Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.

[Luke Pemberton]

I presume Mr Baker is ignorant of the development series of the suits, from Mercury onwards? The difference between various types of suits (e.g. pressure and partial pressure)?

Or the problem that Alexi Leonov faced, and how this provided lessons learned. Gemini and Mercury were the forerunners for Apollo. Grissom, Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin are on record speaking about Gemini and Mercury and it's impact on Apollo's success, as much to say that without the earlier space programs Apollo might not have been successful. Apollo wasn't just switched like a tap, Mercury and Gemini were the stepping stones. I've taken this line with CT line that 'NASA managed to go from nowhere to the Moon in 10 years makes it all look dubious.'

[Apollo 957]

I believe (but don't KNOW) that ISS is an unmanned prop possibly an inflatable.

That can be easily disproved with your hallowed 'scientific method'. Observe it for yourself. Time it crossing the sky, and calculate its velocity for yourself. I showed you how to do this earlier here, and in the YouTube thread.

You'll come up with a figure faster than a cruising 747. Inflatable? Harumph.

[Zakalwe]

I don't. I believe (but don't KNOW) that ISS is an unmanned prop possibly an inflatable.

You must have arms like Arnold Schwarzenegger what with all that hand-waving that you do....
Your belief is irrelevant. Why don't you try looking at it?

If any testing was performed it was probably minimal.

And you know that, how?  And please don't retreat into solipism...that's the last refuge of the scoundrel.

I don't know anything about the rocks.

Added to the list of stuff that you know nothing about. Yet, you are quite happy to handwave away the evidence from people that DO know about rocks. And sublimators. And testing. And evidence.

Have the cojones to admit that you are nothing more than an obsessive, angry delusionist with a history of using criminal activity to try and force your point across (been out cleaning your guns on your lawn lately?). You will not accept or even recognise any evidence that contradicts your world view.

[Apollo 957]

Returned from where? And how do you know from where they were returned?

Images came be found at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html.  Pete and Alan used their sublimators on two EVA's, one to the Surveyor 3 site, at which photos were taken.  Upon lift off  Intrepid rendezvous with Yankee Clipper rock samples and Surveyor parts are transferred to the CSM.

Nice presentation but possibly fake. Evidence but no proof.

You can disprove it by finding something factual. Have you researched the authors, considered the techniques detailed in the 308 pages of that 'presentation', or considered the evidence it presents?

Have you actually found ANY anomaly between that report and any other account of the mission(s)? I certainly haven't found the time to review all 308 pages - have you?

Again, at what point does accumulation of evidence become proof?

[frenat]

Returned from where? And how do you know from where they were returned?

Well flight and telemetry data indicate the vehicle travelled to the Moon and landed, three times if you read the article, took images of the surrounding area and sample the soil strength leading to manned landings on the Moon.  Then Apollo 12 followed some three years later.  http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_12/
As witnesses, I have no particular names but several including myself watched the Saturn V lift the craft into LEO.  The mission included a more precise landing than A11, which was accomplished near the Surveyor crater.  Images came be found at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html.  Pete and Alan used their sublimators on two EVA's, one to the Surveyor 3 site, at which photos were taken.  Upon lift off  Intrepid rendezvous with Yankee Clipper rock samples and Surveyor parts are transferred to the CSM.   The CSM returns to the earth where the samples end up at JSC. You may view all the flight paths of the mission, the images and the transcripts all at the linked site.

Nice presentation but possibly fake. Evidence but no proof.
How do we PROVE or DISPROVE we went to the moon?
We focus on the anomaly that can be PROVEN on Earth today.
NASA allegedly has the spacesuits, sublimators and vacuum chamber. Volunteers are plentiful. Let's pump someone down wearing a suit and sublimator and PROVE that astronauts can perform EVAs and walk on the moon.
It's simple. We can end the controversy. I honestly can't figure you folks out.

ONLY you think it is an anomaly.  ONLY you think there is a controversy.

[Dr_Orpheus]

...and of course Jarrah with his theory that Apollo 13 didn't have enough fuel to return to Earth until it was pointed out to him that it didn't need to burn the same amount of fuel as the other Apollo missions, as it was on a FRT and not required to enter lunar orbit (I'm not referring to the Mod).

Heiwa, the self-appointed space travel safety consultant, was equally ignorant of free return trajectory, and I'm not sure he ever figured it out despite multiple attempts to explain it to him.

[Zakalwe]

Let's pump someone down wearing a suit and sublimator and PROVE that astronauts can perform EVAs and walk on the moon.

Are you offering to pay for it all? Writing the procedures, the wages, the Public Liability insurance, the cost of the chamber time and so on? Are are you really expecting that NASA wastes hard-to-find public money staging a pointless experiment just to satisfy one obsessive felon and his mental breakdown?
Have you worked out the costs? Surely that will be the first step in presenting a proposal- a fully costed proposition? Or are you just going to spend your days on YouTube and tiny Internet forums trying to tell everyone how clever you are?

