Did we land on the moon?

[Lilly]

I didn` say do I believe in German moon base and I didn`t say any my opinion here. People use their brains, someone more someone less..like here. I hate when people ask me questions which I can see they didn`t think about. They ask just to say something against. Ego people..

People here have used their brains. Several of us have said that the link you posted contained nonsense (fantasy at best).

What you did voice your opinion on is from your post here.

And a site that makes the idiotic claim that the Germans landed on the Moon in 1942 is supposed to support the fact that America couldn't get to the Moon in 1969 how exactly?

Use your brain, life don`t give you everything on the plate.

We're not asking "just to say something against", we're asking because what you posted doesn't make much sense in the context of this discussion.

[MID]

thanks for the replies...so it's just a matter of money I guess...

Well, limited, in a very important way, all engineeering implimentations are a matter of money.

You don't just design and build something. There are always financial constraints.

It's part of engineering.

But really, the issue is a matter of a vehicle being designed for a specific task in a specific environment.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Land and liftoff LM is the most difficult stage of debarkation on Moon. Apollo-10 not checked this device on real unmanned land on Moon.

Yet again all opinion, no facts. Go back and check my statistics. Then go and do your own checking of the Soviet Luna programme and you will discover that the most difficult phase of the mission is the launch from Earth. The second most difficult part was the landing. No spacecraft (manned or unmanned) has ever failed to launch from the Moon. Only two programmes have attempted this, Apollo and the Soviet Luna programme. As you love statistics so much lets have a look at those for the sample return Luna missions (I have not inclued Orbital, lander or rover missions, only those that did or may have attempted to return samples).

Luna sample return mission or rover attempt 15^th April 1969 - launch failure

Luna sample return mission or rover attempt 14^th June 1969 - launch failure

Luna 15 sample return mission or rover attempt 14^th June 1969 - crashed on landing

Cosmos 300 sample return mission or rover attempt 23^rd September 1969 - failed to leave Earth orbit

Cosmos 305 sample return mission or rover attempt 23^nd October 1969 - failed to enter Lunar orbit

Luna sample return mission or rover attempt 19^th February 1970 - launch failure

Luna 16 12^th September 1970 - Successfully returned sample to Earth.

Luna 18 2^nd September 1971 - crashed on landing

Luna 20 14^th February 1972 - Successfully returned sample to Earth.

Luna 23 28^th October 1974 - damaged on landing.

Luna 13^th October 1975 - launch failure.

Luna 24 9^th August 1974 - Successfully returned sample to Earth.

Attempted number of launches (assuming all un-numbered Luna mission failures were sample return and not rover missions) = 12

Success rate = 25%

Launch failures = 50%

Crashed on Moon = 25%

Failed to launch from Moon = 0%

So there is no difficulty with the launch from the moon, and has already been shown with my earlier statistics America had a good success rate at Lunar landings. There is no difference between lnding a Surveyor on the Moon and landing a LM except one, the LM had a crew. In the late'60s and early '70s the inclusion of a crew would have increased the chances of success not decreased it (I have already given the example of Apollo 11 which would have crashed if Neil Armstrong had not taken control).

This may compare with astronauts start on Saturh-5 which was checked only on stands. End be easy guess.

Or comparable with launching the first space shuttle (the most complicated machine ever made by man and far more compliacated than either the Saturn V or the LM) manned on it's first mission. Oh dear, NASA did that as well with rather destroys another of your opinions.

More to the point every aircraft in the world (except remotely piloted vehicles) from the smallest private plane to the Airbus A380 has it's maiden flight manned by test pilots. The Apollo astronauts WERE test pilots. The LM had already undergone more unmanned test flying than an aircraft these men piloted before or since Apollo.

[MID]

I understand that Dr. Teller was concerned about using space as a platform for conducting tests on nuclear devices. Was there a treaty signed, back in the 1960's to prevent such efforts? I also read (source unknown) that NASA made plans, nonetheless, to carry out such a test on the Moon.

Is this historical trivia innacurate information?

