I think they would have to watch their words because if they said oh look the wind is blowing it then anyone who would be watching would probably think oh there is wind on the moon does that mean it has a atmosphere and also i think the conspiracy comunity would have a field day lol

lol watching their words? they react to what they see which is confirmed by what they say and after saying they try and find a solution, that solution of course being the attempts to re-position the flag and holding the bottom corner. This doesnt seem to help though and for good reason.

lol sorry i mean mind their words

heheh np, i guess they couldnt help it like you just now

I have to say this because it is very unlike me to take the side of the government in any argument and to tell you the truth I dont like taking there side. However, having said that I just dont see any way that the moon landing could have been faked or any reason for it to have been faked. All the evidence for this conspiracy theory is just so out there. Not only that the russians were watching us like hawks back then and if we had been trying to pull a fast one they wouldnt have let us get away with it. This will be the last post for me this is just a waste of time.

You're correct on all counts, dmurdock.

There was no way we could've faked going to the moon. Intelligent people understand that, and those of us who may have been involved in doing it just sit there with their mouths open at the prattling of certain posters....

...people who wish to be heard...exclusively. A certain poster, who has returned recently, and certainly has a decided ability to ignore what's been written in favor of holding on to his imbecilic notions, has done what he's done before...reduced the thread to a waste of time.

He's also had another thread shut down, a thread which had potential, save for his idiotic egotism.

It'll probably happen here, too.

He really doesn't read....

I don't have a clue as to van Allen radiation potential?


Does anyone wonder why this person is here? Why he ignores everything he's told by knowledgeable people. Why he loves to be obstinate, ignoring the principals of discussion...and most certainly learning, in favor of reducing every thread he's in to a Jerry-Springer like festival of verbal diahrhea?

What a waste of a thread.


We thank you for your lunacy in the face of the facts...

No , Bill Wood did not.
Bill was an electrical technician, who was Unified S-Band Supervisor at Goldstone during the Apollo Years. His area of expertise was in tracking, communications, instrumentation and TV signal processing. He was not an ICBM engineeer at the time of Apollo. He worked as an instrumentation technician in the 1950s on small rocket engine development projects before getting involved with tracking in the pre-Apollo days.

He had nothing to do with Apollo spacecraft design, launch vehicles, or radiation whatsoever.

He did, however, write the definitive treatise on the Apollo TV system...an area which he is certainly expert in, and which has debunked every HBs ideas about faked TV pictures, etc....that is, if the reader can grasp the technical nature of what he's talking about....which I don't think this poster can.

One should check out his "sources" before making a complete fool of himself.

'boggle' date='Jun 15 2006, 10:18 AM' post='1232422'

Speaking of old days... NASA is still using the same old fashion rocket technology that braun is so attached to. So if you are referring to still being stuck on something old, its definitely braun technology. Braun claimed to have built a space rocket ship back in 1942 and that technology has not changed lol, remember challenger?



Now, is this utterly foolish.
Is this not a classic example of ignoring what's already been explained, and a perfect example of wishing to see ones self in print?

By the way....it's von Braun...Dr. von Braun, not "braun"...


But forget the braun. Try a little brain:

I already wrote...

The saturn V launch footage shows an exhaust trail which was expected when using RP-1 kerosene and LOX as propellants. Hypergolics were not used on the SV. Sorry. This is completely silly, and renders whoever said it to the realm of the uneducated. The Saturn V used Cryogenic fuels. Except for the RP-1 (S-1-C fuel), which could be stored at room temperature.
In the aftermath of Columbia I'd say whoever wrote the statement about un-necessary risks is somewhat correct (although it's a complex topic). But that has nothing to do with cryogenic engines, like the SSMEs, which are highly efficient, and highly reliable. Challenger had nothing to do with those engines either. These events were about a complete paradigm shift in NASA management, not about "obsolete technology". There is no obsolete technology being utilized on the shuttle today, nor has there been on any rocket launched in the history of space flight.


