51 replies to this topic

[Chrlzs]

bee, on 20 February 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

I would be interested in your opinion on why Aldrin 'bent the truth' about taking the masonic 'flag' (and what-ever else) to the Moon...

I'll be happy to do so, provided you give your description of what happened and your opinion first rather than just give a link.  I don't follow blind links, thanks.

Quote

His wasn't the only post that got removed.... I saw his post....and I think he was right about what he said.

Well, you should perhaps take that up with the moderators, and if you think something he said was right, then state it here rather than make vague implications.

You will note that as I progress through Stoecker's article, I will be quoting it verbatim and addressing all the problems/errors.  (There are a lot..)

[Chrlzs]

bee, on 20 February 2013 - 01:03 PM, said:

Oh...didn't you know that the Masons have a BIG interest in Sirius
{off topic stuff deleted}

And that might have been of some vague interest, IF the heliacal rising of Sirius was in any way connectable.  I can see by the fact that you ignored my hint about latitude, that you don't know what the heliacal rising of an astronomical body actually is and that he has just cherry picked a piece of irrelevant data.

No shame in not knowing that - most people don't.  But it just shows how people like Stoecker can impress those without the requisite knowledge.

I'll go into far more detail shortly, including explaining exactly what the Sirius thing is about and how Stoecker is completely wrong to try to link it.  Be patient..  and try to refrain from posting more stuff to 'back up' other errors and misinformation in the article.  If I was you I'd wait until you get the whole picture...

[bee]

Chrlzs, on 20 February 2013 - 01:04 PM, said:

I'll be happy to do so, provided you give your description of what happened and your opinion first rather than just give a link.  I don't follow blind links, thanks.

see my post 27

And if this is your opinion of links...I hope you won't be using any when you 'progress through Stoecker's article'....

Quote

Well, you should perhaps take that up with the moderators, and if you think something he said was right, then state it here rather than make vague implications.

I have nothing to take up with the moderators, it's history now.....and as for 'vague implications'....you started it with your comment in #28

Quote

You will note that as I progress through Stoecker's article, I will be quoting it verbatim and addressing all the problems/errors.  (There are a lot..)

without using any links...of course......



edit.....just noticed this is post 33.....lol

.

Edited by bee, 20 February 2013 - 01:20 PM.

[Chrlzs]

bee, on 20 February 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:

see my post 27

So that's it - you just think it's interesting or mysterious?  That's the entire extent of your opinion?  So what would you now suggest?  What do these mildly conflicting reports mean in the scheme of things?  That Apollo was hoaxed?  If so, can you supply the logic leading to that?  Or is it just amusement at Aldrin's possible embarrassment about being a mason (if he was..)?  I seem to recall Richie Cunningham's Dad was a mason, and he too was a bit embarrassed about talking about it..  I didn't think any less of his character in Happy Days...

Thing is, I'd like to discuss things that have an actual point, and I'm just not seeing it..

Quote

And if this is your opinion of links...I hope you won't be using any when you 'progress through Stoecker's article'...

It will indeed mostly be reasoned argument, with a point - the links will be sparing and exactly ontopic.  But unlike what you posted, they will have names like NASA.ORG (them being the organisation that actually sent them and hold all the archival material), or SPACE.COM, or heaven forbid wikipedia.com...  In other words, some folks might think of them as mildly credible and unbiased.  And again, I will be specifically addressing claims made by the OP.  So my opinion (and its point) will be very, very obvious.

Is the difference clear now?  If it isn't, I don't think I can help further.

Quote

as for 'vague implications'....you started it with your comment in #28

The point is, that if you have anything that is ontopic and backed up and logical and right, you should post it.  That sort of thing won't be removed..

Edited by Chrlzs, 20 February 2013 - 01:43 PM.

[bee]

Chrlzs, on 20 February 2013 - 01:41 PM, said:

So that's it - you just think it's interesting or mysterious?  That's the entire extent of your opinion?  So what would you now suggest?  What do these mildly conflicting reports mean in the scheme of things?  That Apollo was hoaxed?  If so, can you supply the logic leading to that?  Or is it just amusement at Aldrin's possible embarrassment about being a mason (if he was..)?  I seem to recall Richie Cunningham's Dad was a mason, and he too was a bit embarrassed about talking about it..  I didn't think any less of his character in Happy Days...

