Did we land on the moon?

[MID]

Thank you MID for the clarification.......

You always come across well-researched and intelligent and most importantly, a true gentleman........

Thank you very much, MUM...

I am honored, sir.

[MUM24/7]

That was not my intention and I apologise if it came across that way.

Apology unnecessary but welcomed just the same.......

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Apology unnecessary but welcomed just the same.......

My Father taught me that "manners maketh the man". My reply to you was written in haste and not checked before I posted it. You were right, it was unnecessarily condescending hence the apology was needed. I'm glad that you accepted it. Thank you.

[MUM24/7]

My Father taught me that "manners maketh the man". My reply to you was written in haste and not checked before I posted it. You were right, it was unnecessarily condescending hence the apology was needed. I'm glad that you accepted it. Thank you.

Aawwwww..... That was truly lovely of you to say Waspie and your father was indeed very wise......

[flyingswan]

You do not answer my questions, this gives me a right not to answer your questions.

I have answered all your questions except those I could not make sense of and those that other people answered when I was off-line.

You are the one trying to make a case for Apollo being a hoax, and refusing to answer questions gives the impression that you do not have the evidence you need to back up your case.

Getting back to Apollo transmissions, you don't seem to understand that the telemetry, audio and TV were carried separately - on different sub-carrier frequencies - in the overall signal, which also gave ranging data. Molotov could separate them out, but even if he could discover which digital coding method was being used for the telemetry, he would be be faced with a meaningless string of numbers unless he knew which numbers where coming from which bit of the instrumentation and what calibration factors were being applied. However, analogue TV and audio signals are a lot easier to interpret.

[Rusich]

Rusich, you are playing he oldest game in the hoax believers book. You know full well that the evidence proves you wrong so you just claim the evidence is a lie. If you do the research that has been suggested you will find that this "Moon soil" and Moon stone" you claim exists only on paper has been studied by experts from all around the world.

You have not given a single piece of evidence to support you own point of view it is time you started doing this as simply. Saying "you are wrong" to every point that proves you wrong does nothing to support your case.

My main proof this absence of proof from you.

[Rusich]

Concerning Ranger, Surveyor, and Lunar orbiter, you are correct.

Concerning Pioneer, you are incorrect:

Pioneer sucessfully executed 10 of its 20 mission, for a 50% success rate.

That averages 64% sucessful.

I'm not argue. I know only about seven missions to Moon.

An examination of the history of the Soviet manned space program will similarly reveal a large number of failures, some catastrophic.

The Soviets did place the first man into orbit around the Earth, but they also had the following firsts:

First man to die in a ground test.

First man to die in space.

...and the second, third, and fourth men to die in space.

First to kill lots of ground personnel in disasters.

First to destroy an entire launch complex in a catastrophic explosion.

First to fail to develop lift capacity required for a lunar landing mission.

Flying to the Moon was difficult.

The statistics clearly show that the U.S., despite the difficulty inherent in the task, had an easier time of it than the Soviets did. They suceeded, the Soviets did not.

Championship dearly costs and dollars for this does not pay. For the championship is necessary to pay a blood.

Your data shows a pattern...

U.S. manned lunar landing flights:

Apollo 11-Well

Apollo 12-Well

Apollo 13- Damage

Apollo 14-Well

Apollo 15-Well

Apollo 16-Well

Apollo 17-Well

_________________

Total: 86% well, 14% bad.

It was alot more than a "small problem".

We just did it better.

Do not distort a statistics. Apollo-13 was not landed on the Moon.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Championship dearly costs and dollars for this does not pay.

This is not football, this is science and engineering and research = success. Research costs money. So the bigger budget tends to win.

For the championship is necessary to pay a blood.

This is one of the silliest arguments I have yet to hear. This is nonsense on the scale of 1984 Newspeak. Paying in blood is the result of getting it wrong, not proof of getting it right.

Now are you actually going to present some evidence or are you just going to continue with ill informed opinion based on nothing but guess work?

