Author Topic: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch  (Read 118048 times)

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #450 on: December 29, 2018, 12:57:28 PM »
Is this that bingo moment?

That seems to be the tread.  Maybe we should ask LunarOrbit to move the IMDB portions of this thread into their own sticky thread.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #451 on: December 29, 2018, 01:12:24 PM »
Btw, do you have a copy of that exchange?

I don't, and I understand it's gone entirely from IMDB now.

Jay

Can you remember what year this was, and what section the discussion was in?

Did you use jayutah or some other username?

What username was the blunder using?

I am prepared to have a trawl through some internet archives to see if I can find it, but I would like some kind of starting point.


Here is the dead link -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446557/board/flat/133905495

Good find, thanks.  The only thing I'm sure of is that I did not use JayUtah as my user name for that debate.  I don't remember what I did use.

Is this that bingo moment?

Archive -

https://moviechat.org/tt0446557/A-Funny-Thing-Happened-on-the-Way-to-the-Moon#discover

Two large threads -

https://moviechat.org/tt0446557/A-Funny-Thing-Happened-on-the-Way-to-the-Moon/58c7698a6b51e905f686f522/Could-this-be-one-of-the-most-under-appreciated-films-of-its-time

https://moviechat.org/tt0446557/A-Funny-Thing-Happened-on-the-Way-to-the-Moon/58c7698b6b51e905f686f654/I-dont-know-I-just-dont-know


Adding:

https://web.archive.org/web/http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446557/board
Ah, Good the first link you gave was just to IMDB, not the forums.  Reading the first brought back memories from my first reading.  the Blunder was in rare but consistent error prone statements.

Good one Jay.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline mako88sb

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 293
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #452 on: December 29, 2018, 02:19:48 PM »
Just had a quick read through of it and I think some of it is missing or maybe Blunderboy deleted more of his responses since the last time I read it? Certainly does show the type of character he is. Anyway, great to see it's not lost forever.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2018, 02:29:19 PM by mako88sb »

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1959
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #453 on: December 29, 2018, 10:58:01 PM »
Just had a quick read through of it and I think some of it is missing or maybe Blunderboy deleted more of his responses since the last time I read it? Certainly does show the type of character he is. Anyway, great to see it's not lost forever.

Its difficult to follow though because the formatting has been removed...its not easy to see where the quotes belong
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Offline mako88sb

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 293
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #454 on: December 30, 2018, 09:59:32 AM »
Just had a quick read through of it and I think some of it is missing or maybe Blunderboy deleted more of his responses since the last time I read it? Certainly does show the type of character he is. Anyway, great to see it's not lost forever.

Its difficult to follow though because the formatting has been removed...its not easy to see where the quotes belong

The last supplied link actually brings you to the way it originally looked:
https://web.archive.org/web/http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446557/board

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #455 on: December 30, 2018, 12:23:08 PM »
Just had a quick read through of it and I think some of it is missing or maybe Blunderboy deleted more of his responses since the last time I read it? Certainly does show the type of character he is. Anyway, great to see it's not lost forever.

Its difficult to follow though because the formatting has been removed...its not easy to see where the quotes belong

The last supplied link actually brings you to the way it originally looked:
https://web.archive.org/web/http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446557/board

That link does make it easier to read, thanks.

ETA: What is the proper link to the proboards of apollohoax.net?  Th links in the IMDB forum don't take me there.


ETA2:  Never mind I see the link at the bottom of the main page.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2018, 01:01:33 PM by bknight »
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline mako88sb

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 293
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #456 on: December 30, 2018, 01:06:14 PM »
Just had a quick read through of it and I think some of it is missing or maybe Blunderboy deleted more of his responses since the last time I read it? Certainly does show the type of character he is. Anyway, great to see it's not lost forever.

Okay, spent more time going over this and I'm probably wrong about missing content. The series of postings I vividly remember happened earlier than I thought were Jay had blunderboy essentially cornered and unwilling to admit he didn't know how to figure out what was being asked of him occurred during the May 3-4/2009 time-span. Jarrah's last post for awhile was May 4 and he doesn't respond again until mid June. Some of his posts from then onward are deleted either by him or IMDb. At any rate you can see he was often called out for attempting to change the subject instead of directly responding to those pointed questions . Here's a great quote by Jay that sums up the type of person blunderboy is:

"He was given his chance to demonstrate competence, and he refused to do so. That fairly concludes my direct involvement with him. He has evidently retreated back to his walled garden to surround himself once again with his small, sycophantic following. The rest of the world continues onward."

