectations are.

then how can we believe that they got done on other planets?

By knowing how they work.  Your abject ignorance and assiduous ineducability doesn't matter.