Edited April 12, 2007 by Waspie_Dwarf

[Rusich]

You said that taking off from the moon was the difficult bit.

All three Russian lunar take-offs were successful, Lunas 16, 20 and 24. That's 100%.

Now your argument has collapsed, you switch and say that landing is the difficult bit.

For what so crudely manipulate facts?

As to your statistics of landing attempts, two of the missions in your list failed during launch from earth, so are hardly relevant to moon landing.

Ok. Show me your statistics.

Has it occured to you that landing might be easier with a human pilot in control?

MID has already told you about the flying simulators.

Perhaps you could also explain why landing the LM on the moon is so much more difficult than landing a Harrier or a helicopter?

Say this pilots helicopters and planes splitted when boarding.

Say this passengers splitting planes and helicopters.

Say this astronauts killed on Shuttle.

Incidentally, what are your comments on Chertok and Kamanin?

Chertok and Kamanin says that landing on the Moon is simple?

Chertok and Kamanin says that they saw astronauts going on Moon?

[Waspie_Dwarf]

For what so crudely manipulate facts?

It is your statisicts which are crude as they give no indication of what was actually happening.

Ok. Show me your statistics.

Fair enough

Let’s have a look at the statistics of the American unmanned lunar missions in more detail. I will break them up into 2 year periods. I will ignore the Soviet programme as Soviet technological success is irrelevant to what the USA could achieve.

1958 - 1959

Pioneer 0 – launcher failure

Pioneer 1 – launcher failure

Pioneer 2 – launcher failure

Pioneer 3 – launcher failure

Pioneer 4 – launcher failure

Pioneer/Orbiter – launcher exploded during ground test

Pioneer/Orbiter – launcher failure

Number of launch attempts = 7. Success rate 0%

1960 – 1961

Pioneer/Orbiter – launcher failure

Pioneer/Orbiter – launcher failure

Ranger 1 (Earth orbital test only) – did not achieve desired orbit – launcher malfunction

Ranger 2 (Earth orbital test only) – did not achieve desired orbit – launcher malfunction

Number of launch attempts = 4. Success rate 0%

1962 – 1963

Ranger 3 – Missed Moon – launcher malfunction

Ranger 4 – Impacted Moon as planned – no results due to onboard timer failure (not applicable to manned flights)

Ranger 5 – Missed moon due to onboard power failure (not applicable to manned flights)

Number of launch attempts = 3. Success rate 0%

1964 – 1965

Ranger 6 – Impacted Moon as planed – TV camera failed (not applicable to manned flights)

Ranger 7 – Success

Ranger 8 – Success

Ranger 9 – Success

Number of launch attempts = 4. Success rate 75%

1966 – 1967

Surveyor 1 – Success

Lunar Orbiter 1– Success

Surveyor 2 – Crashed on Moon

Lunar Orbiter 2 – Success

Lunar Orbiter 2 – Success

Lunar Orbiter 3 – Success

Surveyor 3 – Success

Lunar Orbiter 2– Success

Surveyor 4 – Crashed on Moon

Lunar Orbiter 5 – Success

Surveyor 5 – Success

Surveyor 6 – Success

Number of launch attempts = 12. Success rate 83.33%

The Surveyor 7 mission of January 1968 was the last American unmanned mission to the Moon before Apollo. It was a success.

Only the Surveyor missions were attempts to soft land on the Moon and these had a 71.43% success rate.

These statistics are actually slightly misleading in Rusich's favour as I have counted only missions which were a only a partial success as failures.

When the statistics are presented by date as above, it shows a far different picture from that which Rusich would have us believe. It shows that far from being a near impossible task to land on the Moon in 1969 the USA had steadily improved the techniques needed to land. They had learned from the problems that had blighted them at the start of space exploration (hardly surprising) and by 1969 had developed reliable missions to the Moon.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

My main proof this absence of proof from you.

What are you talking about? Do you really think NASA hands out Moon rock to anyone that says "I don't believe you went to the Moon?"