Additionally, the Saturn V, and the Shuttle, are about as related to the V-2 as modern day human beings are to Cro-Magnon. Evolutionary anscestors, yes. But similar, no.

And above all, von Braun's team were not "the engineeers of the holocaust". (quite frankly, how dare you say something like that). Hitler, and his group of idiots, claim that title.

One would think that one would research what's been written...check out the fact that von Braun's technology was not old fashioned, but revolutionary, and set the path for the successes we experienced, and see clearly that the "old V-2 technology, was, as I said, as related to the Apollo Saturn V as humans in the modern day are to Cro-Magnon.


He doesn't read. Indeed, he ignores. Perhaps he can't deal with anything over about 1 paragraph, as I'd previously postulated.

He prefers to make himself look stupid by continuing to hold fast to his opinions in the face of the incontrovbertible truth. He mispells historically significant people's names, apparently has no understanding whatsoever about rocketry, space flight, van Allen radiation, or celestial mechanics.


There is a definition for this type of person...


I know he's already been warned about this. And if he doesn't stop this pattern of trying to destroy threads, and get a rise out of people (it's somewhat like arguing with a lunatic that the sun is a star, when he will do anything to insist on the fact that it is not...i.e., talking to a brick wall and expecting an answer), then he shall likely get what he deserves.

There are rules against this sort of silliness.

He knows better, and he is, once again, '...just messin around...and, havin too much fun being obstinate'.

Gee. Remember that, boggle?

He's not serious folks. He's trolling. Again.

You know, a while ago I asked you for your sources on those bits of information and you conveniently ignored me. I don't suppose you'd bother to show us some sources this time. Especially the part where you said: "2. out of 23,000 satalites sent up over 17,000 have malfunctioned and fallen out of orbit due to the Van Allen radiation belts"

So...what's your source? You keep harping on that and the supposed "20,000 system failures by 1967" but you never give us any actual sources for it.

Or anything really, save a mockumentary and a 4 hour video that didn't prove your studio breeze theory.

speaking of brains...

like i would take your word over an military engineer who worked on ICBM- thats Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles -- MID. Firstly, you only twist the information i give by stating something exactly opposite of what has already been proposed by Bill Wood himself.
He states that Saturn V was assembled as light as possible and would not have had enough shielding for any radiation whatsoever while your opinion just reverses his words. You are the one trolling for in noway will i believe your words over his, got it? sheesh. He also states just more than what i have described but again you would only reverse his words.



Now that is an asinine statement for his rocketry had everything to do with projectiles whether using them for good or harm. I suggest reading up on Siemens AG and the slave labor treatment of jewish women at that time (during the time V-2 rockets were built and what it took to build them/ transport them). Once again you show your lack of knowledge for this area as well. Engineers of the holocaust is a time frame and used in reference to that time era and the direct and indirect involvement to the slave labor and deaths to even achieve the rocket supplies but you cannot fathom this in your neaderthal mind. Your words isnt from experience especially in the area of rocket science and neither can your credibility even hold a candle to Bill Wood. Since you cannot manage to get over on any of this you instead revert to attacking the poster rather than getting some info by another person with at least the same credibility as Bill Wood but you cant so that is why you are trolling once again. Bill Wood the military engineer is a rocket engineer having had more experience behind Von Braun rocket technology than your astronomer "master" phil plait. His crediblity behind rocket science is also taken precedence over phil plait and you combined on any given day.

Bill Wood

I was born in Homestead, Pennsylvania, a steel-mill town near Pittsburgh, in 1936. Spent my early years in McKeesport, Pennsylvania. In 1944 my parents family moved to Southern California to work in the war plants there. At the age of 19 I joined the USAF as guided missile technician in 1955. At the end of my four-year hitch I was working at the Edwards AFB Rocket Engine Test Laboratory as an instrumentation technician with Atlas and Thor missiles when they were test-fired there.