Thing is, I'd like to discuss things that have an actual point, and I'm just not seeing it..

The point is that it looks like Aldrin set up the first Masonic Lodge on the Moon...Tranquility Lodge 2000...


http://freemasonsfor...s-and-moon.html

Quote

Tranquility Lodge 2000 is based in Texas under auspices of The Grand Lodge of Texas until such time as the Lodge may hold its meetings on the Moon. Our meetings are held quarterly at various cities in Texas, with the annual meeting being held in Waco each July...

If you don't think that's interesting....well so be it.



I DO think 'we' went to the Moon....but I don't think we have been told the whole story....


And I still say....why should anyone look at YOUR links...when you refuse to look at ones that don't reflect your preconceived notions.

But it was a good cop out...I'll give you that...can you say BLINKERS.....


Sunday Monday....Happy Days

Tuesday Wednesday...Happy Days....la la la la Happy Days


.

[Max Hadbrayn]

The conspiracy theories regarding the moon landings have always interested me.

I'm still a little undecided in this matter, but I was on a long rail trip once and got in conversation with an old man who said he was an engineer, somehow the conversation turned to the moon landings and did it happen or not!

I said of course it did! (closed mind in those days!)

He smiled and told me this story:

"Imagine in 1969, you bought a state of the art Ford Cortina, it had everything modern device available, a radio, leather seats and an 'eight-track' music system (I had to look that one up!)

You drove that car all the way from your house, in say, Florida, to Alaska - you managed the whole trip without any incident. So you did it several times, with only one mishap - but you still got home.

Then, fast forward the clock, and fifty years later, you have a state of the art 4x4, with hybred fuel, DVD players, on board computer, automatic window-wipers, GPS system and the best technology that man can design.

But you can only drive it to the state border!!! It won't reach Alaska!!!

That's the state of the present NASA achievement - we have never send a manned mission beyond low earth orbit since 1972.

If we had achieved all that with the technology of the late 60's and early 70's WTF happened!!!

Either NASA contains a buch of technology ****s or we simply didn't go?

If we can produce vehicles to such a modern standard, surely we could have produced Space-craft that could reach Mars carrying humans by now?

The development and evolution of our technology is apparently at it's peak - but in 50 years, we have gone no further that the state line...............

Just a crazy thought.

Max.

[William B Stoecker]

I never at any time stated that we did not land on the Moon, nor did I at any time denigrate the achievements of Projects Mercury and Gemini. But I would point out that TLI is just a bit harder than achieving Earth orbit, and that actually landing on the Moon is still more difficult. Basically, I just pointed out that many of the photographs allegedly taken on the Moon appear to have been altered or even faked, and I proposed a possible reason for this that is rather mundane. None of my critics refuted or even mentioned my discussion of the pictures, leaving me wondering if any of htem even bothered to read my article before criticizing it.   William B Stoecker

[Chrlzs]

Max Hadbrayn, on 20 February 2013 - 09:07 PM, said:

The conspiracy theories regarding the moon landings have always interested me.

Then surely you must have a special favorite - your best piece of evidence that they were hoaxed..

Quote

I'm still a little undecided in this matter, but I was on a long rail trip once and got in conversation with an old man who said he was an engineer, somehow the conversation turned to the moon landings and did it happen or not!

Are you sure this wasn't a dream that you had after a night of listening to Kenny Rogers ballads?

Quote

I said of course it did! (closed mind in those days!)

So now it's open?  Well, post that best evidence..

Quote

He smiled and told me this story:

"Son, I made a life, out of reading people's.." oh sorry - I digress!

Quote

"Imagine in 1969, you bought a state of the art Ford Cortina

An analogy comparing a Cortina with the entire Apollo program?  Some analogies are about as worthwhile as using a left-handed screwdriver underwater..

Quote

But you can only drive it to the state border!!! It won't reach Alaska!!!

This is called a false dichotomy or fasle dilemma.  You (he) claim that there is only one issue about why would travel to the Moon, namely whether we can.
That's completely unwarranted simplification.  The closing down of the moon missions was about politics (cold war - you may need to look that up too) and money and public desire.