The treaty was signed on January 27, 1967 (a date which will of course be remembered forever in the History of U.S. spaceflight), and placed into force on October 10th of that year.

It was called the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, a.k.a. the Outer Space Treaty (q.v.). This treaty addresses nuclear weapons, and many other aspects of the conduct of states in space, including assistance, territorial claims, etc...

I honestly don't know about any planned nuclear testing on the Moon. I also have no idea what sort of value such a thing would have. I do know, however, that such a thing was prohibited since 1967...if it was ever actually contemplated.

[MID]

The LM had already undergone more unmanned test flying than an aircraft these men piloted before or since Apollo.

Indeed it did.

As well, it underwent a complete manned shakedown (i.e., a complete engineering test flight which proved all aspects of its designed operations) in Earth orbit during Apollo 9 in March of 1969.

[magnetar]

The treaty was signed on January 27, 1967 (a date which will of course be remembered forever in the History of U.S. spaceflight), and placed into force on October 10th of that year.

It was called the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, a.k.a. the Outer Space Treaty (q.v.). This treaty addresses nuclear weapons, and many other aspects of the conduct of states in space, including assistance, territorial claims, etc...

Excellent information. Thank you.

One fact is that every nation is dependent on the technologies used in space- from research, to weather, and communications. It would seem essential that an effective, tacit understanding among everyone in this world take that into account. It has worked since 1967, and barring any more ridiculous backward experiments (shooting down one's old satellites), it should serve as a model for the future.

The idea that more nations need to surmount the extreme military capabilities that are possible, is to me, a waste of reason and resources. I would say more, but suffice to say NASA, and ESA, and the Russian organizations are some sort of broad focus points serving as examples of common scientific interest. Although institutions have forever cross-pollinated around the world, and economic interests are more mutual than ever, the civillian sector buffets the paranoid

aspirations of unneccessary military extremes.

It is a shame to see some countries still grossly manipulating things like religion or politics, in order to conduct activities that reduce the otherwise working system we all depend on, today. I'd rather see money given to universities or businesses that further solve the issues we face, not create new ones.

NASA brings a picture to mind of the importance of public service. There are real world issues they attend to, and most projects are faced with complexities, like any other major institution. On balance, I would say the investment has been of incalculable benefit to everyone.

[Obviousman]

Just a small point here about the helicopter flying that the astronauts did: although it was useful to them to help them think about their flight path in a different way to what they were used to, most commented that the actual control manipulation did little to train them for the lunar landing.

[Rusich]

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?"

NASA will not allow me to Moon stones on distance of cannon shot!

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.

They are a small, dependent people. If god will give you a confirmatory document, that you were on the Moon, then I shall be believe.

You are the one trying to overturn conventional belief, it is not up to us to provide evidence it is up to you.

...drop of water whets stone...

You have to prove that these geologists are wrong.

yes sir

You have to prove that the astronauts are lying.

yes sir

You have to prove that the Saturn V was under powered.

yes sir

You have totally failed to do any of this, in fact you have not presented on single piece of evidence.

I can say about you same.

All you present is your opinion.

And I am very complacent, that I can say my opinion after 80 years of dictatorship of communists.

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?

I think in USA and England schools, safe's sex is main lesson, but not logical thinking.

I wants to speak about link-up of the Soyuz - Apollo as an example of cooperation in cosmos. NASA has agreed with russian on undertaking this mission first of all.

NASA has done other blending node, has changed a composition of atmosphere of space shuttle an Apollo, and other belongings, for this mission.

That has disturbed USA to agree with USSR on meeting the astronauts and lunohod on the Moon? NASA had several not realizing missions on the Moon.

With russian it is impossible agree? This nonsence. Beside russian was little lunohods. This nonsence, how much is necessary and have done.

Russian lunohod is splitted when boarding. This nonsence. Sent three lunohods. One has stayed whole without fall.

If this meeting was consisted you had 100% alibi of your debarkation on the Moon. Secondly, this was splendid show, folk stood on the head from the delight. Single what did not become so this forum. But you have agreed with this loss, I think.

[Rusich]

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?

