Author Topic: Faking the moon landings  (Read 22852 times)

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2800
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #405 on: February 12, 2019, 08:46:23 AM »
Boeing, IBM, Douglas, North American Aviation, Grumman... just five major private industry players in Apollo who either are in on the fraud or else built stuff that actually worked for NASA because no-one told them it was a fraud, and were good enough to document their processes extensively.

<snip nonsense>

In the original live news footage of the Apollo 17 night launch, just prior to staging we see a bright red rocket plume, and then the camera switches to black & white. At the exact point of staging, there is a glitch in the transmission and a second later, we see the white blob with no sign of the first stage falling away.

It’s a real shame the footage never stayed in colour for just a few more seconds, as we would have had some indication as to whether that second stage was firing, or just what was left of the rocket falling back to earth, as is apparent in the Apollo 16 footage.

<snip BS>
I guess you never shot any TV coverage at night, it takes some light to see objects like the first stage falling away.  And probably you should look around for other sources of footage.  Here for example one continues viewing the launch with the second stage burning(no first stage falling away as it is night)
 

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

Offline Peter B

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 834
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #406 on: February 12, 2019, 09:10:03 AM »
Boeing, IBM, Douglas, North American Aviation, Grumman... just five major private industry players in Apollo who either are in on the fraud or else built stuff that actually worked for NASA because no-one told them it was a fraud, and were good enough to document their processes extensively.

IBM built and programmed the guidance system using the data given to them by NASA.

Boeing, North American and Douglas Aircraft built the rocket stages, which were designed by NASA under the direction of Wernher von Braun. Boeing were also the main contractor, given the task of building the LRV.

Grumman were apparently contracted by NASA to design and build the LM, and after they were satisfied it would work, they handed it over to NASA, who allegedly put it through its paces in space, where it apparently performed exactly as stated on the tin.

You know all this of course, but why would any of those contractors have known that all their hard work was just part of NASA’s plan to fool the world? The rockets first stage was the only part that had to work to a certain degree, as is plainly seen in the original live news broadcasts from the time of the events.

Ah, so according to you the contractors designed something that worked as intended, and gave it to NASA who intended to not use it.

Why would NASA not want to use all the equipment as advertised if the contractors had built equipment that...worked as advertised?

Quote
After first staging occurs, we see no clear evidence to suggest that the second stage is working, or even still intact for that matter, as all we see is an indistinct glowing white blob, which the camera follows for a couple of minutes, before cutting to the animation. But as with most of NASA’s video footage, our eyes must be deceiving us, as the man reading the script tells us that everything’s working fine.

In the original live news footage of the Apollo 17 night launch, just prior to staging we see a bright red rocket plume, and then the camera switches to black & white. At the exact point of staging, there is a glitch in the transmission and a second later, we see the white blob with no sign of the first stage falling away.

It’s a real shame the footage never stayed in colour for just a few more seconds, as we would have had some indication as to whether that second stage was firing, or just what was left of the rocket falling back to earth, as is apparent in the Apollo 16 footage.

Can I just check, Cambo, are you a flat-earther? This is a serious question, because I want to know whether you believe the horizon is a real thing. So, for example, when a plane disappears beyond a mountain range or whatever, it hasn't crashed but simply flown over the horizon?

If so, do you understand that the process of launching a rocket into orbit involves travelling hundreds of kilometres downrange from the launch point. As a result, the rocket must disappear over the horizon from the point of view of a person near the launch point. So what you describe as "the rocket falling back to earth" is actually the rocket continuing to climb as it disappears over the horizon.

Quote
By what reasoning do you assume that everyone working for, or contracted to NASA would have to be in on the fraud, including the cleaners? Did any of those contractors test the hardware in the environment it was made for? Those contractors would not necessarily have to be in on the fraud, and would not necessarily have built something that worked. They merely built something that they thought would work, because like you, they had complete trust in the science presented to them by NASA.

Come on, this isn't a trick question, is it?

Yes, the engineers tested equipment. Yes, prior to launch they tested it in environments equivalent to what it was intended to experience in space. And yes, the first use of the equipment in a real mission was also a test.

So, for example, the LM descent engine was tested on Earth. It was tested on Earth in vacuum chambers so that engineers could be sure they knew how it behaved in a vacuum. And then it was tested in space on Apollo 5, an unmanned mission. And then the astronauts were allowed to play with it on Apollo 9.

Come on Cambo, tell us, what exactly was it about Apollo that made a mission not possible. You've danced around this all thread and never given us a firm answer. Apparently the only thing you're convinced of it that somehow it wasn't possible to go to the Moon, but you won't/can't tell us why. This is about as rational as deciding which team you support in the Bundesliga.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3070
    • Clavius
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #407 on: February 12, 2019, 09:48:04 AM »
IBM built and programmed the guidance system using the data given to them by NASA.

