moon landing

[kilter]

Theory 1 : The landing site was flat

No it wasn't. MID all ready posted this, but have a look at a pan. Does that look flat to you?

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11pan1103147HR.jpg

Theory 2 : The shadow lengths are wrong

I have taken the above pan, and I've estimated exactly where the two astronauts were stood on it. panevidence1.jpg

As you can see the astronaut with the longer shadow actually is stood slightly elevated to the guy with the shorter shadow. Rock on. That's not the end of the matter though. The green dot in the next pan shows where I believe the astronaut with the shorter shadows, shadow ends. Notice the huge slant that his shadow is going up? This would drastically decrease his shadow length. I've pointed out the huge slant here in pan 2.

panevidence2.jpg

APOLLO WINS AGAIN

Yes, but the bit of the studio where the actor with the long shadow was standing is flat and the little undulation is beyond where the other actor's shadow was.

Edited September 13, 2006 by kilter

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Just to make it clear what you mean.

Do you expect me to tale mid seriously ?

Thanks

K

That depends on whether you wish to be taken seriously yourself. Whether you chose to take him seriously or not the level of sarcasm you are using (not just to MID but to others including myself) is unacceptable.

As you claim to be a practicing Christian I shouldn't need to remind you of Matthew 7:12 should I?

[kilter]

That depends on whether you wish to be taken seriously yourself. Whether you chose to take him seriously or not the level of sarcasm you are using (not just to MID but to others including myself) is unacceptable.

As you claim to be a practicing Christian I shouldn't need to remind you of Matthew 7:12 should I?

Ok I choose not to take him seriously and will not use sarcasm against either you or him again.

Am I allowed to verbally attack you in response to an unprovoked attack like the one earlier ? That would avoid me being sarcastic.

I am a Christian but I only follow the parts of the teaching that suit me, same as everyone else (humour).

[stephen84]

Perhaps the best evidence of a NASA hoax in 1969 come not from photos, deadly radiation belts, or losses of original film footage, but rather COMMON SENSE.

The moonlandings of '69 presented a dramatic turnaround in the way NASA went about accomplishing their mission. For years and years, extensive caution was taken for all events, after all, space travel was a very new and complicated venture.

Its why animals, probes, unmanned crafts were first sent into space, before humans, because we simply did not have all the answers. For every problem, difficulty, and miscalculation we could think of, there was one that we didn't think of, nor would have probably ever thought of.

Its why there were many, many failures while developing the Saturn rockets. Space travel is simply not a business where you get something right on the first time. This is why so many precations, extensive tests, and experimentation are done before Space exploration can succeed. Its trial and error.

Until Apollo 11, that is. After being far behind the russians for years, at the height of the Cold War, and with only a few months to spare before being humiliated by a speech from the most beloved US president in history, NASA did the unimagineable and landed men on the moon.

They did this without any sort of significant tests or experiments that would be relevent to the moonlanding. They never tested a landing of an unmanned LM on the moon. And there is no way to simulate a landing here on earth. Without really knowing how their LM would react when landing, or how its thrusters would react when trying to control it, would NASA really go against decades of safety and pretests and risk the lives of not only the astronauts, but the credibility and future of the space agency? And throw the astronauts into uncharted territory, where, any unforseen problem could cause a major problem for them? A pro apollo man might say 'but stephen84, we know the moon is 1/6 that of earth, so moon gravity is 1/6 of earths, which means it would be relatively easy to determine how the LM would react' This could not be further from the truth. The moon is not exactly 1/6 the size of earth, and it has no atmosphere. Nobody would have known exactly how it would land on the lunar surface. It had never been done before. Not only the landing, but taking off again. Its no easy task in a totally alien environment. Lets not forget that not only did they land and take off, but ALSO supposedly got out, walked, drove, and played around for hours! It seems totally unreal, does it not? Try to remember this was 37 years ago! Again, this goes against everything NASA has done to this point in regards to extensive testing and whatnot.

Think, just for a second about motives, what did they have to gain from a hoax? The answer is just about everything! More funding, a perceived major "victory" over the dreaded communists, and an increase in americas prestige worldwide.

We all know that faking a lunar landing would not have been hard, especially with million$ at your expense.