The proof IS The hundereds of peer reviewed papers from experts from all around the world. The proof IS that geologists have examined the material and have concluded that it could only have come from the Moon.

You are the one trying to overturn conventional belief, it is not up to us to provide evidence it is up to you. You have to prove that these geologists are wrong. You have to prove that the astronauts are lying. You have to prove that the Saturn V was under powered. You have totally failed to do any of this, in fact you have not presented on single piece of evidence. All you present is your opinion.

Your biggest piece of evidence that Apollo 11 was faked so far seems to be that it wasn't filmed by a Lunokhood that hadn't even been launched yet. How do you expect people to respect your opinion when the only facts you do provide are laughably wrong?

Edited April 12, 2007 by Waspie_Dwarf

[MID]

Championship dearly costs and dollars for this does not pay. For the championship is necessary to pay a blood.

I suppose, in one context, you could refer to Apollo as a race between the Soviets and the Americans. Thus, perhaps in some rather twisted sense, one could call it a championship.

I however, never thought much about that. It was always more about the compelling nature of what was being attempted, developed, tested, and hopefully, perfected.

In either case, a "championship", or a compelling scientific / technical project involving flying machines, there is risk involved, and often, success, or, a "championship" comes at the price of blood, as you say.

The fact of the matter is, the U.S. did pay a price in blood for it's victory.

What I was illustrating were some Soviet firsts that are not often discussed...the disasters and deaths that accompanied a program that was run by the military, and often pressed beyond the limits of reasonability and scientific sense.

The Soviets paid a huge price in blood, and they lost.

Do not distort a statistics. Apollo-13 was not landed on the Moon.

That is why it was described as "damaged", and a non-success as pertains to its intended mission. The facts are not distorted. They are accurate.

Apollo 13 was also, in another sense, a grand success and triumph of the U.S. system.

Say this pilots helicopters and planes splitted when boarding.

Say this passengers splitting planes and helicopters.

Say this astronauts killed on Shuttle.

Perhaps you could kindly rephrase that?

The syntax does not allow adequate interpretation of what you're trying to say.

Look, rusich:

You want to argue that Apollo didn't happen.

This of course is not uncommon here.

There is a certain minority of people, mostly of your age group and younger, who believe this sort of thing.

You tend to paint statistics and it seems to me that you do so for the following reason:

By showing the failure rates of Soviet missions, and by illustrating the difficulty in the enterprise by those statistics, by comparing the Shuttle disasters with the success of Apollo (which is not apples-to-apples and therefore is somewhat irrelevant), and other such statistical measures, you seem to be implying that Apollo couldn't have happened because the Soviet program failed, and that we've catastrophically failed in subsequent years.

This is not an adequate basis upon which to base a premise of Apollo fakery.

Apollo succeeded because of a certain group of people were allowed to do what they knew how to do, and were not interfered with by overt Government pressure to succeed. There were special people involved, special people who were responsible fully for what they did, and accountable for it. The Soviet program failed, in large part because they were not allowed to do what was necessary to accomplish the task, and who were pressed by the Government to stretch the limits of reasonability in several cases. They compromised safety in favor of success, and it killed their effort, as well as alot of people in the process.

This is a well-known past paradigm in the history of manned space flight.

This of course, says nothing against the brilliance of the Soviet scientists who put their minds to work on the effort, nor of course to the bravery and effort of the Cosmonauts. However, it does speak to the fact that these fine people were unduly influenced by a Government who demanded much, and did not allow complete control of the project to fall into the hands of the experts who were qualified to execute it.

I can guarantee you that if the Soviet Government wasn't in charge of the Soviet space effort, the race to the Moon would've been a race indeed. Because of that aspect of the effort in the U.S.S.R., the Americans were on their way to a landing on the Moon in July 1969, while the Soviets were cleaning up their utterly destroyed program.

When the U.S. came upon a problem, where it was said, "Look, we don't think we can do it this way. It's not safe," the response was, "Well, then, study the matter, come up with something else that will work, fix it, and move on."

