frenet,
this type of language does not help an increasingly volatile situation, if you see a small flame please refrain from fanning it. If you believe you are being deliberately misquoted or misrepresent then please use the report function and allow the moderators to deal with any rule breaking. In this particularcase this issue has already been dealt with by both Lilly and SaRuMaN.

UNDER THE HAT,
In light of my previous post to you (HERE) I am particularly annoyed that you have continued to misrepresent people and to call someone stupid. This is particularly hypocritical in light of your complaint against MID calling you stupid (which despite my request you have yet to provide a link to or withdraw).

I suggest that you go back and re-read my post and those made by both Lilly and SaRuMan. I then suggest that you click on the link marked "Rules" at the top of any forum page and read what you find there. You agreed to abide by these rules when you joined this site.

You deny that you are a troll, if this is the case I strongly suggest that you stop acting like one.

I apologize.

So let's think, not only did NASA build an "obviously fake" LM (BTW you still haven't explained
what is so "obviously fake"), they also selected a bad liar, instead of an actor who would lie convincingly
about his moonlanding.

Either NASA or your theory is stupid...

The hoax claims the flag in one brief clip shows movement which they claim must have been caused by an atmosphere. Alternatives, not requiring an atmosphere, have been presented. There is a lot of footage out there showing the astronauts maneuvering close to the flag without the flag moving in the slightest. What could be the explaination for these scenes?

The hoax says the "front", shadow side of the LM on the lunar surface should have been in total dark shadow, with no recognizable features. They say that, without direct sunlight, there could be no illumination source for the shadow side of the LM. Photos from the LM cabin windows show that a great deal of bright surface is visible beyond the shadow. This is a strong and viable light source to the shadow side of the LM, though clearly not as bright as the sunlit side.

The radiation from the Van Allen belts is deadly and should have killed the astronauts. When it's raining, we wear raincoats...when going to the beach, we wear sunscreen. Knowing the VAB pretty well, would NASA do otherwise, disregarding the potential danger? Shielding- the CM skin, aluminum some inch thick, is an effective screen against much of the types of radiation in the belts. As is polyethelene, used as insulation in it's construction. Comparisons to Chernobyl are wrong, gamma radiation was the problem there. Partical radiation in the belts is the issue, and lead could actually be a bad answer. They also planned their trajectory to pass through the edges of the belt, not the stronger center. A11 was pretty well over the Equator, heading northeast, well below the VAB when they started their TLI burn. Within minutes, they were approaching 30 north latitude, accellerating away from the Earths surface, and they were through the heavy lower belts within several minutes. By the time of T&D, about 40 minutes later, they were basically clear of the belts altogether. Between speed, trajectory, and shielding, the exposures were minimized.

And so on and so on...spaceflight is a business as well as a national endeavour, and there are many, many thousands out there who deal with it on a daily basis, and they don't work for NASA. Space has indeed opened to private enterprise. I drive a schoolbus, and do it well. They build and launch rockets, and design and fly satellites. They do it well too...and make headlines when they don't.

Why haven't we gone back? Apollo 18-20 were cancelled while we were still sending missions to the Moon. The politicians, fueled by the apparent apathy of the public, dictated Apollo would end at 17. NASA's budget for the ensuing years was slashed and the Shuttle arose as some "do it all" machine that was never going to live up to it's touted "economical and routine" reputation. America decided it had enough with going to the Moon, though NASA would certainly have kept going given thew funding. We'd likely have been to Mars by now, given appropriate public enthusiasm. It just wasn't there, and we've been "stuck" in LEO since. Robotics, on the other hand, have had a wonderous run on the solar system.

NASA does what's it's mandated, with the funds provided. There are things they would like to do, going back to the Moon for extended durations are planned, though not guaranteed. While the federal government is rightfully charged with funding space exploration, NASA's funding needs to compete with Federal funding of the elementary school up the street from my house...something the '60's NASA didn't have to deal with. It's an enormously political process, and the nations space exploration program, something deserving of "crown" funding, is competing with fund lines that have no place in a federal budget...and are showing few returns.