If you make this argument, then Concorde was clearly a hoax.  Also, cars that drive close to or beyond the speed of sound must be a hoax too, otherwise why aren't we all driving them?  Travelling to the Marianas trench.. etc, etc

Quote

If we had achieved all that with the technology of the late 60's and early 70's WTF happened!!!

I suggest you learn about history, and maybe even ask yourself - would it have been a good \thing to go there again in the 80's?  90's? Now?  If yes, WHY?  What benefits to humanity, and in fact how about a cost-benefit analysis..?

Quote

Either NASA contains a buch of technology ****s or we simply didn't go?

That's a FAR worse false dilemma than the first.  Does everything you encounter have only two possible explanations?

Quote

If we can produce vehicles to such a modern standard

Do you drive a Veyron?

Quote

surely we could have produced Space-craft that could reach Mars carrying humans by now?

We can, but the issues involved in a very long space journey are complex.  It will be many many many times more expensive than a short Moon mission.  You do realise that the Moon isn't very far away, and that it is small (1/6 gravity)?  Do you have any idea how much further Mars is?  How much bigger and massive it is?  If you are not aware of why thios things make such a mission hideously more expensive than a Moon mission, you may need to update your knowledge.

And are you paying, or happy for your taxes to be raised?

Quote

Just a crazy thought.

There  I agree.

[Chrlzs]

William B Stoecker, on 20 February 2013 - 11:58 PM, said:

I never at any time stated that we did not land on the Moon

No, of course you didn't.
Title of 'article' - "Did we land on the Moon or didn't we ?"
Some quotes:

Quote

we have never even sent men back to the Moon..  Obviously, something is very wrong with this entire picture..
some people never believed that the landings even took place.. Initially, most of these doubters were simply ignorant people..  But, over the years, more serious doubts were raised..
the astronauts, on the way to and from the Moon, would have to spend about two hours each way in Earth's deadly radiation belts..
the Hasselblad cameras .. would have been nearly impossible to operate while wearing the thick and cumbersome suits. All of these points are debatable... except for the last one..
There truly is something terribly wrong with many of the photographs allegedly taken by the astronauts on the Moon..
there is a picture of Buzz Aldrin allegedly taken by another astronaut...This is impossible. Period. End of discussion.
So just what is going on here? There are a number of possibilities. Perhaps we never landed on the Moon..

"Perhaps we never landed"..? - no, Mr Stoecker, you never said we didn't go , you just suggested it as one of several options, based on the contents of a long-debunked book that contains hideously obvious inaccuracies and misinformation.  And then throw in some aliens and numerology for good measure..

And may I repeat that I will be going though every one of those inaccuracies and misinformation, continuing in a few hours from now..

Quote

But I would point out that TLI is just a bit harder than achieving Earth orbit

Maybe it's just poor wording but it sounds as though you don't know what the TLI actually was..  TLI is one small maneuver from a 'normal' earth orbit, that just adjusts the spacecraft's trajectory into a highly elliptical earth orbit - one that will intersect the Moon.  It's most certainly NOT the entire lunar trajectory and it does NOT include getting to earth orbit.  It happens while in earth orbit, and is nowhere near as complex or difficult as the entire process of getting into that initial orbit...  It's pretty simple maths, quite doable on a piece of paper and a slide rule.  (Refer Tsiolkovsky Equation for some clues, you just need to tie the delta-v to fairly simple orbital mechanics).  And of course they were able to adjust the trajectory further as they progressed and refined their position - plus their target was reasonably easy to spot..

Quote

and that actually landing on the Moon is still more difficult.

??  1/6 gravity - that's ONE SIXTH gravity.  Do you realise what that means in regard to performing maneuvers in that situation, and achieving a soft landing?  What it means in regard to the speed of the craft in orbit, and how much energy has to be used to slow it and descend?  How it was all practiced in the preceding missions?  And you do realise it's a VACUUM?  Did you not know why earth-returning spacecraft have heat shields?  Why they must be aerodynamic (unlike the LM)?  Why they don't/can't use layers of thin but highly specialised foil (as did the LMs and many satellites) to protect them from heat/micrometeroids/etc?

The actual landing on the Moon is EASY compared to doing so on earth.

As I said, I'll be repeating some of this as I go through the rest of the 'article' in painful detail.