I explain to you why we agreed on a blood victims for output in cosmos onward all.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

I can say about you same.

You could but you would (as with all your arguments so far) be wrong. Apollo is considered a fact by all the experts on the subject. As it is accepted as fact it is the conspiracy theorists that need to prove the experts wrong. All the hoax believers present is badly informed opionion, you have followed this trend. Unless you have evidence to back your claims then you have nothing.

And I am very complacent, that I can say my opinion after 80 years of dictatorship of communists.

You can speak your opinion as much as you like but without evidence to back it up opion is worth nothing.

I think in USA and England schools, safe's sex is main lesson, but not logical thinking.

We will look at your logic at the end of my reply.

I wants to speak about link-up of the Soyuz - Apollo as an example of cooperation in cosmos. NASA has agreed with russian on undertaking this mission first of all.

Of course you do. It is irrelevent as ithas nothing to do with whether Apollo could land on the Moon.

NASA has done other blending node, has changed a composition of atmosphere of space shuttle an Apollo, and other belongings, for this mission.

What has the shuttle got to do with it? Apollo-Soyuz was in 1975 the shuttle didn't fly until 1981.

That has disturbed USA to agree with USSR on meeting the astronauts and lunohod on the Moon? NASA had several not realizing missions on the Moon.

With russian it is impossible agree? This nonsence. Beside russian was little lunohods. This nonsence, how much is necessary and have done.

Russian lunohod is splitted when boarding. This nonsence. Sent three lunohods. One has stayed whole without fall.

You really need to learn about about spacecraft. You are confusing the Lunkhod with the Luna programme. The Lunokhods were the rovers and as I have already pointed out the first Lunokhod did not happen until after Apollo 11. As for the Lunas, by the time of Apollo 11 there had only been 2 (not 3) successful Luna soft landings these were:

Luna 9 landed on 31^st January 1966 and stopped working 3 days later so we can't use that one.

Luna 13 landed on 21^st December 1966 and had stopped working 10 days later so we can't use that one either.

At the time of Apollo 11 the Soviet Union had no functioning vehicle on the Moon. Now we need to look at the technichal abilities of the Luna vehicle. They carried a TV camera but this was not a camera able to take real time images. It used a slow scan picture technique and to return 1 panoramic image took 100 minutes. Luna did not have the capability to film an Apollo astronaut descending the ladder.

If this meeting was consisted you had 100% alibi of your debarkation on the Moon. Secondly, this was splendid show, folk stood on the head from the delight. Single what did not become so this forum. But you have agreed with this loss, I think.

The working group to look into the feasibility of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project did not occur until October 1970 (more than a year after Apollo 11) and the agreement not signed until May 1972 when all the Apollo lunar missions except Apollo 17 had already been flown. Rather than being the normal situation the co-operation of ASTP was a one off as is demonstrated by the fact that no joint mission occured again until the Mir-Shuttle programme 20 years later.

Why do the Americans need this "alibi" any way? Those who understand these things, including the experts in spaceflight from the Soviet Union KNEW that NASA had landed men on the Moon.

It would be just as relevent for me to ask why Columbus didn't take an English witness with him? As he didn't I could then claim that in my opinion he never reached the Americas. This, of course, would be total nonsense but it is precisely what you are attempting to do. It is a standard hoax believer tactic. You are setting an impossible set of standards. You are then saying, "I would have believed if that had happened. It didn't so I won't believe". As you are so well versed in logic you must be able to see that you are employing a circular argument (and therefore using a logical fallacy).

The basis of your objection at the moment seems to be that Apollo was not filmed using Soviet co-operation that did not exist with a spacecraft they did not have using a capability it did not posses. And this is logic?

I ask you again, present some evidence for your claim.

Edited April 15, 2007 by Waspie_Dwarf

[flyingswan]

I understand that Dr. Teller was concerned about using space as a platform for conducting tests on nuclear devices. Was there a treaty signed, back in the 1960's to prevent such efforts? I also read (source unknown) that NASA made plans, nonetheless, to carry out such a test on the Moon.

I would imagine simple physics models would satisfy any such curiosities.