No.

Quote
Boeing, North American and Douglas Aircraft built the rocket stages, which were designed by NASA under the direction of Wernher von Braun.

No.

Quote
...where it apparently performed exactly as stated on the tin.

You know all this of course, but why would any of those contractors have known that all their hard work was just part of NASA’s plan to fool the world?

Indeed.  They were told to build hardware that actually worked in space to do the tasks as prescribed, so they did.

Quote
After first staging occurs, we see no clear evidence to suggest that the second stage is working...

Except of course for the film and direct observation that you seem not to know about.

Quote
By what reasoning do you assume that everyone working for, or contracted to NASA would have to be in on the fraud, including the cleaners?

Because if there was an attempt to defraud and deceive, these organizations would be the first to know about it.  NASA contracted with these private companies because they had the knowledge and expertise to do what NASA required.  They were not just dumb mechanics mindlessly building what NASA drew out for them.  You have no clue how the aerospace industry works.

Quote
Did any of those contractors test the hardware in the environment it was made for?

Yes, rigorously.

Quote
...they had complete trust in the science presented to them by NASA.

Utter nonsense.  If you had actually read and understood the history of Apollo development, you'd have run across the dozens upon dozens of documents produced by the prospective contractors that research and analyze the mission requirements for themselves.  In many cases, NASA contracted with these private organizations to conduct the preliminary research.

Your version of the story bears absolutely no resemblance to the documented facts.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3070
    • Clavius
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #408 on: February 12, 2019, 09:52:42 AM »
Why would NASA not want to use all the equipment as advertised if the contractors had built equipment that...worked as advertised?

It's his contention that the contractors didn't know that it wouldn't have worked.  He contents that they just blindly and naively did as they were told, dumbly executing finished designs handed to them by NASA along with assurances that whatever they produced would satisfy the customer.

A complete and total fantasy, in other words.  Cambo is thoroughly ignorant of how aerospace engineering works in general, and specifically how it was documented to have worked for Apollo.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1791
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #409 on: February 12, 2019, 10:50:15 AM »
Look, I've been saying for years that I believe the figure of how many people would've known it was fake is inflated, simply because it does involve every single person who worked on Apollo.  I absolutely agree the cleaners wouldn't have known if the hardware doesn't work.  I'll do you one better--I think a lot of the people doing the actual building wouldn't have known.  Oh, I think they would've known that they did their job right, because that's something you know if you deserve your job.  So if your job is to, say, weld bits together, you know if your weld is going to hold.  If you don't, you're a pretty crappy welder.

But you have to extend that knowledge upward.  So just as the women sewing the space suits knew that their sewing was done right, so, too, did the engineers know their engineering was done right.  All in all, I still believe that literally thousands of people would've had to have known if something was wrong, because thousands of them were highly placed enough in the engineering aspects to have been able to say, "Wait, that should have done <x> and instead did <y>.  What happened?"
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline benparry

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 234
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #410 on: February 12, 2019, 11:45:50 AM »
I still cannot believe this guy is getting responses. He is clearly a troll who comes back every couple of months for a laugh. He will waste your time for about 3 maybe 4 more posts, leave it at that and then reply again say mid april.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3070
    • Clavius
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #411 on: February 12, 2019, 11:50:06 AM »
So if your job is to, say, weld bits together, you know if your weld is going to hold.  If you don't, you're a pretty crappy welder.

Especially in Grumman's case.  The fabrication methods used to build the LM were very specialized and very difficult to execute.  And they were also Grumman trade secrets.  This was why they won the contract.  The line between engineering and fabrication/assembly is a lot blurrier than most people realize, more so in aerospace.  The guy who's fitting up and assembling chem-milled panels with integral stringers knows the degree of quality he must attain, and why.  And he knows the degree of frailty in the resulting structure probably more than any person in the project.

Quote
But you have to extend that knowledge upward.  So just as the women sewing the space suits knew that their sewing was done right, so, too, did the engineers know their engineering was done right.

The vertical movement of information and direction is easily inferred from the org chart.  What is more important, but less visible, is the horizontal movement of information between groups that would be compartmentalized in "silos" in an organization designed to keep secrets or prevent anyone getting the big picture.  Engineers of different disciplines and from different companies must communicate across functional boundaries in order to do their jobs quickly and effectively.  There is simply no way to prevent some of them from acquiring a big picture, even if that wasn't their titular role.  And toward that proposition we have surviving examples of the Data Book, the "Bible" of the spacecraft -- two feet of loose-leaf shelf space with all the pertinent design information.  And we have familiarization manuals with annotations from their original owners attesting to the degree to which cross-pollination was practiced inside Apollo.

