ApolloHoax.net

Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: mikejohnson on January 21, 2013, 08:51:51 PM

Title: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: mikejohnson on January 21, 2013, 08:51:51 PM
im a firm believer that usa landed on the moon. but i wonder why no one has been there ?so there was a race to the moon with russia , but they never continued their program. and no one since
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on January 21, 2013, 08:57:06 PM
Lack of public support, and lack of money.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gillianren on January 21, 2013, 09:21:16 PM
Try looking into the Soviet space program.  They had some serious problems with their lift vehicle.  Lunar programs are a bit on the expensive side, so basically no other entity has had the money for one.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Laurel on January 21, 2013, 09:22:37 PM
Russia might have continued their program if their launch vehicle hadn't exploded every time they tested it. They decided to have the first space station instead.

No offense, Mikejohnson, but proper punctuation and capitalization would make your posts easier to read.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: cjameshuff on January 21, 2013, 09:30:15 PM
Also, others have been there with robotic probes.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on January 21, 2013, 09:32:51 PM
Don't know how I missed the "others" aspect of this....DOH!

I was of course speaking of the US only...
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on January 22, 2013, 01:15:46 AM
As Laurel mentioned, their planned moon rocket, the N1, blew up in all four launch attempts.
No moon rocket, no moon mission. They had other difficulties as well. Sergei Korolev, basically their Von Braun in the sense of 'selling' a moon mission and space exploration in general, died in surgery.
Also, one particular failed N1 launch, exploded on the pad, creating a severe delay.
For a good overview, try reading this (http://www.astronautix.com/articles/theghoax.htm).
It's a real shame too, as, first or not, I really would have loved two nations to land on the moon.
As for other nations, only one other nation has even put people in Earth orbit, though I have heard that China may very well be planning some kind of moon mission of their own.
The thing is though, this really proves nothing either way. It took longer than since Apollo, this year in fact, before anyone returned a manned vessel to the deepest portion of the ocean.
How long since anyone built a true rigid dirigible?
Concord is a contemporary of Apollo and that bird no longer flies either, with no replacement in sight.  No other nation has ever flown, manned, a reusable orbital space plane, does that mean the Shuttle was fake?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Valis on January 22, 2013, 03:33:57 AM
Also, others have been there with robotic probes.
And will be soon again. China plans to put a rover on the moon in 2015.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Peter B on January 22, 2013, 06:48:39 AM
im a firm believer that usa landed on the moon. but i wonder why no one has been there ?so there was a race to the moon with russia , but they never continued their program. and no one since
Another factor to consider about why the Soviets never landed on the Moon is that this was the era of the Cold War. For those who didn't live through it, it can be hard to comprehend how so many activities of the two superpowers were undertaken with the intent of showing themselves in the best light and The Other Guys in the worst light. Hence the tension which accompanied even the Olympic Games, and why, for example, the members of the American basketball team of the 1972 Olympics have never accepted their silver medals following defeat by the Soviets.

In fact, those unclaimed medals are a perfect example for illustrating why the Soviets never seriously tried to land cosmonauts on the Moon once the Americans had succeeded.

The Space Race, like so many other aspects of the Cold War, was a two horse race: no other nations could afford to take part. In a two horse race, the only possible finishing positions are first and second, and second is equivalent to last.

So once the Americans had landed on the Moon, they'd won the Space Race. That meant the only position the Soviets could take in that race was second, and remember, second = last.

If the Soviets landed on the Moon after Apollo 11, it would only draw attention to the fact that they'd come second (= last) in the Space Race.

So just like the American basketballers refusing to accept medals which reminded everyone that they'd come second, the Soviets made loud noises about never having been in a Space Race. By pretending they hadn't been in a race, they could divert attention from the fact that they'd lost a race they had in fact very much been taking part in.

What puts the lie to this claim is that the Soviets were happy to accepts the plaudits of the world when they were first to achieve things in space - first satellite, first man in space, first woman in space, first three man crew, first space walk. They just went sort of quiet when things didn't go their way.

The other thing to consider about these achievements is the risks they knowingly took for the last two. Read about what the Soviets did to launch three men into space and it sends a chill down your spine; the propaganda value was high, but so were the risks.

In terms of the Moon they did two things. Firstly, they developed unmanned sample retriever missions and unmanned rovers, and secondly, they developed space stations.

The sample retriever missions and the rovers allowed them to sample and explore the Moon without sending anyone. It was safer and cheaper than Apollo, and the Soviets made sure everyone knew that. But these missions also achieved a lot less than Apollo - the total amount of material their three successful sample return missions brought back was about 1/1000 of what the Apollo missions brought back.

The space stations allowed them to set records in a field of manned space flight well ahead of what the Americans had achieved, or were likely to achieve any time in the near future. They were also a lot safer than missions to the Moon, on the grounds that they were inside the Van Allen Belts, and theoretically only an hour or so from the Earth if disaster struck.

To summarise, the Soviets didn't make a serious attempt to land people on the Moon once Apollo 11 had succeeded, because it would have drawn attention to the fact that they'd been beaten in the Space Race. In their view, wearing a silver medal would've reminded everyone all the more that The Other Guys were wearing the gold medal.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on January 22, 2013, 07:22:43 AM
Apollo was created out of late 50's optimism and paranoia and killed by early 70's rebellion and cynicism.  In between it was glorious. 
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on January 22, 2013, 07:27:15 AM
and no one since

A number of nations have sent probes to the moon.  Why do you view these as fundamentally different. 
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Mr Gorsky on January 22, 2013, 12:11:15 PM
Also, one particular failed N1 launch, exploded on the pad, creating a severe delay.

I believe that is the one of which there is footage on the Tube of You ... which very convincingly makes the point that the Soviet launch vehicle was made from Explodium.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on January 22, 2013, 12:35:10 PM

I believe that is the one of which there is footage on the Tube of You ... which very convincingly makes the point that the Soviet launch vehicle was made from Explodium.
N1-5L, I believe, the second test launch.
Of course, any liquid fuelled rocket can be said to be made of Explodium, the Saturn V has been said to contain the equivalent power of a small nuclear bomb, and the N1 was approximately equivalent.
In any case, yes, it goes off with a hell of a bang (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLHIrKE2HqQ).
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Grashtel on January 22, 2013, 01:00:31 PM

I believe that is the one of which there is footage on the Tube of You ... which very convincingly makes the point that the Soviet launch vehicle was made from Explodium.
N1-5L, I believe, the second test launch.
Of course, any liquid fuelled rocket can be said to be made of Explodium, the Saturn V has been said to contain the equivalent power of a small nuclear bomb, and the N1 was approximately equivalent.
In any case, yes, it goes off with a hell of a bang (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLHIrKE2HqQ).
Especially as it had IIRC 32 engines on the first stage and didn't get the funding for full scale static testing to try and work out the inevitable problems before an actual launch.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 22, 2013, 03:48:23 PM
Especially as it had IIRC 32 engines on the first stage and didn't get the funding for full scale static testing to try and work out the inevitable problems before an actual launch.

Thirty engines in the first stage (I just counted them on my model :)). The full scale testing would have been very useful for highlighting issues such as the one that led to the destruction of N-1 5L.

The engines on the N-1 were fixed, not gimballed. If one engine went out there was an asymmetry introduced to the thrust, which meant a deviation in the thrust vector. Only a small one, but enough to cause problems. Since there was no way to move the other engines to compensate for this, the automatic safety system's response was to shut down the engine opposite the failed one. The overall thrust is reduced but the thrust is restored to symmetry. Simple.

Except that someone crossed a wire on N-1 5L. Seconds after ignition one engine failed. The automated system shut down the opposite engine. Or at least the one it thought was opposite. instead the shutdown signal went to a different engine. The thrust remained asymmetric. The shutdown of this engine triggered the shutdown of the one opposite that engine. Unfortunately the error in the wiring led to another incorrect engine shutdown, and the effect spiralled until it shut down enough engines that the thrust no longer exceeded the weight of the vehicle. Of course once that happened there was only one possible outcome...
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Bob B. on January 22, 2013, 05:17:35 PM
Another factor in the Soviet failure was that there was there was no single lunar program.  Instead of focusing all of their energy on one program, like the Americans, the Soviets had parallel programs under development at the same time by different design bureaus.  The bureaus had to fight and compete for resources, resulting in underfunded programs.  Had they picked just one program and thrown all their efforts behind it, perhaps they would have been more successful.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Inanimate Carbon Rod on January 22, 2013, 06:49:48 PM
Another factor in the Soviet failure was that there was there was no single lunar program.  Instead of focusing all of their energy on one program, like the Americans, the Soviets had parallel programs under development at the same time by different design bureaus.  The bureaus had to fight and compete for resources, resulting in underfunded programs.  Had they picked just one program and thrown all their efforts behind it, perhaps they would have been more successful.

That's a very good point, Chief designers Chelomei and Korolev where sworn enemies and spent a great deal of unproductive time bickering and undermining each others programs - even at a meeting with Premiere Khruschev they were unable to resolved their differences. Ultimately, Korolev managed to gain control of Chelomei's program at the expensive of over stretching himself and his departments limited resources.

Another interesting point is that soviet leadership were obsessed with automating the manned spacecraft leaving the cosmonauts with little control. The engineer Boris Chertok, in his 4 volume biography Rockets and People, talks about this in great length and points to it as a major undermining factor.

Also, the ousting of the pro space exploration Khruschev and his replacement by Brezhnev was a bitter blow, as the former had little to no interest in space exploration, and was only interesting in building ICBMS.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gillianren on January 22, 2013, 08:20:35 PM
In short, the reason the Soviet Union didn't land humans on the Moon was that the Soviet system failed.  Though if they had bothered to continue their lunar program after Apollo, it's interesting to consider whether or not they would have bothered putting the first woman on the Moon.  That, at least, would have been a nice propaganda coup.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Abaddon on January 22, 2013, 09:21:56 PM
In short, the reason the Soviet Union didn't land humans on the Moon was that the Soviet system failed.  Though if they had bothered to continue their lunar program after Apollo, it's interesting to consider whether or not they would have bothered putting the first woman on the Moon.  That, at least, would have been a nice propaganda coup.
Interesting idea. Sure, they messed it up through poor planning and flawed technology, but in those mysoginistic days first woman on the moon might very well have been a coup.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gillianren on January 22, 2013, 09:52:06 PM
Given how long it took anyone to send the second woman into space, it's obvious that the Soviets sent the first one for propaganda purposes.  A woman on the Moon would have been the same.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Count Zero on January 23, 2013, 02:40:18 AM
50 years after Valentina Tereshkova's flight, Russia has sent a grand total of 3 women into space (not including foreign passengers on Soyuz).
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Al Johnston on January 23, 2013, 06:32:08 AM
In short, the reason the Soviet Union didn't land humans on the Moon was that the Soviet system failed.  Though if they had bothered to continue their lunar program after Apollo, it's interesting to consider whether or not they would have bothered putting the first woman on the Moon.  That, at least, would have been a nice propaganda coup.

The irony being that competition is normally cited as a benefit of free market economies...  ;D
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 23, 2013, 06:43:06 PM
They say they went there 6 times and didn't find even one single thing of interest, like water.   They said it was dry as a bone up there. 

"we thought, until recently, that the Moon was just about the driest place in the solar system."

Suddenly, 40 years later, NASA says there's tons of water up there

"...600 million metric tons distributed among 40 craters near the lunar north pole."

Maybe they never went there in the first place!!! That would explain why they haven't been back.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/18mar_moonwater/
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Donnie B. on January 23, 2013, 06:46:19 PM
You're absolutely right, Patrick.  They never went there.  In fact all six landings were close to the lunar equator, so they never went to the lunar North Pole.

Any more stupid arguments for us?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 23, 2013, 06:57:27 PM
They say they went there 6 times and didn't find even one single thing of interest, like water. 

Rubbish. For example the Apollo-sourced samples dramatically changed our view on the genesis of the Moon.

We are still learning from the Apollo-sourced moonrocks. A study in 2010 by James Greenwood identified comets as the likely source of deuterium in the Apollo samples.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Inanimate Carbon Rod on January 23, 2013, 07:03:50 PM

"...600 million metric tons distributed among 40 craters near the lunar north pole."


They never landed at the lunar north pole. Ever heard of something called scientific advancement? New techniques and technology become available which allow new discoveries.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 23, 2013, 07:05:18 PM
You're absolutely right, Patrick.  They never went there.  In fact all six landings were close to the lunar equator, so they never went to the lunar North Pole.

Any more stupid arguments for us?
Yes, genius, I have another stupid argument for you.  6 times they found nothing interesting?  But they kept going back to the lunar equator?  Now that's stupid.  Why didn't they go to the north pole?  They would have found tons of water and people would have been thrilled to death.  But, no... all they did was bring back moon rocks, and more moon rocks.  They might have found some kind of life in that water. But noooo... lets go to the equator again, and, duhhhh... we'll bring back some more moon rocks.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 23, 2013, 07:09:34 PM
They say they went there 6 times and didn't find even one single thing of interest, like water. 

Rubbish. For example the Apollo-sourced samples dramatically changed our view on the genesis of the Moon.

We are still learning from the Apollo-sourced moonrocks. A study in 2010 by James Greenwood identified comets as the likely source of deuterium in the Apollo samples.
Rubbish?  Really?  What was the view on the genesis of the Moon prior to Apollo, and what is that view now?  And, what's the difference between moon rocks from the moon, and moon rocks from Antarctica?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Inanimate Carbon Rod on January 23, 2013, 07:28:48 PM
You're absolutely right, Patrick.  They never went there.  In fact all six landings were close to the lunar equator, so they never went to the lunar North Pole.

Any more stupid arguments for us?
Yes, genius, I have another stupid argument for you.  6 times they found nothing interesting?  But they kept going back to the lunar equator?  Now that's stupid.  Why didn't they go to the north pole?  They would have found tons of water and people would have been thrilled to death.  But, no... all they did was bring back moon rocks, and more moon rocks.  They might have found some kind of life in that water. But noooo... lets go to the equator again, and, duhhhh... we'll bring back some more moon rocks.

Not even trying any more, are you Alex?

Give up and go somewhere where your nonsense will be appreciated like abovetopsecret or infowars.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 23, 2013, 07:53:31 PM
They say they went there 6 times and didn't find even one single thing of interest, like water. 

Rubbish. For example the Apollo-sourced samples dramatically changed our view on the genesis of the Moon.

We are still learning from the Apollo-sourced moonrocks. A study in 2010 by James Greenwood identified comets as the likely source of deuterium in the Apollo samples.
Rubbish?  Really?  What was the view on the genesis of the Moon prior to Apollo, and what is that view now?  And, what's the difference between moon rocks from the moon, and moon rocks from Antarctica?
Still looking for other people to do your research for you?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 23, 2013, 08:09:22 PM
Quote
Not even trying any more, are you Alex?

