Author Topic: Faking the moon landings  (Read 30776 times)

Offline molesworth

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 196
  • the curse of st custards
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #390 on: December 29, 2018, 06:08:29 PM »
I had to go a long way back to find the context for this.  It's on page 19 if anyone is interested in reading more.

The response is to cambo's comment :
Even if the science is correct, it would only show us that space flight is possible, but in no way would it be proof that these events have actually took place. In the case of Apollo, Surely the visual record is the only source of real evidence, as without this evidence, we would only have NASA’s word.

There's a lot more than just the visual record (by which I assume you mean the photos, film and video), although you seem determined to dismiss all of it without any real analysis.  The fact that such an extensive and detailed record exists can't easily be ignored, especially when it's not just "NASA" providing us with evidence.  A huge array of information, from people all over the world, in many different disciplines, both from the time of the missions, and in subsequent analysis, supports the case that Apollo happened.

What do you mean when you say “an extensive and detailed record”? Are you talking about things such as the original video tapes from Apollo 11 and all that telemetry data from the missions? And surely the old technology that enabled them to achieve such an incredible feat, must also be well documented? Or are you merely referring to the written account of events?
Since you claimed the visual (video) record was "the only real evidence", my response was that there are many other parts of the record which are non-visual, but which are equally important, and confirm the reality of Apollo.  The video record is interesting, but is probably not as important as many other pieces of evidence generated during the project.

Quote
Could you be more specific about this huge array of evidence from people all over the world, from the time of the missions, that would support the idea that NASA were successful in sending men to the moon and back nine times in under four years, without a single casualty.
How specific do you want me to be?  If you take the time to read other threads on this forum you'll find references to many, many types of evidence.  It would take days to document even the main parts of it, but, for example, there's the photographic archive, not just from the missions, but of all the supporting developments and work during the programme.

Then there's all the engineering documentation of every aspect of the programme, from the enormous undertaking of developing the launch vehicles, to tiny details like the layouts of control panels.  Another form of written documentation is the paper trail of memos, letters, faxes etc. etc. discussing all sorts of aspects of the project, including personnel issues, development problems, cost issues etc.  A lot of it might seem to be trivialities, but it is still supporting evidence.

And if you're looking for international documentation, there's everything from Soviet reports on the Apollo missions, to the records from people and organisations which tracked and listened in to the missions (including private individuals).  These are all corroborating which add to the proof that these missions took place as stated.

If you're going to claim this is all "hoaxed" you need to explain each and every part of this vast array of varied evidence.

Quote
The video record is the only true source of evidence, as it was the hardest thing to fake, and boy did they mess up. Including video footage of the events was a big mistake,
In what way?  I've yet to see anything which even begins to look like evidence that any video footage was faked.

Quote
and they’ve since learned their lesson, as even the latest fake mars mission doesn’t include video footage.
What on earth (  ;) ) are you wittering on about?  Which Mars mission?  If you're talking about Insight, then why do you think it should have a video camera?  It has two cameras which are for specific purposes - yet again you're falling into the trap of expecting mission planners and designers to waste weight and power to provide "entertainment" for numpties who might doubt the reality of what they're accomplishing...

[edit] As I'm replying in the throes of post-crimbo stupor, I should have added mention of all the other non-visual pieces of evidence, such as those mentioned by bknight above.  Thanks for that.  Any thoughts on all of this additional evidence cambo?
« Last Edit: December 29, 2018, 06:18:18 PM by molesworth »
Days spent at sea are not deducted from one's allotted span - Phoenician proverb

Offline Trebor

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 195
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #391 on: December 30, 2018, 08:44:12 AM »
...
What on earth (  ;) ) are you wittering on about?  Which Mars mission?  If you're talking about Insight, then why do you think it should have a video camera?  It has two cameras which are for specific purposes - yet again you're falling into the trap of expecting mission planners and designers to waste weight and power to provide "entertainment" for numpties who might doubt the reality of what they're accomplishing...

But we NEED 60 fps HD video of Mars rocks! Never mind the amount of data or getting it back from Mars.
Science can wait.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3177
    • Clavius
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #392 on: January 08, 2019, 01:03:22 PM »
First of all, we are talking a multibillion dollar organisation, not some two-bit “live” stage production.

Here's a link to our latest "two-bit live stage production."
https://www.sltrib.com/artsliving/2019/01/08/here-are-top-whiz-bang/
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline tikkitakki

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 30
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #393 on: January 09, 2019, 04:30:27 AM »

Here's a link to our latest "two-bit live stage production."
https://www.sltrib.com/artsliving/2019/01/08/here-are-top-whiz-bang/

Quote
We'll be back

We're sorry. The Salt Lake Tribune's web site, sltrib.com, is unavailable in the European Union. We are working with lawyers on compliance with the European Union's General Data Protection Requirements, and we expect to sltrib.com to be available once that is done. Thank you for your patience.
:( :(



Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3177
    • Clavius
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #394 on: January 09, 2019, 09:39:02 AM »
Quote
We'll be back

We're sorry. The Salt Lake Tribune's web site, sltrib.com, is unavailable in the European Union. We are working with lawyers on compliance with the European Union's General Data Protection Requirements, and we expect to sltrib.com to be available once that is done. Thank you for your patience.
:( :(

Yeah, their subscription system barely works.  I can't imagine it comes close to GDPR compliance.   “吸牛 high-tech Alliance crap!”
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline peter eldergill

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 34
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #395 on: January 09, 2019, 12:48:59 PM »
  “吸牛 high-tech Alliance crap!”

Firefly?

Offline Northern Lurker

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 98
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #396 on: January 09, 2019, 01:57:50 PM »
Here's a link to our latest "two-bit live stage production."
https://www.sltrib.com/artsliving/2019/01/08/here-are-top-whiz-bang/

Quote
We'll be back

We're sorry. The Salt Lake Tribune's web site, sltrib.com, is unavailable in the European Union. We are working with lawyers on compliance with the European Union's General Data Protection Requirements, and we expect to sltrib.com to be available once that is done. Thank you for your patience.

One acronym: VPN

Being a Finn, I use F-Secure security suite with Freedome VPN. Changing my geolocation to US worked like a charm.

Lurky

edit: typo

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1503
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #397 on: January 09, 2019, 03:40:17 PM »
  “吸牛 high-tech Alliance crap!”

Firefly?

Indeed. Jayne's opinion of an Alliance stun gun when it turns out it can't be used to shoot out the lock of a door in Ariel, I believe....
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline Obviousman

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 466
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #398 on: January 09, 2019, 05:46:38 PM »
Shiny!

Offline MBDK

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 160
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #399 on: January 09, 2019, 10:42:24 PM »
Here's a link to our latest "two-bit live stage production."
https://www.sltrib.com/artsliving/2019/01/08/here-are-top-whiz-bang/
Looks amazing, Jay.  I wish I could see it.  All I need are six numbers in synchronous harmony with the random retrieval of balls inked with reciprocal integers. *sigh*  At least my odds will be better than any portion of the Apollo missions being faked.
"Laugh-a while you can, monkey-boy." - Lord John Whorfin

Offline cambo

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 43
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #400 on: February 11, 2019, 06:49:44 PM »
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.

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.

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.



Offline BDL

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 88
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #401 on: February 11, 2019, 07:49:32 PM »
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.

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.

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.
If you had built a faulty machine and known it to be faulty - and a space agency takes that faulty technology and claims it did what you knew it couldn’t, wouldn’t you tell someone? Wouldn’t that already be enough to know that there was some sort of conspiracy going on?

The engineers hired to build, create, and figure out the Apollo technology would be pretty confused when they see the technology they know is faulty being flown to the moon with no problems whatsoever. They would have been vocal about it.

But that’s just a hypothetical. Because that didn’t really happen.
There were no engineers from ICBM, Grumman, Boeing, or Douglass who ever claimed that the Apollo tech never worked. Because it did, and they know it did. And they know it did because they were the ones who built, designed, and created it.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2019, 07:53:28 PM by BDL »
“One small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind.” - Neil Armstrong, 1969

Offline gwiz

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 330
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #402 on: February 12, 2019, 07:37:36 AM »
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.
I was present at the launch of Apollo 17 and there was no doubt about the second stage firing, it was visible for a considerable time.  I don't know which video you saw, but to the naked eye the second stage flame was a different colour from the first stage, white rather than yellow.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2019, 07:46:18 AM by gwiz »
Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign of a diseased mind - Terry Pratchett
...the ascent module ... took off like a rocket - Moon Man

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1503
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #403 on: February 12, 2019, 08:18:43 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...

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...

Standard conspiracy theory fallacy 1: all the private companies just did what NASA told them to. The world really really does not work this way. If a company is contracted to build something that has to do something specific, the engineers will build something that does the thing it is supposed to do, and they will know whether it will work as intended or not. IBM's IU, for example, used an inertial guidance system that was not designed by NASA (inertial guidance was in use in WWII) and had to liaise closely with the other contractors since the IU would be controlling all stages of the Saturn V, so interfaces and feedback systems had to be developed in concert with the stage development.

Despite the way you wish to characterise it, the hardware was not designed in toto by NASA and then just given to various contractors to blindly assemble.

Quote
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?

If someone there doesn't know it doesn't need to work, they build something that does work.

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,

How much Saturn V launch footage have you seen? I've seen quite a bit that shows the S-II stage still working after staging. Not very clearly of course given the distances involved but certainly with enough clarity to see it is still very much intact and firing its engines.

Quote
It’s a real shame the footage never stayed in colour for just a few more seconds

And that you never expanded your research to encompass all the available footage of the many Saturn V launches.

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?

By what reasoning do you conclude that is what I said? Don't distort my arguments to try and make your point. The point remains, if you contract an engineering company to build a spacecraft they will build working space hardware unless you tell them it doesn't have to work, and if you try to get them to build something that doesn't work they will know.

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

Standard conspiracy theory fallacy 2: everything must be tested in the exact way it is to be used or else it is untested. Again, the world doesn't work that way. And in any case you have already decided it's fake, so the fact that there were actually test flights of the hardware in space is inadmissible to you anyway. Representatives from the contractors were on hand at NASA when those flights occurred. Think they're all clever enough to build what they think is working space hardware but too dumb to spot fake telemetry?

Quote
They merely built something that they thought would work, because like you, they had complete trust in the science presented to them by NASA.

Standard conspiracy theory fallacy 3: all the science of Apollo comes from NASA. It never has.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3000
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #404 on: February 12, 2019, 08:25:54 AM »
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.
How about the third stage? Quite a few people around the world saw the translunar injection burns out of earth orbit. Some even took photos.

http://pages.astronomy.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html

And then we have the radio signals, the returned photographs, movies and lunar samples, eyewitness reports of the returning Apollo capsules, etc, etc, etc.