So now we have a motive and the means to do it, all we need are people who are willing to lie and deceive a nation. Lets be honest, we all know governments are more than willing and very well capable of doing this even in their sleep! How many times has our government been caught lying, deceiving, and oppressing the people for their own benefit? Countless to say the least.

To finish the post, I ask you not to rely on photos, "scientific evidence" or debunking, but one of your most basic human instincts. That feeling you get in your gut when something just doesn't seem right. When you know something feels wrong, but you just dont know why. We all have it, even the Pro NASA people, although they will never admit it.

Edited September 13, 2006 by stephen84

[Waspie_Dwarf]

So in ecessence what you are saying is that because it worked it must be fake.

Is that really your idea of common sense?

They did this without any sort of significant tests or experiments that would be relevent to the moonlanding

You are joking aren't you? Have you never heard of Gemini, the Lunar Orbiter, Lunar Ranger and Lunar Surveyor programmes. Have you not heard of the unmanned Apollo test flights followed by Apollo 7, 8, 9 and 10 all testing out the spacecraft before it landed?

A question for you Stephen, what was the total number of unmanned landings made by the following aircraft before they made a manned landing: F16, Concord, Boeing 747, Airbus A380, Sukhoi Su27 (I could go on). The answer is none, zilch, zero, zip. The first landing all of these aircraft made was manned. So all of these aircraft must be fakes right? The Lunar module was tested unmanned, none of those aircraft were, The astronauts were test pilots. It is what they did for a living.

This could not be further from the truth. The moon is not exactly 1/6 the size of earth, and it has no atmosphere. Nobody would have known exactly how it would land on the lunar surface. It had never been done before

Again this just highlights the fact that you have done no research into this subject. NASA knew how to fly the lunar module, they had done it unmanned on Apollo 5 and manned on Apollo 9 and 10. They also knew how to successfully land a spacecraft on the moon having done so 5 times in 7 attempts with the Lunar Surveyor series. It doesn't take a genius to work out that if you have an evironment you understand and a spacecraft you understand landing the one on the other is perfectly possible.

I love this bit:

To finish the post, I ask you not to rely on photos, "scientific evidence" or debunking, but one of your most basic human instincts

So what you are saying here, Stephen, is that it only becomes obvious that it is a fake if you stop using your brain. Funny because that is exactly what the pro-Apollo side has been saying all along.

Edited September 13, 2006 by Waspie_Dwarf

[AtomicDog]

To finish the post, I ask you not to rely on photos, "scientific evidence" or debunking, but one of your most basic human instincts. That feeling you get in your gut when something just doesn't seem right. When you know something feels wrong, but you just dont know why. We all have it, even the Pro NASA people, although they will never admit it.

So we must ignore all of the evidence. If it feels wrong, it must be wrong. Sir, that is not science.

[stephen84]

So in ecessence what you are saying is that because it worked it must be fake.

That is nowhere near what I said. That kind of slander will get you nowhere with people who actually read my post.

You are joking aren't you. Have you never heard of Gemini, the Lunar orbiter, Lunar Ranger and Lunar Surveyor programmes. Have you not heard of the unmanned Apollo test flights followed by Apollo 7, 8, 9 and 10 all testing out the spacecraft before it lannded.

And how many of these had the same size, weight, and design of the ML? How many of these took off again after landing and returned to earth? You sure do like comparing apples to oranges dont you? More like potatoes and oranges.

A question for you Stephen, what was the total number of unmanned landings made by the following aircraft before they made a manned landing: F16, Concord, Boeing 747, Airbus A380, Sukhoi Su27 (I could go on). The answer is none. The first landing all of these aircraft made was manned. So all of these aircraft must be fakes right?

Yes, all in earth environment. Something we were very familiar with by the time these aircraft had come out. We have been flying manned aircraft in earth atmosphere and gravity since early 1900's.

Apples and oranges my friend. Apples and oranges.

Again this just highlights the fact that you have done no research into this subject. NASA knew how to fly the lunar module, they had done it unmanned on Apollo 5 and manned on Apollo 9 and 10. They also knew how to successfully land a spacecraft on the moon having done so 5 times in 7 attempts with the Lunar Surveyor series.

How many times did they land the lunar module on the surface and take off again prior to apollo 11?

Of the spacecraft they did land on the moon, again, how many had the size, weight, and design of the lunar module? And how many of them took off again and returned to earth? Do I have to recite the apples-oranges thing again?

It doesn't take a genius to work out that if you have an evironment you understand and a spacecraft you understand landing the one on the other is perfectly possible.

And here we are downplaying the the technology and extensive knowledge that would be required to pull off such a feat. But I guess thats been the attitude portrayed by the pro apollo side all along, hasn't it?

The reality is that some things look pretty good on paper, but when it comes to the real thing, its not so simple. Anyone can tell you that.

Do you think NASA understands earth environment? Do you think they understood all those pre-Saturn rockets that ended up in complete failure, not working at all? Some exploded, some lifted off a few yards into the air before coming back down and exploding, and some took off and went haywire before crashing back down to earth. See my point? Understanding an atmosphere and understanding a spacecraft does not equal success!

Edited September 13, 2006 by stephen84

[AtomicDog]

Do I have to recite the apples-oranges thing again?

And here we are downplaying the the technology and extensive knowledge that would be required to pull off such a feat. But I guess thats been the attitude portrayed by the pro apollo side all along, hasn't it?

The reality is that some things look pretty good on paper, but when it comes to the real thing, its not so simple. Anyone can tell you that.

Do you think NASA understands earth environment? Do you think they understood all those pre-Saturn rockets that ended up in complete failure, not working at all? Some exploded, some lifted off a few yards into the air before coming back down and exploding, and some took off and went haywire before crashing back down to earth. See my point? Understanding an atmosphere and understanding a spacecraft does not equal success!

You are downplaying the technology and extensive knowledge that was accumulated to pull off such a feat. With those failures came understanding. Every time a vehicle failed, NASA learned from it and did better next time. Sometimes at the cost of lives. Mercury, Gemini, Apollos 1 through 10 - just dismissed with a wave of a hand. Not important. Didn't learn anything.

Edited September 13, 2006 by AtomicDog

[stephen84]

You are downplaying the technology and extensive knowledge that was accumulated to pull off such a feat.

A little reverse phsychology. Nice touch.

But lets be honest, I cant ignore what isn't there! Like I said, NASA went through extensive trial and error before finally perfecting the saturn rockets. How many times pre-apollo 11 did they land a lunar module on the moon, take off again, and return safely to earth? Or even land on the moon period? Zero

[Waspie_Dwarf]

That is nowhere near what I said. That kind of slander will get you nowhere with people who actually read my post.

Stephen it is exactly what you are saying. You say that it worked first time which is proof it was fake.

[tofu]

like any of this matters to a hoax believer

[AtomicDog]

A little reverse phsychology. Nice touch.

But lets be honest, I cant ignore what isn't there! Like I said, NASA went through extensive trial and error before finally perfecting the saturn rockets. How many times pre-apollo 11 did they land a lunar module on the moon, take off again, and return safely to earth? Or even land on the moon period? Zero

There is a first time for everything.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

A little reverse phsychology. Nice touch.

But lets be honest, I cant ignore what isn't there! Like I said, NASA went through extensive trial and error before finally perfecting the saturn rockets. How many times pre-apollo 11 did they land a lunar module on the moon, take off again, and return safely to earth? Or even land on the moon period? Zero

And this is proof of what exactly? Again this is "it worked so it is fake" logic.

Your entire post presents no evidence what so eevr. In fact at the end you actually ask people to ignore the evidence. Why? The only reason I can think of is that you know that all the evidence shows you are wrong.

[stephen84]

Stephen it is exactly what you are saying. You say that it worked first time which is proof it was fake.

Actually that is what I am saying, but this is what you said:

what you are saying is that because it worked it must be fake.

You implied that because it worked period, that it was fake. Maybe after a few unmanned test lands and take offs of the LM before apollo 11, I probably would have beleived it. But what they did on Apollo 11 defies the previous decades of their preparation and knowledge developement for a mission.

Edited September 13, 2006 by stephen84

[stephen84]

And this is proof of what exactly? Again this is "it worked so it is fake" logic.

Your entire post presents no evidence what so eevr. In fact at the end you actually ask people to ignore the evidence. Why? The only reason I can think of is that you know that all the evidence shows you are wrong.

I HAVE MADE MY POINTS, FOR EVERYONE TO READ. WHETHER THEY AGREE OR DISAGREE IS UP TO THEM AND THEM ALONE.