Give up and go somewhere where your nonsense will be appreciated like abovetopsecret or infowars.
Just stating the facts.  You like my "nonsense" otherwise you wouldn't have posted a comment.  And, how do you know it's nonsense?  You only know what you think you know because that's what you've been told.  You believe what you want to believe.  It's comforting for you to say you think like most people.  I understand about wanting to fit in.  For 40 years I thought we went to the moon.  Then I looked into it. I also believed muslims with box cutters brought down the WTC, and that kerosene melts steel such that 110 stories collapse all at once.  (I can't believe I fell for that one.)  But that's what woke me up.  What else were they lying about?  It scares you to think that the moon landings might have been faked, doesn't it.  You're afraid of the mere possibility.  It's easier to just say something is nonsense than face the truth, or even face the possibility.   How do you know what you think you know?  Did you figure it out, or did you just take somebody's word for it?  Do you believe everything the govt tells you???? 
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 23, 2013, 08:15:55 PM
They say they went there 6 times and didn't find even one single thing of interest, like water. 

Rubbish. For example the Apollo-sourced samples dramatically changed our view on the genesis of the Moon.

We are still learning from the Apollo-sourced moonrocks. A study in 2010 by James Greenwood identified comets as the likely source of deuterium in the Apollo samples.
Rubbish?  Really?  What was the view on the genesis of the Moon prior to Apollo, and what is that view now?  And, what's the difference between moon rocks from the moon, and moon rocks from Antarctica?
Still looking for other people to do your research for you?

I seem to be the only one doing research.  Somebody like you telling me what NASA said they did is not research, it's spreading bullshit.   NASA gets paid to lie.  I don't.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 23, 2013, 08:23:04 PM

I also believed muslims with box cutters brought down the WTC, and that kerosene melts steel such that 110 stories collapse all at once.  (I can't believe I fell for that one.)

The September 11th terrorist attacks are unrelated to Apollo and are therefore off topic in this section of the forum.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 23, 2013, 08:24:04 PM
NASA gets paid to lie.  I don't.

Yeah, you love it so much you do it for free.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: frenat on January 23, 2013, 08:27:01 PM
They say they went there 6 times and didn't find even one single thing of interest, like water. 

Rubbish. For example the Apollo-sourced samples dramatically changed our view on the genesis of the Moon.

We are still learning from the Apollo-sourced moonrocks. A study in 2010 by James Greenwood identified comets as the likely source of deuterium in the Apollo samples.
Rubbish?  Really?  What was the view on the genesis of the Moon prior to Apollo, and what is that view now?  And, what's the difference between moon rocks from the moon, and moon rocks from Antarctica?
Still looking for other people to do your research for you?

I seem to be the only one doing research.  Somebody like you telling me what NASA said they did is not research, it's spreading bullshit.   NASA gets paid to lie.  I don't.

Prove they lie.  You have yet to prove a single thing.  Plenty of handwaving though.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on January 23, 2013, 08:39:59 PM
I seem to be the only one doing research.

Are you still here? haven't you been humiliated enough?

 
Quote
Somebody like you...

What the hell does "someone like you" mean?


Quote
...telling me what NASA said they did is not research, it's spreading bullshit.

Listen very carefully....what you just said only reflects on YOUR IGNORANCE. The Apollo missions ARE ESTABLISHED HISTORICAL FACT. You may disagree with that, but no one is going to take you seriously as long as you behave like a child.

Do you at least understand that your behavior "turns off" anyone who might be willing to listen to you?
You are basically are your own worst enemy...and you can't see it.

Quote
NASA gets paid to lie.  I don't.

I simply do not believe you based on your posts...you say you don't lie, but one of the very first things the people on this board did when you arrived was catch you in a lie.

If you have the truth on your "side", then why do you find it necessary to lie?

..and of course...once caught in a lie, no one will take you seriously ever again.

As I posted...you are your own worst enemy.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on January 23, 2013, 08:55:03 PM
Just stating the facts.

Facts like pretending to be an engineer when WE ALL KNOW that you are not?

Such a stupid lie, from a proven liar.


Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on January 23, 2013, 09:04:28 PM
You're absolutely right, Patrick.  They never went there.  In fact all six landings were close to the lunar equator, so they never went to the lunar North Pole.

Any more stupid arguments for us?
Yes, genius, I have another stupid argument for you.  6 times they found nothing interesting?  But they kept going back to the lunar equator?  Now that's stupid.  Why didn't they go to the north pole?  They would have found tons of water and people would have been thrilled to death.  But, no... all they did was bring back moon rocks, and more moon rocks.  They might have found some kind of life in that water. But noooo... lets go to the equator again, and, duhhhh... we'll bring back some more moon rocks.

I was going to reaspond to this...give the reasons why things were done the way they were, but what would be the point?...it's not like you listen to anyone but the voices in your head...so you can comment all ya want...and we'll just sit back and laugh at your willful ignorance.

...and I thought you said "good-bye"...you even lied about that.

Do you lie like this in everyday life?...do people shun you because they can not trust you to tell the truth?

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 23, 2013, 09:05:26 PM
Quote

Prove they lie.  You have yet to prove a single thing.  Plenty of handwaving though.
Handwaving?  I'm just talking way over your head.  (What have you ever proven?)  Tell ya what... why don't you get me $50 million and I'll prove whether they landed on the moon or not.  $50 million is the cost of sending a rocket to the moon.  I just need to fly over a landing site and beam back a camera image.  If there's no descent stage, then they didn't go.   Until the time comes that somebody does that, all we can prove is that it was infinitely easier to fake it than go to the moon, and that's a fact.  I happen to know that they didn't go to the moon because they would have needed to do an IMU alignment on the moon, which they couldn't do, because they had no survey marker on the moon.  And, anybody who wants me to prove I'm an engineer, and that I worked on the Delta rocket, and the ISS, you need to put up some money and bet me.  A Director of Engineering at Boeing is a former co-worker.  Another co-worker is a Chief Engineer at General Dynamics.  I used to party with those guys.  I've used them as work references.  My college roommate is a director of engineering at Panasonic.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: frenat on January 23, 2013, 09:10:44 PM
Quote

Prove they lie.  You have yet to prove a single thing.  Plenty of handwaving though.
Handwaving?  I'm just talking way over your head.  (What have you ever proven?)  Tell ya what... why don't you get me $50 million and I'll prove whether they landed on the moon or not.  $50 million is the cost of sending a rocket to the moon.  I just need to fly over a landing site and beam back a camera image.  If there's no descent stage, then they didn't go.   Until the time comes that somebody does that, all we can prove is that it was infinitely easier to fake it than go to the moon, and that's a fact.  I happen to know that they didn't go to the moon because they would have needed to do an IMU alignment on the moon, which they couldn't do, because they had no survey marker on the moon.  And, anybody who wants me to prove I'm an engineer, and that I worked on the Delta rocket, and the ISS, you need to put up some money and bet me.  A Director of Engineering at Boeing is a former co-worker.  Another co-worker is a Chief Engineer at General Dynamics.  I used to party with those guys.  I've used them as work references.  My college roommate is a director of engineering at Panasonic.

So in other words, you can't prove they've lied so you're trying to shift the burden of proof.

Like you know anything about an IMU alignment.  You have already been shown to be a fraud.

Besides, the LRO has already done what you're asking.

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on January 23, 2013, 09:18:10 PM
Handwaving?  I'm just talking way over your head.  (What have you ever proven?)

We've proven that you are not an engineer...just a sad little liar.

Quote
Tell ya what...

No...you're not going to tell us anything.

Quote
...why don't you get me...

I don't make deals with liars.

Quote
I happen to know...

Tell us another funny, liar.

Quote
...anybody who wants me to prove I'm an engineer...

No...not going to waste my time with more of your lies...


Quote
...and that I worked on the Delta rocket, and the ISS, you need to put up some money and bet me.  A Director of Engineering at Boeing is a former co-worker.  Another co-worker is a Chief Engineer at General Dynamics.  I used to party with those guys.  I've used them as work references.  My college roommate is a director of engineering at Panasonic.

Yet you can not provide any names...because you are lying...


So if I understand this correctly, you want us to believe that Apollo was faked, and your evidence for this is a pack of lies.

You must sincerely believe that others are as ignorant as you...they are not...that is why you fail...liar.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on January 23, 2013, 09:25:15 PM
Aside...I'm not that particularly comfortable calling anyone a liar, but I just can not think of another word that applies...apologies to the board...
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 23, 2013, 09:48:09 PM
Just stating the facts.

Facts like pretending to be an engineer when WE ALL KNOW that you are not?

Such a stupid lie, from a proven liar.
Then you're all wrong.  And did everyone elect you to speak for them?   This is Ad Hominem.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Peter B on January 23, 2013, 11:04:57 PM
They say they went there 6 times and didn't find even one single thing of interest, like water. 

Rubbish. For example the Apollo-sourced samples dramatically changed our view on the genesis of the Moon.

We are still learning from the Apollo-sourced moonrocks. A study in 2010 by James Greenwood identified comets as the likely source of deuterium in the Apollo samples.
Rubbish?  Really?  What was the view on the genesis of the Moon prior to Apollo, and what is that view now?
Thank you for asking.

Prior to Apollo, three theories had been posited:

1. Joint formation: the Earth and the Moon formed in their present relationship;
2. Fission: the early molten Earth spun so fast that a portion was spun off to form the Moon;
3. Capture: the Moon formed somewhere else in the Solar System, and was gravitationally captured by the Earth.

However, all three theories had problems.

Thanks to information supplied by the Apollo rocks, a new theory was developed which was first publicly presented at a conference at Kona in Hawaii in about 1984.

The new theory, which is still substantially as originally presented, is that the early Earth was struck a slightly off-centre blow by another planet about the size of Mars. That planet was shattered, most of its core absorbed by the Earth, and mantle material blasted off to form the Moon.

Quote
And, what's the difference between moon rocks from the moon, and moon rocks from Antarctica?
Lunar meteorites collected in Antarctica show evidence of passing through the Earth's atmosphere at high speed, and of contamination by the Earth. The Apollo rocks show no such signs, and instead show signs of having been struck by micrometeorites (called zap pits) and solar radiation. There is no technology to recreate zap pits.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Peter B on January 23, 2013, 11:09:31 PM
You're absolutely right, Patrick.  They never went there.  In fact all six landings were close to the lunar equator, so they never went to the lunar North Pole.

Any more stupid arguments for us?
Yes, genius, I have another stupid argument for you.  6 times they found nothing interesting?  But they kept going back to the lunar equator?  Now that's stupid.  Why didn't they go to the north pole?  They would have found tons of water and people would have been thrilled to death.  But, no... all they did was bring back moon rocks, and more moon rocks.  They might have found some kind of life in that water. But noooo... lets go to the equator again, and, duhhhh... we'll bring back some more moon rocks.
They didn't all land on the Moon's equator. Apollo 17 landed at 20 degrees north, and Apollo 15 landed at 26 degrees north. That was about as far from the equator as their fuel would allow them.

But even if they did all land at the equator, so what? It's obvious the Moon's geology varies considerably along the equator.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on January 23, 2013, 11:10:35 PM
This is Ad Hominem.

An ad hominem argument would be to say someone was wrong because they are a liar.  Calling one a liar is a claim that they have recklessly disregarded the truth.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 23, 2013, 11:11:01 PM
I seem to be the only one doing research.

Are you still here? haven't you been humiliated enough?

 
Quote
Somebody like you...

What the hell does "someone like you" mean?


Quote
...telling me what NASA said they did is not research, it's spreading bullshit.

Listen very carefully....what you just said only reflects on YOUR IGNORANCE. The Apollo missions ARE ESTABLISHED HISTORICAL FACT. You may disagree with that, but no one is going to take you seriously as long as you behave like a child.

Do you at least understand that your behavior "turns off" anyone who might be willing to listen to you?
You are basically are your own worst enemy...and you can't see it.

Quote
NASA gets paid to lie.  I don't.

I simply do not believe you based on your posts...you say you don't lie, but one of the very first things the people on this board did when you arrived was catch you in a lie.

If you have the truth on your "side", then why do you find it necessary to lie?

..and of course...once caught in a lie, no one will take you seriously ever again.

As I posted...you are your own worst enemy.
Funny that, on some other site, they were calling me a government shill for saying the ISS was real.  How come nobody here can debate my arguments?  Only call me a liar repeatedly.  Is anybody here over 15?  I'm just asking because you never know.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Peter B on January 23, 2013, 11:12:15 PM
Quote

Prove they lie.  You have yet to prove a single thing.  Plenty of handwaving though.
Handwaving?  I'm just talking way over your head.  (What have you ever proven?)  Tell ya what... why don't you get me $50 million and I'll prove whether they landed on the moon or not.  $50 million is the cost of sending a rocket to the moon.  I just need to fly over a landing site and beam back a camera image.  If there's no descent stage, then they didn't go.
Of course, if you find one, we know you'll claim it's fake.

Quote
Until the time comes that somebody does that, all we can prove is that it was infinitely easier to fake it than go to the moon, and that's a fact.  I happen to know that they didn't go to the moon because they would have needed to do an IMU alignment on the moon, which they couldn't do, because they had no survey marker on the moon.  And, anybody who wants me to prove I'm an engineer, and that I worked on the Delta rocket, and the ISS, you need to put up some money and bet me.  A Director of Engineering at Boeing is a former co-worker.  Another co-worker is a Chief Engineer at General Dynamics.  I used to party with those guys.  I've used them as work references.  My college roommate is a director of engineering at Panasonic.
Where'd you go to college?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on January 23, 2013, 11:12:51 PM
Just stating the facts.

Facts like pretending to be an engineer when WE ALL KNOW that you are not?

Such a stupid lie, from a proven liar.
Then you're all wrong.

Then shut me up...show me wrong by proving that you are an engineer.

Quote
And did everyone elect you to speak for them?

?? This is a discussion board...I am here to discuss...no election necessary...

Quote
This is Ad Hominem.

Yawn...any other irrelevancies you would like to add, before you prove you are an engineer by giving us the contact information for all your "engineer pals"?

Yeah...I didn't thnk so...
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on January 23, 2013, 11:16:14 PM
How come nobody here can debate my arguments?

You couldn't make a rational argument to save your life...that much, we are all sure of...
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on January 23, 2013, 11:16:42 PM
A Director of Engineering at Boeing is a former co-worker.  Another co-worker is a Chief Engineer at General Dynamics.  I used to party with those guys.  I've used them as work references.  My college roommate is a director of engineering at Panasonic.