Is this historical trivia innacurate information?

Nuclear tests in outer space were already forbidden by the 1963 Test Ban Treaty.

I don't recall NASA having any such plans, perhaps you are confusing them with the USAF who did plan such a test. The Russians also planned an E-4 probe in their Luna series with a nuclear bomb. Both projects were abandonned well before the Test Ban treaty.

[MID]

Excellent information. Thank you.

One fact is that every nation is dependent on the technologies used in space- from research, to weather, and communications. It would seem essential that an effective, tacit understanding among everyone in this world take that into account. It has worked since 1967, and barring any more ridiculous backward experiments (shooting down one's old satellites), it should serve as a model for the future.

The idea that more nations need to surmount the extreme military capabilities that are possible, is to me, a waste of reason and resources. I would say more, but suffice to say NASA, and ESA, and the Russian organizations are some sort of broad focus points serving as examples of common scientific interest. Although institutions have forever cross-pollinated around the world, and economic interests are more mutual than ever, the civillian sector buffets the paranoid

aspirations of unneccessary military extremes.

It is a shame to see some countries still grossly manipulating things like religion or politics, in order to conduct activities that reduce the otherwise working system we all depend on, today. I'd rather see money given to universities or businesses that further solve the issues we face, not create new ones.

NASA brings a picture to mind of the importance of public service. There are real world issues they attend to, and most projects are faced with complexities, like any other major institution. On balance, I would say the investment has been of incalculable benefit to everyone.

Youi're welcome, magnetar, and I must say your position in this post is well thought out and elquently expressed.

I should say I am in agreement with it as well.

...especially that last sentence.

[MID]

Just a small point here about the helicopter flying that the astronauts did: although it was useful to them to help them think about their flight path in a different way to what they were used to, most commented that the actual control manipulation did little to train them for the lunar landing.

That's a good point as well.

It depends on who you talk to about it. You are definitely correct in that helicopter flying did translate into a different and similar flight control realm from that of flying fixed wing airplanes, which really had no simulation value as pertains to maneuvering a LM on a landing flight path.

I recall Neil Armstrong saying that it was of benefit, and the mechanics of the two vehicles as pertained to control inputs were quite similar.

I can see the similarity:

The collective on a helicopter equated to the TTCA (Thrust/Translation Control Assembly), and the cyclic to the ACA (Attitude Controller Assembly). More or less, one could mimic LM motions with the colective and cyclic in similar fashion to how a LM would respond.

However, in a helicopter there is also anti-torque, and yaw input which come from the pedals. The cyclic provides pitch and roll input only. The ACA provided all three inputs in the LM. But the location of the controls and the similarity in function made the helicopter a nice choice.

There were limits, of course. I can see where some guys saw benefit and others maybe not so much. There was the LLTV, which did a really excellent job of simulating everything from that 500 foot altitude mark to the surface, and the simulators themselves weren't bad, and of course got better as experience was gained...

[MID]

Nuclear tests in outer space were already forbidden by the 1963 Test Ban Treaty.

That's very true, Swanny...

The Test Ban Treeaty did in fact ban such tests before the Outer Space Treaty became effective. In fact, the Outer Space Treaty re-iterated that aspect of the Test Ban Treaty, and added a whole bunch of other stuff pertaining to space usage.

[MID]

If god will give you a confirmatory document, that you were on the Moon, then I shall be believe.

I think this statement may have sealed your fate.

I have noted that your resist asking a question, but rather insist on putting forth uninformed opinions about things you obviously don't understand.

We would really like to help you learn the specifics of this thing. You seem resistant, and have a tendency to adhere to beliefs rather than facts...facts which you have access to, certainly--learning which is available to anyone anymore.

You don't need to "believe" we went to the Moon, landed there, and returned. You can know these things.

God shall not be forthcoming with a confirming document in this case, of course.

I shall then take this statement to mean that there's no way you'll change your mind.

Thus, the question begs, "What are you here for?"

[itsnotoutthere]

I explain to you why we agreed on a blood victims for output in cosmos onward all.

ROLF This guy is playing with us.

[Lilly]

Thus, the question begs, "What are you here for?"

My guess.....

[Unlimited]

Thus, the question begs, "What are you here for?"

I could ask you the same question?...why are we all here...for the truth

[MID]

I could ask you the same question?...why are we all here...for the truth

You could actually ask me the same question?

After oh, what....a hundred times describing why I am here?!

I ask people why they are here when they present nothing, and post extensive arguments about that same nothing.

Why I am here, I think, has been made abundantly clear:

I am here for the opportunity to educate people about this subject.

People have opinions and beliefs about Apollo. It has been clearly shown (and I understood it before I came here), that the Apollo Hoax mythology is clearly based upon a lack of knowledge of the sciences and technologies that were involved in the execution of this project, and an often complete lack of knowledge regarding what actually happened and how.

The "hoax" is the product not only of this lack pertaining to knowledge base, but upon several societal paradigms which have become prevalent in the decades since the project took place.

There is a reason why I ask for questions, and admonish people to stop making declarations of "fact" concerning the program.

They do not know what happened, nor how. I would lkike to give them the opportunity to learn about the amazing accomplishments that people can attain--and did-- when they have the mandate, the funding, and the drive to succeed.

If you, and the rest, are here for the "truth", all that is necessary is to seek it. It will be shown.

However, I shall add what I add all the time.

You will have to do your homework. If you have a question, several qualified people will provide answers. You will also be provided references that you can consult to confirm the statements given, and, if you're actually curious enough, will do your own research to confirm the principals of space flight that are illustrated.

It's a difficult thing to do, as often, we have to deal with people who are so hell-bent on their conspiracy mindset that they simply refuse to learn, and will not release their dearly held beliefs in favor of knowledge, or people who are here to be abrasive, moronic imbeciles who's only purpose is to demean and degrade, or people who are trolls...

We've seen examples of all of those here, and they've retarded the discussion at length in the past. Fortunately, we don't see them anymore (and for good reason...they accomplished what they set out to do, which was get banned).

But all in all, some very good discussions have ensued, and some folks have learned an awful lot.

At any rate, that is why I am here.

If you're here for the "truth" regarding Apollo, then we're on the same page.

Any and all questions are welcome.

[Rusich]

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

No, our victims were not vains. Our spacecraft "Soyuz", rockets "Soyuz" and "Proton" fly.

We done main module of american cosmic station, we carry american astronauts on the cosmic station.

Perhaps you could kindly rephrase that?

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

Say it pilots of a helicopters and planes killed when boarding.

Say it passengers killed on a planes and helicopters.

Say it astronauts killed on a Shuttles.

Understand you this?

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.

I not have direct proofs of Moon hoax, but i have indirect proof. It indirect proof is absence of direct proof from you.

[MID]

No, our victims were not vains. Our spacecraft "Soyuz", rockets "Soyuz" and "Proton" fly.

We done main module of american cosmic station, we carry american astronauts on the cosmic station.

I said nothing about Soviet deaths being in vain. You referred to a price of blood in exchange for success.

I simply told you that the Soviet program of the 1960s did exact payment in blood, and that such an unecessary and extensive payment led to their defeat in the Moon race. That blood was the result of Soviet pressure on their space program and many imprudent pushes to fly when they weren't ready to fly.

Soyuz 1, for instance, was a disaster that should not have happened. The vehicle wasn't ready to fly, and it was pushed into manned flight before it ever flew sucessfully un-manned (it had failed twice un-manned). It cost the life of Komarov, of course, when that spacecraft failed just as it had un-manned. There was no way Komarov should've been aboard that spacecraft that day. That is the type of thing I referred to, and which caused many Soviet lives in the push to beat the Americans to the Moon.

That also has nothing to do with the present Russian program, which consists of reliable workhorse spacecraft and launchers. It is a far cry from 40 years ago. Today, the Russians have advanced, and have become international partners, and valuable ones, to the U.S. and other countries that are involved in the ISS program.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Say it pilots of a helicopters and planes killed when boarding.

Say it passengers killed on a planes and helicopters.

Say it astronauts killed on a Shuttles.

Understand you this?

Sorry Rusich, this is still not understandable. What are you trying to ask? What do the passengers on the planes and helicopters have to do with the shuttle and what does any of it have to do with man landing on the Moon?

I not have direct proofs of Moon hoax, but i have indirect proof. It indirect proof is absence of direct proof from you.

For someone that claims to understand logic you do a very good job of hiding that knowledge. If you believe that no evidence from one side must prove the other side correct then your admission that you have no evidence must constitute proof that we are right.

Of course for me to make such a claim would be as ludicrous as your claim clearly is. Even if there was no direct proof of Apollo (which there is) then absence of evidence IS NOT evidence of absence. That means you have no evidence direct or indirect.

The fact is there is plenty of direct evidence for Apollo. That you either choose to ignore it or fail to understand it is neither here nor there.

Direct evidence includes:

• The returned lunar samples, tested and authenticated by experts from all around the world (and which has been compared to and find to correspond with the samples returned by Soviet Luna missions).

• The Apollo spacecraft were tracked telescopically and photographed by observers, both amateur and professional, from all around the world.

• The experiments left on the moon, which continued to transmit for years after the last Apollo mission, signals that were received all around the world.

• The laser reflectors left on the Moon by the Apollo astronauts, which are still being used by astronomers from around the world.

Edited April 18, 2007 by Waspie_Dwarf

[MID]

Say it pilots of a helicopters and planes killed when boarding.

Say it passengers killed on a planes and helicopters.

Say it astronauts killed on a Shuttles.

Understand you this?

Unfortunately, as in the case of Waspie, I do not.

[MID]

I not have direct proofs of Moon hoax, but i have indirect proof. It indirect proof is absence of direct proof from you.

This would be correct in that you have no direct proof.

You haven't, as of yet, even presented a semi-plausible argument in support of your position.

Of course, there is no direct proof of the Moon hoax. The Moon hoax, is in fact, a hoax in itself.

Thus, there is no indirect proof either.

And, especially, I should say, when you maintain that the indirect proof is that I haven't proven it did happen.

Herein, you make the classic, lazy, and well worn HB mistake.

You contend--accuse, that there has been a vast NASA coverup of a faked Moon landing.

Yet, you do not understand that the accuser must provide proof of his or her contentions. It is not the other way around.

Kindly refer to Waspie's previous post for some of the dfirect evidence that exists, and which has been confirmed by scientists worldwide...including Russian scientists, whose Luna samples have been shown to match precisely the Apollo samples in composition and characteristics.

And, rather than make such statements, do what I asked you:

Express your doubts with specific questions.

That way, you'll get answers that you can research for yourself, and learn something about this massive project that you seem to know little if anything about.

[AtomicDog]

There is an interesting discussion going on in the Apollohoax forum. A Hoax Believer posted a shot from planetarium software showing the positions of Earth and Venus from the Moon during the Apollo 14 mission. He then posted a photo from that mission showing the Earth over the LM on the Moon, apparently claiming that because Venus is not in the photo, it must then have been faked. The thread starts Here.

The photo posted was part of a series that Al Shepard took near the end of EVA-2, just before his famous golf shot. Here's one of them:

Data Cable decided to look at the other photos in that series to see if he could find Venus. Here is his post, explaining his analysis:

Analysis of photos

He then enhanced the photos and produced an animated Gif:

From Data Cable's post:

"Ordinarily I'd dismiss this as dust on the print or scanner, but the fact that it maintains it's relative position to the earth in all 9 shots (with minor differences which can be accounted for by lens distortion and any slight skweing/stretching inherent in the digitization process), while all other noise in the frame moves around, seems to indicate it was a feature in the scene as shot. Note in particular that this dot shares the degree and direction of motion blur with the earth visible in 9193."

Ironically, due to the prodding of an HB, we see that an object that matches exactly the position of Venus appears in a series of Apollo photos, adding another link in the chain of consistency of the Apollo record.

Edited April 20, 2007 by AtomicDog