In 1960, after a short stint at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory as an instrumentation technician with smaller rocket engines, I decided to get into the satellite tracking business with the then-secret Corona project. I was a telemetry technician on USAF launch support ship, USNS Pvt. Joe E. Mann. We tracked most of the early "Discoverer" missions during launch phase down range off the coast of Mexico. In late 1960 I was assigned to run a new Bendix operated Corona tracking station on Tern Island, halfway between Oahu and Midway Island in the Hawaiian chain. When that station was no longer needed in 1963 I was transferred to the USNS Longview, one of two Corona Project recovery ships.

In September of 1966 I was transferred to the Goddard Space Flight Center, outside of Washington, D.C., to work as an Apollo Unified S-band systems advisor on the Manned Space Flight Network support team. After completing my 18 month tour of duty at GSFC I was transferred to the Goldstone MSFN station in April of 1968 and spent the following four years as a Unified S-band crew supervisor. This included all of the manned Apollo missions from Apollo 7 through Apollo 17. In 1973 I became a station crew supervisor and supported the Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz manned missions.

In 1978, when Bendix regained the Deep Space Network contract, I was transferred to the Goldstone DSN facility where I worked as the Systems Engineer responsible for the maintenance of all technical facilities at Goldstone. In 1988 I took an early retirement from Bendix/AlliedSignal, but continued to work full time as a consultant to the Deep Space Network until 1994.

I now live in happy retirement in Barstow, California. Most of my time is spent in sound recording restoration, digital photography and amateur radio.

you are referring to the wrong person, the one i am referring to didnt work at goldstone nor telemetry technician on USAF .

Apollo TV

I don't know about you, but I'm totally convinced that Bill Wood is who boggle says he is, rather than who Bill Wood says he is.

Yup. Totally.

You're right. There were two Bill Woods that worked intimately on the Apollo missions and the fact that only one Bill Wood (who worked on the communications systems) pops up in NASA's search is because the other Bill Wood has been stricken from all records by NASA as part of a vast conspiracy.

Either that or they replaced your Bill Wood with this guy as part of a vast conspiracy involving aliens, a hollow space station, cloning, and reptilians.

thats cuz you also dont know people can have similiar names with alittle differentation such as BSc which that person does not have when shown together lol.

The description of Bill Wood that boggle clings to can be found on many web sites (all word for word the same), namely:



All of those web are conspiracy sites such as: Co(s)mic Daves site: http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html, NASA REALLY MOONED US!, http://www.contrarianthinker.com and so on.

Now since these sites all use exactly the same description, word for word, it is obvious they have a single source. That source is the book Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers by Mary D. Bennett & David S. Percy.

Now fortunately for us the Bill Wood that they interviewed (the guy that worked on ICBMs allegedly) has reviewed this book on Amazon.com. Here is what he had to say:



Source: Amazon.com

Once again you fail to get it the right person lol trying to confuse two different people dont get you anywhere. Your making the same mistakes as ivy while trying yet again for the misdirection tactic.

Wow...just...wow.

My hat's off to you boggle. You cracked the conspiracy. Just be careful, you know what the government does to people who find out The Truth.

lol i really dont care what the government does, they dont seem to mind when professors show this kind of stuff in colleges so why should they mind if i remain skeptical?

Oh boy, I vote for the second conspiracy option!

It's my opinion if one is going to be irrational/ridiculous, one may as well do it in a really big way. Ok, what about the idea that there were really reptilians in the space suits...posing as astronauts? Oh, I like it, let's go ask David Icke what he thinks. Not the David Icke sports commentator, but the one the Raelians cloned. Yeah, he certainly knows all about it. We'll need to go to Area 51 and leave a message near the entrance to the hollow Earth (I hear that's where the reptilians are based) telling them that we're onto their evil plans regarding the space station!

I was wondering why my ears were burning.

Ummm.......I suspect you did get me confused with someone else, and then jumped on the flat earth thing after the fact.

Who is this mysterious second Bill Woods then boggle? I'm really curious.

Sorry about that earthchick. It was very rude to talk about you behind your back.

LOL. No problem!