[stephen84]

like any of this matters to a hoax believer

And once again, tofu makes a post that makes absolutely no sense. Didn't you guys just criticize kilter for this?

[Waspie_Dwarf]

I HAVE MADE MY POINTS, FOR EVERYONE TO READ. WHETHER THEY AGREE OR DISAGREE IS UP TO THEM AND THEM ALONE.

Agree to what? You haven't presented any evidence.

You have effecively admitted that all you have to go on is a gut feeling. This is the best post ever presented for the pro-Apollo side as it an admission that the evidence does not back you up at all and must be ignored.

[stephen84]

Agree to what? You haven't presented any evidence.

You have effecively admitted that all you have to go on is a gut feeling. This is the best post ever presented for the pro-Apollo side as it an admission that the evidence does not back you up at all and must be ignored.

Agree or disagree with my opinion that the 1969 moonlanding was faked. And yes I have presented evidence. Just because it isn't in picture form doesn't mean it isn't evidence, although Im sure thats what you would like to have them believe.

Please show me where I said "all I have to go on is my gut feeling". It was one sentence at the very end of a long post, where I said this:

To finish the post, I ask you not to rely on photos, "scientific evidence" or debunking, but one of your most basic human instincts. That feeling you get in your gut when something just doesn't seem right. When you know something feels wrong, but you just dont know why. We all have it, even the Pro NASA people, although they will never admit it.

but I can see why you chose to focus on it and take it out of context. It helps to serve your purpose. And nowhere did I also say that evidence that does not back me up must be ignored.

You know darn well that you dont believe this is the best post ever for the pro apollo side, you have tried to pick it apart and libel me at the same time, you have been successful at neither.

Edited September 13, 2006 by stephen84

[Waspie_Dwarf]

yes I have presented evidence.

Not in this particular post, you have expressed an opinion. However through out this thread you have present a fair bit of evidence and been shown to be wrong evey time and ill equiped to understand even the basics of the debate.

you have tried to pick it apart and slander me at the same time, you have been successful at neither.

Slander is verbal. If it is in print it is libel. As to whether I have been successful in picking apart your post, well to quote you:

I HAVE MADE MY POINTS, FOR EVERYONE TO READ. WHETHER THEY AGREE OR DISAGREE IS UP TO THEM AND THEM ALONE

. Edited September 13, 2006 by Waspie_Dwarf

[stephen84]

Slander is verbal. If it is in print it is libel.

There I fixed it.

However I would also at this time point out how some pro-apolloers used to tell S3th to stop shouting.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

However I would also at this time point out how some pro-apolloers used to tell S3th to stop shouting.

Are you talking about the part in capitals? If so Stephen it is a direct quote from you, capitals and all.

[stephen84]

Are you talking about the part in capitals? If so Stephen it is a direct quote from you, capitals and all.

No im talking about when S3th would use a large font, bold letters and plenty of exclamation points in his posts. Someone told him to stop "shouting"...on a message board.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

No im talking about when S3th would use a large font, bold letters and plenty of exclamation points in his posts. Someone told him to stop "shouting"...on a message board.

So what has that got to do with anything?

[Waspie_Dwarf]

tofu, as much as I hate to agree with Stephen84, I have to say that I am not sure what you are trying to show with your diagram. A little explanation would be helpful.

[nomuse]

That's all water under the bridge. Back to the topic; the missions (starting back as far back as you want to go...past Gemini, back to Goddard even) were whenever possible baby steps. You focus on Apollo 11 as being extraordinary. Really, though, what it did was land and take off from the Moon. The rest of the very complex operation, from Saturn V liftoff through docking and undocking maneuvers to the final splashdown, had been well practiced. Apollo 10, for instance, did the lunar orbit maneuvers, put the crew in the LM, separated and initiated the de-orbit burn. They came within 8 kilometers of the surface, but returned to the CM without landing.

Make no mistake; the actual landing did have untested elements. Every flight in the program had untested elements. It also built upon a relative assurance that the rest of the complex system would work. Communications had been checked. The return flight had been run several times. Suits had been tested (in orbit). Pilots trained on simulators. Rockets had landed and bunny-hopped up again to confirm the firmness of the footing.

So it is unfair to focus on 11 in such a way as to cast it as a wild leap into the unknown.