In the U.S.S.R., the same problem was typically met by, "We don't care. Try it anyway, we've got to beat the Americans to the Moon."

That is a formula for defeat and disaster in an experimental flight program. That is in fact what happened.

You speak to simulation technology, as if that is something that was not within the capabilities of Soviet scientists. It most certainly was. I don't know, but perhaps they didn't allow adequate simulation technology to be developed in the Soviet program because it was a waste of resources?

The bottom line here is this; you are an HB, and are claiming a fake in the U.S. lunar landing program. Your arguments are shallow and based upon a complete lack of knowledge of what went on, in the U.S. program, and it seems in the Soviet program.

Apollo, and Mercury and Gemini, were known all over the World when they happened. We did everything live and in color and in full view of the world...and that includes the government of the Soviet Union, who saw it all, you can be sure. They just didn't show their citizens our sucesses. They didn't want to, for good reason. They kept the pressure on, because they knew that we were "winning", and of course, they couldn't lose face in the eyes of their population.

Thus, they also kept everything they did a secret, until, and if it was a success, and only then did they broadcast it to the world.

There's a huge and obvious difference in approach there.

But none of that is really significant in respect to proving that Apollo was a hoax. That of course, has never been done.

Perhaps you have some questions, or something more substantial to present?

We will be all ears, but please, think about it first.

Apollo succeeded, and the scientific community the world over has substantiated that fact time and again.

Lots of people, especially the younger generations who became cognizant of their world in the post-Apollo era don't realize these things. Perhaps you are one of these people.

Ask a question about your doubts...you'll get an answer.

But please, don't ask for proof that we did this. The proof is abundant. Tell us why it didn't happen. The HB must prove his or her contentions...not the other way around.

[Rusich]

Because Apollo 11 landed on the moon on 20^th July 1969 and Lunokhod 1 wasn't launched until 10^th November 1970.

Next question.

It is fine! I expected exactly such answer. This example of logic of child at age of three years.

Following your logic is got, link-up Soyus with Apollo is incredible prodigy!

[Waspie_Dwarf]

It is fine! I expected exactly such answer. This example of logic of child at age of three years.

Following your logic is got, link-up Soyus with Apollo is incredible prodigy!

If you expected such an answer why did you ask such a question? The logic wasn't childish, it was the answer required by the question asked. We have a saying in the UK, "ask a stupid question, get a supid answer".

Edited April 13, 2007 by Waspie_Dwarf

[flyingswan]

Chertok and Kamanin says that landing on the Moon is simple?

Chertok and Kamanin says that they saw astronauts going on Moon?

They say they were working to put a Russian on the moon, something you denied at the start of this argument.

They accepted the reality of the Apollo missions, and who in Russia would be better placed to detect a fake?

[flyingswan]

For what so crudely manipulate facts?

Ok. Show me your statistics.

I have not manipulated any facts, you are the one doing that. Where is there any evidence that a lift-off from the moon has failed, US or Russian?

The missions you list as "Luna?" were launch failures. That leaves three successes, three failures in attempting to land on the moon. One of the failures, Luna 23, was only a slightly hard landing which damaged the sample collection device. If a miniature crew had been aboard, they could have simply returned without samples.

[MID]

It is fine! I expected exactly such answer. This example of logic of child at age of three years.

Following your logic is got, link-up Soyus with Apollo is incredible prodigy!

Let us see.

You said this:

QUOTE(Rusich @ Apr 12 2007, 02:38 AM)

This meeting your astronauts with our Lunohod on the Moon!

You are not decided on this. Why?

...which seems to have alluded to the idea that verification of our lunar landings could've come from a "meeting" of the Soviet Lunokhod with Apollo astronauts (??); a rather silly notion at best. Waspie rather destroyed that argument (if that is indeed what the argument was) by pointing out:

Because Apollo 11 landed on the moon on 20th July 1969 and Lunokhod 1 wasn't launched until 10th November 1970.

Which would of course be correct...the Soviet craft was 16 months behind Apollo 11. That piece of easily verifiable information should, one would think, prompt the logical person to understand his or her mistake.