Quote

Basically, I just pointed out that many of the photographs allegedly taken on the Moon appear to have been altered or even faked

And this, I'm afraid, is based on your (and Percy/Bennett's) lack of experience in photography, lighting, the cameras used and the environment (no atmosphere, low gravity, full daylight, bright lunar surface, etc)  Again, I'll be elaborating in detail, and I *do* know these topics extremely well (no false modesty here.. )

So perhaps you might like to post your very best example of "alterations or fakery".  That way this forum can assess your knowledge of the matters in question.  I'm happy to address ANY image you might choose - but I'd suggest you choose VERY carefully...
Please consider that as a direct challenge.  What have you got to lose?  You say there are many, so pick the BEST example.  I hope it's not the Buzz Aldrin one (for your sake)...  I'll be covering that one in my response anyway..

Quote

I proposed a possible reason for this

You proposed *several* including that they never happened - I quoted you above.  Are you now withdrawing those inferences?

Quote

that is rather mundane.

Mundane?  You mean stuff like this:

Quote

very strong evidence {exists} that some sort of civilization did leave structures on Mars and on our Moon and perhaps elsewhere..

I don't think that's mundane.  It's interesting however - interesting that you don't cite any of this 'strong evidence'.  Please do so.

Quote

None of my critics refuted or even mentioned my discussion of the pictures

Really?  Well, I haven't even started..

Quote

.. leaving me wondering if any of htem even bothered to read my article before criticizing it.

Don't worry, I'll be quoting *every* 'worthy' point...

The next instalment will arrive shortly...

[taniwha]

This  is soooo exciting, I cant wait for High Noon, maybe some popcorn, cola and 3d glasses to add to the suspense !!!

This is turning out to be better viewing than the actual MOON landing itself... If it really happened that is ???

[spartan max2]

chriz im alittel confused why you are so invested in proving that it did happen? seeing how your picking at everyones comments sentence by sentence.even the ones that are not claiming the moon landing was faked.

[Chrlzs]

spartan max2, on 23 February 2013 - 07:42 AM, said:

chriz im alittel confused why you are so invested in proving that it did happen? seeing how your picking at everyones comments sentence by sentence.even the ones that are not claiming the moon landing was faked.

Why did you bother to post that?  It's a public discussion forum.  And why shouldn't people be taken to task if they are presenting misinformation and falsehoods?  Doesn't matter which side they may be on - if it's wrong it should be challenged.  And I expect the same scrutiny in return.

As it happens, I was a very keen space-mad youngster as Apollo unfolded, and it became a passion to me - I have collected huge amounts of information on the topic, and also the work that I have done in later life has given me a lot of experience and insights into the topic.  As getting to the Moon is, imo, the greatest technical achievement by humankind to date, I think it is worthy of defending.    

Please feel free to debate my information and corrections to the original 'article', but be specific about which comments I make that you either object to or disagree with.  Anyway, I need to get onto the next instalment..

[The Silver Thong]

Could the russians make a differience between a manned or a un manned mission to the moon.

[Chrlzs]

So, let's move on to the next section of Mr Stoecker's 'article'.  The first part of this rebuttal may be found here - if anyone has anything they disagree with, please post.  All I ask is that you debate politely, and that you know the topic well, to avoid any embarrassment..  To date no-one - including Mr Stoecker - has offered any contrary information.

So let's look at the next claims:

Quote

Then came Project Apollo, using Saturn Five rockets to send men to the Moon... or so we are told.

First up, only someone unfamiliar with the Apollo program would ever name the main booster as a 'Saturn Five'.  The correct nomenclature is 'Saturn V' - yes, it is pronounced 'saturn five', but NEVER written that way.  And what does Mr Stoecker mean by the conspiratorial "..or so we are told"?  Remember he said above that he never claimed we didn't go?  So is Mr Stoecker contradicting himself?  Or does he mean that they weren't Saturn V's but .. something else?    Makes one wonder what all the thousands of folks who attended every Apollo launch actually watched..

(NOTE - this clip is video only)
Before moving on, a little historical sidenote - Apollo 1 was most certainly not the first Apollo mission - there were many, many other system tests and  missions done beforehand to sort out the operation of the boosters, orbital operations and even the safety escape systems (eg "Little Joe").  Apollo 1 was actually AS-204 - it was renamed as Apollo One as a more fitting memorial to the astronauts who were lost.   Apollo deniers often like to pretend that Apollo 1 was the very first test of Apollo, thereby hinting that it was all a sham, but that couldn't be further from the truth.

Back to the 'article' - Mr Stoecker then states:

Quote

Apollo One was a ground test of the systems, and a fire broke out that killed astronauts Grissom, White, and Chaffee.

This was an absolutely horrible, tragic moment in history.  It almost saw the end of the Apollo program, and meant a great deal of soul-searching was required at NASA.  In many ways, this event triggered a new approach in terms of safety and systems implementation and a renewed determination from NASA to get the job done properly.  It was a turning point that tragically took the lives of three amazingly talented men, but in a way, I believe it ensured that the rest of the program continued with the level of absolute commitment to success that was needed for such a huge undertaking..  Grissom was proved to be correct, in the most horrible way...

Quote

Gus Grissom was a critic of certain aspects of the space program

Yes, along with others.  Rightly so - NASA really hadn't got their act together well enough at this time, and with a lot of successful missions and the rather gung-ho attitude of the 60's, they had become somewhat complacent.

Quote

and he had nearly been killed before, when his Mercury capsule mysteriously sank into the ocean right after landing.

???  I find it hard to read that, and the words 'nearly been killed before', without seeing a strong implication.. So let's cut to the chase - Mr Stoecker, are you suggesting in any way that NASA deliberately tried to kill him (as other Apollo deniers have done)?  Don't beat around the bush, either yes or no.  I find sly implicatory language to be rather cowardly, so I do hope that isn't what you were doing - please clarify it now.  And if it wasn't your implication, why did you say it in that way?

As for his Mercury capsule 'mysteriously' sinking, it is no mystery why it sank - the hatch cover was wrongly blown out!  Initially it was thought that Grissom may have panicked (he told of being very scared at various stages of the mission and even admitted being unable to exactly recollect his movements after splashdown).  Note that part of the splashdown requirements were for Grissom to remove the locking pin on the hatch release switch, but then *not* to actually blow the hatch unless in an emergency (eg internal fire).  Grissom said he only recalled pulling the pin and didn't hit the switch, and when NASA examined all aspects of the mission they accepted that Grissom was probably not at fault - there were several possible scenarios that could have resulted in the hatch blowing out.  And when it happened, well, Grissom simply had to exit the sinking capsule a little more quickly than usual.  The story is covered quite well here on the Wiki, or if you like I can see if I can dig up the NASA post-mission reports..

Frankly, this isn't a 'mystery', and is not a disputed part of the space program.



I shall await comments/debate before moving on to part three (er..I mean.. III... )

Edited by Chrlzs, 23 February 2013 - 09:23 AM.

[Chrlzs]

The Silver Thong, on 23 February 2013 - 08:27 AM, said:

Could the russians make a differience between a manned or a un manned mission to the moon.

Not quite sure what you mean, but without the Cold War and the resulting huge incentive to prove that the USA was not slipping behind Russia in technological terms, I'd lay a sizable bet that it would have not been until the late 70's or even 80's that we finally made the moon.  In Russia's case, they really only failed because they put all their eggs into one basket for their main booster rocket design, and it was simply an unmitigated failure (the woeful 'N-1').  The Saturn V in comparison was an absolute marvel - hugely powerful and astonishingly reliable.  (In my opinion they should still be using it!)

Anyway, the US put in a HUGE effort to make Apollo happen before the end of 1969, just as Kennedy had promised..  (There's an interesting back-story to that.. the USA had an 'out' - in terms of an extra year's leeway) in case the first lunar landing attempts scheduled for mid-late 1969 failed..)

For someone who wasn't alive back then and didn't experience the Cold War and the quite real threat of an all out nuclear war between the USA and USSR, it's hard to explain just how important Sputnik and Gagarin had been in the public domain - the USSR were seen as 'getting the upper hand'.  Hence the US threw everything into Apollo, and it could be said that they were lucky that the Saturn V proved to be such an unprecedented success, as it was the backbone of the missions.

Edited by Chrlzs, 23 February 2013 - 09:42 AM.