moon landing

[AROCES]

No. As soft as the 'dust' looks, it should have at least had a nice, shallow, wide spread divet, since crater seems too extreme for you. But, alas, no divet. And don't forget, lots of 'dust' all around and underneath it. Common sense rears it's ugly head again!

Divet? What the heck is a divet? Anyway, there is no blast mark that you see in the picture. Like the shadow of the pole, it may not be visible at certain angle and distance.

If this is a Hoax, don't you think they would have thought of it all and make a convincing photo? And not overlook a simple blast mark? I mean NASA not paying attention to details in making the Hoax on the century?

Like you said, common sense rear it's ugly head again and again!

[MID]

Your taking my words and twisting them into what they did not mean. I am sorry if I forgot to mention that there was no successful EARTH test flight.

If you meant the LM, I should point out that the LM was not designed for, nor could possibly fly in the Earth's atmosphere...if that's what you're implying .

But there was a thorough shakedown of the LM in flight, around the earth in March 1969 (Apollo 9's purpose was to completely test LM operations in space, and it did so), and in lunar orbit on Apollo 10, two months after Apollo 9.

A point that should be understood is that the LLRV (and LLTV) was not an evolutionary step to the LM,. The LM was designed and in the process of fabrication before these vehicles were developed.

What these things were--were simulators, designed to imitate or simulate the LMs designed flight characteristics (i.e., control responses in maneuvering and translation) during the final phase of a lunar landing operation (from approximately 500 feet above the surface to touchdown).

They had no design relationship to the actual LM. They were complex, cumbersome, and on occassion, dangerous due to their complexity of systems. Despite NASA's notion to terminate the LLTV program (in part due to Neil's May 1968 bail out from a balky one), the astronauts insisted on keeping it, because Neil, and all the other fellows who subsequently flew a LM to the surface, said that it provided the best training possible for the activity.

The LLTV used a set of jets to lift 5/6th the weight of the vehicle, a steady thrust system, and another system to allow the vehicle to be raised and lowered, and another to allow the vehicle to be maneuvered / translated. It was a churning mess of jets and thrusters, which served its purpose very well for quite some time.

The LM, on the other hand had a variable thrust (10,000 pound max) DPS engine, mounted along the center of mass of the vehicle, and 4 quads of thrusters designed to provide translation and maneuvering capability. This was identical to all other vehicles that flew in space and needed to accellerate and decellerate substantially. The Apollo CSM had a very similar system of thrusters for trans/maneuvering and an SPS engine for thrusting into and out of lunar orbit (as well as providing thrust for more substantial mid-course corrections).

The LM had no more tendency to roll about uncontrollably than any other space vehicle did when thrusting. It's attitude was stabilized by the computer, making small tweaks of the quads to maintain a flight path (it could also be flown manually).

I'm thinking that you perhaps think it's irregular shape meant that it couldn't fly in a stable manner?

Not at all. It was meticulously designed to be balanced around the thrust line of the DPS, or APS as the case may have been. So long as that was accomplished, it's actual physical shape was irrelevant, since it had no need for aerodynamic shaping, and since it would never operate in an atmosphere. It was a vehicle designed specifically for space operations. It had no need to be shaped like a Mercury, Gemini, or Apollo spacecraft (CM specifically), since it would never have to pass though an atmosphere to get into space, and it would certainly not have to re-enter an atmosphere, like the CM did, or any of the other pre-Apollo spacecraft did.

Any shape can maneuver in space, so long as it has thrust aligned along its center of gravity...or center of mass as-it-were.

The LM was such a vehicle. Aeronautical engineeers worked on this vehicle for years, and understood what they had to do implicitly.

In fact, they did it.

[AROCES]

One forum says there is no moon at all. Now that makes more sense than anything else said here why we did not go to the moon at all!

[MID]

NOW, I am sorry, but I must rest before work. I leave dealing with whatever comes after this to my new, good friend with common sense, boggle. Good luck boggle, and try not to get to frustrated with them.

Cheers

Please see post #24, in the thread entitled "The Day After Roswell..." in this category (Extraterrestrial Life & the UFO Phonomenon) to see an illustration of how your "...new, good friend with common sense" has utilized that "common sense" to his decided benefit.

I am imagining that there is a little frustration there now. He will now be of little help. The reason for that is his "common sense".

Such "common sense", allowed to extend itself a little too far, does nothing for discussion, nothing for learning, and nothing for good will whatsoever. It will also, as illustrated, get one into a little grief.

I'd like to echo our administrator's basic position:

Let's be civil, discuss logically and rationally, and realize that this is a discussion of facts that can be researched and ascertained by the individual in linear fashion. Keep the emotions out of it (That sort of "common sense" has the potential to inflate into things that, as illustrated, are uncouth and completely against the rules of civil conduct between people). If there are questions, ask them. Let's avoid mis-interpetation and assumptions in favor of a little discussion and research into the facts of the matter.

That can be fun.

Let us keep this situation in check, alright?

Edited June 23, 2006 by MID

[War Eagle]

U summed that up 2 perfection MID,... now if only the rest of the forum would catch on.

[S3th]

One forum says there is no moon at all. Now that makes more sense than anything else said here why we did not go to the moon at all!

Well, that post by Lilly was obviously a ploy that has been used by other individuals who are trying to poke fun at those who KNOW we did not go to the moon. It's the same ploy used by those who know when the gig is about up and try to make a mockery of the those who are onto something. Let's say something completely ridiculous and mock those who don't agree with us. It's much easier then actually seriously investigating the footage for yourself. Go to Clavius, he'll tell us what to believe. All part of the dumbing down of America's children. Don't let them do it to you!! PLEASE!!!! Be critical of anyone who tries to tell you that you should listen to them and forego your own conclusions! Including MID and mys3th. Look for yourself! Decide for yourself!