Because today's society is distracted by instant everything, celeb gossip, scandals everywhere, and the latest techology toys, they are ambiliant to marvelous accomplishments. Once, with seemingly simple means and tools, we did just that...we took mankind to the Moon. Scientists still study the findings. Many want to go back and learn more...to leave Earth, and stay "out there" for a while. The ISS is teaching us many of the techniques involved, but still, "going out there" is different, involving lonfg term issues the hops Apollo flew didn't have to deal with.

If we decide to go back out there, we will. If not, someone else probably will. Cutting edge technology, circa 1960's, did the job, along with an incredibly talented and imaginative crew of workers following a dream. It came true. I don't begin to understand everything in how it was done, but what I have learned says it happened.

To call it a hoax, without studying in the least how it was claimed to have been accomplished, is simply lazy and uninformed. You want to argue radiation? Then learn something about it. The LM looks flimsy? You should see some "weight limited" model rockets I've seen flown...balsa and tissue, grade schoolers learning engineering. The lunar environment is too hot/cold? Another problem to solve...no showstopper for a team of thermodymics experts and materials engineers. Learn the subject you claim to argue, they did. What seems impossible to you is a challenge to others. While you raise old arguments, others work to create private space systems...and it's hard. Spaceflight is hard, but there are those who can do it, they have learned how.

OK, I' done, rant off...
Dave

If that is a rant then it is one of the more articulate ones.

Sometimes I get frustrated...I wanna talk nuts and bolts! Someone out there, that knows something about space technology...prove Apollo wrong! Why did they HAVE to fake it?

<articulate> Dave (thx)

Therein lies your problem. I have yet to see anyone that does know something about space technology actually believe Apollo was faked.

There are always lurkers about...maybe they are listening....and perhaps "curious".

No problems Frenat.I hope you understand the meaning of this forum and keep a high level discussion from now on.I will leave behind all your bad behaviour and hope you be a good guy in the future.

Mr. B , I disagree.If the astronaut had touched that flag,the movement would be completely different.The first movement would be forward and not in the direction of the astronaut´s body.Sorry about my bad english,but I hope you understand what I am trying to say to you.

Hi hat,
hoping you will do the same , and refrain from belittling those of us who "believe" in the accomplishments of Apollo, as claimed. It's a two way street here, easily crossed by either side.

Me too!

Get your corner store nylon flag out (note...not a "scientific" experiment)
When I moved the corner of my flag slightly in one direction, very slightly, the "body" of the flag billowed so slightly opposite this initial input. In the video, only the corner moves, the rest of the flag is completely stationary. It isn't doing that with my flimsey nylon flag here. Try it with yours.
What breeze (especially caused by a large space-suited astronaut) moves just the corner of a nylon flag? Not seen in many other flag "close encounters"? Looking at it's movement in the claimed vaccuum when being twisted into the ground/onto the staff in the several mission videos, it's a flimsy flag.
Vaccuum scenarios have been presented. Numerous "non-movement" astronaut close encounters are well documented.

Why did NASA find it necessary to fake the missions to the Moon...all SIX of them? There had to be a showstopper for them.

Are you talking about yourself here? I have only been trying to respond seriously to your silly, sarcastic posts. The bad behavior I believe has come from your end.