Pony up and put your money where your mouth is.  Once you've got your proposition sorted then start lobbying NASA and your elected representatives. With your track record I'm sure that you will have no problem getting people to treat your seriously*. 
Failing that, then you're going to have to go back into the historical record and do the analysis on the information that's available (and not on something that you, and only you, deem to be necessary) and either prove that it's incorrect or accept it. However, given your previous history on dealing with things, and your lamentable research skills- skills that can be bettered by a total numpty (me!) with nothing more than 30 minutes work and Google- I am pretty sure that you won't do any of this. Instead, you'll choose to fill your declining years raging at total strangers on YouTube and wondering where it all went wrong for you.


*That was sarcasm, by the way...

[bknight]

Nice presentation but possibly fake. Evidence but no proof.
How do we PROVE or DISPROVE we went to the moon?
We focus on the anomaly that can be PROVEN on Earth today.
NASA allegedly has the spacesuits, sublimators and vacuum chamber. Volunteers are plentiful. Let's pump someone down wearing a suit and sublimator and PROVE that astronauts can perform EVAs and walk on the moon.
It's simple. We can end the controversy. I honestly can't figure you folks out.

We have proved the result, you are blindly brushing aside the obvious results.  We have listed facts, you have wave your hand around, "I don't understand, therefore it didn't happen".

[bknight]

I don't. I believe (but don't KNOW) that ISS is an unmanned prop possibly an inflatable. If any testing was performed it was probably minimal.

That was purely speculative mind wandering and hardly a hypothesis. I don't know anything about the rocks.

My bolding.
Clearly this thread has proved conclusively that you know very little if anything.

[bknight]

No, evidence, even a mountain of evidence is not necessarily proof. You have no PROOF. That's why there's a controversy.
The radical thing that I present to the argument is that I've delivered the anomaly that could allow PROOF today on Earth to very conveniently happen. But only if people are willing to risk being wrong and only if NASA is accountable.

No proof according to you with your blinders, the rest of us have the data that you purposely deny.  BTW denial is not a river in Egypt. 

[bknight]

They might have known there was no such site. If the moon landings were a hoax, then the Surveyor 3 was probably a hoax too. They knew nobody would visit it in the future because they knew it didn't exist. Any future unmanned rover will probably head straight for the alleged Apollo 11 site where the hoax would probably bust open. Surveyor 3 would be a footnote.

Because NASA has formed a no-fly/no trespass area around Apollo 11 and Apollo 17, there may be no re-visits to those sites.  However the other sites aren't surrounded by this plan, so when they are visited again there will be {b]MORE[/b] evidence of the landings.

[bknight]

Or the problem that Alexi Leonov faced, and how this provided lessons learned. Gemini and Mercury were the forerunners for Apollo. Grissom, Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin are on record speaking about Gemini and Mercury and it's impact on Apollo's success, as much to say that without the earlier space programs Apollo might not have been successful. Apollo wasn't just switched like a tap, Mercury and Gemini were the stepping stones. I've taken this line with CT line that 'NASA managed to go from nowhere to the Moon in 10 years makes it all look dubious.'

Indeed as Gemini demonstrated that rendezvous and docking, integral in the Apollo missions, was possible.

[Philthy]

Heiwa, the self-appointed space travel safety consultant, was equally ignorant of free return trajectory, and I'm not sure he ever figured it out despite multiple attempts to explain it to him.

Nope, he still hasn't figured it out. I doubt he ever will. If he did, no one would pay attention to him.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62555.0#.VemHA_-FO00

Phil

[bknight]

Heiwa, the self-appointed space travel safety consultant, was equally ignorant of free return trajectory, and I'm not sure he ever figured it out despite multiple attempts to explain it to him.

Nope, he still hasn't figured it out. I doubt he ever will. If he did, no one would pay attention to him.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62555.0#.VemHA_-FO00

Phil

He won't ever agree that the proof has been submitted, there will always be a slight error in the presentation.  I doubt he has the money anyway, my speculation.

[Zakalwe]

Heiwa, the self-appointed space travel safety consultant, was equally ignorant of free return trajectory, and I'm not sure he ever figured it out despite multiple attempts to explain it to him.

Nope, he still hasn't figured it out. I doubt he ever will. If he did, no one would pay attention to him.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62555.0#.VemHA_-FO00

Phil

He won't ever agree that the proof has been submitted, there will always be a slight error in the presentation.  I doubt he has the money anyway, my speculation.

Again, I am struck by the similarities between Baker and Dorkmann.
Heiwa asks for a video as proof. Someone gives him a video then the goalpoasts are lurched to the left with Dorkmann trying to define international standards for a "dip" (must be the whole hand, must be greater than 10 seconds).
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62555.msg1715346#msg1715346

Hilarious, if it wasn't so tragic.