Now. Since those of you who are staunchly resisting going to the Link I've already given you for "Was it only a Paper Moon". Here is the VIDEO that proves quite convincingly the Rover was being driven on Earth and not the moon. Granted it is a small screen you have to watch, probably done on purpose after Mr. Collier showed, in slow motion, the atmosphere stopping the rooster tails from making a perfect arc. No atmosphere and 1/6th gravity would insist the rooster tails go around sixty feet into the air in a perfect arc. As you will see for YOURSELF, this is not the case!

EDIT: If you have a sand rail, dirt bike, or ATV you can see for yourself in the desert or on a beach the kind of heights your rooster tail can reach. Then come back and watch the video again and see the similarities.

Even with the small screen you can see the dirt hitting resistance. Atmospheric resistance.

I really am glad that some of you have been forthcoming enough to admit the moon has no atmosphere. It makes this case for me and blows the rest of your delusions of granduer completely out of the water. Screen too small to convince you? Watch "Was it only a Paper Moon." Then, after seeing another investigation, you can warn NASA to remove the LEM from the musuem (Or change it)before some other 'upstart' goes to measure the hatch again and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that we were lied to!

Edited June 23, 2006 by S3th

[S3th]

Please see post #24, in the thread entitled "The Day After Roswell..." in this category (Extraterrestrial Life & the UFO Phonomenon) to see an illustration of how your "...new, good friend with common sense" has utilized that "common sense" to his decided benefit.

I am imagining that there is a little frustration there now. He will now be of little help. The reason for that is his "common sense".

First, I don't need to go to some other thread. I am only interested in this one at the moment. And since you have decided to attempt to discredit him using that thread rather than direct answers to his assertions about shielding, I find it to be just another way of avoiding the questions.

Such "common sense", allowed to extend itself a little too far, does nothing for discussion, nothing for learning, and nothing for good will whatsoever. It will also, as illustrated, get one into a little grief.

There is a difference between common sense and blind faith in another person who considers themselves an expert. I say to you as I have said to all those who think I am whacked for believing we didn't go to the moon, "Do the research into this yourself." There are still many pieces of evidence NASA hasn't had the ability to cover up or explain away. The video of the rover being one of them. Investigate both sides, then use your common sense and what you can learn about the effects of an atmosphere.

I'd like to echo our administrator's basic position:

Let's be civil, discuss logically and rationally, and realize that this is a discussion of facts that can be researched and ascertained by the individual in linear fashion. Keep the emotions out of it (That sort of "common sense" has the potential to inflate into things that, as illustrated, are uncouth and completely against the rules of civil conduct between people). If there are questions, ask them. Let's avoid mis-interpetation and assumptions in favor of a little discussion and research into the facts of the matter.

That can be fun.

Let us keep this situation in check, alright?

Pandering to the administrator after being guilty of flaming comments toward me from the beginning. Funny! But to paraphrase what you have said above, Research. I have provide my links, do you even click on them. Or have you all the answers so you don't need to even look at them?

Divet? What the heck is a divet? Anyway, there is no blast mark that you see in the picture. Like the shadow of the pole, it may not be visible at certain angle and distance.

If this is a Hoax, don't you think they would have thought of it all and make a convincing photo? And not overlook a simple blast mark? I mean NASA not paying attention to details in making the Hoax on the century?

Like you said, common sense rear it's ugly head again and again!

Aroces, a divet is a hole in the ground caused by a golf club as it rips it out under the ball. I don't know if I misspelled it, but I don't golf much anymore. With all the dirt still left underneath the LEM, I find it quite amazing there doesn't seem to be even a hint of a blast crater. Don't you?

No, NASA didn't think of everything. It is obvious by all the blunders. And if you all would just use YOUR OWN MINDS, rather than bowing down to the MID, who as we have seen, was a part of NASA and thus guilty by association. That is, of course, if we did not in fact go to the moon.

And perhaps he was just part of one of the compartmentalized departments of NASA with absolutely no knowledge of the cover-up. If so, then all I ask of MID is to, please review the video I have mentioned. Proof positive the lunar rover was just an Earth rover after all! Don't feel too bad, you weren't the only one fooled!

NASA Lied Again - Hubble Moon Photos Found

Above link from this SITE.

BTW, the faked moon landings isn't the only time NASA has lied to us. Here they do it again. And isn't it funny when it comes to something that could eventually help them prove they didn't lie to us in the first place!

[S3th]

Allright, here we go again with the heat dealio. I went to the precious Clavius site to come to terms with the temperature problem. Here's the deal. I will give all of you the benefit of doubt. And I will give Clavius the benefit of doubt. But, when it comes to dealing with trying to survive the heat from inside the LEM isn't even mentioned. At least as far as I can tell. Is this a convenient oversight by Clavius realizing it couldn't be explained?

The astronots worked outside the LEM in the early mornings before the heat of day. Now, exactly how high did they set the AC inside the LEM to keep the accumulated heat inside the lem from killing them from heat stroke? Huh? See the metallic nature of the LEM. I suppose you'll tell me it refracted the heat as well as the light? I think not.

Here is another example of common sense and simple realization of the effects of extreme heat over time come in handy. And please, no more comfy stuff okay there Aroces. Sheesh! They would have died like turkeys in an oven. Gobble, gobble! Enjoy your birds America.

The whole deal was a turkey. THINK!!!!

BTW, before any single one of you try and convince me there was a heating and cooling system onboard, please find it in some manual, telling exactly how it worked. Otherwise, please refrain from taking that road.

Just how much battery juice do you think it would take to run an air-conditioner for the extended period of time they stayed on the moon? Perhaps they left the motor running? LOL!