I see.
The "other" Bill Wood. The one that no one seems to be able to substantiate...another of the HBs professional references...only this one has been assigned a name. OK.

Our poster does make a point when he says that "the Saturn V was assembled as light as possible and would not have had enough shielding for any radiation whatsoever...".


I must be honest, I would not disagree with that statement.
But that's not what our esteemed poster was implying of course. Our poster , who obviously understands Apollo alot more than I do ( ) , is implying in his assertions that the crews couldn't have survived van Allen passage...because "Bill Wood" said the Saturn V was not built for radiation shielding.

Well, you see, the Saturn V wasn't built for any particular radiation endurance or protection. It wasn't designed that way because it didn't get any exposure to the van Allen belts. It's job was over before van Allen penetration occurred.

A small point, of course, but just a little pertinent.

The Apollo CM was designed for that purpose, and as is well known, accomplished it quite nicely.


He also implied that von Braun and his crew were the engineeer's of the holocaust. Now, he wishes to say that the term was referring to "a time frame", whatever that actually means.


Of course von Braun's rocketry had everything to do with projectiles...whether for good or harm.

It is because they were being used for harm that von Braun and his team defected.


This of course was pointed out to him before, but again, he ignores it, because I know nothing about spaceflight whatsoever.

The rest of that banter is unassociated gibberish which has nothing to do with the point.

Neanderthal mind....asinine...brains?

Uh huh....that's about it, I suppose. Unfortunate.

That's it ivy!
By God, I think you've hit the nail on the head.

Aliens, hollow space stations, cloning, and reptilians...

They got rid of the other Bill Wood!

I never thought about it that way....but it makes perfect sense now.


Everything I've ever said is obviously wrong.
I'll bet someone will be pleased (and...will think I'm being serious)!

Indeed, it is the reason he defected to the Americans and not the Soviet Union. He would have been captured within a matter of days by the approaching Soviet Army anyway but von Braun did not want to to continue producing weapons of war and feared (correctly) that this would be the case if the Soviets got hold of him.

It is somewhat ironic that America chose to send him to the US Army and keep him away from their attempts to place the first satellite in space. Forbidden from beating the civilian Vanguard project into space he actually had to resort to adding ballast to his Jupiter rockets. Only after the Soviet Union had placed Sputnik 1 into orbit and Vanguard had failed spectacularly was von Braun allowed to attempt a satellite launch. He succeeded first time. Explorer 1 was lofted into space by a Juno 1 booster and the first discovery of the space age was made, the van Allen belts.

A few years ago I was lucky enough to take a trip to Peenemunde, the birth place of the V2. In fact, I've just this moment discovered, that I am in the group photograph 4th down on the left on this page.

22 pages of this...good God. You know, some people want to believe something so bad that they will try anything to make it work in their heads...christians, loch ness enthusiasts, Apollo program conspiracy folks...

Quickly, here it all is:

Flag-waving: The astronauts are actually spinning the pole and playing with it when the thing moves. It does not move at all after the momentum from the astronauts' moving the pole dies out. Enough of this 'wind blown' theory. A community college physics I student could refute this crap. See HERE and stop already.

no stars in the sky: Take an old film-camera like those used by the astronauts of the apollo proram to the desert and snap some shots. You will see black sky. The light of the reflecting ground and the dimness ot the stars will not both show up on an exposure of that type. The bright reflecting ground dims out the stars, making the sky appear black. It is the same for a video camera. Take a photo at a nighttime baseball game if you dont believe me. The exposure (as well as human eyes) cannot see the small pinpoints over the very bright surface.

shadow lengths/directions: Difference in terrain, mostly...but also simple perspective. Different ground heights produce different angles and lengths of shadow, even from a single light source. Go outside on a sunny day and see for yourselves. For the converging shadows; everything appears to converge as it stretches further into the distance. Things stretch toward a 'vanishing point', or the point on the horizon that things disappear.

Anything else?

edit: Oh yeah, Van Allen Radiation: This one is as foolish as it gets. Armchair scientists and conspiracy maniacs loooove the 'Van Allen radiation will kill you" argument, but conveniently ignore the facts again. Van Allen radiation is particle radiation. PARTICLE radiation...which even the laziest of college science majors can tell you is sufficiently shielded by even thin metals and plastics for short spans of time...like the period of time it takes to fly through some of it.

*ahem*...anything else?

those are nice opinions but you still havent convinced me yet perhaps you should email that to any number of the investigative journalists-- the ones with the credentials and see what they have to state. Perhaps they may laugh or perhaps they may not. One thing is for sure, not only did the original whistleblowers keep their skeptism but more has followed after them with other documentaries instead of dying out or being converted into a believer.

Oh yes...the 'journalists' with the 'credentials'. I know I would trust a 'journalist' over about 100 scientists with their credentials...and phDs.

Journalists never make sensational stories for fun and profit. Scientists, however...well they lie. Right?

Let's show your journalists' evidence to the scientists, the ones with the credentials, and see what they say. They may laugh or they may not-- No, they'll definitely laugh.

the journalists who give interviews with navyfrog men you mean? or military rocket engineers? secretary of Von Braun and nasa? and other astronauts...some give opinions of both sides and some dont but most of your independant sources dont even have any credentials to speak of lol

How about well-known, professional Astronomer Phil Plait? I know he never interviewed a frogman, but it's still pretty good.

Here's yer 'credentials'.

actually phil plait doesnt convince me and ive seen some of his critiques of him as well some pertain to this area and some pertain to other subject matters. Imo i would rather believe some of the names ive mentioned earlier especially the rocket engineer who worked on ICBM's around the same time the apollo missions were allegedly ongoing. His opinon sticks with me over what an astronomer would want to state.

Well, he does have credentials. Phil Plait's credentials are no good...but the guy who talked to a frogman's are?



You don't mean the Bizzaro-Bill Wood?

you mean "avid amateur" phil plait?...My name is Philip Plait and I work at ... astronomy department at Sonoma State University ... Before that, I was (and still am) an avid amateur. ...




again, his credentials are not in the area of rocket science and his opinion regarding that subject matter is dumb indeed if he cannot distinguish smoke trails upon take off. An engineer would really have to have alot of experience to be able to distinguish what type of rocket fuel a rocket would be using just by looking at a take off sequence and phil plait definitely lacks credibility and knowledge of this area. His opinion in this area holds the same amount of weight of a smokescreen and thats about it.

Ok. Then, here's a website by Dr. Jay Windley and he is an engineer and a rocket scientist. Well, what do you know...Dr. Windley thinks all of this "moon landing hoax" stuff is without any scientific merit as well!

i read their article relating to what is being addressed now but i noticed that they evade what has been questioned by reforming the question with this:



when in fact that is not what is being proposed especially being that the time frame in question is the initial beginning of the saturn V. They use a broad range of scenarios but do not specifically address the fuels used at the time frame that is an integral part of the question. That is why the engineer who proposes questions is referring to the era in time he had experience with and not as they are outlining with the different variations being used today. They did a nice job of evasion that is for sure. It would have been better if they would have actually submitted the fuel usage documentation for saturn V during the specified era but instead they give the runaround.

I'm sorry i just don't think we went to the moon when they said we did....They had to beat Russia there....

So you are discounting Phil Plait because he was an amateur before he held his position at Sonoma State University?

Good God...the man works as a professional of astronomy at the University level and he isnt good enough for you because he used to be an amateur?

........................

That means Bizarro-Bill Wood used to be an amateur engineer so we shouldn't count him either.

And boggle used to be an amateur in reading English so we should discount his evidence completely too.

hey no need to get offended for quoting his own words and no i dont hold his opinions on rocket science to that of a rocket engineer and if you are offended by that, that cant be helped.

Now I'm confused. A scientist in one field can only have opinions of another field, even though it's related to his own field?