Mr. B it is a pleasure for me to talk with you about this subject.My bad english is a problem for me ,but I will try to explain to you what I think about all this.
We (that don´t believe that men went to the moon) are very interested on the moon and enjoy very much to talk about space exploration and science.Most of us would like very much to be an astronaut.We debate about this subject not because we hate space programs.It is absolutely the contrary of it.We enjoy very much and we trully would like to believe that men really went to the moon.The problem is that we observe a lack of consistency in this historic event and I don´t accept to be silent when I hear a lie.
If we prove that men never went to the moon,this will not be the first neither the last time that US government lied to the whole world.For example,look what they are doing in Iraq because of the oil and saying that it was because of mass destruction weapons..But this is another subject........
I read your complains about the hoax believers not having documents or engeneering skills to debate and refute all the apollo program.The fact is that we have the following situation going on here...
In one side,the moon landing believers ,that have all the NASA explanations ,documents, videos, pictures , spacecraft diagrams and etc...
In the other side,we have the hoax believers that have some fake NASA videos ,pictures,lack of stars and explanations about Van Allen belts radiation etc.....
Everybody agree that Saturn V was a good rocket.But only moon landing believers agree that the LM was a real spacecraft,prepared to land on the moon.And this will be a never ending discussion.
Hoax believers say that manned missions to the moon never left LEO.Each sides ask to the other to prove their points and it is a never ending discussion as well.
When I think that is strange that we don´t have a picture of apollo landing sites after 40 years taken by a satelite on the moon orbit,the moon landing believers have a ready answer for it about camera low resolutions and etc...etc.. (another never ending discussion).
Our problem is that we are quarreling about something that none of us can touch.It is up there,very far from us.And space agencies as NASA (US),JAXA (Japan) and the chinese agency keep silent about this subject ,increasing the strenghtness of hoax believers that men never went to the moon.They have technology to take those pictures or videos from apollo landing sites,but they don´t do that.(In my case,I think that there is nothing there to be shown and this is the reason why they don´t do that)
While moon landing believers keep asking the other side to prove this or that,I keep asking them for pictures or videos made on moon orbit of the apollo mission hardware on the landing sites.This kind of material would shut my mouth up and I would rest believing that men really went to the moon.But moon landing believers don´t have this material to show to us,as hoax believers don´t have access to the LM flying on 1/6 g environment to prove that all those NASA videos and pictures were fake.
Then,when we have a flag waving on NASA moon videos,both sides have their conclusions about that....and another never ending discussion.
I would like to end my text with the following conclusion :
-None of the sides will convince the other about this subject.Both sides have good questions and good answers for every event related to the apollo manned missions to the moon.If we have a discussion of big repercussion going on as in this case,I guess that space agencies would have to provide videos and pictures of apollo landing sites to end this discussion.When I say this,moon landing believers say that it is not necessary because scientists already know that men went to the moon and bla,bla,bla...NO ,IT IS THE WRONG WAY TO GO. This would be the ultimate material to end this discussion.
The quality of HD videos and technology that we have nowadays will not allow space agencies to fake moon images once again.
Space agencies will take pictures of all moon surface before 2020 and if we can´t see apollo missions hardware on the moon until then,I hope all moon landing believers accept that men never went to the moon....And if the apollo missions hardware are well captured on HD videos or pictures during this work,I hope that moon hoax believers accept that men went to the moon.

frenat, UNDER THE HAT, and everyone else, ENOUGH!

A reminder of the post made by the administrator of this site just one page ago:


It is time for people to cool down. There are two ways this can be done,

1. by the action of the individual
2. by the action of the moderators.

It is in everyone's best interest that you chose the first of these two options.

More fake missions,more money from taxes to develop and build weapons.

Mr B , remember that the moon flag has a bar up to it.That is why the corner started the movement.

The defense rest's your Honor.

Hat, with all due respect, you got nuthin'...NASA doesn't "build" very much at all.

You cry the same, tired arguments. You know nothing of Apollo, the engineering, the science,...seems you're bitter about something about the government, and you have jumped on the Apollo hoax bandwagon, albeit a small wagon, to "stick it to the "man".
Prove me wrong...or go to school. You're shooting blanks...repeatedly.
Ciao, bud...

No Mr B.With all respect,the subject here is not US government. And I am really sorry if you didn´t like the obvious answer that you got after your question.

Except as mentioned, NASA, not being the ones doing the building of the spacecraft, spent most of the money to contractors that did. The Apollo porogram was a very public program and was audited multiple times. The money used for the program went to contractors that built equipment that the contractors built with the capability of reaching the Moon. If NASA had equipment that could reach the Moon, why not actually go there?

Evidence? your conspiracy just grew enormously.

Hat:

You do realize that when you say, "...I don't believe that none of them went to the Moon," you're actually saying that you believe some of them did?




Just thought I'd point that out, but really, your main point needs adressing here.

I find it amazing that the obvious character and impeccable integrity of Neil Armstrong is utilized by HBs to fortify their positions.


Neil got the command of what was to be Apollo 11 long before it was in any way certain that this mission would be the one to attempt the first lunar landing. A great deal hinged on the complete success of Apollo 9 and 10, and as it turned out, both of those missions were indeed sucessful. It was late May, 1969 when Apollo 11 was spring loaded to land on the Moon. Prior to that, they were hopeful.