Yes, we have to concede that not all 400,000 people we say worked on Apollo would have been able to detect a forgery at the design and manufacturing level.  But the degree to which non-functioning designs would have still needed to be convincing still precludes a credible accusation of fraud.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3070
    • Clavius
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #412 on: February 12, 2019, 12:51:40 PM »
I still cannot believe this guy is getting responses. He is clearly a troll...

Clearly, and not a very imaginative or intelligent one either.

Quote
He will waste your time...

Yes and no.  I haven't responded to every single post he's made, mostly because I choose not to spend the time on self-debunking nonsense.  However in some cases it's worth responding to, not because he's going to acknowledge the answer and incorporate it into his argument, but because truth and knowledge is best served by having a response on the record in the same place where he made his accusations.  Consider that someone Googles his way to apollohoax.net, sees a post alleging that NASA simply spoonfed nonsense to unwitting contractors, and then -- absent a cogent response -- goes away thinking that's a suitably well informed analysis.  Instead what that hypothetical lurker sees is an accusation laid bare as ignorant nonsense by those who work in the field.  The rebuttal to the claim appears in the same space as the claim itself, even if the original claimant hasn't the brains or the inclination to respond to it.  Setting the record straight may be time-consuming, but it's not always a waste of time.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline benparry

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 234
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #413 on: February 12, 2019, 02:02:17 PM »
I still cannot believe this guy is getting responses. He is clearly a troll...

Clearly, and not a very imaginative or intelligent one either.

Quote
He will waste your time...

Yes and no.  I haven't responded to every single post he's made, mostly because I choose not to spend the time on self-debunking nonsense.  However in some cases it's worth responding to, not because he's going to acknowledge the answer and incorporate it into his argument, but because truth and knowledge is best served by having a response on the record in the same place where he made his accusations.  Consider that someone Googles his way to apollohoax.net, sees a post alleging that NASA simply spoonfed nonsense to unwitting contractors, and then -- absent a cogent response -- goes away thinking that's a suitably well informed analysis.  Instead what that hypothetical lurker sees is an accusation laid bare as ignorant nonsense by those who work in the field.  The rebuttal to the claim appears in the same space as the claim itself, even if the original claimant hasn't the brains or the inclination to respond to it.  Setting the record straight may be time-consuming, but it's not always a waste of time.

actually Jay I agree with you there. I used to be on quite a few FB groups and ran into Allan F on one of them. Now while my knowledge isn't up there with Al's or yours of course we had quite a bit of fun with Pascal who i'm sure you know. Quite a few times I said it was better to actually answer the claims so that if anybody made their way there they would see an answer

Offline benparry

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 234
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #414 on: February 12, 2019, 02:06:28 PM »
Just while your on Jay I noticed  a quote earlier about the engine of the LM being tested on earth in a vacuum chamber. I assume this chamber was of a certain size to accomplish this.
One of my pet go to questions when answering HB's is how did nasa get the dust in the Apollo videos of the Rover for example to behave like it was in a vacuum. Mostly their go to answer is a massive vacuum chamber. My question to you is how big were the chambers to test the LM engine in and secondly how big would the chamber have needed to be to actually simulate the entire landing scene. I assume huge. My worry is that if somebody, for example, cambo sees that the LM engine was tested in a vacuum chamber they could say that 'well they had a vacuum chamber for that so why not the entire thing'. you know ??

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2800
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #415 on: February 12, 2019, 02:08:44 PM »
Pascal Xavier is such a willfully ignorant individual, and he should know better being an engineer.  But then I guess it takes all kinds ::)
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline benparry

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 234
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #416 on: February 12, 2019, 02:11:43 PM »
Pascal Xavier is such a willfully ignorant individual, and he should know better being an engineer.  But then I guess it takes all kinds ::)

of course. He has made his way over to another group on FB and poisoned that too but he seems to be getting his ass handed to him there tbh. The issue with him of course is that nothing will ever convince him.

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2800
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #417 on: February 12, 2019, 02:38:44 PM »
Pascal Xavier is such a willfully ignorant individual, and he should know better being an engineer.  But then I guess it takes all kinds ::)

But so was Baker.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3070
    • Clavius
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #418 on: February 12, 2019, 03:10:25 PM »
Pascal Xavier is such a willfully ignorant individual, and he should know better being an engineer.  But then I guess it takes all kinds ::)

It may take all kinds, but there is actually an ethical responsibility among professional engineers (and practitioners of many other professions) to oppose those who willfully mislead.  Xavier may have an engineering degree (I'm still not convinced his credentials are real), but he is no engineer.  His blatantly errant and misleading statements regarding Apollo have earned him expulsion from the ranks of ethically-bound professional engineers.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1368
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #419 on: February 12, 2019, 03:16:03 PM »
Really, really, really, not difficult to get hold of Saturn V footage:



or information about the development and building of it, or the LM, or indeed many of the other component parts of the Apollo programme.

Unless, of course, you are trying really hard not to.