Trying to bolster you claims by associating yourself with unnamed people is not going get you any credibility here.  No one cares who you say that you used to drink with.  Try giving us your list of publications rather than your bluster!
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on January 23, 2013, 11:19:48 PM
How come nobody here can debate my arguments?

Because you haven't produced anything that can rationally be called an argument. 
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on January 23, 2013, 11:21:18 PM
Only call me a liar repeatedly.

Perhaps it is because you have been caught lying, repeatedly.


Quote
Is anybody here over 15?  I'm just asking because you never know.

Uh, huh....when will you be giving us that contact information for your "engineer buddies" so that we may confirm that you are, indded, an engineer?

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on January 23, 2013, 11:33:47 PM
This is Ad Hominem.

An ad hominem argument would be to say someone was wrong because they are a liar.  Calling one a liar is a claim that they have recklessly disregarded the truth.

I've been trying to think of a better way to put it...not for sanchez' sake, but for my own peace of mind...

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on January 23, 2013, 11:35:27 PM
Is anybody here over 15?

Are you?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on January 24, 2013, 12:18:27 AM
Quote

Prove they lie.  You have yet to prove a single thing.  Plenty of handwaving though.
Handwaving?  I'm just talking way over your head.  (What have you ever proven?)  Tell ya what... why don't you get me $50 million and I'll prove whether they landed on the moon or not.  $50 million is the cost of sending a rocket to the moon.  I just need to fly over a landing site and beam back a camera image.  If there's no descent stage, then they didn't go.   Until the time comes that somebody does that, all we can prove is that it was infinitely easier to fake it than go to the moon, and that's a fact.  I happen to know that they didn't go to the moon because they would have needed to do an IMU alignment on the moon, which they couldn't do, because they had no survey marker on the moon.  And, anybody who wants me to prove I'm an engineer, and that I worked on the Delta rocket, and the ISS, you need to put up some money and bet me.  A Director of Engineering at Boeing is a former co-worker.  Another co-worker is a Chief Engineer at General Dynamics.  I used to party with those guys.  I've used them as work references.  My college roommate is a director of engineering at Panasonic.

Being an engineer isn't about who hired you.  It is about being able to do the work.  At this point, based on your performance, I'd be surprised if you understood the difference between pounds and slugs.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ka9q on January 24, 2013, 02:29:23 AM
why don't you get me $50 million and I'll prove whether they landed on the moon or not.  $50 million is the cost of sending a rocket to the moon.  I just need to fly over a landing site and beam back a camera image.  If there's no descent stage, then they didn't go.
Why do you keep trying to snow a group of people who actually know what they're talking about?

An Atlas V costs about $85-110M depending on configuration. That's just  for the rocket; you also need a spacecraft unless you only want to fly concrete, and it doesn't take very good pictures. By the time you add operations, the bottom line will be around $500M.

How do I know? Because it's already been done: it's called the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. Having returned many marvelous pictures of the descent stages, equipment and foot tracks at all six Apollo landing sites, we see that your criteria has been met. They did go.

Quote
they would have needed to do an IMU alignment on the moon, which they couldn't do, because they had no survey marker on the moon.
Give me a break! The Apollo LM IMU was aligned with references already available everywhere on the moon: local gravity and the stars. Finding the CSM did not require the LM to know its own precise position in lunar coordinates. It only needed to precisely measure its position relative to the CSM, which it did with a device called a rendezvous radar. See if you can hazard a guess from its name why it had one.

Partying and rooming with engineers hardly makes you one, but that's stating the obvious given the complete lack of even basic knowledge you've displayed here under your many names.

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 24, 2013, 02:36:18 AM
Rubbish?  Really? 

Yes, your comment was rubbish. It was rubbish as you stated that they didn't find a single interesting thing. I gave one single example-the fact that over 380kg of rock and soil examples were returned which are still delivering scientific results today.

Given that, can you publicly withdraw the allegation?

What was the view on the genesis of the Moon prior to Apollo, and what is that view now? 
About 5 minutes with Google will answer that. As a qualified "engineer" you should be familiar with doing research. heck..an 8-year old child would be able to find the details. But please don't expect me to do your research for you, Alexsanchez.

And, what's the difference between moon rocks from the moon, and moon rocks from Antarctica?

1) Again, why do you think that it suddenly became my role to educate anyone who asks a question in the manner that you do? Do your own research.

2) So you acknowledge that we have Moon rocks. Care to enlighten us on how you think we have over 380kgs of them?
<whispers in your ear> here's a hint- don't say that they were returned robotically a-la the Soviets. The Soviets returned less than 400 grams robotically. Apollo returned over 380Kgs. Thats a thousand times more, just in case your engineering knowledge doesn't stretch to the metric system. Oh, and if you say the were returned robotically then you agree that its perfectly feasible to launch, navigate, soft-land, collect samples, take off, escape Lunar orbit and return a vehicle to the Earth. You'd also have to show when these launches took place.

3) I'm sure that you can imagine that a rock that was explosively detached from the Lunar surface as a result of a meteorite impact, with sufficient energy to break the Lunar gravity well, that then entered through the Earth's atmosphere at high speed, and then laid for thousands of years in an environment that exposed it to air, water and wind erosion might differ from one that was collected, pristine, off the Lunar surface? If you can't then please explain your thinkings and findings that support your thinking.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ka9q on January 24, 2013, 02:38:55 AM
Uh, huh....when will you be giving us that contact information for your "engineer buddies" so that we may confirm that you are, indded, an engineer?
Why do we need the man's credentials when it is already patently obvious that his "engineering skills" are limited to throwing a few buzzwords around with no understanding of what they mean?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 24, 2013, 02:55:36 AM
Handwaving?  I'm just talking way over your head.  (What have you ever proven?)  Tell ya what... why don't you get me $50 million and I'll prove whether they landed on the moon or not.  $50 million is the cost of sending a rocket to the moon. 

As well as almost certainly not being an engineer, you have also shown that you are almost certainly not an accountant. If you reckon that you can get the the Moon and return for $50m then you had better get in touch with Elon Musk...

  Until the time comes that somebody does that, all we can prove is that it was infinitely easier to fake it than go to the moon, and that's a fact.
Here you go, chief:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html

Oh, and the BBC (amongst others) also reported it. So they must be gubernmint shills to???
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19050795

It looks like you won't be needing that £50M after all. Elon might still be interested though...

I happen to know that they didn't go to the moon because they would have needed to do an IMU alignment on the moon, which they couldn't do, because they had no survey marker on the moon. 
That drum that you keep on banging must be nearly worn through by now? Just because you repeatedly ignore evidence to the contrary of your claim doesn't make you right. It makes you wilfully ignorant.


And, anybody who wants me to prove I'm an engineer, and that I worked on the Delta rocket, and the ISS, you need to put up some money and bet me.
Erm...isn't that for you to do? You've been asked to provide evidence to support the claim that you are an engineer, that your worked under Air Force contracts, that you worked at the Cape. Have you done any of that yet?

you need to put up some money and bet me.

Go on then. Provide the contract number that you worked on, or other details that you have been asked for to the people that have asked for it. Once they verify it and confirm your credentials, then I am happy to make a contribution to your charity of choice.


A Director of Engineering at Boeing is a former co-worker.  Another co-worker is a Chief Engineer at General Dynamics.  I used to party with those guys.  I've used them as work references.  My college roommate is a director of engineering at Panasonic.

(http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/201011/r681890_5048629.jpg)

So what? Why would your relationship with your alleged pals have any bearing whatsoever on the nonsense that you are spouting? let me give you an example, as you appear to be of the hard-of-thinking. I know a professional football player well. Does that mean that I am also very good at kicking a ball around a field?? Of course it doesn't.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Inanimate Carbon Rod on January 24, 2013, 06:26:36 AM
Quote
Not even trying any more, are you Alex?

Give up and go somewhere where your nonsense will be appreciated like abovetopsecret or infowars.
Just stating the facts.  You like my "nonsense" otherwise you wouldn't have posted a comment.  And, how do you know it's nonsense?  You only know what you think you know because that's what you've been told.  You believe what you want to believe.  It's comforting for you to say you think like most people.  I understand about wanting to fit in.  For 40 years I thought we went to the moon.  Then I looked into it. I also believed muslims with box cutters brought down the WTC, and that kerosene melts steel such that 110 stories collapse all at once.  (I can't believe I fell for that one.)  But that's what woke me up.  What else were they lying about?  It scares you to think that the moon landings might have been faked, doesn't it.  You're afraid of the mere possibility.  It's easier to just say something is nonsense than face the truth, or even face the possibility.   How do you know what you think you know?  Did you figure it out, or did you just take somebody's word for it?  Do you believe everything the govt tells you????

What's 9/11 got to do with Apollo?

Go home son, you're Embarassing yourself now.

You've shown repeatedly that you have no idea what you're talking about. You're not an engineer or an expert in any field related to Apollo. You're just a common, lying troll. Good day to you.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 24, 2013, 07:33:06 AM
Didn't stay 'outta here' for long, did you?

6 times they found nothing interesting?

Nothing interesting by whose criteria?

Quote
And, what's the difference between moon rocks from the moon, and moon rocks from Antarctica?

Apart from the ones from Antarctica showing clear signs of having come screaming through the atmosphere at several thousand miles per hour, been subject to heating as a result, and then been sitting around on a sheet of ice for god only knows how many years? Or the ones from Antarctica being rocks and the Apollo samples including soil and core tube samples? Do you know what zap pits are?

Quote
Just stating the facts.

You have not stated anything like a fact in your entire time here.

Quote
You like my "nonsense" otherwise you wouldn't have posted a comment.

That's about as logical as anything else you have said. I don't like your nonsense. I comment on it because it is wrong, and if nonsense like yours goes unanswered people may mistake it for a fact.

Quote
And, how do you know it's nonsense?  You only know what you think you know because that's what you've been told.

Bull. People here have hands on experience in the fields you are trying to lecture us all in. There are people on this forum who have built aerospace equipment, who have worked with the technology and the methods you say don't work. What makes your knowledge better than theirs?
 
Quote
For 40 years I thought we went to the moon.  Then I looked into it.

Oh how tedious. The 'I used to be a believer' rubbish springs forth again. Don't any of your hoax believer friends have anything more original than that? You haven't looked into it with any kind of rigour, because you and your comrades always, and I do mean always, show up amazing gaps in your knowledge of the availability of the record.
 
Quote
It scares you to think that the moon landings might have been faked, doesn't it.  You're afraid of the mere possibility.  It's easier to just say something is nonsense than face the truth, or even face the possibility.

We're scared? You're the one resorting to insults and dismissals rather than dealing with the substance of the arguments. You're the one who flounced off when you realised we knew you were just using a sock puppet. Who's acting scared here?

Quote
Do you believe everything the govt tells you????

Which government? Do you believe my government and yours are one and the same?

Quote
I seem to be the only one doing research.

I've already pointed out the low quality of your 'research' in an earlier post. Do you have anything to say to that that isn't a childish insult?

Quote
Handwaving?  I'm just talking way over your head.

Ha! You keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. It's much easier to believe we just don't understand your arguments than to acknowledge we do actually know what we are talking about and that you might be wrong, isn't it?

Quote
I just need to fly over a landing site and beam back a camera image.  If there's no descent stage, then they didn't go.   Until the time comes that somebody does that,

Been done.

Quote
all we can prove is that it was infinitely easier to fake it than go to the moon, and that's a fact.

No, that's an assertion. Care to back it up with anything like telling us how it was faked and why that is easier than going to the moon for real? No? Thought not.

Quote
I happen to know that they didn't go to the moon because they would have needed to do an IMU alignment on the moon, which they couldn't do, because they had no survey marker on the moon.

Prove they needed to know exactly where they were, and explain why they couldn't do an IMU alignment while sitting in a gravitational field (thus providing the attitude information) with an unobstructed view of the stars.

Quote
And, anybody who wants me to prove I'm an engineer, and that I worked on the Delta rocket, and the ISS, you need to put up some money and bet me.

Is that what you say to prospective employers when they ask for your employment history? You are making claims that rely on your claimed expertise in the field. If you want to be taken seriously, why would you have trouble proving your credentials?

Quote
A Director of Engineering at Boeing is a former co-worker.  Another co-worker is a Chief Engineer at General Dynamics.  I used to party with those guys.  I've used them as work references.  My college roommate is a director of engineering at Panasonic.

Why do we care what your friends do? The question is what you do. The secretary of a company can claim to be a co-worker of the director of said company. That doesn't confer any technical expertise on the secretary.

In short, alex, provide your credentials, then explain why your argument about what they needed to do on the Moon is more valid than the reams of documentation detailing how they actually did it up there. Stop with the handwaving and telling us what your colleagues do.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on January 24, 2013, 09:50:51 AM
Why do we need the man's credentials when it is already patently obvious that his "engineering skills" are limited to throwing a few buzzwords around with no understanding of what they mean?


Because even though that is obvious, I at least try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt...or to put it another way, I give them all the rope they need to hang themselves.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: twik on January 24, 2013, 10:13:23 AM
I just need to fly over a landing site and beam back a camera image.  If there's no descent stage, then they didn't go.   Until the time comes that somebody does that, all we can prove is that it was infinitely easier to fake it than go to the moon, and that's a fact. 

Seriously - you expect us to believe that you did indepth research, and you're unaware that pictures of the landing sites were taken, and sent back to Earth? This single sentence indicates that you know very little about Apollo.

As far as "not finding anything of interest," one of my graduate-level final exams was a single sentence: "Describe the differences in chemistry that could be done on the Moon." Sorry if they didn't find slavering monsters, or sexy catwomen. Anyone who had a real science background would find the data that were returned very interesting.

Finally, to your claim that you are an engineer, and faking the landings would be "infinitely easier," please explain how they obtained hours of unbroken video, showing (1) low gravity, (2) a vacuum, and (3) a very large area of operation. If you can come up with a convincing explanation for the above three points (all three at one time, remember), I'll give you credit for being a truly brilliant engineer, because no one yet has been able to explain that.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on January 24, 2013, 10:32:37 AM
Funny that, on some other site, they were calling me a government shill for saying the ISS was real.  How come nobody here can debate my arguments?  Only call me a liar repeatedly.  Is anybody here over 15?  I'm just asking because you never know.

Ultimately it doesn't mater how you think you are treated and you can whine about it until the heat death of the universe. The only thing that maters is, can you prove that the missions were faked.  If you let yourself get sidetracked, you will not make your case and will end up looking like another in a long line of silly posers that have visited this board.  How your presence here will be seen by readers is entirely up to you. 
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on January 24, 2013, 11:04:24 AM
How your presence here will be seen by readers is entirely up to you. 