A following that has been significantly reduced because he ticked off a lot of the flat-Earthers and "rockets can't work in space" crowd with his enthusiastic support of SpaceX. I'm pretty sure he knows the Apollo landings were real, whether he knew it all along or figured it out eventually, but as mentioned by some during that debate, it was more about attempting to get the better of Jay, and failing spectacularly, then admitting the truth.

I hope Jr takes the time to go through that debate so he can understand part of the reason why the people here are a tough crowd.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2018, 01:25:33 PM by mako88sb »

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #457 on: December 30, 2018, 06:12:31 PM »
In reading the last link I find most of page 9 and 10 are not in existence in way back, unless my web is screwing up.  Did any one else have any luck with those last two pages?
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline mako88sb

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 293
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #458 on: December 30, 2018, 09:48:19 PM »
In reading the last link I find most of page 9 and 10 are not in existence in way back, unless my web is screwing up.  Did any one else have any luck with those last two pages?

Try it again later. I was getting the same thing on various other pages and then later they were fine.

Offline Count Zero

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 380
  • Pad 39A July 14,1969
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #459 on: December 31, 2018, 01:01:28 AM »
Anyway, unlike many of the fine people, I am not an engineer or scientist. I do not claim to have any particular skill with math; if anything its below average, but I can still research as well as I can and ask questions from people who do this stuff for a living. I can also point out when hoax proponents make outright lies in their claims. I have learned so much on this forum, and I can say the fine people of this forum are polite and articulate. They only get snarky when some hot stuff pulls out the well (well!) trodden claims and try to pretend they have found something  earth shattering.

I'd put myself in the same category as Raven. I'm also not an engineer or scientist, but I did enough maths and science at school that I can understand most of the maths discussed here and can follow the rest even if I can't do the maths myself.

I've also been investigating hoax claims for about 20 years, so I'm also wearily familiar with plenty of claims that visitors here think they're the first to bring to our attention.

Having said that, there are still plenty of cases where I learn something new. But in almost every case, it's learning something new about the reality of Apollo, and only occasionally a new hoax claim I haven't heard before.

Quote
Here's a question I'd like answered by  jr Knowing: What is even the point of faking it? If you pull it off, it's a major propaganda coup, but the USSR would have been the very hardest to fool, as they had their own failed moon landing program and an extensive and very successful unmanned lunar exploration program. It's basically the first rule of any successful scammer: know your mark.  If the US realized they couldn't pull it off, why not focus on other things, like the USSR did with space stations and Venusian exploration after the explosive failure of the N1 rocket. If the USSR realized the moon landings were fake, which, from their knowledge they would most certainly have, they would have every motivation to trumpet it to the world as their own propaganda coup.

Yes, something important to understand here - the Russians/Soviets were the masters of fakery and misdirection. In the case of their military forces, the term was maskirovka, but they applied the concept broadly, including in their space program. This was because they recognised both the propaganda value of the space program and the ease with which they could exploit it.

Therefore, the Russians never announced their launches ahead of time. This allowed them to cover up their launch failures, giving them the appearance of a 100% launch success rate when the American failures were there for all to see.

It worked in other ways too: they might make a bland statement about a mission objective, and let the Western media draw whatever excessive implications they wished; so when they announced that Vostoks 3 and 4 would approach to within a few kilometres of each other, Western media assumed the Soviets had worked out how to do a rendezvous in space, which they hadn't...but it played into the image of the Soviet lead in the Space Race.

But almost the biggest success of the Soviet space program was convincing people in the West that they hadn't been racing the Americans throughout the 1960s to get men on the Moon. They successfully pushed the line that all they'd ever been interested in was unmanned exploration of the Moon because it was cheaper and safer. Sure, it was cheaper and safer, but they had certainly been racing the Americans to put actual people on the Moon, and only really gave up when they couldn't make their N1 rocket work.

Now NASA knew most of this, and some of their knowledge of what the Soviets were actually up to influenced some of their decisions. For example, knowing the Soviets had a very large rocket on a launch pad played a part in convincing them to send Apollo 8 to the Moon in December 1968.

But the fact that NASA could see at least part way through the Soviet deceptions also meant they'd have had a good idea that they'd have no hope of getting away with a fake themselves. And in the propaganda context of the Cold War, being caught faking something would be worse than not attempting it at all (which is why the Soviets exploited the propaganda value of what they did, rather than faking anything themselves). (Apart from which, the Americans were quite confident they could go to the Moon.)