Does this mean what I understand of paleontology is merely my opinion because my official field is geology? So if I say "hadrosaurs were herbivores" it's nothing more than my opinion because I'm a geologist?

Does this also mean that if I told you how to change the oil filter in a '94 Geo Metro, it's merely my opinion because I'm a geologist rather than a mechanic, despite having changed my oil filter dozens of times in the past?

An opinion towards an event that is supposedly declassified? the documents should be available should they not? just like the telemetry tapes. When clavius submits the opinion its not addressing the question but rather giving differing varations unspecified towards the initial stages of the moon program. They dont address the question but reform the question so that they obscure the answer entirely.

Much like you just did to Ivy's question.

just like you did with the rocket engineers name

Think about it, it would be impossible to pull a Hoax of that magniture, with so many people involved and so many watching.
Makes going to the moon actually a lot easier.

Actually it is because they were in a race with the Soviet Union that it is impossiblr that the moon landings were faked. The Soviets had sent spacecraft (albeit unmanned vehicles) around the moon before America, so they were capable of tracking Apollo. We know that the Soviet missions were not fake because they were tracked from the west. Some of the first pictures of the far side of the moon were release by Jodrell Bank Radio Telescope in the UK BEFORE the Soviets released them. So if we could track their missions they could track ours. The only way Apollo could possibly be faked is if the Soviet Union was part of the cover up, but as the Soviets were trying to beat the USA why would thet lie?

actually that is reverse psychology while trying to entail it with impossiblity when in fact the Solviets could very well be in the dark since they had no other choice but to recieve what was being fed worldwide by NASA. The solviets also didnt want to create a rift especially after merging efforts, your limitation is superficial and not an impossiblity.

I wonder what actually is being addressed now...

We actually discussed the use of the term hypergolic before in reference to the post regarding exhaust trails of the Saturn V which weren't consistent with hypergolic fuels.

I also pointed out the falacy in that statement, as Jay would as well, were he to have read it, by stating a fact that once again, was not read.

HYPERGOLICS WERE NOT USED TO POWER THE SATURN V.

Jay is discussing hypergolic engine operation, not the Saturn V engine operation. Hypergolics are self-igniting fuels which were used in the thrusters on the CSM and LM, and on the LM DPS and APS engines.

The fuels used on the Saturn V first stage (which are the only exhaust trails anyone ever saw on a Saturn V) were, as previously indicated , RP-1 ( a kerosene based fuel) and LOX as an oxidizer.

I don't know how this information will help...but the question was asked:

The S-1-C stage contained approximately 315,000 gallons of liquid oxygen, and approximately 190,000 gallons of RP-1.

The RP-1 was consumed at a rate of ~1275 gallons per second, and the LOX at ~1900 gallons per second. The S-1-C burned for ~2.7 minutes, during which time it boosted the Apollo package to around 35 miles in altitude and a velocity of around 6000 MPH. It was then dumped, and the S-II stage took over, using it's cryogenic LOX and liquid hydrogen...

None of these fuels were hypergolic.

The exhaust trail seen from the S-I-C was perfectly consistent with RP-1/LOX burning...a big, huge flame.


Further reading of what's posted here, and a little further reading of what Jay is actually talking about, might make that clear.

The documents are available. Have been for years.
Telemetry tapes?

All telemetry was analyzed to death after each flight. Voluminous analysis is available on this telemetry...which was of course used for engineeering analysis. If the tapes no longer exist, what's the big deal? Their content is well-documented in technical analyses and reports that the general public would have no interest in, and would likely have no understanding of anyway.

What's the big deal?
Apollo is the most documented technical and scientific accomplishment in human history.

The bizarre part of this is that the vast majority of information, including the boring and excruciatingly detailed technical stuff is available for public consumption. Most all of it can be found on the Web.

Why hasn't this person used his brain and done so?
Then again...if one doesn't read the relatively simple information presented here, why should anyone assume that a link to a technical article on S-IC-6's (or any other of the S-I-Cs) performance would be read either?