Edited June 23, 2006 by S3th

[Lilly]

NASA Lied Again - Hubble Moon Photos Found

Above link from this SITE.

Nice photos...only one problem. I'll explain this problem in one word...resolution.

You see the Hubble's resolution is pretty good, when photographing the moon it can show objects about 86 meters in diameter. However, the Apollo landers are only about 9 meters in size. We'll have to wait for the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter to see the Apollo landing sites.

Just a thought, perhaps the problem here isn't the need for common sense, but rather the need for some uncommon sense?

[S3th]

Nice photos...only one problem. I'll explain this problem in one word...resolution.

You see the Hubble's resolution is pretty good, when photographing the moon it can show objects about 86 meters in diameter. However, the Apollo landers are only about 9 meters in size. We'll have to wait for the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter to see the Apollo landing sites.

Just a thought, perhaps the problem here isn't the need for common sense, but rather the need for some uncommon sense?

Allright! Your right. Most of what I have seen on the pro-NASA side is uncommon sense. Sense that makes no sense. And what's worst Lilly, is the fact that I keep referring back to the Clavius site you insisted I go to. But I have yet to see a post from a single one of you about having clicked on the sites I have suggested you visit. Why do so many cling so heavily to one site? Why? Expanding your mind to include other peoples thoughts cannot hurt you! Although being single-minded can. EXAMPLE: HOLY CRUSADES!

Now, please, anyone...start directly refuting the past two posts.

As a matter of courtesy to you, Lilly, I have edited out the Hubble stuff, but still maintain that NASA has lied to us! How about that for a courteous withdraw eh? Now how about some courtesy in return. Check this stuff out for yourself before trying to mock me again!

EDIT: UNCOMMON SENSE! That's a good one. BTW, about resolution. We have Satellites that can take legible pictures of a newspaper here on Earth. So, I'm not completely convinced of this resolution excuse. I just keep hearing excuses. That's all NASA seems to have. I'm sure the LRO will find that some METEOR has destroyed all the landing sites and equipment with them or they will explain there was no need to photograph it as we have rocks and plenty of photos already. Or perhaps they will try another bold manuever like faking photos!

Edited June 23, 2006 by S3th

[Lilly]

Ah yes...the heat is on! Another little problem here. I'll explain in one word..."air".

Heat can be transferred through several mechanisms. Radiation is one way, conduction is another. If you're sitting in your car on the Earth in extremely high heat...your goose (or turkey) will certainly cook! This is because it would have heat transferred to it from the air. Now, the LEM parked on the Moon can irradiate heat on it's unilluminated side just as well as it can absorb heat from radiation on the illuminated side.

You're comparing apples and oranges here! Once again, you need some of that "uncommon sense" I was talking about. Now, this isn't my field of expertise, but I'm sure someone will be along shortly to explain this a bit further (I have a class...gotta run).

[S3th]

Ah yes...the heat is on! Another little problem here. I'll explain in one word..."air".

Heat can be transferred through several mechanisms. Radiation is one way, conduction is another. If you're sitting in your car on the Earth in extremely high heat...your goose (or turkey) will certainly cook! This is because it would have heat transferred to it from the air. Now, the LEM parked on the Moon can irradiate heat on it's unilluminated side just as well as it can absorb heat from radiation on the illuminated side.

You're comparing apples and oranges here! Once again, you need some of that "uncommon sense" I was talking about. Now, this isn't my field of expertise, but I'm sure someone will be along shortly to explain this a bit further (I have a class...gotta run).

No air again eh? Okay. Let us assume you are correct. You need air to transfer heat. Right? This is kind of ludicrous, but I shall give you the benefit of doubt, once again. Although I still find this all highly suspicious, and since no one has been to the moon to actually prove this theory, I'll just blows some holes in another one! I suppose you'll have a good answer for this one as well!

Remember, even the astronots said they could not see any stars. Ludicrous!

No stars. What must you have to eliminate stars. Surface light?

The proof is in their own photos that they lied, yet again!

Hill 305 and the Hadley Delta to see a larger view of 'stars' in the sky above the Moon. They all show a similar formation from different angles. These pictures are from a set (AS15-9012249 to AS15-90-12269) Most of this set shows 'stars' in the sky!

Anyone of you try and backslide on this one and it is game over. They told us no stars, and yet here are stars. In their own photos. And if the camera caught them, then the astronots should have seen them. I submit to you, another lie!

TELL THE TRUTH NASA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[S3th]

Ah yes...the heat is on! Another little problem here. I'll explain in one word..."air".

Heat can be transferred through several mechanisms. Radiation is one way, conduction is another. If you're sitting in your car on the Earth in extremely high heat...your goose (or turkey) will certainly cook! This is because it would have heat transferred to it from the air. Now, the LEM parked on the Moon can irradiate heat on it's unilluminated side just as well as it can absorb heat from radiation on the illuminated side.

You're comparing apples and oranges here! Once again, you need some of that "uncommon sense" I was talking about. Now, this isn't my field of expertise, but I'm sure someone will be along shortly to explain this a bit further (I have a class...gotta run).

Okay, I was going to leave this one to doubt. But instead let me give you something to doubt Lilly!

Was there or was there not an oxygen-filled environment inside the LEM? If not, how were they able to breathe for such an extended period of time?

If so, it would have created an atmosphere with which the extreme heat could be transferred.

The heat is indeed and truly on!

[S3th]

All the things that make you say hmmmm...

Two later missions were canceled as public interest dropped in lunar exploration and the space program. In all, Americans completed six separate lunar landings between 1969 and 1972. No one has returned since that time.

Are they trying to say that lunar exploration is subject to the publics interest? That's just pure rubbish. I would have had more faith in a comment such as, "NASA has realized what a stroke of luck no one has been killed during these dangerous missions and decided to scrap the last two missions in favor of preserving life."

Bill Kaysing was head of technical publications and advanced research at Rocketdyne Systems from 1956 to 1963. He states that it was estimated in 1959 that there was a .0014 chance of landing man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth. This took into account the effects of radiation, solar flares and micro meteorites. He could not believe in 1959 that man could go to the Moon.

Let's see, we should include a decade of advances right? Okay then...0.114. Still quite a leap. And yes, I made up that number for the sake of sarcasm.

During Project Apollo, six highly complex manned craft landed on the Moon, took off and returned to Earth using a relatively low level of technology. An 86% success rate. Since Apollo, twenty five simple, unmanned craft with increasingly higher levels of technology have attempted to fulfil their missions to Mars. Only seven succeeded.

Lets compare the Apollo cover-up with the USSR launch of the dog called Laika into space. She was launched into Space to see what the effects of Space travel would have on a live creature. It was publicly announced that Laika died painlessly when her oxygen supply ran out, but the truth was finally revealed many years later that the dog had in fact died when the front nose cone of the craft carrying her had been ripped off after reaching Earth's orbit and that the dog probably died from the intense heat of the Sun.

Further investigations revealed that the nose cone had actually been designed to do this. So, in fact, the makers of the rocket had known that the dog would die even before she was sent into space... this evidence took 30 years to be revealed to the general public.

CNN issued the following report, "The radiation belts surrounding Earth may be more dangerous for astronauts than previously believed (like when they supposedly went through them thirty years ago to reach the Moon.) The phenomenon known as the 'Van Allen Belts' can spawn (newly discovered) 'Killer Electrons' that can dramatically affect the astronauts' health."

In 1998, the Space Shuttle flew to one of its highest altitudes ever, three hundred and fifty miles, hundreds of miles below merely the beginning of the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Inside of their shielding, superior to that which the Apollo astronauts possessed, the shuttle astronauts reported being able to "see" the radiation with their eyes closed penetrating their shielding as well as the retinas of their closed eyes. For a dental x-ray on Earth which lasts 1/100th of a second we wear a 1/4 inch lead vest. Imagine what it would be like to endure several hours of radiation that you can see with your eyes closed from hundreds of miles away with 1/8 of an inch of aluminium shielding!

As boggle and I still maintain as well as shuttle astronauts themselves...Shielding, shielding, shielding!!!!

Another overlooked intriguing fact is that NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission. The proclaimed purpose was to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that the Houston ground crews (all those employees sitting behind computer screens at Mission Control) could "rehearse" the first moon landing. In other words, though NASA claimed that the satellite crashed shortly before the first lunar mission (a misinformation lie), its real purpose was to relay voice, fuel consumption, altitude, and telemetry data as if the transmissions were coming from an Apollo spacecraft as it neared the moon. Very few NASA employees knew the truth because they believed that the computer and television data they were receiving was the genuine article. Merely a hundred or so knew what was really going on; not tens of thousands as it might first appear.

Another lie...Go figure!

With a more than two second signal transmission round trip, how did a camera pan upward to track the departure of the Apollo 16 LEM?

Uh, Houston we have a time-delay problem!!!

How did the astronauts leave the LEM? in the documentary 'PaperMoon' The host measures a replica of the LEM at The Space Centre in Houston, what he finds is that the 'official' measurements released by NASA are bogus and that the astronauts could not have got out of the LEM...

Watch "Was it only a Paper Moon" for yourself! Don't trust me. Check it out. Watch James Collier measuring the thing for himself. Better yet, if you happen to be in Washington, measure it yourself!

The astronauts in these "pressurized" suits were easily able to bend their fingers, wrists, elbows, and knees at 5.2 p.s.i. and yet a boxer's 4 p.s.i. speed bag is virtually unbendable. The guys would have looked

like balloon men if the suits had actually been pressurized.

And please MID, no more talk about netting. If you want to prove it to yourself, find a really obese woman and throw a net around her, tighten it up, and check it out! LOL!

The water sourced air conditioner backpacks should have produced frequent explosive vapor discharges. They never did.

I suppose vapors disappear in a vacuum? You'll notice Clavius seems to ignore this one...

An astrophysicist who has worked for NASA writes that it takes two meters of shielding to protect against medium solar flares and that heavy ones give out tens of thousands of rem in a few hours. Why didn't the astronauts on Apollo 14 and 16 die after exposure to this immense amount of radiation?

It wasn't pointed at them...right? LOL Perhaps you can provide something that says the flares weren't pointed at them!

The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected?

Hassleblad, we have a problem...Choke, cough, die!

When the LEMs were supposedly leaving the Moon, they should have produced a large bright exhaust flame from the rocket propellant. Instead, zero exhaust.

There is footage that shows flame. The one where the camera lifts (with the time delay and all...amazing!) to catch the flame. Yet in other shots and the initial lift off, there is no flame visible.

Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand. The astronauts left distinct footprints all over the place.

Houston we have a footprint! Lots of them. "How we going to explain this one Neil?" "I ain't explaining nothing. Matter-of-fact, when we get back from orbiting around ole blue here, I ain't saying squat!"

In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator.

Watch the videos. Look at the pictures. Do it before you have to humble yourself and deflate your ego much more than you would prefer to once you realize the error in believing individuals being paid to mind_ _ _ _ you!

[Lilly]

No stars in the moon photos. Wow, how many times have I heard this one? I'm struck by a rather ironic thought here...you hate the Clavius site, yet the answer to this is right there (as are a lot of answers). In fact Jay's explanation is quite concise and to the point:

Because the human eye has adjusted to the amount of light, first by adjusting the iris and then by changing the chemical composition of the retina to make it more or less sensitive. In the pitch blackness of the mountains they're open just as wide as they can be, allowing more light to enter. In the night city, they close somewhat to adjust for the street lights. And inside the house, they are as closed as they are during the daytime in sunlight. A camera's aperture works the same way. To set the exposure for bright exposure means that subtle lights like stars simply won't show up.

Because the sky on the moon is black, we tend to believe the viewing conditions are the same as night on earth. Not true. The sun shines just as brightly (slightly brighter, in fact) on the lunar surface, and so the astronauts' eyes (and camera apertures) were set for photographing in daylight conditions. Neil Armstrong reported not seeing any stars from the lunar surface, except through the navigation scopes (where the eyepiece screened out the other lights). Ed Mitchell reported seeing stars only when he specifically shut out extraneous light.

Clavius on "no stars"

You know, I'm beginning to become convinced that you (S3th) haven't really even read the Clavius site. Oh, you don't like the guy (that's obvious), but you're not about to read anything that doesn't support the conclusion you've already arrived at. But, what the heck, that's ok...I mean, after all, we all know that the moon doesn't really exist anyway!

[MID]

U summed that up 2 perfection MID,... now if only the rest of the forum would catch on.

Ah, we can only hope!

[MID]

And if you all would just use YOUR OWN MINDS, rather than bowing down to the MID, who as we have seen, was a part of NASA and thus guilty by association. That is, of course, if we did not in fact go to the moon.

That must be it!

I am guilty by association...provided of course that we didn't go to the moon.

MID never asked anyone to bow down, but, as I have repeated ad-nauseam a phrase which you seem to have taken for your own, "Do you own research".

You obviously haven't. Oh, of course, you provide links, and quote verbatim from them. You also do not read, as I've told you before that I've in fact seen all the links you've guided people here to. Research is not watching pseudo-documentaries or reading books by people and drawing a conclusion. Research is involved in looking at the entire picture...all of the information available. I've thoroughly examined all of yours. You seem unwilling to examine the actual facts of the matter.

No, it's you who are neglecting complete research.

You believe. I am trying to get you to know. You seem to refuse to do your own work, despite the fact that I have given you links where you can see for yourself, and source information you can look up and study.

For instance, you did ask a specific question about the two camera views.

My post 121 explained those two views completely.

There's no comment.

My post 124 gave you specific information on your mis-interpretations regarding the LM and its relatioship to the LLRV/LLTVs.

There's no comment.

I even asked you if you would like an explanation as to why there were no blast craters on the lunar surface beneath the LM descent stages.

There's no comment.

You don't seem to want to relax, and read. You merely selectively respond to points made, like my admonition that we should attempt to be civil. You call it sucking up to an administrator...a defensive response to my gently suggesting that you tone it down, as your "good friend with common sense", common-sensed himself into a suspension...for obvious reasons. You state that I've been flaming since the start...the ridiculousness of which is awe-inspiring.

It simply doesn't reflect too well on you to sit there and flame out, referring to our dearly departed as a person with common-sense. Let's keep it real.

You didn't respond to my answers to your questions. That's curious. I hope your checking them out, but I rather doubt it, as I also explained to you about the temperatures that actually existed on the lunar surface (with sources), and you continue to harp on the heat issue. You even scream about, and dare someone to tell you that the LM had an ECS...( ).

It did. A rather complex system which controlled atmospheric pressure, and content, temperature (heat exchangers, etc...), potable water supply, feedwater recharging for the PLSSs, Oxygen recharging for the same, CO2 removal, etc...

It was actually kind of cool in the LM, believe it or not. It wasn't that hot outside (read what I told you, and go see the "proof"), and the temperature during the Apollo 11 crew's sleep period on the Moon got down to around 60 degrees F, which made it uncomfortable to sleep. Yes, there was a very effective ECS in the LM (as if it wouldn't have been designed with one???).

Want to know more about it?

Probably not.

You seem to be hell bent on posting 20 statements, taken directly from the pages of your sources, like Cosmic, et. al. Nothing original, no real questions, just a laundry list of already debunked points with dares attached.

You said you were anxiously awaiting my response to the two camera thing (as if that was some wild conundrum that you thought I couldn't resolve, or perhaps evidence of the big conspiracy).

You must not have been all too anxious. Or perhaps you're just not anxious to admit you learned something?

Hard to say. But your continual ripping off of other people's statements, rather than phrasing your own questions about the matter, seems to indicate that you're not really willing to listen to knowledgable answers.

I am beginning to think you're wasting our time here. But I'm certainly still willing to answer a query or two, or five...so long as you want to ask, out of a genuine curiosity to know.

The choice is yours, of course.

[frenat]

On the supposed impossibility of the astronauts fitting through the LM doors.

http://www.clavius.org/lmdoors.html

Also these pics disprove it easily. They show Aldrin exiting the LM hatch.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5862

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5863

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5866

[frenat]

With a more than two second signal transmission round trip, how did a camera pan upward to track the departure of the Apollo 16 LEM?

Answered earlier in this thread and others. Ed Fendell at mission control remotely controlled the camera. Seriously, if you know what the time delay is and you know when the launch will occur, why can't you do the math to know when the pan upwards should start? I thought you said you were using common sense?

[frenat]

Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand. The astronauts left distinct footprints all over the place.

Lots of materials make footprints without moisture. Portland cement is just one example. The irregular shape of each piece of dust helped them grip each other and form the footprints.

Regarding the supposed stars in the pictures. It is hard to believe they are really stars when similar white dots also appear on the ground. The lack of stars is a non-issue anyway. Anybody who knows about how cameras work will know that bright sunlit objects and relatively dim stars can not show up on the same picture. As far as Collins saying he didn't remember seeing any stars, he was referring to the solar corona experiment as the question that was asked was "When you were photographing the solar corona, did you see any stars.