But no. You call that 3rd grade logic. Good one.

The fact is, the only thing 3rd grade in this exchange was your response.

Now, perhaps you could stop with the barbs and silliness and get down to business.

I reiterate:

Perhaps you have some questions, or something more substantial to present?

We will be all ears, but please, think about it first.

Apollo succeeded, and the scientific community the world over has substantiated that fact time and again.

Lots of people, especially the younger generations who became cognizant of their world in the post-Apollo era don't realize these things. Perhaps you are one of these people.

Ask a question about your doubts...you'll get an answer.

But please, don't ask for proof that we did this. The proof is abundant. Tell us why it didn't happen. The HB must prove his or her contentions...not the other way around.

[Rusich]

Or, a third variant....your government at the time DID NOT ALLOW IT'S CITIZENS TO SEE IT...which would in fact be the case.

You didn't see Apollo happen in Russia because the government of the Soviet Union didn't broadcast it...for obvious reasons. That was the 'collapse of your observing of Apollo'.

Despite the fact that Apollo was broadcast live, for everyone to see the world over, the Soviet Union didn't show anything having to do with an American space mission on Soviet television until the ASTP mission in 1975.

You not rule. We, russian, be aware of the debarkation of americana on the Moon.

On this have reported in main newspapers. Device Saturn5, Apollo and LM was described In research journals. But tv-reports from Moon we not saw.

Debarkation of americana on the Moon of joy beside us did not cause. We were unnerved.

I think reports from Moon didn't show us on other reason.

You do not present what indignation have caused in russian internet video's and photo's materials of NASA! On free forums much speak of NASA forgeries. Only on the official sites like "http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/" this subject of discussion is mercilessly suppressed.

If in 1969 s we have shown reporting from Moon, this has caused greater indignation of research workmans. Moon swindle not to manage to save in the secret.

However, a little more than half a billion people watched it happen live. Not in the Soviet Union however. It was...an embarrasment, I should suppose.

There is little doubt that you are too young to have remembered.

However...NO ONE saw us "debark" from the Moon on Apollo 11...or 12, or 14...

There was no TV coverage of that, like there was on the J Missions....but you would've been what, 9 years old in 1972?

No matter...the live broadcasts of lunar liftoff from Taurus Littrow weren't shown on Soviet TV...

Perhaps by "debarkation" you are speaking of leaving the LM for a stroll on the Moon?

If that's the case, we all got to see that too...the world over...except in the Soviet Union.

From American land...and anywhere else in the free world, it was most certainly possible to attest to debarkation from the Moon, and we saw it all happen live....not in Russia, however.

You missed a great deal...

I nor what did not miss, all materials be available on NASA's sites.

[Fluffybunny]

I hate to go off topic, and I rarely post in any of the million or so "moon hoax" threads that we have floating around this forum, but I just have to add that Rusich has the cooest Russian accent I have ever read...not heard, but read. I might be the only one, but I can't read his posts in my mind without thinking about every Russian spy movie I have ever seen. I like the accent, it is cool...

I am obligated to issue myself a warning for posting off topic. Dang.

It was worth it...

[Obviousman]

Rusich,

I think most of us have a little trouble understanding what you are saying at times, so please forgive us if we misinterpret a post from you. Even so, as was remarked earlier, you are doing far better than we english-speakers would do on a Russian-speakers forum.

You not rule. We, russian, be aware of the debarkation of americana on the Moon.

On this have reported in main newspapers. Device Saturn5, Apollo and LM was described In research journals. But tv-reports from Moon we not saw.

Debarkation of americana on the Moon of joy beside us did not cause. We were unnerved.

If I follow you correctly, why would you be unnerved? The USSR had reason to be proud of it's achievements - and would go on to make more with Salyut and Mir. The Apollo programme had no real military applications - why would people be unnerved?

I think reports from Moon didn't show us on other reason.

I don't understand - could you rephrase this?