Now, Neil was named commander of the mission because he had already had a command (GT-8), and his performance in dire circumstances on that flight or a command spot on an Apollo mission. Dr. Aldrin filled the number three spot in the crew, as LMP, and Mike Collins was number two as CMP.
It had been decided that the commander would be the first one out of the LM and onto the surface of the Moon in 1969 by virtue of a series of discussion that took place among managers at NASA, discussions prompted by, let us say, some trouble intitiated by Mr. Aldrin.

The decision was not that difficult. Based upon the character of the two men, their behavior, their experience and their conduct, it was either Neil Armstrong, the all-American boy, or Buzz Aldrin, who had somewhat of a reputation as a...trouble maker of sorts.

It is pointless to go into details of a past that is about 4 decades gone now. Things have changed, these men are now in their 70s, and Dr. Aldrin is an esteemed space scientist with a fine reputation. The past was the past, and is now meaningless, but suffice it to say that the decision regarding who would actually be the first out of the LM was not difficult based upon character, performance, demeanor, etc. NASA management, as well as the astronuats themselves, realized that the first man on the surface of the Moon would be perceived as a Lindbergh type figure. Picking who that should be a out of the two possibles was not difficult.

Their decision was perfect, and there is no doubt among the astronauts of the time that Neil Armstrong has exercised his responsibilities, or rather, his burdens, as the man who first set foot upon the Moon with a grace, a dignity, and a humility that is astounding.


This man is intelligent, articulate, and humble.


You say he doesn't like to talk about his trip to the Moon. You are mistaken, as are all HBs who cite Mr. Armstrong's apparent reticence to promote himself and seek fame from his status. Neil has, and does speak frequently about it in public, and on many topics concerning spaceflight. What Neil does not do, and has never done, is promote himself as anything special because of being the first man to set foot upon the Moon. He selects when and where he speaks carefully, and resisted any attempts to profit from the fact that he was the first man on the Moon. He refused millions in the days following Apollo 11.

The fact is, fame was not something this man ever sought. He was a pilot, an astronaut, and sought only to accomplish in those fields (something which he did multiple times). The fact is, the distinction of being the first man to set foot upon the Moon is nothing for Neil Armstrong, relative to other things he's done. It was not the high point of his life, and he avoids fame an public exposure because of that status. The high point of his life was landing the LM on the Moon on July 20, 1969. To him, that was a 10 out of 10. Walking on the Moon, about a 2 out of 10.

Not a man to seek fame, or public adulation, the aftermath of Apollo 11 was a difficult time. However, he handled the adulation with grace and dignity, and he has handled himself in that manner ever since. In this respect, he is in every respect a classic example of an American hero.


You imply that Dr. Aldrin would've a better choice because he liked to talk about it. That's a pretty shallow reason, especially since Neil does indeed talk about it.


In thinking about what might have been if Dr. Aldrin was the first man to set foot on the Moon...without going into a bunch of somewhat human crap that happened almost 4 decades ago, I shall only speculate that the public perception of Apollo 11 might be completely different if that were the case, and that perception might not be what it is today.

Quite honestly, I hate even talking about the past like this, as it tends to paint a negative light on Dr. Aldrin, a man I admire in extremis, and it's really rather moot anyway, since Neil was the first out...for good reason.


Neil Armstrong is a model of the American hero. His character, demeanor, humility, and conduct is, and always has been impeccable. A better choice could not have been made. This man is a classic; ...a good and decent man, with high standards, and a character that is impossible to impune in any way.


I'll tell you what;

If you want the whole story, how about reading Neil's biography. It was finally put out in 2005. It's entitled First Man (2005, James R. Hansen, Simon and Shuster). This has everything, the good, the bad, and the ugly. Neil approved it, without edits. It shows the man, a human being....what he is, why he is the way is, and what he went through, and has gone through since Apollo 11.


It is the finest book ever published about an astronaut (and well worth the 35 year wait), and an extraordinarily human account of THE American hero of the 20th century.


Before making declarations about who should've been first on the Moon, I'd advise soaking up the 700 pages of this remarkable account. When you read this, and absorb it in all of its humanity, you will change your mind.

you'd have thought they'd have done that with Apollo 13, wouldn't you? A suitably heroic high point to end it on.

I feel the show stopper will be the next moon mission somehow...

Unless you start giving your reasons why it wasn't, it's not even that.

And you still have to explain why NASA did not build a more convincing fake LM.
Ignoring this just shows that you have no clue.

I can't help thinking that the answer to that is, well, yes. It's a bit like saying that only heavier-than-air-travel believers agree that the Boeing 747 is a real aircraft, able to fly. If you don't think that the Apollo program was real, you're probably not going to think that the Lunar Module is a real spacecraft. But even conspiracy believers have to agree that the Saturn V did actually take off, even if it didn't go any further than low orbit.

Precisely. What was inadequate about the LM design, other than the fact that HBs think it looks wrong? Looks don't matter when you're trying to land on the Moon.

I don't know if anyone has been able to answer this for you, belial...I've been rather unavailable for the last few days and there's lots of posts!
This aspect has been addressed in some detail...I think in this thread...someplace way back when, and certainly in the big one some time ago. It's probably a big pain to find them, so I'll try to encapsulate an answer.

At any rate, they're good questions!

You're correct in that Aerozine 50 and N202 (the hypergolics used on the LM APS and DPS) have this effect of producing that reddish/orange type of plume.

However, an exhaust plume, and smoke, for that matter, are functions of air. An exhaust flame or plume is due to interactions with air, and smoke is a mixture of combustion by-products (solids and liquids) mixed with air. When there's no air, you have no such effects.

The most you'll ever see when a rocket engine operates in vacuum is a brief ignition flash, with some residue ejected, which is the product of the initial incomplete combustion that takes place when an engine ignites. This quickly dissapates as the engine completes its ignition sequence and efficient combustion is taking place. Hypergolics are very efficient, and burn clean. Even in an atmosphere, hypergolics produce a faint orange colored plume (see pictures of the launch of the Titan II, which was used on Gemini mission launches for a pretty clear illustration of this effect...it used hypergolics).

Basically, there's no real visual evidence of a rocket engine operating in vacuum, unless you happen to be at a vantage point which allows you to look right up inside the engine bell into the combustion chamber, where the glow of burning propellants is clearly visible (watching the lunar liftoffs of Apollo LMs clearly shows this effect).

#

As to the effects on the surface, it should be noted that the DPS engine, as it got very close to the surface, was throttled down to approximately 25 to 30% of it's rated thrust at best. The thrust at that point was enough to allow the LM to settle softly onto the surface (if they had full throttle on the DPS at that time, they would've been climbing, not descending, as the vehicle had lost a huge portion of it's mass by virtue of burning all that descent propellant on the way down). That total thrust (around 2500 to 3000 pounds at that time) is spread out across the area of the engine bell, which was about 4.5 feet in diameter. That nets an exhaust gas pressure of between 1 and 2 psi, which isn't too much, and hasn't the amount of force necessary to create a "blast crater" or an "impact crater". Those things are caused by blasting or impact forces, which the LM DPS didn't impart.

In fact, many a higher thrust engine has been tested on Earth, with full thrust pushing down onto the ground. Engines as high as 60000 pounds of thrust have failed to produce blast cratering.

What was observed was a blowing of much of the surface dust from the area beneath the LM, and many photos taken by the EVA crews document this effect completely. There was some thermal effect reported by several crews, small scortching effects on the ground, and some on the LM itself, along the underside of the descent stage and on the insulation that covered the landing gear. Nothing major.

The DPS engine, for the most part, ceased operation prior touchdown as well. Those long appendages that stuck off of the landing gear pads were surfact contact sensors, which triggered the crews to shut down the engine. The pads were 6 feet or so above the surface when contact was sensed, and the engine was cut down, allowing the vehicle to plop down on the surface, compressing the honeycomb shock absorbers in the gear legs, making the final step from the ladder to the landing pad shorter. This shutdown above the surface further mitigated any thermal effects.

I wonder...

How many CTs would believe we never did the moon landing if they had worked on the technical aspects of the space program? That's been bothering me for quite some time now, in this interminable thread.

Thank you Mid, again your the man bud.
As for being a non believer, yes i am - but the more i listen to the posts of that man i tend to stop and take stock.
Mid you should run for president...

A fascinating post...




You would truly like to believe that men really went to the moon.
You observe a lack of consistency in the historic event...and you don't like to be silent when you hear a lie.

This is most telling, Hat.

You want to believe. You state that uncategorically. Yet, as has been explained, belief is not in the realm of science. Understanding is what allows you to know--experiential knowledge of the sciences and technologies involved. Understanding Apollo and how it worked is a matter of knowledge, not belief.

This fundamental is something you do not seem to understand. You state that you like to talk about space, and that you enjoy it, yet at the same time, your arguments indicated a decided lack of knowledge about the subject matter. It may be just me...but people who tend to enjoy this kind of thing take pains to learn about it. You seem to take pains to declare things a fake, and clearly illustrate a CT mindset in doing so. CT mindsets, especially concerning well understood sciences and technologies, are a sign of laziness.

You state that when you see a lie you say something about it. But how can you see a lie when you understand little about the subject matter?
What you're seeing in these "lies" is simply something you don't understand. To consider that a lie, without attempting to understand it, is to be lazy. It's the easy way out.

You cannot see inconsistencies in something when you don't understand the basis behind what you're observing.





You are correct. That is another subject.
However, this statement clearly indicates the HB / CT mindset, which is not only founded on a complete lack of pertinent subject matter knowledge, but also on an almost insanely inflated distrust of government (i.e., the normal healthy watchfulness over excessive government is inflated to virtual paranoia).

What you want to try and do is prove that the most documented, scientifically verified and confirmend occurrance in history is a fake. Without any knowledge, how are you going to do that?





No. On the one side, you have many people with direct knowledge and experience, attempting to explain to you what you have a decided resistance toward learning about for yourself...in favor of dearly held beliefs involving government cover ups and such.



Also no. Most of the fake NASA videos and pictures you say you have are authentic, real things that you refuse to understand. There are some decided fakes...fabrications, edits, and such slipped into the mix. However, those don't get by the experienced.

You speak of lack of stars...a clear indication that you refuse to learn. This has been fleshed out in complete detail, yet you still hold onto it as if it hasn't been explained. The fact is, you haven't made an effort to learn about it. And radiation, and the lack of explanations about the Van Allen belts?

Ditto. It seems to be a losing battle when the comments of Dr. Van Allen himself are ignored....







No it will not...unless your group refuses to learn something about the LM and its design and its purpose.




They say so because of faulty reasoning, and complete ignorance of the facts, which clearly document that they went to the Moon precisely as the story has been told. Again, this cannot be never-ending unless you refuse to learn.



The answer is absolutely correct. That you have not done your homework to understand that this is in fact the case is sad. It's simple to understand.




Your problem is that you are quarrelling about something that you can indeed touch, but refuse to do so.
You state that NASA has kept silent about this.
What are you talking about?

Silent?
Tens of thousands of pages of documentation, scientific reports, technical debriefings, mission summaries and detailed reports, ~25,000 photos...~ 6,000 of them taken on the lunar surface, 800+ pounds of verified lunar material, Hours and hours of live TV coverage, many more hours of 16mm films, complete transcripts of every word said during each mission, a dozen completely consistent eye-witnesses who actually explored the Moon...

Silent?

If the technology to clearly image an Apollo landing site on the surface of the Moon exists--to the degree which would satisfy and HB (which doesn't exist)--why would we use our resources to take pictures like that, when the events are documented to a degree of certainty that rivals any occurrance in human history? Do you honestly think that such expense and effort would actually be undertaken by scientists and engineers in order to prove what is already known?

You really should get together with a bunch of like minded people and appeal to the scientific community to do this sort of thing.
The reaction you'll get would amount to blank stares, few comments, and a bunch of scientists leaving the room shaking their heads without comment.




No, it wouldn't, because you'd not see what you wanted to see, and you would declare any high res photo of the lunar landing sites to be faked...IF you could actually see the shape of a LM descent stage.




Of course this material is not available. Perhaps you may now be seeing why such material is un-necessary, and silly to even think about obtaining.



There have been several explanations for this. The issue was fleshed out quite some time back on this very thread. The most plausible explanation is the simplest. It's a boring discussion any more. You really should search these discussions out.



The HB side cannot convince those who know the facts.
Again, the knowledge side is not here to convince you either. We are here to give you some knowledge about what you do not understand, and hopefully to impart an interest in learning and personal investigation into the sciences and technologies involved so that you may learn.





No, both sides do not.
The HB side has accusations, few questions (I wish there were more), and cannot substantiate their positions. There has never been a "Good HB answer" to anything Apollo. They don't give answers. They provide CT-minded theories based upon lack of knowledge. They declare fakery without any understanding.

Additionally, HBs don't know about every event related to Apollo manned space missions. They characteristically know little about a very few things.





Ending this discussion is a long process, and involves imparting knowledge--in order to replace the belief that HBs are so wont to cling to.


I have a suggestion for you that I've asked before, but which has been purposefully and selectively ignored.


You obviously have doubts. That is a curiousity to me, personally...especially given the fact that you have stated that you're very interested in space flight and all that (how can one be interested in a technical and scientific field and so adamantly cling to beliefs that have nothing to do with knowledge of science and technology?).

You have also painted yourself into a corner with declarations that you cannot in any way back up, and you, as do virtually all HBs who make such accusatory statements, fail to live up to your burden of proof, which is yours exclusively. That you do not understand that is also exceedingly curious.


Why don't you take one aspect of your doubts, and, rather than make declarations of falsehood, based upon lack of knowledge, ask questions about your doubts, with an eye toward learning about that which you are admittedly interested in?


For instance, you have stated that the LM couldn't have done what it was designed to do.
Such a declaration is an immediate turn off to many people who know that this machine was a labor of love, and a piece of engineering excellence designed and built by dedicated people with advanced degrees in many fields, who sweated over this babe for years and years.

How about re-phrasing what can only be seen as mindless declarations into question that address your doubts about it?
That would be understandable and acceptable.

Your statements about the LM are tandamount to arguments with skilled engineers and scientists who spent years studying their respective areas of interest and who applied their advanced knowledge to this craft for years.

You are not one of them. Do you have any idea about what sort of position you put yourself in when attacking minds like that?

That sort of approach will lend itself to answers that hopefully will stimulate you mind into areas that you never considered before, or that you know nothing about.

That's where the fun begins...learning about things.


Try it!
You may be surprized at how much fun learning something can be.

The alternate is a one way ticket to frustration.


We'd really rather have fun here.

Well, Rabid, that's kind of my point.
No one who actually applied him or herself to some aspect of Apollo would have any doubts.

There would be no belief involved. Knowedge tends to dis-assemble contrary beliefs rather systematically!

(...I don't think any CTs ever worked on Apollo, nor do I think any CTs have much technical knowledge or experience working on the space program in any respect)...

You're welcome, belial!


We're all about knowledge here, you know....as I've just illustrated in my prior post. I don't think any of our astute participants (several technically astute folks who have made obvious contributions to the thread---y'all know who you are!) will argue with me about that.



That's the fun part of all this stuff!

That's what life is about!
Knowledge...

Our position is--and I'm sure all will agree-- to make you a knower, and not a believer!
Knowledge is available...to anyone and everyone. That's the reality. And that's fun (at least it always has been to me).

I don't know if it exists the way it once did, but I cannot imagine that the wonder of learning something is totally absent, even today!


Perhaps you might remember the energizing feeling that came from putting your head to something and figuring it out...maybe some math problem in your school days, or whatever it might have been?

That's the feeling I like to put across to people, that exhilaration that happens when belief, or faith becomes knowledge...when you know!

How much more fun can there be than that?!


I appreciate your comments more than I can say.
I also accept your position as a believer. That's fine. I, for my part, will do what I can to show you the wonder of knowing. It's been decades since those heady days of Apollo. For me, the wonder has never left. It's understandable, it's known, and yet still, it's a wonder.

As to running for President...

Oh God, belial, do you hate me that much that you would suggest I condemn myself to such a thing???!!!





I can imagine many more better ways to age!

Sorry MID, it was meant as a compliment. But i know what you mean
And yes i understand your post concerning learning and knowledge, it is a great thing when i as a viewer or reader see something that sticks and i understand and get the gig.
Thanks again MID.

I know you did, and I appreciate it!

However...

I'm still convinced that there was technology on those craft (probably all of them) that is still undisclosed... Does that make me a CT? I guess I am anyway, to some degree.

Oh, well. Back to the magnetically driven alternator, which, by the way, does work. Just doing some tuning on the circuits. I think it's not suitable for my purposes, but it is quite interesting.

CT?

Nah...I'm sorry Rabid, but you don't quite qualify for that distinction!




Will look forward to you full technical report when your experiments are completed on the MDA!!!!

Hey, this thread has now gone on to 200 pages, so this, I feel, deserves some small celebration, and in view of that it seems as good a place as any to wish everyone a very pleasant festive season, should you wish to.

Merry Christmas everyone, to both CT's and us Apollo folk. Best wishes to you and your family Belial, I'll be back in about 3 days when the Beer has ran out.

Enjoy all!

Hear hear!!! And a happy and peaceful New Year.

Correction...NASA had equipment that could reach low earth orbit,not manned missions to the moon.

MID,thanks for your post and consideratrions about my text.
I forgot to ask you about the hasselblad cameras (and its accessories) without any improvement working on the moon succesfuly (temperature much under or above its limitations).I would be very pleased to hear from you about that.
Thanks!!!
Happy Christmas.

I've been reading this thread for a while now - actually started a few days ago with page 1, got to about page 76 then decided to skip forward a ways.



No, you are categorically wrong. NASA had equipment that could and did bring men to the Moon 9 times. 6 of those time, men walked the surface of the Moon as history has documented and they then returned safely back to Earth. That is documented fact and accepted as such world-wide.

Your post is noting but an outright fabrication based on an apparent complete lack of knowledge of the subject at hand.

All I've seen from you, Hat, are unfounded accusations and opinions - typical of the average Hoax Believer - with not one shred of proof or anything even resembling evidence. When someone takes the huge amount of time that MID has taken with you (and with many others throughout this thread) you, like many before you, completely ignore everything that has been said and continue on with your wild imaginings.

How do you expect anyone to take you with any seriousness? How do you expect anyone to see you as more than someone who is just blindly trolling?


Cz

I didn't feel like reading through the whole thread and decided to skip to the end.

So, how does the story end? Did we land on the moon or not?

Just kidding. A both fascinating and entertaining read filled with technical tidbits and thought provoking arguments (although possibly not for the reason you may think).

Sorry I don't have anything to add to the discussion other than...

Happy Holidays everyone!

Oh sure, let's just add a few thousand more people to the conspiracy. You really think the contractors wouldn't build equipment that was capable? They built it. They knew what it could do. It was tested and performed up to the task. They went to the Moon. You have shown no evidence otherwise.

Again, you are showing your lack of knowledge and of any interest in doing any research on the subject. Information is not hard to find on these cameras.

The Hasselblad cameras were definitely not "off the shelf" or unmodified:

Source: Apollo 11 Hasselblad Cameras


More detailed information can also be found here: Photography During Apollo

In addition to those modifications, there were other modifications made to allow easier use while wearing a bulky space glove:

1) Shutter release button was greatly enlarged
2) The Zeiss Biogon wide-angle lens was modified to add "paddles" to its control rings (aperture, shutter speed, focus) plus there were markings added to the lens barrel to make it easier to read the settings
3) A bracket was added to the back of the camera to allow it to be mounted to the front of the astronaut's space suits
4) The pop-up viewfinder was also removed from this model of camera as it would have been impossible to use by a space-suited astronaut.


Hasselblad EDC (Electric Data Camera) (source: Hasselblad Space Cameras)

Cz

Edited for your spelling safety

Probably to pissed - i mean drunk to read this gav, same to you and yours bud, happy hols everyone. Just got shouted at for being on here today lol. runs got to go.

Silver finish for termal variations???!!! Is that all you´ve got ??!!! And you really believed that it would be enough!!! You see...That is why we will never reach a conclusion ...How can you convince me that a silver finish would be enough to protect the camera and the film for the extreme variation of temperature that you have on the moon (from full shadow to sun exposure)....