So the only options with regard to sending men to the Moon was either (a) don't attempt it (the Soviet decision), or (b) actually do it (the American decision). Option (c), faking it, simply wasn't a viable option.

Those who think a moon-landing hoax is plausible make a mistake that is as common as it is peculiar:  They assume that attempting an actual manned moon-landing has a large possibility of failure, but that executing a hoax would somehow be automatically successful.

This makes no sense.  Flying to the Moon is an engineering problem with known (or knowable) equipment requirements.  You need large, multi-stage rockets, a guidance system that can navigate there & back, a vehicle that can land and take off, and life support systems to keep your crew alive.  You can also send unmanned probes to measure the environment between here & there to help define your craft.  All of these can be built & tested in a methodical, step-by-step process. 

Everything is in the open.  Nobody has to be looking over their shoulder or dealing with attacks of conscience .  If they fail, the root causes can be found & fixed and they can try again.  No honor is lost because everyone knows it is damn difficult.  Even if the government decides it's not worth the cost to continue and pulls the plug, everyone knows it was a good try and at least we learned a lot in the effort.

On the other hand, one slip-up when perpetuating a hoax - one turncoat, one leaked document, one communications gaffe (you can't know who will be listening, or with what equipment), one special effect that's less than perfect - and you are the center of a national disgrace for all time.  America's credibility is shot and very senior officials in the government will be convicted of felony fraud and go to prison for years.  Don't forget that the secret has to be kept for all time:  No matter when it's found out, it will still be a world-wide public-relations storm that would make Iraqi WMDs look like an absent-minded goof.  It doesn't matter how old you are, you can still be put on trial.

For those who think we faked-it to show-up the Soviets, do they really think that an administration that couldn't cover-up a 3rd-rate hotel burglary could keep this secret from the KGB?  Do they think that America's mortal enemy would not use this as the ultimate proof before the entire world of capitalism's perfidity and corruption?

Don't forget  that, as far as we knew, the Soviets were also going to land on the Moon, whether we made it or not.  They didn't cancel their program until 1976.  If we faked it and they did it for real, then who has the technological upper hand?

Any way you look at it, faking it would be more risky and less likely to succeed - with more dire cost to the nation in the event of failure - than actually digging-in, doing the work and going for real.
"What makes one step a giant leap is all the steps before."

Offline Rob48

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 73
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #460 on: January 01, 2019, 11:17:39 AM »

Those who think a moon-landing hoax is plausible make a mistake that is as common as it is peculiar:  They assume that attempting an actual manned moon-landing has a large possibility of failure, but that executing a hoax would somehow be automatically successful.

This makes no sense.

Not only that, but a hoax would be 100% guaranteed to be found out, and at the time of Apollo the chances were pretty high that it could have been found out very soon indeed.

I mean, the co-ordinates of the landings were and are public knowledge. Any hoax that didn't result in leaving clearly used Apollo descent stages, along with the footprints, science kit, bags of rubbish and all the other stuff documented in the photos, would be guaranteed to be uncovered as soon as anyone revisited the sites, which they will. (And never mind that the fake scenery would also have to match the real moon sites, down to the pebble!)

What kind of idiot would sign off on a hoax that would ensure that one day, the USA would be uncovered as a total laughing stock?

Offline molesworth

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 349
  • the curse of st custards
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #461 on: January 01, 2019, 11:55:16 AM »

Those who think a moon-landing hoax is plausible make a mistake that is as common as it is peculiar:  They assume that attempting an actual manned moon-landing has a large possibility of failure, but that executing a hoax would somehow be automatically successful.

This makes no sense.

Not only that, but a hoax would be 100% guaranteed to be found out, and at the time of Apollo the chances were pretty high that it could have been found out very soon indeed.

I mean, the co-ordinates of the landings were and are public knowledge. Any hoax that didn't result in leaving clearly used Apollo descent stages, along with the footprints, science kit, bags of rubbish and all the other stuff documented in the photos, would be guaranteed to be uncovered as soon as anyone revisited the sites, which they will. (And never mind that the fake scenery would also have to match the real moon sites, down to the pebble!)

What kind of idiot would sign off on a hoax that would ensure that one day, the USA would be uncovered as a total laughing stock?
Well now, you guys are making the standard mistake of assuming the hoax believers apply any kind of logical reasoning or critical thinking when coming up with their nonsense.