You do not present what indignation have caused in russian internet video's and photo's materials of NASA! On free forums much speak of NASA forgeries. Only on the official sites like "http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/" this subject of discussion is mercilessly suppressed.

Likewise, throughout the internet there are forums and webpages that maintain that Apollo was hoaxed. Their big problem is that none of their 'facts' stand up to scientific scrutiny. They are not suppressed - merely shown to be wrong. Is this not the case in Russian-speaking forums?

If in 1969 s we have shown reporting from Moon, this has caused greater indignation of research workmans. Moon swindle not to manage to save in the secret.

Again, I apologise, but I don't understand what you are trying to say.

I nor what did not miss, all materials be available on NASA's sites.

Then if you take those materials to other than US scientists, they can confirm that the papers describe what is possible. Have you done this?

[badeskov]

I hate to go off topic, and I rarely post in any of the million or so "moon hoax" threads that we have floating around this forum, but I just have to add that Rusich has the cooest Russian accent I have ever read...not heard, but read. I might be the only one, but I can't read his posts in my mind without thinking about every Russian spy movie I have ever seen. I like the accent, it is cool...

I am obligated to issue myself a warning for posting off topic. Dang.

It was worth it...

Fluffy, one warning up....d***, that probably means me too But I agree, the accent is great - reminds me of when I took Russian some 15 years ago for the fun of it

Best,

Badeskov

[Rusich]

I have answered all your questions except those I could not make sense of and those that other people answered when I was off-line.

You are the one trying to make a case for Apollo being a hoax, and refusing to answer questions gives the impression that you do not have the evidence you need to back up your case.

Getting back to Apollo transmissions, you don't seem to understand that the telemetry, audio and TV were carried separately - on different sub-carrier frequencies - in the overall signal, which also gave ranging data. Molotov could separate them out, but even if he could discover which digital coding method was being used for the telemetry, he would be be faced with a meaningless string of numbers unless he knew which numbers where coming from which bit of the instrumentation and what calibration factors were being applied. However, analogue TV and audio signals are a lot easier to interpret.

I say not about separation of telemetry signal. I say about decoding of telemetry signal.

Our electronic espionage did not gives us objective information.

So much for that I wanted to say you.

I does not want to enter in technical jungle. I want to speak about things, comprehensibles for any persons.

[Rusich]

This is not football, this is science and engineering and research = success. Research costs money. So the bigger budget tends to win.

This is one of the silliest arguments I have yet to hear. This is nonsense on the scale of 1984 Newspeak. Paying in blood is the result of getting it wrong, not proof of getting it right.

Now are you actually going to present some evidence or are you just going to continue with ill informed opinion based on nothing but guess work?

Here is exactly! Unlike you, for us this was a question of life and death.

If we did not create an atomic bomb and did not create a rocket capable to deliver this bomb on USA, we ceased to exist! Bombers USA have destroyed our city as they have destroyed a japanese city Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Perished groups of ten million people. Only, fear of death has forced us to become to be first in cosmos. So death near two hundred person this good charge per the life of groups of ten million people.

[Obviousman]

Here is exactly! Unlike you, for us this was a question of life and death.

If we did not create an atomic bomb and did not create a rocket capable to deliver this bomb on USA, we ceased to exist! Bombers USA have destroyed our city as they have destroyed a japanese city Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Perished groups of ten million people. Only, fear of death has forced us to become to be first in cosmos. So death near two hundred person this good charge per the life of groups of ten million people.

Rusich, I don't think this is really relevant, but do I need to remind you of the Tsar Bomb? It was originally designed to be 100 Mt, but scaled down (and tested) at at least 50 Mt? This was an air-deliverable device; the Tu-95 could deliver the weapon.

What really does this have to do with the Apollo moon landings?

[Waspie_Dwarf]

What really does this have to do with the Apollo moon landings?

I believe it is called a hand waving tactic. Try to distract people from the real issue because you have no real evidence to present. So far Rusich has talked a lot but said nothing. Despite several requests he has failed to present any evidence to back uo his claims. I can only conclude he does not have any.