[MID]

On the supposed impossibility of the astronauts fitting through the LM doors.

http://www.clavius.org/lmdoors.html

Also these pics disprove it easily. They show Aldrin exiting the LM hatch.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5862

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5863

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5866

It's a rather shallow item, don't you think...the idea that the LM wouldn't have been built with a front hatch specifically designed so as to allow passage of a suited astronaut?

It's amazing that such a thing has to be explained.

[MID]

Lots of materials make footprints without moisture. Portland cement is just one example. The irregular shape of each piece of dust helped them grip each other and form the footprints.

Regarding the supposed stars in the pictures. It is hard to believe they are really stars when similar white dots also appear on the ground. The lack of stars is a non-issue anyway. Anybody who knows about how cameras work will know that bright sunlit objects and relatively dim stars can not show up on the same picture. As far as Collins saying he didn't remember seeing any stars, he was referring to the solar corona experiment as the question that was asked was "When you were photographing the solar corona, did you see any stars.

This footprint theory is also one of the biggest wastes of time I've ever heard.

As to the "stars" in the pictures noted above, our friend has threatened us with these, vis:

Anyone of you try and backslide on this one and it is game over. They told us no stars, and yet here are stars. In their own photos. And if the camera caught them, then the astronots should have seen them. I submit to you, another lie!

Backslide, eh? Game over, eh?

Yes, it is.

I am impressed that identification was made of these photos (i.e., AS15-90-12249/12269). That is something usually lacking in a HBs photo reference. Despite the fact that the entire set he describes is not here, and one of them is not in that set as identified, there is a common thread between them all. They are all interior shots, taken through the spacecraft windows.

The surface pans are in fact shot with the EVA camera from inside the AS-15 LM through a triple paned window. They were taken after EVA 3 of the North Complex. They are all somewhat ill exposed, not anywhere near as good as the shots of the same taken from outside, and have artifact present on many of them. Not stars.

Many of these photos have the same bright dots, in the same relative positions to the camera lens, despite the background changes, indicating a spec or two of dust on the lens.

Some of the photos in the actual set have these artifact spots imposed over the surface features, which of course makes the idea that they are stars rather untenable.

These spots are likely specs on the lens of the well used EVA camera, and very likely dust particles on the window itself, since by the time they took these photos, the interior of the LM had lunar dirt all over its interior.

Drawing a conclusion that these are stars isn't really possible.

Just like the eye cannot see stars when it is looking at a brightly lit object, so too a camera cannot pick up stars when it is set to photograph brightly lit objects in broad daylight, and of course, it was always broad daylight on the moon's surface, and our cameras were always set to photgraph objects on that surface, not in the skies.

The fact is that a camera cannot take pictures of stars and have them expose on film even in a dark sky without the appropriate lens, a lengthy shutter speed, and a steady mount (perhaps even an equatorial mount which could follow the stars for the the amount of time that would be required to get a decent exposure of them).

The Hasselblads were hand held, set to expose brightly lit objects (and even the dimmest lunar surface object is brighter than any star), and could not have photographed stars.

These are not stars. You cannot see them in any photos from space that feature brightly lit objects. It is impossible.

This is not backsliding. It is simply describing facts which are unknown to some people.

[Lilly]

This is not backsliding. It is simply describing facts which are unknown to some people.

I like to call this, "uncommon sense". To use one's uncommon sense you frequently have to put forth some effort, read things, take a few classes in the subject area, refer to those who really are bona fide experts in the field. Basically, one needs to cultivate some good, solid critical thinking skills in order to have "uncommon sense".

[MID]

These things make you say "hmmm."

These things are typically uninformed HB stuff, vis:

Two later missions were canceled as public interest dropped in lunar exploration and the space program. In all, Americans completed six separate lunar landings between 1969 and 1972. No one has returned since that time.

Are they trying to say that lunar exploration is subject to the publics interest?

Yes, they are trying to say that.

But whoever "they" is is wrong. There were actually three Apollo missions scrapped from the original program (AS-18 through 20).

Nixon was responsible for the scrapping of Apollo, as is well known. The lack of public interest in the missions after Apollo 11 (which peaked again during Apollo 13, and then died quickly), gave Nixon, who didn't really want Kennedy's legacy to continue happening on his watch, used this dwindling public interest to divert funding from Apollo into Viet Nam, and something that he wanted to have as his space legacy, the Shuttle (although that didn't pan out for him, legacy wise. He got Watergate instead!).

Bill Kaysing was head of technical publications and advanced research at Rocketdyne Systems from 1956 to 1963. He states that it was estimated in 1959 that there was a .0014 chance of landing man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth. This took into account the effects of radiation, solar flares and micro meteorites. He could not believe in 1959 that man could go to the Moon.

Unfortunately, adhering to Kaysing gets one zero credibility in discussion.

He was not head of anything at Rocketdyne save filing technical publications (he was a librarian and required no technical knowledge of astrodynamics to do his job...and, based upon some of his writings and statements, he has none!). He left Rocketdyne (for undisclosed reasons) long before the F1 engine became operational.

That he could not believe, in 1959, that man could go to the moon is not unusual. Many didn't. In 1959, we had no idea if a man could survive a rocket ride, let alone exposure to zero gravity in space. Dr. van Allen was deep into his radiation belt research back then, and alot of fallacious opinions concerning space were flying around al over the place. In the subsequent few years, a great deal more knowledge was gained regarding the space environment.

Kaysing wasn't around for that, and hasn't learned anything since, it seems.

During Project Apollo, six highly complex manned craft landed on the Moon, took off and returned to Earth using a relatively low level of technology. An 86% success rate. Since Apollo, twenty five simple, unmanned craft with increasingly higher levels of technology have attempted to fulfil their missions to Mars.

Did you actually read this before you decided to copy it?

Highly complex manned spacecraft using relatively low level technology?

Simple unmanned craft with increasingly higher levels of technology?

The fact is during Apollo, six highly complex craft using state of the art technology (the highest level technology available, designed specifically for those craft) sucessfully completed their lunar missions. That was, in fact a 100% success rate.

This statement includes Apollo 13. Apollo 13 was also an unqualified success, and the technology built into that LM, as well as the determination and abilities of those guys in Mission Control, made Apollo 13 very possibly the greatest accomplishment of the program, and an unqualified success. Still, a 100% success rate.

There is absolutely no correlation between the design and functionality of an unmanned probe and a manned spacecraft. The fact is, the problems that have occurred on un-manned craft are such that could've likely been fixed had men been aboard. But that of course, wasn't possible.

And, the figures are incorrect.

The U.S. has launched 12 Mars spacecraft since the time of Apollo. Not 25. And, of the 12, 4 failed. The other 8 were totally successful. A few of them are still operational.

Viking 1

Viking 2

Mars Global Surveyor

Mars Pathfinder

Mars Oddysey

Spirit

Opportunity

Mars Reconnaisance Orbiter...all successful, Remarkably successful.

And, all complex machines...tributes to the men and women who designed and built them.

Another overlooked intriguing fact is that NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission.

This is also highly innacurate. Frankly, I was stunned when I first saw this guy put a reference to TETR-A (TETR-1) on his page, since it's such an obscure part of the Apollo program. No public interest aspect to that whatsoever. But the innacuracy of the statement is compelling, nonetheless.

There were actually 4 TETR satellites lauched. TETR is an acronym for Test and TRaining satellite. It (and all the TETRs) were basketball sized octahedron shaped satellites (12" on a side). Its purpose was to provide testing and training for the Manned Space Flight Network (MSFN), the world wide communications net established for the Apollo program.

The first TETR was launched on December 13, 1967.

This was a year BEFORE the first lunar mission. In fact, it was 10 months prior to a man ever flying in an Apollo spacecraft at all (it wasn't near ready yet in December 1967...remember the Apollo fire?).

The implication here is of course that this TETR-A faked all the transmissions allegedly received from the moon during Apollo 11. Unfortunately, it was incapable of such a thing, being posessed of a small, 9.5 watt S-Band transponder and a 100 milliwatt VHF transmitter.

The satellite was placed into a lower orbit than was planned, but MSFN ran four full network simulations with it anyway prior to its re-entering the atmosphere 4 months after launch.

It wasn't in existence 15 months later, when Apollo 11 landed on the moon...

With a more than two second signal transmission round trip, how did a camera pan upward to track the departure of the Apollo 16 LEM?

Uh, Houston we have a time-delay problem!!!

Yep, about 2.5 seconds round-trip. 1 1/4 seconds one way.

It isn't really rocket science.

Knowing precisely when TIG time was for the APS, precisely how fast it should move up angularly---based upon the distance from the LM to the LRV (where the camera was), the controller with the pan and pitch controls of the camera simply began his pitching of the camera about 1.2 or so seconds ahead of TIG, at the appropriate angular rate. Thus, the camera would start to pitch up right around TIG and would hopefully follow the ascent stage.

He didn't quite get all of 15 and 16, but experience made him better on 17, and he nailed that one.

What's so hard to understand about this?

The astronauts in these "pressurized" suits were easily able to bend their fingers, wrists, elbows, and knees at 5.2 p.s.i. and yet a boxer's 4 p.s.i. speed bag is virtually unbendable. The guys would have looked

like balloon men if the suits had actually been pressurized.

And please MID, no more talk about netting. If you want to prove it to yourself, find a really obese woman and throw a net around her, tighten it up, and check it out! LOL!

What does that mean?

Netting?

The suits have already been explained to you. The suit prsssure was in the 3.5-3.8 psi range. No one ever said it was "easy" to bend fingers and such. No one ballooned out because of the pressure garment's design, which employed complex joint systems and rubber bellows tubes. These prevented balooning, and allowed the joints to move with a relatively smooth motion.

It's one of the reason why these things cost about 1.5 million dollars apiece...

The water sourced air conditioner backpacks should have produced frequent explosive vapor discharges. They never did.

I suppose vapors disappear in a vacuum? You'll notice Clavius seems to ignore this one...

"Water-sourced air conditioner backpacks..." Makes it sound rather like Cosmic Dave knows something, doesn't it?

The thing was called a Portable Life Support System (PLSS...we love acronyms, you know). Cosmic Dave is also an HVAC specialist, since he makes a conclusive statement that this thing should've produced "frequent explosive vapor discharges".

Cooling water was circulated through a transport loop. This water could be diverted into the sublimator and heat exchanger in the PLSS at varying rates. A very small quantity of water was diverted to the sublimator at the minimum cooling setting, which was the setting used for most of the time by most all of the Apollo astronauts.

Ther water gave up its heat in the heat exchanger to a separate supply of cooling feedwater. The feedwater then flowed into a sublimator, where it evaporated gradually, giving away its heat. This is how these systems work to take heat out of the cooling water circulating through the suit, thus cooling it and recirculating it through the cooling garment.

These things don't explode. You never really see anything coming out of them at all. The amount of evaporation is minimal, and invisible.

For instance, I led you to the Apollo 11 Mission Report previously. I'm sure you've read all 326 pages of it by now and have committed it to memory, right?

In there, you will find that Neil Armstrong's PLSS utilized only 2.9 lbs. of feedwater for the duration of his time using it. That means that he used about a pint of feedwater per hour, or about 1/4 oz. per minute circulating through the heat exchanger.

An explosive discharge of water vapor isn't possible in that scenario. Sublimators don't blow off steam, as-it-were.

This will be installment 1. Thunderstorms in the area..

Edited June 24, 2006 by MID

[MID]

Bad thunderstorms...50,000 foot tops, 2"/hr rainfall+, cloud to ground lighning...a pilot's worst nightmare!

Installment the 2nd.

An astrophysicist who has worked for NASA writes that it takes two meters of shielding to protect against medium solar flares and that heavy ones give out tens of thousands of rem in a few hours. Why didn't the astronauts on Apollo 14 and 16 die after exposure to this immense amount of radiation?

It wasn't pointed at them...right? LOL Perhaps you can provide something that says the flares weren't pointed at them!

Another nebulus "astrophysicist who worked for NASA..." Another nameless being who asserts the asinine.

There are no references to who this was, or what he wrote to support that.

Why? because, it's nonsense, and no astrophysicist would say such a thing. "Two meters of lead shielding" might protect one from a nuclear blast, but thoughts regarding van Allen and solar radiation that include such a statement are from the speculative pre-spaceflight days, when Buck Rogers was as close to space flight as anyone actually got.

Provide something that says the flares weren't pointed at them?

I did already. Consult the AS-14 and AS-16 mission reports. There is a section under each entitles "BIOMEDICAL EVALUATION", and a sub-section entitled "Radiation".

There, you will find the data on radiation exposure for the crewmen on the missions.

Apollo 14's crew had the highest exposure of any Apollo mission, and even at that, it was no where near the threshold of a hazardous dose.

That information, combined with the fact that 3 of the 4 of these fellows are still very alive and well (Al Shepard died in 1998 at the age of 75), should point to the conclusion that the flares that may have occurred on their flights didn't expose them to any hazardous solar radiation, and thus, weren't directed at the Earth Moon system, or, that they weren't "major" events.

If any more "proof" than that is required, I have no idea where you'll find it.

The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected?

Hassleblad, we have a problem...Choke, cough, die!

Ludicrous.

This bears no addressing really, since it should be a matter of some "common sense" that a pure oxygen atmosphere has absolutely no effect on metal, or anything else that may have been used to construct an Apollo spacecraft or camera.

Pure oxygen melts metal?

That's new to me. We held "pure oxygen" in metal tanks, and they never melted. I wonder why? People breathe pure oxygen into their lungs. I wonder what's supposed to happen to those delicate tissues, when the stuff melts metals!

When the LEMs were supposedly leaving the Moon, they should have produced a large bright exhaust flame from the rocket propellant. Instead, zero exhaust.

There is footage that shows flame. The one where the camera lifts (with the time delay and all...amazing!) to catch the flame. Yet in other shots and the initial lift off, there is no flame visible

This of course is someone elses un-educated comment, not yours, but since you post it, it also proves a point I frequently make about HBs. They are incapable of reading a post over about a paragraph in length.

This issue has been thoroughly addressed already. It obviously wasn't read.

A summary:

All rocket engines produce initial combustion by-products, which produce a flare, or a "flame", as you say. Vacuum, or no vacuum. It's not actually a flame, but a flare of incomplete combustion, ignition transient, we call it. It disappears quickly, and the engine burns efficiently, invisibly, and silently in the vacuum of space.

The "author" fails to note that you also see the LM rise, with absolutely no flame, and it pitches over, revealing the glow of the hypergolic combustion inside the engine bell.

...this is hypergolic fuel burning. Remember hypergolic, the stuff you incorrectly posted about earlier as being the fuel used in the S-1-C stage of the Saturn rocket...you couldn't understand why you could see it since it was hypergolic? No response to that either. It wasn't hypergolic, of course...

Watch the videos. Look at the pictures. Do it before you have to humble yourself and deflate your ego much more than you would prefer to once you realize the error in believing individuals being paid to mind_ _ _ _ you!

And so you conclude your tirade...a compilation of someone else's un-knowledgable prattlings about something that they don't understand. Apparently, you accept this as well, so you don't understand either.

You lace your posts with childish comments, such as the one above...indicating that we must accept the same old falacies lest we be required to humble ourselves and deflate our egos once we realize the error in believing individuals who are being paid to MIND_ _ _ _ us...

You're treading on thin ice here. You appear about to crack, as the other person with "common sense" did. It's nonsensical and childish to behave in this manner.

Now, your (I mean someone else's) points have been addressed adequately enough for you to check them out for yourself.

If you are true to form, you will not even read these answers, and will come back quoting some one elses gibberish, and contiunue with childish taunts and comments, rather than learning something.

If anyone is now humbled, I think we know who that is.

Nonetheless, that's not what I'm here for!

I am, as many others are, attempting to get you to use the god-given brain you have, do a little work, and learn.

Constant ignoring of the points made in the form of answer, all of which you can research and learn the truth about; and coming back as if you've not read a word said, quoting others who have already been thoroughly debunked (ad nauseam, even on this thread), are painting you into a corner which you will not get out of. Additionally, they are making you look incredibly unattractive, and intellectually lazy.

Study the answers. Research them, utilizing ALL sources, not just the crazy HB sites which you are so wont to quote as "fact".

If still confused, come back with your own follow-up, sans the snide comments, please.

Your query will be entertained intelligently, since you will then be intelligently making inquiry.

If you persist in your current mode of conduct, you will certainly be ignored eventually.

Use a little "common sense", a phrase which you are so attached to. Apollo happened, just as we said it did. I am more than willing to discuss it.

Like an adult.