Of course a hoax would be harder to pull off than actually trying to achieve the mission goals, and of course it would eventually be exposed (and far more spectacularly than by eejits posting about plume deflectors on internet forums).  But none of that matters when they have discovered the inner secret that exposes it all!!  ;D
Days spent at sea are not deducted from one's allotted span - Phoenician proverb

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #462 on: January 02, 2019, 11:56:15 AM »
Not only that, but a hoax would be 100% guaranteed to be found out, and at the time of Apollo the chances were pretty high that it could have been found out very soon indeed.

The Soviets "captured" a boilerplate CM that landed off target, and had plenty of time to look it over before handing it back to the United States.  If they had any questions about whether the Americans were actually doing the project, I tend to think they would have been addressed there.  Further, I received some correspondence many years ago from someone claiming to be a former FBI agent who attested that the Soviets had moles in the Apollo project.  I haven't been able to confirm this with anyone from the Dept. of Justice, but it seems plausible.  We certainly had a lot of knowledge about the Soviet space program from various intelligence sources.  Given these and other propositions, it seems implausible that the Soviets could have been fooled by a hoax.  Even hoax claimants agree, which is why some of them claim the Soviets had privately agreed to let America hoax the Apollo missions, such as in exchange for grain shipments.

The real problem for me is that people like Shea and Faget and Kelly and "Stormy" were already legends in the field.  These guys were already at the tops of their careers, with many laudable deeds behind them.  They had reputations to protect, as well as company and stockholder confidence.  None of those concerns would have been served by participating in a hoax.  There was plenty of legitimate aerospace work to do, plenty of legitimate cutting-edge research.  These people had zero incentive to become embroiled in a hoax that could wreck their careers, doom their companies, and land them in prison.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #463 on: January 02, 2019, 12:28:19 PM »
...part of the reason why the people here are a tough crowd.

Part of the reason we're a tough crowd here is that there is so much dishonesty on the hoax claimant's side to deal with.  Their proffered motives never seem to be the real ones.  You've got people like He Who Shall Not Be Named, who don't take long to show that they're just out to trample the reputations of people they don't like or disagree with in order to make themselves look good by comparison.  Dr. Plait and I commiserated over this at one of our first meetings, as he was also the target of whats-his-name's vitriol at the time.  We agreed that even if everything he said about us were true, it would have zero bearing on whether Apollo happened as described.  He was simply attacking people according to whatever he could find to say about them.  It had nothing to do with evidence or making a case.

Then you have people who claim to be experts and who have concluded, "on the basis of the evidence," that Apollo was hoaxed.  And it doesn't take long to see that they are no experts -- in photography, engineering, space science, or whatever they claim.  Maybe in some circles they want to be seen as experts and have been successful to some degree at it.  But all they can manage is a sort of vandalistic approach.  They can point out the "obvious" flaws in what other people have done, but they can't speak about the actual fields of expertise with any sort of broad, experiential knowledge.  And even though they say they used to be Apollo believers and were compelled by the weight of evidence to doubt it, wild horses can't drag them away from their conspiracy claims.  It's clearly what they want to believe, regardless of how flimsy the evidence is for it.

And then you have those self-appointed guardians who pretend they are holding powerful interests accountable by identifying the ways in which the Powers That Be have lied or taken advantage of the public.  But then those same guardians can't manage even a tiny modicum of accountability themselves.  They fancy themselves deep thinkers, free thinkers, moral bulwarks, and so forth.  But they never admit failure, never admit error, never explain or correct their misinterpretations and misrepresentations.  Apparently to that sort, lying is just fine as long as it's not the Designated Enemy who's lying.

Even the innocent-seeming ones who "just ask questions" can't keep up that facade for very long.  Pretty soon they're advocating conspiracies and complaining about how people who challenged that advocacy are coming down on them too hard for what they claim is mere curiosity.

Hypocrisy and dishonesty effectively abrade the goodwill and easy-going nature that otherwise prevails here.  We're tough because we have to be, because the people who claim hoax -- with only singular exceptions -- can't manage to be honest and sincere.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #464 on: January 02, 2019, 12:32:16 PM »
Speaking of He That Shall Not Be Named, Jay Any answer to my question?

Quote from: JayUtah(Windley)

800209 80024 0531-0536 -21 -48 SN 16648 00010 1

Can you tell me what the unshielded skin dose of this event would have been?


Since I didn't take any space courses and I don't know what the answer might be.  Nether did the Blunder="Let's see given that this one only lasted for 5minutes, I'd say 8.33rem."

So what is the answer and how is it calculated.  If one does not want the calculation on the forum PM me.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan