Did we land on the moon?

[Obviousman]

So when is the first claim that all the star position data has been altered to match Apollo going to appear?

[fullywired]

I can't believe that people are still trying to fly the "hoax"theory after it has been debunked for so long

[MID]

So when is the first claim that all the star position data has been altered to match Apollo going to appear?

A master once said, "Seek and ye shall find..."

I think you will probably see that idea pop up somewhere here...maybe soon!

To AtomicDog...

Good post, and indeed it does seem to add another link in the chain of consistency in the official record.

What we'll proabaly hear next is:

"....you same skeptics said starz cant be seeen in the photos! now your saying starz are in them! u just proooved apollo was a complete fake!"

And you'll have to explain photography again, and discuss Venus, and explain that it's not a star, and that its average apparent magnitude of approximately -4 allows it to be seen in broad daylight on Earth, and that it could appear in an Apollo lunar surface photo because of its brightness, and the composition of the photo, etc...

When you do this, the information you provide to substantiate it will not be researched and understood, and you will be labeled a NASA dis-information specialist.

I welcome you to the club ahead of time!

[MID]

I can't believe that people are still trying to fly the "hoax"theory after it has been debunked for so long

Believe it.

It slows down from time to time, but it always resurfaces...

[DataCable]

What we'll proabaly hear next is:

Give that man a ceegah!

It's funny how they there should be no stars because of camera exposures, & now you find one , & say see right where it should be

And then... he tried to deny it.

And you'll have to explain photography again...

Check.

...and discuss Venus, and explain that it's not a star...

Did that.

...and that its average apparent magnitude of approximately -4 allows it to be seen in broad daylight on Earth...

Does this count? (Notwithstanding the stumbling through math I was never formally edjumucated in)

...and you will be labeled a NASA dis-information specialist.

I got that several years back at GLP for trying to explain how a spacecraft maneuvers in a vacuum via off-axis thrust about it's center of gravity. "You're trying to tell us with a straight face that something that small has a center of gravity?"

[fullywired]

Give that man a ceegah!

It's funny how they there should be no stars because of camera exposures, & now you find one , & say see right where it should be

And then... he tried to deny it.

Check.

Did that.

Does this count? (Notwithstanding the stumbling through math I was never formally edjumucated in)

I got that several years back at GLP for trying to explain how a spacecraft maneuvers in a vacuum via off-axis thrust about it's center of gravity. "You're trying to tell us with a straight face that something that small has a center of gravity?"

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

everything has a centre of gravity {quote}in physics, imaginary point in a body of matter where, for convenience in certain calculations, the total weight of the body may be thought to be concentrated. The concept is sometimes useful in designing static structures (e.g., buildings and bridges) or in predicting the behaviour of a moving body when it is acted on by gravity

[DataCable]

everything has a centre of gravity

Sure, I know that, and you know that... but we get paid by the gub'mint to know that.

[MID]

Give that man a ceegah!

It's funny how they there should be no stars because of camera exposures, & now you find one , & say see right where it should be

And then... he tried to deny it.

I got that several years back at GLP for trying to explain how a spacecraft maneuvers in a vacuum via off-axis thrust about it's center of gravity.

I feel like a psychic...!

You've been a member of the club all along!

It's amazing isn't it, explain a relatively simple principal, which actually should be in the knowledge base of any high school graduate, and it's termed nonsense and you're labeled a disinformation agent.

Especially revealing is the quote there:

"You're trying to tell us with a straight face that something that small has a center of gravity?"

It's an opportunity for a lesson, since it is obvious that this person knows....nothing.

If you don't realize that every thing, small or large, has a CG, there's a definite lack someplace.

I'd bet that was frustrating (but hopefully fun!).

[badeskov]

When you do this, the information you provide to substantiate it will not be researched and understood, and you will be labeled a NASA dis-information specialist.

I welcome you to the club ahead of time!

Well, I guess that is a small step up the ladder towards being a Government dis-information agent or specialist. The other rungs could be those of the CIA, FBI, NSA, Naval Intelligence and so on

Best,

Badeskov

[Rusich]

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).

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%

You use demogogic method - substitute. You not resemble LM with the "Luna" and "Surveyor".

Launch of "Luna16" from Moon was more simply then launch of LM.

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.

First shuttle "Enterprise" was made in 17 september 1976.

"Columbia" maked first fly in 12.04.81. NASA was teach shuttle to fly four years.

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.

Is it first plane in world Airbus A380? People have done thousand flights before flight Airbus A380. You don't may compare first fly LM with first fly A380. People not had done land and launch from Moon before Apollo-11.

[Rusich]

You have still not given any real reasons why you think LM landing and lift-off so difficult. Why is LM landing any different from landing a helicopter? Why is LM lift-off any different from Luna lift-off which worked every time?

The Saturn V was flown unmanned twice before its first manned flight. Although one of the tests had problems, in both cases the Apollo CM was recovered successfully. The trouble with the Russian N1 was that it was never checked on a stand before the first launch attempt.

We say:"Smoothly was on the paper, but have forgotten about ravines..."

To realize a difficulty of work possible only making this work.

[Rusich]

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

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

It is misprint. I sayed about Apollo.

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:

I so bad say on english? You can not understand that I say about principle possibility to make a meeting the astronauts and lunuhod! I not say about concrete devices and facts!

[Rusich]

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).

If after Columbus in America more nor who did not sail that in its opening possible was distrust!

Edited April 22, 2007 by Rusich

[Rusich]

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

here is good answer:

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

[Rusich]

Sorry Rusich, this is still not understandable.

I this play has liked.

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?

You say it pilots of a helicopters and planes killed when boarding.

You say it passengers killed in a planes and helicopters.

You say it astronauts killed in a Shuttles.

Understand you this?

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.

We have samples of Moon.

We have signals from the Moon that were received all around the world.

We have laser reflectors left on the Moon, which are still being used by astronomers from around the world.

inference: Ura-a-a!!! We were on the Moon!!!

But who was the first russian on the Moon? I was this spaceman! Secrecy is removed and I can speak of this. I no need of flowers and ovations, please. But I take dollars.

[Rusich]

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.

I have bored this verbal ping-pong between you and me. We have realized our standpoints. I not proved to you nothing, but it is orderly. I did not expect other result. Faith an Apollo be a problem of national pride, be an emotional problem. The logic week in this question for americana. Do you want proof from me? Please... It will irony topic. Will not be you against?

[Waspie_Dwarf]

You use demogogic method - substitute. You not resemble LM with the "Luna" and "Surveyor".

Launch of "Luna16" from Moon was more simply then launch of LM.

Why was it more simple? You say much and provide no evidence. Until you provide evidence as we have done your posts are just your opinion worth nothing.

First shuttle "Enterprise" was made in 17 september 1976.

"Columbia" maked first fly in 12.04.81. NASA was teach shuttle to fly four years.

More distraction. More changing the subject to hide the fact that you are wrong. Enterprise was not a flight worhty shuttle. It was not and could not be launched into space and was used for gliding tests only. You claim NASA would not launch a vehicle manned for the first time. On April 12^th 1981 NASA did exactly what you claimed they wouldn't do.

Is it first plane in world Airbus A380? People have done thousand flights before flight Airbus A380. You don't may compare first fly LM with first fly A380. People not had done land and launch from Moon before Apollo-11.

Was the LM the first rocket in the world? NO. Had all it's systems been tested before Apollo 11? YES. The LM was well tested. It was known that it would work. It is up to you to show that NASA needed to make an unmanned launch from the Moon first. If you can not provide evidence that Apollo could not have happened without such a test flight (and you have already admitted that you have no evidence for you views) then what is the point of your posts.

We are used to debating Moon hoax believers on this site. Most of them at least try to present some evidence. It is always misunderstood or wrong but at least they try to debate. You present nothing. Several other members have already hinted at what your motives are and I am begining to think they are right. That you will present no evidence speaks volumes. I suspect that you are not here to debate, you are here to troll.

[flyingswan]

You say it pilots of a helicopters and planes killed when boarding.

You say it passengers killed in a planes and helicopters.

You say it astronauts killed in a Shuttles.

Understand you this?

No, it doesn't make any sense to me. Are you trying to say that Apollo was impossible because other systems sometimes have accidents? If so, flying is impossible, cars are impossible, ships are impossible. No-one is disputing that Apollo was risky, but risky and impossible are not at all the same.

[flyingswan]

Launch of "Luna16" from Moon was more simply then launch of LM.

Why? Both involved a main liquid-fuelled rocket engine and a set of rocket thrusters for attitude control. Both had to take off at the right time, follow the right trajectory, shut down at the right velocity.

The only difference is that, once it had successfully taken off, the LM had to carry out a rendezvous, but this had already been successfully demonstrated in earth orbit with Apollo 9 and in lunar orbit with Apollo 10, using basic principles developed in the earlier Gemini missions.

[Lilly]

To digress a bit (off specific issues) and look at the larger picture here, what do those who believe the moon landings didn't take place think of the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter project due to launch in 2008? Most specifically, the LRO will be able to provide direct evidence of the Apollo landing sites, what then? Will such definitive evidence be accepted? Basically, I'm interested in knowing exactly what it will take to convince some that the Apollo landings did indeed take place.

[MID]

here is good answer:

QUOTE(limited @ Apr 16 2007, 08:25 PM)

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

This, Rusich, is a little bit more than weak.

Asking a question is not an answer.

You might also have looked at the reply I made to this question:

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.

This answer applies to you as well.

[MID]

I have bored this verbal ping-pong between you and me. We have realized our standpoints. I not proved to you nothing, but it is orderly. I did not expect other result. Faith an Apollo be a problem of national pride, be an emotional problem. The logic week in this question for americana. Do you want proof from me? Please... It will irony topic. Will not be you against?

If I read this correctly, you haven't actually addressed anything I've written sustantively because you are "bored with the verbal ping-pong"?

You dismiss it by saying that we understand each other, and that you haven't proved anything regarding a hoax, but it has been orderly...?

This is not really correct in a way. Many things you say I do not understand completely, but that is a minor problem at this point because your arguments do not address substantive issues, but rather seems to wave in and out of disjointed ideas that have little merit.

You mention "faith in Apollo" as being a "problem of national pride, an emotional problem".

You make a huge mistake: "Faith" has nothing to do with Apollo. Skill, ability, drive, bravery, a far-sighted leader, empowering the people charged with the task to do it and be 100% responsible for it, and a can-do attitude accomplished it. National pride naturally follows from being provided with the opportunity to do such a thing for one's country, and of course is enhanced by the accomplishment of it. I know it was accomplished. You believe it was not. You are the one adhering to faith...

...and quite frankly, paint a picture of sour grapes by citing national pride.

You aren't bored with the verbal ping pong. You avoid my specific requests because you know that I will be able to address your questions (if you would ask them, that is) from a position of knowledge, and will insist you do your homework. You also know that you'll find the information required to show you that Apollo in fact happened just as it has been described. This of course you are afraid of because it will shatter your illusions which are based in part on the idea that if the Soviets couldn't do it, the Americans certainly couldn't either.

This of course is silly, since the Americans did do it while the Soviets failed to do it. The reasons for that are abundantly clear. They must be too painful for you to acknowledge.

*

Do I want proof from you?

No. It is not possible for you to give me proof.

What I asked you for was to consider deeply your reasons for doubting the success of Apollo, and phrase them as questions, so that you may be provided answers.

I will not be against your questions. I invite them (ad nauseam...!). Unfortunately, I haven't seen them yet. I also cannot be against your proofs, since anything you put forth as proof will be based upon a lack of knowledge about what happened and how...in other words, it will be conjecture.

All that will happen there is that you will be shown what you don't know in order to understand the fallacies in your statements.

It would be best to cast aside your fear of knowledge and ask about your doubts.

There has been no ping pong so far. I have served at you and you have not yet returned a shot.

[MID]

QUOTE(Rusich @ Apr 22 2007, 05:41 AM)

Is it first plane in world Airbus A380? People have done thousand flights before flight Airbus A380. You don't may compare first fly LM with first fly A380. People not had done land and launch from Moon before Apollo-11.

How many times have we heard something similar.

People had not landed and launched from the Moon prior to Apollo 11, therefore, it could not have happened.

Nonsense, of course.

Waspie had a good retort:

Was the LM the first rocket in the world? NO. Had all it's systems been tested before Apollo 11? YES. The LM was well tested. It was known that it would work. It is up to you to show that NASA needed to make an unmanned launch from the Moon first. If you can not provide evidence that Apollo could not have happened without such a test flight (and you have already admitted that you have no evidence for you views) then what is the point of your posts.

I would add this:

SOMEONE HAS TO DO SOMETHING THE FIRST TIME....it isn't magic, it's just the nature of things. If we don't do something, how does it ever get done?!

The LM was designed to execute a landing on the surface of the Moon, a landing controlled by MEN. It was not designed to be automatically landed. The reason was that pilots would be aboard, and they were necessary to go outside and collect the samples and bring them back in so they could fly them back home. Human control was required, no pilot would've wanted no control capability, and the vehicle was specifically designed for that.

Now, that being the case, eventually, someone's going to have to take it all the way and land the thing. Neil Armstrong happened to be the man that did that.

But Waspie is of course correct. The LM was thoroughhly tested in un-manned flights, and in two manned flights prior to Apollo 11. We knew it performed according to its design specifications. Yet still, the final test would be the whole shebang...landing it.

I think we're hearing more evidence of sour grapes here.

The Soviets couldn't do it, so the Americans couldn't either.

But again, the Soviets had a propensity not to do things the way Americans did. Again I cite Soyuz 1 and the tragic consequences.

My God man, the vehicle had never been successfully tested un-manned! It had over a hundred known problems when the Politburo pressed for a manned launch. It's parachutes had failed in the un-manned tests just like they did on Komorov's flight, and they hadn't been fixed! The Soviet space engineers knew it was a piece of crap, and the Cosmonauts, including Komorov himself knew it.

Yet, they launched this man to his death because they did not do things the way the Americans did.

That is not the way to run an engineering test flight program, and that is why the Soviets failed. In America, engineers, scientists, and test pilots were permnitted to be responsible for the program without interference and management coming from those who were not experts in the field. The Soviets were painfully, fatally slow to realize that this was the proper approach.

[MID]

We are used to debating Moon hoax believers on this site. Most of them at least try to present some evidence. It is always misunderstood or wrong but at least they try to debate. You present nothing. Several other members have already hinted at what your motives are and I am begining to think they are right. That you will present no evidence speaks volumes. I suspect that you are not here to debate, you are here to troll.

Based on evidence to date, I rather agree with this asessment.

I would hope it might be different, since learning is the fun part of these discussions.

I suppose the ball is in Rusich's court....

[badeskov]

To digress a bit (off specific issues) and look at the larger picture here, what do those who believe the moon landings didn't take place think of the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter project due to launch in 2008? Most specifically, the LRO will be able to provide direct evidence of the Apollo landing sites, what then? Will such definitive evidence be accepted? Basically, I'm interested in knowing exactly what it will take to convince some that the Apollo landings did indeed take place.

I have a feeling that for the hardcore Moon Hoax Believers we have no possibility of actually providing any evidence. When the LRO is able to show actual pictures, well, they will have been manipulated to show exactly that, despite that with a little finesse one might actually be able to grab the pictures in transmission and decode them. Nonetheless, they will have been manipulated. Next step would actually be to take said people to the moon and show them in person. Well, if NASA or others can take them to the moon, well, how hard would it have been the place the evidence there beforehand?

I honestly don't see how one can turn the most hardcore believers. That is not the say that there are believers that can and have been turned by a rational explanation to some of the question that has been raised.

Best,

Badeskov