...and since you started here by lying about your credentials, as if simply being an engineer made anything you said, right, then we can only evaluate your posts based on that pointless deception.

as I posted earlier, sanchez...you are your own worst enemy.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: sts60 on January 24, 2013, 12:16:10 PM
... And, anybody who wants me to prove I'm an engineer, and that I worked on the Delta rocket, and the ISS, you need to put up some money and bet me.  A Director of Engineering at Boeing is a former co-worker.  Another co-worker is a Chief Engineer at General Dynamics.  I used to party with those guys.  I've used them as work references.  My college roommate is a director of engineering at Panasonic.
That's nice.  I used to work for Max Faget and Caldwell Johnson, as well as working with other Apollo-era and later engineers and astronauts.

But I'm still a little confused (as I indicated in this post (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=342.msg10427#msg10427)) about your various assertions about your background.  The reason I am asking about it is that you have pointed to your "30 years in aerospace" to lend expertise to your opinions.

You said you worked at Vandenberg and KSC, but then said you actually worked on the Cape side on an AF contract.  You said you worked on replacing a computer system and also on FOV-1.  By the latter, are you referring to the range safety system?

You also said you worked ISS GNC.  Where does that fit in?  Who were you working for and where?  And what did you actually do?

Also, what's your educational background?

Thanks in advance for sorting this out.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 24, 2013, 12:47:20 PM
How come nobody here can debate my arguments?  Only call me a liar repeatedly.

Because your argument is based entirely on your claim to be a skilled engineer.  There is no argument you have made that doesn't trace its way back to a premise that requires us to accept that you know what you're talking about regarding guidance, rocket propulsion, etc.  And since you offer only vague, unverifiable credentials and qualifications (some of which seem very suspect) to support that premise, and since you cannot demonstrate that you know what you're talking about -- i.e., you make classic layman's mistakes and then try hard to cover them up -- there can really be no other kind of refutation.

Your arguments are all, "Apollo had to be fake because they claim to have done this, but because I'm an expert I know that the real way to do it would have been this other way."  How does that not put you on the hook to demonstrate your expertise?

"They can't have effectively rendezvoused in lunar orbit because the LM didn't know exactly where it was at liftoff," is exactly that kind of naive argument.  You presuppose that precise liftoff coordinates are required because you think of the liftoff and rendezvous as something like a one-shot deal -- hitting a bullet with another bullet, so to speak -- and that if you don't get the initial conditions exactly right the first time, that ballistic experience results in a miss.  So you think that the starting coordinates have to be known right down to the foot, and the ending conditions of the CSM orbit have to be known right down to the foot, and the ascent engine maneuver is a critical burn that has to be guided with sub-arcsecond precision.

That's is how the naive layman thinks about liftoff and rendezvous.  It's not what actually happens, either in Apollo or in Earth orbit rendezvous as practice for the last 40 years.  You're trying to parlay your layman's intuition as if it were expert knowledge.  You can fool other layman, but you can't fool practiced engineers.  Rendezvous is accomplished in two or more steps.  The first step is simply to get to an orbit -- any parking orbit will do.  Then with both spacecraft in stable orbits (i.e., in which they can remain indefinitely), the active spacecraft -- at its convenience -- begins the second and subsequent steps, which are phasing and terminal closure maneuvers that require only observation between the two orbiting vehicles.  Ascent cares very little for what spot in the sky you're trying to hit or what spot on the ground you left from -- orbital parameters will be determined by observation upon insertion.  Phasing and terminal guidance between two orbiting spacecraft cares not one whit where the spacecraft originated from on the ground.  Yes, you can do it well if you take care at each step.  But it's not the life-or-death difference you make it out to be.

Decoupling ascent guidance from terminal guidance is what smart engineers do.  Not realizing that you can do that is a sign of someone who's just pretending.

Quote
Is anybody here over 15?  I'm just asking because you never know.

I'm a middle-aged professional engineer.  I worked for Doug Ball and a bunch of others at Boeing, Ed Thompson and Sam Drake at Rockwell, the Cassetts at Northrup Grumman, and Fred Stecker at ATK.  I've also contracted for Lockheed, TransOrbital, Hughes, Orbital Sciences, and the United Space Alliance.  Unlike you, I'm known around the Apollo hoax debate by my real name and real accomplishments.  Sorry, but the "everyone's anonymous on the internet" argument doesn't work here.  Well, it works, but it undermines only you.  I'm sure in some parts you can convince a bunch of apathetic laymen that you're some kind of engineer.  But here you will be required to demonstrate your expertise.  If you cannot, your reliance on claims to expertise will be addressed appropriately.

What makes this worse is that you show up making the same distinctively wrong-headed, layman's argument -- using the same naive assumptions -- that someone else made last year on the previous incarnation of this forum at another URL.  And you seem to know about that previous claim.  Want to explain how and why?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on January 24, 2013, 03:11:53 PM
I'm a middle-aged professional engineer.

Ouch...if you are middle aged, what does that make me?

As a point of reference, my Son turns 35 this Saturday...so I guess I am getting old...darn it.

Then again, one of the advantages of being this age, is that I witnessed the entire manned space program from the very beginning, and I wouldn't change that for the world....still remember my Dad waking me up, and both of us watching Al Shepard blast off into space...exciting times.



Apologies for dragging this so far "off topic".
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gillianren on January 24, 2013, 03:39:58 PM
According to my reading, I'm officially middle-aged to the obstetrical community.  I'm a year older than your son.

I freely admit that I'm not an engineer.  However, that isn't at all the same as just taking what I've read as fact without thinking about it.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Donnie B. on January 24, 2013, 05:09:19 PM
Quote
And, anybody who wants me to prove I'm an engineer, and that I worked on the Delta rocket, and the ISS, you need to put up some money and bet me.

Okay, alexsanchez, you're on.  I bet you $10,000 (even odds) that you cannot prove to my satisfaction* that you are a degreed, competent** engineer.  The bet becomes official once you show that you have that much money to your name.

* I am the only arbiter of "my satisfaction".  All proofs submitted to me will be verified by any means I may choose to employ, and may be shared with other members of this forum at my discretion via private messages, but not posted publicly.
** The degree must be from a recognized, accredited engineering school.  Competence may be demonstrated through references from one or more other degreed, competent engineers.***

*** The competent part is important.  I worked with a degreed engineer whose only talent seemed to be faking Workman's Compensation claims.

P.S. I am approximately as amenable to proof as Heiwa, alexsanchez, or the Tortoise.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on January 24, 2013, 05:23:24 PM
...or the Tortoise.

I am unfamiliar with "the Tortoise"...sounds like a Batman villian.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on January 24, 2013, 05:26:44 PM
According to my reading, I'm officially middle-aged to the obstetrical community.  I'm a year older than your son.

I assume this was not intended to make me feel any better?

Kidding...:D

Quote
I freely admit that I'm not an engineer.  However, that isn't at all the same as just taking what I've read as fact without thinking about it.

You possess what used to be known as "common sense", but in a good way.

..and even if you do not understand the "particulars", you have a "nose" for detecting faulty arguments...something I've been trying to develop over the years...with limited success. :)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 24, 2013, 05:36:16 PM
Another thing:

Quote
A Director of Engineering at Boeing is a former co-worker.

Cool. You can ask him about Boeing's work on constructing the Lunar Orbiter probes, the first stage of the Saturn V and the Lunar Roving Vehicle.

Quote
Another co-worker is a Chief Engineer at General Dynamics.

Another excellent one. You can talk to him about the General Dynamics manned lunar spacecraft proposals that were part of the contract bidding at the start of Apollo. You can ask about the work they did designing the Little Joe II solid rocket used for testing the Apollo launch abort and escape systems. Talk to him about the company's Atlas rockets that were used to launch the first manned orbital missions. You could even ask if he was at the company in the early 90s when Apollo 8 astronaut Bill Anders was chairman and CEO.

I am assuming that you think these people will support your assertion that Apollo was faked because the engineering was not up to the task, in which case we would certainly be interested to hear from them. After all, one of them had a plan for the entire manned lunar epxloration program drawn up and submitted, so they must have had some idea of the engineering challenges involved. Alternatively, you made the classic layman mistake of thinking NASA did it all themselves rather than contracting the work out, and in fact had no idea that Boeing and General Dynamics played such a key role in the entire Apollo program (or manned spaceflight in general). Given some of your earlier assertions I'm inclined to believe this is more likely....
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ChrLz on January 24, 2013, 05:46:32 PM
Jay has proved his expertise, and others have now put their experience up including naming names and programs.

In my case I don't have space-type expertise - it's just a hobby - but I'm happy to provide information to the moderator here (and have done so elsewhere) to prove my background in marine sciences (including managing a marine research centre), in engineering and also photography/digital imaging.

I'm betting, 'AlexSanchez', that you will not do so.  Because you told lies.

Now that might be an ad hominem... but I'll happily and graciously apologise for it WHEN(IF) you prove your background.

There you go, another reason why you should show us the proof - you could embarrass at least one of us into an apology.

BTW, on Youtube you have said "Where's a design document for the lunar lander?"  Seriously?  Which one/s did you want to see?  And is that an indication of your research skills?  Your visit here is NOT going to go well.

Perhaps you need to phone one of your alleged acquaintances before proceeding...
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 24, 2013, 06:27:18 PM
Quote

Prove they lie.  You have yet to prove a single thing.  Plenty of handwaving though.
Handwaving?  I'm just talking way over your head.  (What have you ever proven?)  Tell ya what... why don't you get me $50 million and I'll prove whether they landed on the moon or not.  $50 million is the cost of sending a rocket to the moon.  I just need to fly over a landing site and beam back a camera image.  If there's no descent stage, then they didn't go.
Of course, if you find one, we know you'll claim it's fake.

Quote
Until the time comes that somebody does that, all we can prove is that it was infinitely easier to fake it than go to the moon, and that's a fact.  I happen to know that they didn't go to the moon because they would have needed to do an IMU alignment on the moon, which they couldn't do, because they had no survey marker on the moon.  And, anybody who wants me to prove I'm an engineer, and that I worked on the Delta rocket, and the ISS, you need to put up some money and bet me.  A Director of Engineering at Boeing is a former co-worker.  Another co-worker is a Chief Engineer at General Dynamics.  I used to party with those guys.  I've used them as work references.  My college roommate is a director of engineering at Panasonic.
Where'd you go to college?
Drexel University, BSEE, 1980
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 24, 2013, 06:31:46 PM
Drexel University, BSEE, 1980

Any course work in orbital mechanics?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 24, 2013, 06:40:08 PM
Another thing:

Quote
A Director of Engineering at Boeing is a former co-worker.

Cool. You can ask him about Boeing's work on constructing the Lunar Orbiter probes, the first stage of the Saturn V and the Lunar Roving Vehicle.

Quote
Another co-worker is a Chief Engineer at General Dynamics.

Another excellent one. You can talk to him about the General Dynamics manned lunar spacecraft proposals that were part of the contract bidding at the start of Apollo. You can ask about the work they did designing the Little Joe II solid rocket used for testing the Apollo launch abort and escape systems. Talk to him about the company's Atlas rockets that were used to launch the first manned orbital missions. You could even ask if he was at the company in the early 90s when Apollo 8 astronaut Bill Anders was chairman and CEO.

I am assuming that you think these people will support your assertion that Apollo was faked because the engineering was not up to the task, in which case we would certainly be interested to hear from them. After all, one of them had a plan for the entire manned lunar epxloration program drawn up and submitted, so they must have had some idea of the engineering challenges involved. Alternatively, you made the classic layman mistake of thinking NASA did it all themselves rather than contracting the work out, and in fact had no idea that Boeing and General Dynamics played such a key role in the entire Apollo program (or manned spaceflight in general). Given some of your earlier assertions I'm inclined to believe this is more likely....
"I am assuming that you think these people will support your assertion that Apollo was faked because the engineering was not up to the task..."

Why would you make an assumption like that?  I NEVER said engineering was not up to the task.

I used to do some work in the S-IVb building at McDonnell Douglas, HBCA.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: sts60 on January 24, 2013, 06:54:32 PM
"I am assuming that you think these people will support your assertion that Apollo was faked because the engineering was not up to the task..."

Why would you make an assumption like that?  I NEVER said engineering was not up to the task.
Now I'm really confused.  See, you said you were an engineer, and that you worked guidance, and that Apollo didn't have an appropriate way to guide the LM.  The correctness of this claim aside, how do you reconcile the alleged inability of the GNC engineers to come up with a usable solution with your new claim that you "NEVER said engineering was not up to the task"?

And do your high-powered space business friends agree with your claim that Apollo was a fake?

Also, thanks for the information on your undergraduate degree.  I'd still love to hear the rest of your story, as outlined in reply #66 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=348.msg10641#msg10641).   You've added Huntington Beach to your resume, and that you did "some work" for MacDac there... what did you do?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 24, 2013, 07:55:37 PM
Why would you make an assumption like that?  I NEVER said engineering was not up to the task.

How does your argument about the inability to perform lunar orbit rendezvous not qualify as a statement that the engineering was not up to the task, since the ability to lift off and rendezvous is definitely an engineering problem?

And do your friends from Boeing and General Dynamics agree with you?

Quote
I used to do some work in the S-IVb building at McDonnell Douglas, HBCA.

So did cleaners and caterers. The fact you worked with certain people in certain buildings for certain companies does not substantiate your claims to be an engineer any more than the fact I worked at Pfizer makes me an expert on Viagra.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 24, 2013, 08:13:10 PM
"I am assuming that you think these people will support your assertion that Apollo was faked because the engineering was not up to the task..."

Why would you make an assumption like that?  I NEVER said engineering was not up to the task.
Now I'm really confused.  See, you said you were an engineer, and that you worked guidance, and that Apollo didn't have an appropriate way to guide the LM.  The correctness of this claim aside, how do you reconcile the alleged inability of the GNC engineers to come up with a usable solution with your new claim that you "NEVER said engineering was not up to the task"?

And do your high-powered space business friends agree with your claim that Apollo was a fake?

Also, thanks for the information on your undergraduate degree.  I'd still love to hear the rest of your story, as outlined in reply #66 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=348.msg10641#msg10641).   You've added Huntington Beach to your resume, and that you did "some work" for MacDac there... what did you do?
If I had a PhD in Aeronautical Engineering from MIT, it wouldn't make me right or wrong.  The government lies all the time.  NASA is the government.  Why do people believe them?  The moon landing is a belief system.  It's a religion.  I can't prove Jesus didn't come to America, but millions of Mormons believe it.  I could show them all kinds of equations, and it wouldn't change their minds.  Governments lie, and history is on my side in that regard.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Laurel on January 24, 2013, 08:25:59 PM
If I had a PhD in Aeronautical Engineering from MIT, it wouldn't make me right or wrong.  The government lies all the time.  NASA is the government.  Why do people believe them?  The moon landing is a belief system.  It's a religion.  I can't prove Jesus didn't come to America, but millions of Mormons believe it.  I could show them all kinds of equations, and it wouldn't change their minds.  Governments lie, and history is on my side in that regard.
This is just a cop-out to avoid answering questions about your engineering qualifications. ::)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Peter B on January 24, 2013, 08:28:11 PM
If I had a PhD in Aeronautical Engineering from MIT, it wouldn't make me right or wrong.  The government lies all the time.  NASA is the government.  Why do people believe them?  The moon landing is a belief system.  It's a religion.  I can't prove Jesus didn't come to America, but millions of Mormons believe it.  I could show them all kinds of equations, and it wouldn't change their minds.  Governments lie, and history is on my side in that regard.
Do you say this of the scientists from around the world who've examined the rocks supplied by the Apollo missions?

They look at them and say, "These rocks show signs of having formed in a low gravity vacuum, and of being altered by solar radiation and micrometeor impact. NASA says they're from the Moon, and they're consistent with that. They aren't from the Earth, and they didn't come to the Earth as meteorites."

How else did they come to the Earth if not by collection on the Apollo missions?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 24, 2013, 08:35:28 PM
If I had a PhD in Aeronautical Engineering from MIT, it wouldn't make me right or wrong.  The government lies all the time.  NASA is the government.  Why do people believe them?  The moon landing is a belief system.  It's a religion.  I can't prove Jesus didn't come to America, but millions of Mormons believe it.  I could show them all kinds of equations, and it wouldn't change their minds.  Governments lie, and history is on my side in that regard.

Probably the only thing more naive than believing that everything a government says is the truth is believing that everything the government says is a lie.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Bob B. on January 24, 2013, 08:40:17 PM
The government lies all the time.  NASA is the government.  Why do people believe them?

Because there's no evidence that they lied about Apollo.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 24, 2013, 08:41:06 PM
The government lies all the time.  NASA is the government.

Is everything just black and white to you, Alex? Do you really believe that just because the government has lied about some things it means that everything they have ever said was a lie? Does the fact that your parents lied to you about Santa Claus when you were a kid mean that you can't believe anything they told you? Don't you see how ridiculous you're being?

Let me ask you something, Alex. Where were Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins on July 20th, 1969?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 24, 2013, 09:04:07 PM
If I had a PhD in Aeronautical Engineering from MIT, it wouldn't make me right or wrong.  The government lies all the time.  NASA is the government.  Why do people believe them?  The moon landing is a belief system.  It's a religion.  I can't prove Jesus didn't come to America, but millions of Mormons believe it.  I could show them all kinds of equations, and it wouldn't change their minds.  Governments lie, and history is on my side in that regard.
Do you say this of the scientists from around the world who've examined the rocks supplied by the Apollo missions?

They look at them and say, "These rocks show signs of having formed in a low gravity vacuum, and of being altered by solar radiation and micrometeor impact. NASA says they're from the Moon, and they're consistent with that. They aren't from the Earth, and they didn't come to the Earth as meteorites."

How else did they come to the Earth if not by collection on the Apollo missions?
There are moon rocks on earth, especially in Antarctica (because they are easier to see.)  There are also martian rocks on earth.  Russia has moon rocks they brought back from unmanned missions (which means if the Apollo moon rocks actually came from the moon, it does not prove we put a man on the moon.)  Scientists also say the moon was knocked off as a chunk of the earth, which means moon rocks are made of the same material as earth rocks.

"...the current most widely accepted explanation is that the Moon formed from the debris left over after a giant impact between Earth and a Mars-sized body."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon

So FORGET your moon rock theory.  It's forever solidly debunked.  It does not prove anyone, even Buzz Armstrong, ever set foot on the moon.

As far as the LEM having a rendezvous radar, the radar-guided Patriot missile during the Gulf War missed 9 out of 10 targets.  That was 1991.

"...in the first Bush Gulf War, when the probability of a Patriot missile (cost: $1 to $6 million) actually taking out a Scud missile (cost: $0.22 to $1 million) was only 9 percent."
http://corporategreedchronicles.com/2011/11/25/like-the-patriot-act-there-is-nothing-patriotic-about-the-raytheon-patriot-missile/
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Laurel on January 24, 2013, 09:20:10 PM
So FORGET your moon rock theory.  It's forever solidly debunked.  It does not prove anyone, even Buzz Armstrong, ever set foot on the moon.
Buzz Armstrong? No such astronaut. You can't even get the basic information about Apollo 11 right. Sad.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: cos on January 24, 2013, 09:25:18 PM
What the hell does Patriot missile success rate got to do with Lunar Orbital Rendezvous? You haven't got a single clue what is involved or how it was achieved. As for being an engineer, every post you make just confirms you are not. That sort of superficial equivalance argument might be used by a lawyer but NO engineer argues this way. There are no lies in science and engineering. If what you say is true, it will be demonstratably true.
Now if you show up and say X isn't possible and we actually understand how X was achieved, we naturally expect you to explain why. By this method we can discover whether our understanding is faulty or yours. When it turns out you actually don't know how X was claimed to have been achieved in the first place and then merely state something was impossible without explaining or demonstrating why, completely undermines you. However, we can subject every claim made for the Apollo program to the same demands and guess what? It all checks out. Waving your hands around and repeating unsupported assertions is the equivalent of banging your fists on the floor and yelling 'I'm right, I'm right, I'm right'.
Impersonating an engineer is more difficult than you thought.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 24, 2013, 09:25:42 PM
The government lies all the time.  NASA is the government.

Is everything just black and white to you, Alex? Do you really believe that just because the government has lied about some things it means that everything they have ever said was a lie? Does the fact that your parents lied to you about Santa Claus when you were a kid mean that you can't believe anything they told you? Don't you see how ridiculous you're being?

Let me ask you something, Alex. Where were Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins on July 20th, 1969?

"Does the fact that your parents lied to you about Santa Claus when you were a kid mean that you can't believe anything they told you?"

My parents also lied to me about the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, and where babies come from.  I never believed them after that.

"Where were Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins on July 20th, 1969?"

I know where they weren't.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on January 24, 2013, 09:28:06 PM
The Russians brought back some soil samples, yes, but only 326 grams. It was an astounding feat at the time on many levels, but Apollo brought back 382 kilograms, over a thousand times more.
Even if NASA was launching thousands of robotic probes, (remember it took three successful robotic probes to get as much as the USSR did and there was several failures, most famous being Luna 15.) just who was building these probes?

Stop insisting that meteorites could pass.
Besides all the wonderful reasons already mentioned, we can tell just how long a rock left the moon using cosmic ray exposure ages (http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/moon_meteorites.htm).
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Laurel on January 24, 2013, 09:28:44 PM
Alex, are you going to answer Sts60 and JayUtah's questions about your qualifications?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 24, 2013, 09:32:41 PM
So FORGET your moon rock theory.  It's forever solidly debunked.  It does not prove anyone, even Buzz Armstrong, ever set foot on the moon.
Buzz Armstrong? No such astronaut. You can't even get the basic information about Apollo 11 right. Sad.
Obviously I meant to say Buzz Lightyear.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Laurel on January 24, 2013, 09:33:41 PM
Troll.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Donnie B. on January 24, 2013, 09:35:53 PM
"Does the fact that your parents lied to you about Santa Claus when you were a kid mean that you can't believe anything they told you?"

My parents also lied to me about the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, and where babies come from.  I never believed them after that.

What a sad, pathetic thing to say.  If this really is the way you live in the world, I actually pity you.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 24, 2013, 09:44:38 PM
"Does the fact that your parents lied to you about Santa Claus when you were a kid mean that you can't believe anything they told you?"

My parents also lied to me about the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, and where babies come from.  I never believed them after that.

What a sad, pathetic thing to say.  If this really is the way you live in the world, I actually pity you.

Let me guess... you believe in the tooth fairy, don't you?  You are very gullible and very naive.  I pity you.  You are a sheep.  Yet, I must protect you from the New World Order.  I must force you sheeple to wake up.  It's for your own good.  Evil awaits you unless you follow me.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: cos on January 24, 2013, 09:49:38 PM
And the mask of a reasoned engineer slips, to reveal a frothing HB loon. No surprise there.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 24, 2013, 10:00:49 PM
Troll.
Oh yeah... well, I'm rubber and you're glue...

Look people, NASA goes to the president and says, if we try to go to the moon, the chances of success are 50/50.  If we fake it, the chances of success are 100% and nobody will ever suspect us.  What do you want to do Mr. President?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Philthy on January 24, 2013, 10:07:08 PM
I just love it when the lunar meteorites are brought up as some sort of "proof" of obtaining Moon Rocks.

I guess the fact that NO meteorite was actually known to have come from the moon until 1979, not to mention, lunar meteorites are EXTREMELY rare. Seven years after the Apollo missions ended. No where near 842 pounds of any lunar meteorites have ever been found.

Sorry, I just usually lurk here, and I'm usually "Ninja'd" but I had to say something about the total wrongness.

Phil

Forgot to add the list of known lunar meterites:

http://www.meteoris.de/luna/list.html
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Laurel on January 24, 2013, 10:12:28 PM
Look people, NASA goes to the president and says, if we try to go to the moon, the chances of success are 50/50.  If we fake it, the chances of success are 100% and nobody will ever suspect us.  What do you want to do Mr. President?
Evidence that NASA said anything of the kind?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: cos on January 24, 2013, 10:16:11 PM
I'd ask you to tell me how to shoot a continuous 6 hour EVA in a vacuum, 1/6th earth gravity with 360 degree pans.
Tell me how to return 800 lbs of moonrock to the earth and fool every geologist that ever lived.
Tell me how to stop the Russians or anyone listening in and not finding the transmissions from where they are supposed to be.
Tell me how to ensure every photo we take or live broadcast shows the exact weather patterns on the earth at the time.
And tell me how to ensure that 40 years later, when other nations map the moon, their findings will exactly match the photographic Apollo record.

....for starters.

Then I'd fire you for being stupid.


Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on January 24, 2013, 10:20:35 PM
Let me guess... you believe in the tooth fairy, don't you?  You are very gullible and very naive.  I pity you.  You are a sheep.  Yet, I must protect you from the New World Order.  I must force you sheeple to wake up.  It's for your own good.  Evil awaits you unless you follow me.
To quote the actual Buzz Lightyear, "You are a sad, strange, little man, and you have my pity."
Let's put it more neatly so you have less chance of misunderstanding.
So, your parants lied to you, telling you a guy who watches the world's kids 24/7 and conducts yearly home invasions, actually existed. After, if they said something to you after like "Well, nice, sunny day isn't it?" would you insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, "No, it's raining, it's raining!"
That's not a sign of intelligence, that's simply been contrarian.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 24, 2013, 10:29:02 PM
Let me guess... you believe in the tooth fairy, don't you?  You are very gullible and very naive.  I pity you.  You are a sheep.  Yet, I must protect you from the New World Order.  I must force you sheeple to wake up.  It's for your own good.  Evil awaits you unless you follow me.

More insults. I've added you to the moderation list. I'll have to approve your posts before they appear in the forum, which as Heiwa can attest, sometimes takes a while. If you want to speed up the process you'll have to behave.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on January 24, 2013, 10:36:24 PM
The government lies all the time.  NASA is the government.  Why do people believe them?
Brushes don't get broader than this.  If this is your best shot, then you have failed even to make sense. 

Lets try this reversal.  Hoax believers lie all the time. Alex is a hoax believer.  Why would anyone believe him?  Does that argument sound solid to you?

Once again stop your bluster and tell us your version of the Apollo record.  Account for all the missions.  How they were built and how the designers and operators were fooled.   How the tracking network was fooled.  How the Soviet Union was fooled?  How this has all been kept a tight secret for decades except that you have just now come forward to proclaim it?  It is up to you to make the case and we are waiting for you to show that you are not just another boring run of the mill moon hoax monger.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 24, 2013, 10:36:38 PM
Let me ask you something, Alex. Where were Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins on July 20th, 1969?

I know where they weren't.

No, you just believe you know where they weren't. Without something more definite, like proof that they were at some other location, you have not successfully disputed NASA's claim that they were at the Moon.

NASA has shown us footage of the astronauts in zero-G with the distant Earth outside their window. The weather patterns on the Earth match the forecasts for that day, proving that it was filmed when they claimed. Provide a better explanation than NASA and maybe I'll believe you.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Bob B. on January 24, 2013, 10:50:54 PM
Russia has moon rocks they brought back from unmanned missions (which means if the Apollo moon rocks actually came from the moon, it does not prove we put a man on the moon.)

How could they takeoff and rendezvous with Earth if, as you claim, they couldn't do an IMU alignment on the Moon without a survey marker?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Peter B on January 24, 2013, 10:55:24 PM
If I had a PhD in Aeronautical Engineering from MIT, it wouldn't make me right or wrong.  The government lies all the time.  NASA is the government.  Why do people believe them?  The moon landing is a belief system.  It's a religion.  I can't prove Jesus didn't come to America, but millions of Mormons believe it.  I could show them all kinds of equations, and it wouldn't change their minds.  Governments lie, and history is on my side in that regard.
Do you say this of the scientists from around the world who've examined the rocks supplied by the Apollo missions?

They look at them and say, "These rocks show signs of having formed in a low gravity vacuum, and of being altered by solar radiation and micrometeor impact. NASA says they're from the Moon, and they're consistent with that. They aren't from the Earth, and they didn't come to the Earth as meteorites."

How else did they come to the Earth if not by collection on the Apollo missions?
There are moon rocks on earth, especially in Antarctica (because they are easier to see.)  There are also martian rocks on earth.
Quite true.

But, as I said earlier,
Quote
Lunar meteorites collected in Antarctica show evidence of passing through the Earth's atmosphere at high speed, and of contamination by the Earth. The Apollo rocks show no such signs, and instead show signs of having been struck by micrometeorites (called zap pits) and solar radiation. There is no technology to recreate zap pits.

Back to Alexsanchez...
Quote
Russia has moon rocks they brought back from unmanned missions (which means if the Apollo moon rocks actually came from the moon, it does not prove we put a man on the moon.)
Not so fast.

Most Apollo rocks were photographed on location prior to collection. Many of these photos include astronauts. How were the photos taken?

If they were taken by unmanned sample collection spacecraft on the Moon, then how do astronauts appear in the photos?

But, if they were taken on a fake Moon set somewhere in [name your secret location], what was the set made of? If of lunar material, how much more was collected to make a realistic set? If of terrestrial material, how did it not contaminate the samples?

Quote
Scientists also say the moon was knocked off as a chunk of the earth, which means moon rocks are made of the same material as earth rocks.

"...the current most widely accepted explanation is that the Moon formed from the debris left over after a giant impact between Earth and a Mars-sized body."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
Read the sentence you quoted. "Debris" not "chunk". I'm sure you read the rest of that article, which included this statement: "While similar to terrestrial basalts, the mare basalts have much higher abundances of iron and are completely lacking in minerals altered by water." They also, as I mentioned above, show evidence of having formed in a low gravity vacuum, which is not indicative of terrestrial origin.

Quote
So FORGET your moon rock theory.  It's forever solidly debunked.  It does not prove anyone, even Buzz Armstrong, ever set foot on the moon.
Oh, the humour...

Quote
As far as the LEM having a rendezvous radar, the radar-guided Patriot missile during the Gulf War missed 9 out of 10 targets.  That was 1991.
I find it hard to make the comparison. (1) The LM and CSM were heading in the same direction. The Patriots and Scuds were heading in opposite directions. Therefore the closing speeds were very different. (2) The LM and CSM were human controlled, with the rendezvous radar providing information, not controlling a spacecraft. (3) The proposed trajectories of the LM and CSM had been planned in advance, while the Patriots had to track the Scuds in real time.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 24, 2013, 11:07:55 PM
Let me guess... you believe in the tooth fairy, don't you?  You are very gullible and very naive.  I pity you.  You are a sheep.  Yet, I must protect you from the New World Order.  I must force you sheeple to wake up.  It's for your own good.  Evil awaits you unless you follow me.

More insults. I've added you to the moderation list. I'll have to approve your posts before they appear in the forum, which as Heiwa can attest, sometimes takes a while. If you want to speed up the process you'll have to behave.
what about the insults towards me?  But, I can always sign on as somebody else.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: sts60 on January 24, 2013, 11:17:07 PM
If I had a PhD in Aeronautical Engineering from MIT, it wouldn't make me right or wrong.
Unresponsive.  I'm asking the questions because you are making an appeal to authority - in this case, your authority as a reputed expert: an engineer who has extensive aerospace experience and has done GNC work, which is at the very core of your claim that the LM's scheme was inadequate.

I'm just asking you to substantiate your authority and reconcile some of your cited experience.  If you refuse to do so, you leave holes in your story and place your personal authority in doubt.  I've been in aerospace for over two decades, and have worked on civil, military, and commercial programs - and that includes Air Force and NASA contracts.  So I'll consult my own expertise, which naturally I can fully substantiate, and weight it against yours accordingly.

You are correct that your expertise, whatever it actually is, doesn't make your claims right or wrong all by itself.   But you've shown no real knowledge of Apollo either.

The government lies all the time.  NASA is the government.  Why do people believe them?
Standard conspiracist rhetoric. Yet you apparently "believe them" when it comes to the reality of the ISS.  So you've shown the government doesn't lie "all the time", thus one has to evaluate the government claims the same way one evaluates your claims: by investigating and using actual expertise.     

The moon landing is a belief system.  It's a religion.
Nonsense.  I work in this field, and I have evaluated the Apollo record in reasonable detail and found it makes hard engineering and scientific sense.   I've also worked with Apollo engineers and Apollo-era astronauts and can judge their competence and integrity for myself.

I can't prove Jesus didn't come to America, but millions of Mormons believe it.  I could show them all kinds of equations, and it wouldn't change their minds.  Governments lie, and history is on my side in that regard.
The Apollo record isn't gospel revealed to the masses who can only choose to believe or disbelieve.  You are clearly unfamiliar with the scientific and technical record, and do not grasp the breadth and depth of what is publicly - and easily - available for examination. 

You act as if you think nobody nobody knows more about Apollo than you do.  From your statements, judging from the simple errors like "LEM" to the whopping misunderstandings of mission design and lunar origin theory, it is instead evident that most of the regulars here know far more about the program than you do.   So waving your hands about your vast aerospace experience isn't really getting you any traction, especially when you provide incomplete and rather contradictory details.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gillianren on January 24, 2013, 11:36:11 PM
Heck, I know more about engineering than this guy does.  Also psychology, history, and geology.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: frenat on January 24, 2013, 11:53:01 PM
"I am assuming that you think these people will support your assertion that Apollo was faked because the engineering was not up to the task..."

Why would you make an assumption like that?  I NEVER said engineering was not up to the task.
Now I'm really confused.  See, you said you were an engineer, and that you worked guidance, and that Apollo didn't have an appropriate way to guide the LM.  The correctness of this claim aside, how do you reconcile the alleged inability of the GNC engineers to come up with a usable solution with your new claim that you "NEVER said engineering was not up to the task"?

And do your high-powered space business friends agree with your claim that Apollo was a fake?

Also, thanks for the information on your undergraduate degree.  I'd still love to hear the rest of your story, as outlined in reply #66 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=348.msg10641#msg10641).   You've added Huntington Beach to your resume, and that you did "some work" for MacDac there... what did you do?
If I had a PhD in Aeronautical Engineering from MIT, it wouldn't make me right or wrong.  The government lies all the time.  NASA is the government.  Why do people believe them?  The moon landing is a belief system.  It's a religion.  I can't prove Jesus didn't come to America, but millions of Mormons believe it.  I could show them all kinds of equations, and it wouldn't change their minds.  Governments lie, and history is on my side in that regard.

EVERYBODY lies.  Does that mean everything everybody says is always wrong?  No, of course not.  It doesn't matter if the government lies or how often.  The science with Apollo stands up and is internally and externally consistent.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: frenat on January 24, 2013, 11:55:00 PM
The government lies all the time.  NASA is the government.

Is everything just black and white to you, Alex? Do you really believe that just because the government has lied about some things it means that everything they have ever said was a lie? Does the fact that your parents lied to you about Santa Claus when you were a kid mean that you can't believe anything they told you? Don't you see how ridiculous you're being?

Let me ask you something, Alex. Where were Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins on July 20th, 1969?

"Does the fact that your parents lied to you about Santa Claus when you were a kid mean that you can't believe anything they told you?"

My parents also lied to me about the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, and where babies come from.  I never believed them after that.

"Where were Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins on July 20th, 1969?"

I know where they weren't.

No you don't.  You have an opinion about it but it happens to be wrong.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: frenat on January 24, 2013, 11:59:14 PM
So FORGET your moon rock theory.  It's forever solidly debunked.  It does not prove anyone, even Buzz Armstrong, ever set foot on the moon.
Buzz Armstrong? No such astronaut. You can't even get the basic information about Apollo 11 right. Sad.
Obviously I meant to say Buzz Lightyear.

(http://i398.photobucket.com/albums/pp65/frenat/170604dc34a16f20cb_zps9ac9dc80.jpg)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 25, 2013, 12:03:24 AM
But, I can always sign on as somebody else.

That would make you a liar. And a hypocrite.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: frenat on January 25, 2013, 12:12:50 AM
But, I can always sign on as somebody else.

That would make you a liar. And a hypocrite.

And according to his own logic that would mean he always lies.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ka9q on January 25, 2013, 01:26:15 AM
The proposed trajectories of the LM and CSM had been planned in advance, while the Patriots had to track the Scuds in real time.
The crucial difference is that Apollo lunar orbit rendezvous is cooperative while Patriot/Scud interception is exactly the opposite. Everyone from the designers of the two Apollo spacecraft, the teams of engineers assisting from the ground, and especially their highly trained crews very much wanted a successful rendezvous. The Scuds' Iraqi operators very much wanted to avoid successful Patriot intercepts.

The CSM carried an active transponder; without it, the LM's rendezvous radar would not have worked. Although the LM normally plays the active role, as a backup it carried a flashing strobe and a VHF transponder of its own to enable the Command Module to become the active party should the LM be unable to perform its task.

The CSM and LM had several hours to complete rendezvous, with several opportunities available for midcourse corrections to remove any errors in previous maneuvers. After rendezvous they had plenty of time to dock, again with both crews actively cooperating.

The operators of the Scuds very much wanted to evade interception by the Patriots, so they launched without advance notification as to time or target and without any features to assist the Patriot. The flight of a Scud was very short, giving the Patriot operators very little time to detect the Scud launch, determine its trajectory and to launch an interceptor. The goal was not a zero-velocity rendezvous and docking but interception at a very high relative velocity sufficient to "kill" the Scud by kinetic energy alone; this leaves very little margin for error and no second chance if it misses the first time. And on and on.

For various political reasons the US military consistently minimizes the differences between ballistic missile defense and cooperative rendezvous, greatly understating the difficulty of the former. Ironically our friend 'alexsanchez' seems to have fallen victim to this propaganda. What a terrible state of affairs for someone who obviously prides himself on not being fooled by the US government!

 
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Abaddon on January 25, 2013, 02:23:37 AM
There are moon rocks on earth, especially in Antarctica (because they are easier to see.)  There are also martian rocks on earth.  Russia has moon rocks they brought back from unmanned missions (which means if the Apollo moon rocks actually came from the moon, it does not prove we put a man on the moon.)  Scientists also say the moon was knocked off as a chunk of the earth, which means moon rocks are made of the same material as earth rocks.

"...the current most widely accepted explanation is that the Moon formed from the debris left over after a giant impact between Earth and a Mars-sized body."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon

So FORGET your moon rock theory.  It's forever solidly debunked.  It does not prove anyone, even Buzz Armstrong, ever set foot on the moon.
Zap pits.
Solar radiation.
Lack of atmospheric re-entry effects.
Surely an engineer understands these simple concepts, no?
As far as the LEM having a rendezvous radar, the radar-guided Patriot missile during the Gulf War missed 9 out of 10 targets.  That was 1991.

"...in the first Bush Gulf War, when the probability of a Patriot missile (cost: $1 to $6 million) actually taking out a Scud missile (cost: $0.22 to $1 million) was only 9 percent."
http://corporategreedchronicles.com/2011/11/25/like-the-patriot-act-there-is-nothing-patriotic-about-the-raytheon-patriot-missile/
As a super duper engineer surely you understand that these are not comparable scenarios, and why, no?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 25, 2013, 03:11:29 AM
Alexsanchez

I am waiting for your response to a request to put money up. My offer stands and you can read it in post 58 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=348.msg10592#msg10592). Please specify the charity of your choice, and please provide the evidence requested.


There are moon rocks on earth, especially in Antarctica (because they are easier to see.)  There are also martian rocks on earth.  Russia has moon rocks they brought back from unmanned missions (which means if the Apollo moon rocks actually came from the moon, it does not prove we put a man on the moon.)  Scientists also say the moon was knocked off as a chunk of the earth, which means moon rocks are made of the same material as earth rocks.

"...the current most widely accepted explanation is that the Moon formed from the debris left over after a giant impact between Earth and a Mars-sized body."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon

So FORGET your moon rock theory.  It's forever solidly debunked.  It does not prove anyone, even Buzz Armstrong, ever set foot on the moon.

I've edited out the delusional rantings and hand-waving about Patriot missiles. I see that you are trying to claim that the 380+Kg of Apollo rocks were returned by robotics or are meteorites. Please see my post 57 in this thread (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=348.msg10590#msg10590).
Please explain these anomalies in your thinking:
1) Why did the Soviets only return 32.6grams, yet Apollo returned 382Kgs?

2) If the rocks were returned robotically, then you are conceding that it was possible to launch a vehicle, navigate to the Moon, perform a braking manoeuvre, enter orbit, soft land a probe, collect samples, leave the surface, navigate back to Earth and soft land. You cannot return samples robotically without these steps.. As you are now claiming "it was robots what done it" , why are you banging on that LOR was impossible? And that it was impossible to take off from the surface?? They either did that robotically to get the rocks, or it was impossible. If it is impossible, then please explain the rocks. It is is possible, then stop hand-waving about LOR and taking off from the surface. Which is it??? (and by the way, do you know what being hoisted by your own petard means?)
The moon landing is a belief system.  It's a religion. 
Which is it Alex? Something landed and took off or didn't. Make your mind up.

3) If the Apollo samples were robotically collected, then please detail when the launches took place, from where, and the dates of the returned samples. Bear in mind that a launch powerful enough to do all of the items in point 2 is going to be noticed. The Apollo launches were visible from over 500 miles away. Seismometers on the other side of the Earth registered the shock waves. Heck, amateur astronomers n the UK imaged the LOX dumps from the Saturn boosters in cisLunar space.

4) If it is your contention that the USA is in possession of 382Kg of Lunar rocks sourced from the polar regions then why has no other country with Arctic/Antarctic presence this amount of Lunar material?

5) Your contention is that the Lunar samples are Moon-derived meteorites. Please explain why the Apollo samples show no sign of atmospheric entry, no sign of atmospheric erosion. Please also detail your qualifications in geology and field experience that would allow you to make such a claim. Please also point to a peer-reviewed published report of yours in this field (if you can satisfy either of these, I will double the amount that I will pay to a charity of your choice).

Russia has moon rocks they brought back from unmanned missions (which means if the Apollo moon rocks actually came from the moon, it does not prove we put a man on the moon.) 
No they don't. The Soviets have Moon DUST. The Luna missions returned 32.6 grams. The first sample return mission, Luna 16, took off in September 1970, a full year after Apollo 11 returned its samples.

As you accept that the Russians could take off from the Lunar surface can you please explain why they didn't need a theodolite and plumb bob (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=342.msg10287#msg10287). Please also explain how they managed to soft land on the Moon, yet your contention is that the Americans couldn't? (swinging from that petard again, eh?)


No hand-waving or spittle-flecked nonsense in your response Alexsanchez. These are straight question that you must be able to answer if your ideas are expected to have ANY credibility.

what about the insults towards me?  But, I can always sign on as somebody else.
Oh, and stop play-acting like a whiney little brat that's wandered into the playground and got a slap for talking smack with the bigger boys. Your very first post contained a slur against the members here. Act your physical age, not your mental age FFS (or indeed your IQ number).
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 25, 2013, 03:12:57 AM
If I had a PhD in Aeronautical Engineering from MIT, it wouldn't make me right or wrong.

It would lend credence to your claims regarding the engineering challenges of Apollo being insurmountable though.

Quote
The government lies all the time.

Are you saying you have never lied? Can you claim a 100% honesty record over your entire life?

Quote
The moon landing is a belief system.  It's a religion.

Rubbish. The Apollo program is a documented historical event that can be independently verified. I don't 'believe' the Apollo lunar landings happened because someone told me they did. I accept the reality because I understand how to evaluate the evidence.

Quote
Governments lie, and history is on my side in that regard.

So what? Governments lying in general has no bearing on whether or not you can prove Apollo was faked.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: smartcooky on January 25, 2013, 03:46:23 AM
The moon landing is a belief system.

No, the Lunar landings are factual knowledge verifiable by solid scientific, observational, and physical evidence and close to a million reliable witnesses.

However, Lunar Landing Hoax Believing is a belief system. It is indulged in by an ever decreasing number of gullible fools, crackpots and nut-bars. Hoax believers cannot bring a single shred of evidence to back up their beliefs that does not fall over when placed under the slightest scientific scrutiny.

And you sir are a fraud. You are no more an engineer than I am the President of the United States. The only thing you are capable of engineering is the big hole that you are digging yourself into with every bare-face lie that you post.   
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Peter B on January 25, 2013, 05:16:12 AM
The Luna missions returned 32.6 grams.
Um, 326 grams.

Still less than one-thousandth of what the six Apollo missions brought back...
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 25, 2013, 05:36:57 AM
The Luna missions returned 32.6 grams.
Um, 326 grams.

Still less than one-thousandth of what the six Apollo missions brought back...

My apologies..well spotted. I blame my dyslexic fingers (a terrible affliction in a man of my years... ;D)

The point still stands. What the Russians returned is three orders of magnitude less than Apollo returned, yet this particular HB believes that he can hand-wave the difference away.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 25, 2013, 07:04:39 AM
Look people, NASA goes to the president and says, if we try to go to the moon, the chances of success are 50/50.  If we fake it, the chances of success are 100% and nobody will ever suspect us.  What do you want to do Mr. President?

I'd want those numbers substantiated. Prove that the risks involved in flying to the Moon are too high to justify actually trying it for real, then prove that the risks of being caught faking it at any time in the future by emerging or as-yet uninvented technologies are sufficiently low to make that a better option.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 25, 2013, 07:16:58 AM
There are moon rocks on earth, especially in Antarctica (because they are easier to see.)  There are also martian rocks on earth.

All of which, as has already been pointed out to you, show clear indications of unprotected passage through the atmosphere at high speed and having sat unprotected in the environment of Earth for an indeterminate number of hours, days or years. Do you wish to claim that a geologist can't tell the difference between a rock that has been subjected to that kind of treatment from one that has been picked up from an airless environment and stored under vacuum until examined on Earth in the lab? Do you also wish to explain the soil and core tube samples from Apollo, which are even less easily brushed under the carpet as meteorites?

Quote
Russia has moon rocks they brought back from unmanned missions (which means if the Apollo moon rocks actually came from the moon, it does not prove we put a man on the moon.)

Yes, Russia did bring back some soil and small rocks. Their sample return capacity was orders of magnitude poorer than Apollo. Where is the evidence of the incredible unmanned sample return capability that can include rocks the size of a football and three-metre long core tubes that would be required to explain the Apollo haul if it were not collected by manned missions?

Also, if an unmanned sample return capability did exist, as you are now suggesting, what was so much harder about a manned one?

Quote
Scientists also say the moon was knocked off as a chunk of the earth, which means moon rocks are made of the same material as earth rocks.

With differences caused by the very different ways the two bodies developed after that event. An event, by the way, that was hypothesised as a direct result of studying the Apollo lunar rock and soil samples.

Quote
So FORGET your moon rock theory.

As you have forgotten to respond to the question about your engineering colleagues from companies that were heavily involved in Apollo and the space program at the time?

Quote
As far as the LEM having a rendezvous radar, the radar-guided Patriot missile during the Gulf War missed 9 out of 10 targets.  That was 1991.

Prove that the challenge of guiding an unmanned surface to air missile towards an aircraft travelling at high speed and capable of attempting to evade it is even remotely comparable to the challenge of providing radar information to human pilots co-operating in bringing together two nearly co-orbital spacecraft with approach rates measured in the low feet per second range, and you might begin to have a point there.

You are still evidently labouring under your misconception that the LM liftoff and docking was something like a missile shot. Why?

Also, perhaps you could tell us how precisely the patriot missile needed to know its launch co-ordinates in order to find its target. Or did it simply go off in roughly the right direction and use the radar to actively find the target aircraft?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 25, 2013, 07:19:15 AM
Look people, NASA goes to the president and says, if we try to go to the moon, the chances of success are 50/50.  If we fake it, the chances of success are 100% and nobody will ever suspect us.  What do you want to do Mr. President?

I'd want those numbers substantiated. Prove that the risks involved in flying to the Moon are too high to justify actually trying it for real, then prove that the risks of being caught faking it at any time in the future by emerging or as-yet uninvented technologies are sufficiently low to make that a better option.

It's all hand-waving and delusions of the hyper-active imaginations of a hoax believer. The risks (IIRC) that Armstrong put out were 50:50 of the first landing succeeding and 70:30 for them retuning successfully (I am open to correction on this as I am going from memory), not of the whole endeavour.

There will be no historical record of such a meeting taking place. This is a key point that HBs miss time after time after time...just because some idiot imagines that something could or might have happened does not mean that it did. Or indeed, that there ever was a desire for it to happen.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: cos on January 25, 2013, 07:41:06 AM
I wonder if Alex could use his claimed expertise in rocketery to explain how the CM & LM's in both Apollo 9 & 10 missions achieved orbital rendezvous and how this in no way meant that Apollo 11 could do the same?

Or was it all done in a studio (whilst offering no evidence that it was and ignoring all evidence that it wasn't), so you can simply wave your hands and ignore the question?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Inanimate Carbon Rod on January 25, 2013, 07:56:03 AM
Look people, NASA goes to the president and says, if we try to go to the moon, the chances of success are 50/50.  If we fake it, the chances of success are 100% and nobody will ever suspect us.  What do you want to do Mr. President?

I'd want those numbers substantiated. Prove that the risks involved in flying to the Moon are too high to justify actually trying it for real, then prove that the risks of being caught faking it at any time in the future by emerging or as-yet uninvented technologies are sufficiently low to make that a better option.

I think the 50/50 may come from a quote of Mike Collins' Carrying the Fire in which he estimated there was a 50/50 chance of the lunar landings successful, safe completion.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ineluki on January 25, 2013, 08:48:43 AM

 The government lies all the time.  NASA is the government.  Why do people believe them?   

The Government lies all the time, the National Institute of Mental Health is the government and they say suicide is bad. So, suicide must be a good thing - and unless you are the dishonest troll we all realize you are, why don't you act according to that logic?

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 25, 2013, 10:02:51 AM
There are moon rocks on earth, especially in Antarctica (because they are easier to see.)

And they differ in important ways from the Apollo specimens, primarily in the properties we identified above.

Quote
Scientists also say the moon was knocked off as a chunk of the earth, which means moon rocks are made of the same material as earth rocks.

Do you really think geology thinks that simplistically about the Apollo samples, moon rocks, or rocks in general?

Quote
So FORGET your moon rock theory.  It's forever solidly debunked.

No, we've just found another subject on which you know practically nothing, and are just regurgitating the claims of the haox web sites you've read.

Quote
It does not prove anyone, even Buzz Armstrong, ever set foot on the moon.

That's right: nobody named "Buzz Armstrong" ever set foot on the Moon.  How much did you say you'd studied the Apollo missions?

Quote
As far as the LEM having a rendezvous radar, the radar-guided Patriot missile during the Gulf War missed 9 out of 10 targets.  That was 1991.

I think it's cute that you believe those are even remotely the same kind of problem.  Orbital rendezvous has almost nothing in common with a tactical missile interception.  Again you're trying to play fast and loose with layman's intuition to make it seem like you're some kind of engineer with relevant competence.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: twik on January 25, 2013, 10:12:46 AM
Troll.
Oh yeah... well, I'm rubber and you're glue...

Look people, NASA goes to the president and says, if we try to go to the moon, the chances of success are 50/50.  If we fake it, the chances of success are 100% and nobody will ever suspect us.  What do you want to do Mr. President?

Well, if I were Mr. President, I would respond, "But faking it means that we will also have to create a  perfect hoax. How are we going to create hours of video footage of a wide area with low gravity and no atmosphere? How are we going to ensure that no one notices from radio transmissions that things are not what they seem? How will we prevent other countries from finding out after the fact, and leaving us with egg on our faces? Our chances of success are NOT 100% with a hoax, they're much less than 50/50. So, let's go with the real deal. It'll be cheaper and easier."

Your problem, alexsanchez, is that you assume that creating the hoax is easy. It's not. It would be more difficult, in fact, to fake the landings than to actually do them.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 25, 2013, 10:16:33 AM
Look people, NASA goes to the president and says, if we try to go to the moon, the chances of success are 50/50.

That number comes from one offhand estimate from one person during Apollo 11, reported in retrospect.  It's not the product of computation or statistics.  No one really was able to determine the probability of success for Apollo 11, nor did it really matter because there was always another Apollo mission to try.

But if you want a comparision, there was only a 3 in 4 chance any test pilot during that era would live to the end of his career.  People do dangerous things.  Crab fishing is statistically more dangerous than being an astronaut or test pilot.

Quote
If we fake it, the chances of success are 100% and nobody will ever suspect us.  What do you want to do Mr. President?

What do you mean no one will ever suspect?  Hoax believers claim their doubt goes all the way back to the missions themselves, and there is testimony to support that.  The first formal hoax book came out within 3 years of the termination of the program.

Oh and you forgot two important facts.  The first is the important addition to the dialogue:  "Oh, by the way Mr. President, if we do somehow get caught faking it, you'll be impeached, the civil servants and industry captains in charge will go to federal prison for decades, and the U.S. will lose all credibility on the world stage -- all that will be attributed to your presidency."

The second is the fact that the Mr. President to whom this dialogue would have been directed was not the same Mr. President that presided when the missions were actually flown (or faked, according to you).  There was a complete change of guard during Apollo.  And the incoming president was a bitter rival of the outgoing one, with no obligation or desire to keep his secrets.  What a great political coup to be able to accuse the opposing party and administration of gross misappropriation of taxpayer money.

Let's add another fact.  Kennedy was not all that excited about going to the Moon.  Initially he said no.  NASA had to put the hard sell on the Kennedy administration to get them to adopt that as the nation's premier scientific program.  NASA and its political backers had to practically ensure success before Kennedy would agree to it.  That's the way history really happened.  In the conspiracy theorists' comic-book version of history, Kennedy surprised NASA by telling them they had to do this great thing, and they reluctantly had to report it wasn't possible.  Sorry, it didn't happen that way.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 25, 2013, 10:22:54 AM
what about the insults towards me?

You have not been insulted.  Your obviously bogus and inflated credentials have been revealed as the hogwash they are, but that's because you foolishly put that argument out there.  It is quite a common tactic to claim expertise as the basis for one's claim, then to retreat to personal insult and injury when that expertise is laid bare.  I assure you no one falls for it.  Man up, and either support your claims to expertise or abandon them.

Quote
But, I can always sign on as somebody else.

And that would be a sock puppet, which is a bannable offense.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: twik on January 25, 2013, 10:23:45 AM
In reference to the "50/50" - Apollo had failures. However, the "try, try again" principle means that ultimate success, building on those failures, is much more likely than 50/50.

It's not like the Apollo capsule fire or Apollo 13 were the end of the program. If one mission did not succeed, the following mission was developed by people who learned from those failures.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Chew on January 25, 2013, 10:29:15 AM
There are moon rocks on earth, especially in Antarctica (because they are easier to see.)

How do you know they came from the Moon if you don't have Moon rocks to compare them to?


Quote
  There are also martian rocks on earth.  Russia has moon rocks they brought back from unmanned missions

What evidence do you have that Russian unmanned missions returned lunar dust? Don't all governments lie? Why do you believe the Russian government when they tell you they came from the Moon?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 25, 2013, 12:12:03 PM
"Does the fact that your parents lied to you about Santa Claus when you were a kid mean that you can't believe anything they told you?"

My parents also lied to me about the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, and where babies come from.  I never believed them after that.

What a sad, pathetic thing to say.  If this really is the way you live in the world, I actually pity you.

Let me guess... you believe in the tooth fairy, don't you?  You are very gullible and very naive.  I pity you.  You are a sheep.  Yet, I must protect you from the New World Order.  I must force you sheeple to wake up.  It's for your own good.  Evil awaits you unless you follow me.

I believe the Master Plan has that scheduled for... let me see, I had it right here a minute ago...
Ah! Here it is!

"Any day now."



 
Quote
 
Quote
Look people, NASA goes to the president and says, if we try to go to the moon, the chances of success are 50/50.

That number comes from one offhand estimate from one person during Apollo 11, reported in retrospect.  It's not the product of computation or statistics.  No one really was able to determine the probability of success for Apollo 11, nor did it really matter because there was always another Apollo mission to try.

And, IIRC, that estimate was given in the context of something happening to prevent a successful landing and return of AS-11, not a disaster or failure of the whole program.  If, for example, Armstrong had not been able to find a flat spot he had only a few seconds remaining before they would have been forced to abort the landing and return to Columbia.  NASA would have made some adjustments and tried again with AS-12.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gillianren on January 25, 2013, 12:26:28 PM
. . . (and by the way, do you know what being hoisted by your own petard means?)

Yes.  First, the quote is "hoist with your own petar," not "hoisted by your own petard."  Second, it means "blown up by your own grenade."  You can't be left swinging from it after, because it's bits all over the landscape.  (Actually, it's also a pun on flatulence, hence "petar" and not "petard," but no one ever knows that, either!)  This is something that makes me twitch, and I'm afraid you've been caught in it.

Actually, though, I have no disagreement with any of the science anyone has posted thus far.  It's just that we've finally hit one of my fields of expertise, and I couldn't leave the error alone!
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 25, 2013, 12:58:27 PM
If I had a PhD in Aeronautical Engineering from MIT, it wouldn't make me right or wrong.

It would make your argument more credible if you chose to base it, as you have, on your claims to expertise.  If you are going to claim that your expert knowledge tells you Apollo can't possibly have happened as advertised, you will have to qualify yourself as that expert.  You have made exactly that claim, and while you have attempted to qualify as an expert, you have spectacularly failed.

If your claim were made purely on the basis of lay observation, your expertise and knowledge would be irrelevant.  But you have not made such a claim.  Nor would such a claim be very relevant to the question of Apollo's authenticity.  As long as the claim is, and must be, whether Apollo was a credible engineering project, expertise in engineering will be required.

Quote
The government lies all the time.  NASA is the government.  Why do people believe them?  The moon landing is a belief system.  It's a religion.

No, that argument is based on pure fantasy.

Let's first examine the vast majority of people in the middle of the demographic, those who don't have any special knowledge of science or engineering or space travel.  While many of them believe in the Moon landings, a number of them believe it was hoaxed.  In neither case is that belief especially informed.  It is propositional belief, as you outline.  It may be akin to religion in the sense that one simply believes what one is told, but that two-edged sword cuts both ways.

Now let's consider those who are appropriately schooled in the relevant sciences and who may additionally or alternatively have considerable professional expertise.  We raise the notion of schooling because it is adjudicated training -- we can measure how well someone achieves it.  We raise the notion of professional experience because it is the school of hard knocks and provides equal measure of success.  In either case, there are consequences for being wrong, where "wrong" is defined as misunderstanding or mistaking the laws of the universe and the machines and techniques we use to employ those laws for our benefit.  We find that among these people there is no question that the Moon landings were genuine.  These are the well-informed people, not the unwashed masses.  Their belief is not propositional.  It is not religious.  It is born of hard-won knowledge and experience.  They are not fooled.  They believe Apollo was real because they observe its fundamental principles at work every day and employ them in ways that would fail to their detriment of those observations were wrong.

Now let's look at the other dimension -- belief, versus knowledge -- and see where that envelope lies.  Among those who believe Apollo was fake we find almost no one who can discuss how it worked or was purported to work with any degree of comprehension.  We find people whose grasp of the historical record is so faulty as to make egregious errors such as "Buzz Armstrong."  While many of these profess to be highly competent engineers, scientists, technicians, or otherwise, we find them almost completely unable (and subsequently unwilling) to demonstrate that competence.  It is clear they've spent most of their time debating with people in that middle ground above, who have little prior knowledge of the subject.  Easy pickings, in other words.

And curiously, proponents of Apollo hoax theories very often disintegrate in a poof of socio-political flame, as you have done.  Their pretense to it being a rational argument with scientific and engineering support eventually gives way every time, and they reveal the true nature of their beliefs.  These non-technical hoax believers, at the deepest level, simply want to pummel someone for their alleged folly and thereby set themselves up in contrast as deep thinkers.  That's the neurological payoff.  They want to believe they alone have discovered something secret and dastardly, and everyone else is just sheeple for believing otherwise.  The thrill of rebellion is what you crave.

Now with that categorical analysis behind us we can examine your characterization of historical belief.  You desperately want to believe that only the middle group exists.  They are the ones you seek out because they are the most easily swayed by your arguments.  And converting them to your beliefs gives you the emotional and intellectual payoff.  You are unable to cope with people who can rationally dispute your claims.  You desperately want to lump us in with the ignorant masses from which you draw your supportive audience.  But we aren't part of that group.

Now if you remain true to form, you'll realize that we can outsmart you, and you'll realize we aren't the uninformed masses.  So in the typical model you'll now reformulate us as disinformationists or government shills.  You'll acknowledge that we are able to rebut your claims, at least on the superficial level.  But you'll maintain that your understanding is still superior and that we've just muddied the otherwise clear waters with meaningless sophistry.  And you'll say that we're ideologically motivated to conceal the truth with technobabble.  You'll desperately try to shift the argument from who knows more to who is more trusthworthy.

Quote
I can't prove Jesus didn't come to America, but millions of Mormons believe it.  I could show them all kinds of equations, and it wouldn't change their minds.

Apples and oranges.  Equations are not appropriate to what is inherently a religious (and only marginally historical) question.  And a lot of people spend time showing Mormons that their historical claims are without merit.  Whether their religious claims have merit is not even a critical-thinking issue.  And worldwide, few people adhere to Mormonism's claims.

The Mormon claim is that the resurrected Jesus came to America, which is inherently a religious claim.  It presupposes the existence of Jesus, his supernatural nature, and the reality of corporeal resurrection.  Science (and this forum) cares not one whit for it.  But it is relevant in that Mormons don't believe this based on a persuasive historical or technical claim.  While a few Mormons argue there is historical confirmation for some of the relevant claims about their religion, few Mormons cite that as the reason for their faith.  They read a book they're told is holy, and accept its claims entirely on faith.  Many of their critics argue from within the context of religious propositions.  While they do so critically, the axioms attendant to that debate don't fit here.  Their other critics argue the historical claims, and do so from a position of scientific understanding and historical and archaeological scholarship, which is somewhat relevant.

It's relevant because your analogy tells a story completely opposite from what you probably intended.  You compare belief in Apollo to Mormon belief in Jesus and America, but in no way are they similar.  Mormons admit their beliefs are largely religious and unprovable, but we assert strongly that belief in Apollo is strictly an historical and technical determination.  You want desperately to paste propositional or superficial overtones onto it, but under no circumstances is anyone here claiming you must believe Apollo as a propositional statement.  No one here takes Apollo on faith and no one is asking you to.

But just as Mormons, faced with the historical inevitability that their beliefs have little merit outside their church, resort to propositional and ideological promotions to distract from their pseudo-intellectual failure, so have you resorted to ideological handwaving.  In the face of a debate ostensibly on the basis of science, technology, and secular knowledge, you are the one to "break" and dive into belief per se.  Your approach is exactly the "who you gonna believe, me or them?" claim.  Sound familiar?  Aren't you just asking to be taken on faith?

And just as Mormons, along with many other religions, decry the devil and urge us to be righteous in the face of it, you identify your own "devil" to scare people into believing you.  Oh yes, you're very much creating the "devil" of government oppression and malfeasance, and you style yourself as one of the prophets of the "free thinkers" religion.  You're the one who abandoned a debate over observable facts, not we.  You are the one unable to fathom that, aside from any "government" statement, the historical and technical record unequivocally speaks in favor of Apollo and that there exist very many people whose belief in Apollo exists only as a product of reason and not as an expression of faith.  Conversely there exists no hoax believer yet whose belief against Apollo stands on the basis of supportable historical or technical fact, and does not ultimately base itself upon an expression of faith, to wit:  "I have faith that nothing said by the government can be true."  You want to think that anyone who believes something that also happens to be the position of some government must believe only because the government says so.  You are unable to cope with any other reason for belief.  It simply does not exist in your limited view of the world.

Quote
Governments lie, and history is on my side in that regard.

History tells us that governments sometimes lie and sometimes tell the truth.  History also tells us that this is not a property limited to government, but is a property of all humans.  You want to take the world to task for your straw man, specifically that anyone who presumptively believes the government tells the truth is necessarily deluded, and that anyone who can't admit to being deluded is closed-minded.  What you fail to realize is that it's just as delusional and potentially closed-minded to presume the government always lies.  Any such categorical presumption, toward either end, in the face of evidence to the contrary, is necessarily irrational.  In your hurry to pretend to call out everyone for their irrational error, you have simply committed the converse error.

Except in our case it's not what we really believe.  It's the motivation you desperately try to paste onto us.  The error is only your presumption; we hold no such presumption.

Where history ultimately shows that truth or falsehood may prevail and that presumption is unreliable, the only rational approach then is to examine each question in isolation.  Presuming that someone tells the truth may lead to us trusting him hazardously.  Presuming that someone tells a lie may lead to us dismissing him hazardously.  Presumption is thus set aside; we can determine whether someone is telling the truth or lying only by examining the facts pertaining to that question -- and only those.  To attempt conviction or exoneration based on past questions is to fall into the presumptive trap again.  Hence to decide the question of Apollo we examine Apollo alone.  And in doing so, by critical thinking, we find that the evidence overwhelmingly paints the scientists, engineers, and technicians who accomplished Apollo as those most grounded in fact and reason, and the uninformed ideologically-minded conspiracy theorists have no such grounding in fact.  While we acknowledge that humans, including governors, may have lied in the past and may yet lie in the future, we find that the facts show they did not lie about Apollo.

Where Apollo his concerned, history is most certainly not on your side.  Don't pretend it is.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Mag40 on January 25, 2013, 02:14:21 PM
Okay.....so why would they fake it? To be first of course. Even if there were a 100% chance of achieving this....which in itself is a pretty absurd statement, why in heaven's name would they carry on with more missions afterwards?

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 25, 2013, 02:19:06 PM
Not only that, why would they fake a failure? (Apollo 13)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: smartcooky on January 25, 2013, 02:48:37 PM
Well, if I were Mr. President, I would respond, "But faking it means that we will also have to create a  perfect hoax. How are we going to create hours of video footage of a wide area with low gravity and no atmosphere? How are we going to ensure that no one notices from radio transmissions that things are not what they seem? How will we prevent other countries from finding out after the fact, and leaving us with egg on our faces? Our chances of success are NOT 100% with a hoax, they're much less than 50/50. So, let's go with the real deal. It'll be cheaper and easier."

Your problem, alexsanchez, is that you assume that creating the hoax is easy. It's not. It would be more difficult, in fact, to fake the landings than to actually do them.


How are we going to create hours of video footage of a wide area with low gravity and no atmosphere?
More to the point, how are we going to create over two hours of CONTINUOUS, uninterrupted video like you have described, that is shown LIVE, as it happened, to hundreds of millions of people all over the world, a number of whom will be engineers and scientists and movie special effects people, who would spot the fakes immediately.

Our chances of success are NOT 100% with a hoax, they're much less than 50/50.
would be more difficult, in fact, to fake the landings than to actually do them.
The chances of success are not even 50/50 they are 0/100. There is no chance of success at all. It is simply impossible to do something requiring technology that does not yet exist. In 1969, the video technology was so crude that pulling off an effective fake of the lunar landings simply would not be possible. You only have to look at a movie like Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. It was the absolute state of the art in 1968 for visual special effects , and at the time, the space and Lunar scenes all looked very good, and believable.

But as video technologies advance, and we get to see the space scenes in contemporary movies like "Prometheus", we can look back at "2001: A Space Odyssey" and easily see that they were fakes; obvious fakes at that.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Bob B. on January 25, 2013, 03:37:45 PM
Look people, NASA goes to the president and says, if we try to go to the moon, the chances of success are 50/50.  If we fake it, the chances of success are 100% and nobody will ever suspect us.  What do you want to do Mr. President?

If I were President and these were the options given to me, I'd tell the person suggesting that we fake it to clear out his desk and never come back.  The goal is to be first in space, not to pretend to be.  If 50/50 is the best odds they can give me, then I tell them to bust their butts to increase those odds.  And if in the end we fail, we can at least hold our heads high for having tried our best.  There is no shame in making an honest effort and coming up short.  Faking it is for wimps and cowards.

Alex, perhaps the reason you find it so easy to believe NASA are liars and cheats is because those traits come so naturally to you.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on January 25, 2013, 03:45:36 PM
I had similar thoughts as well with regard to the alleged need for 2 metres of lead shielding. If that was what was required, why not use that much?
Orion could have easily handled such a payload if necessary.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on January 25, 2013, 04:20:47 PM
Look people, NASA goes to the president and says, if we try to go to the moon, the chances of success are 50/50.  If we fake it, the chances of success are 100% and nobody will ever suspect us.  What do you want to do Mr. President?

If I were President and these were the options given to me, I'd tell the person suggesting that we fake it to clear out his desk and never come back.  The goal is to be first in space, not to pretend to be.  If 50/50 is the best odds they can give me, then I tell them to bust their butts to increase those odds.  And if in the end we fail, we can at least hold our heads high for having tried our best.  There is no shame in making an honest effort and coming up short.  Faking it is for wimps and cowards.

Alex, perhaps the reason you find it so easy to believe NASA are liars and cheats is because those traits come so naturally to you.

Yah.

Considering the twin goals of Apollo were, more-or-less;

1) To show up the Soviets before the rest of the world.  Not a hollow boasting victory; at the time, there was much concern about dozens of tiny developing nations -- with exploitable resources -- that might chose to align with one or the other depending on how strong they looked on the world stage.

2) To jumpstart the American scientific and technical economy; to inspire a new generation of scientists and engineers, to rebuild faltering industries -- to step back into the forefront of science and technology of the world and rebuild the infrastructure educational and manufacturing.

(Which also maintains the technological edge of the military).

And it succeeded in both.

Neither of these goals work very well if you fake the program.  But both are still partially successful even if you blow it.

To detail -- if you are doing fake science and teaching fake science, you don't get a stronger industry, a more technologically advanced military, a technical infrastructure.  What you get by running a massive, massively compartmentalized lie would be, in fact, an increase in graft and incompetence.  And another failed generation in the school house.

If you are doing a fake program, you have to release fake results and you want to go into as little detail as possible.  You want details that sound technical but that's about it.  With a real program, those who pay attention across the world will be -- well, overwhelmed would be the way I'd be -- at the skill and attention to detail of the American space program (and by extension, those American scientists and engineers).
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: smartcooky on January 25, 2013, 06:40:52 PM
2) To jumpstart the American scientific and technical economy; to inspire a new generation of scientists and engineers, to rebuild faltering industries -- to step back into the forefront of science and technology of the world and rebuild the infrastructure educational and manufacturing.

(Which also maintains the technological edge of the military).

And it succeeded in both.

Another thing that young people forget (I'm 57 and most HB's are my children's generation or younger) is the times in which the Space Program and Apollo took place. Its easy to look back now at WW2 and decide that was a long, long time ago, but back on May 25, 1961, when JFK made his famous pledge "by the end of this decade, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth" , WW2 was not the distant memory it is now. It had been only 16 years earlier, and certainly, its effects on science, industry and the US economy were still being felt.

Apollo and the rest of the Space Program was just the kick that science and industry needed, and as you correctly imply, faking it would not have cut the mustard. You cannot get new technology and scientific advances from fakery
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ka9q on January 25, 2013, 06:50:46 PM
there was only a 3 in 4 chance any test pilot during that era would live to the end of his career.
Actually, every test pilot lived to the end of his career. It's just that some didn't live past it...

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on January 25, 2013, 06:59:22 PM
there was only a 3 in 4 chance any test pilot during that era would live to the end of his career.
Actually, every test pilot lived to the end of his career. It's just that some didn't live past it...
My appreciation for grim technicalities approves this.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 25, 2013, 07:12:30 PM
there was only a 3 in 4 chance any test pilot during that era would live to the end of his career.
Actually, every test pilot lived to the end of his career. It's just that some didn't live past it...

Not that I have a vote, but that seems like it deserves a T-shirt, if only for the sheer morbid humor of it.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: smartcooky on January 25, 2013, 07:14:05 PM
there was only a 3 in 4 chance any test pilot during that era would live to the end of his career.
Actually, every test pilot lived to the end of his career. It's just that some didn't live past it...


One of my favourite aviation sayings...

There are old pilots,
There are bold pilots,
There are no old, bold pilots!
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on January 25, 2013, 07:25:00 PM
The way I heard it first was about mushroom pickers.
The principle still applies.
EDIT: Hey, cool , 256 posts! I'm 8-bit! ;D
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: frenat on January 25, 2013, 08:13:56 PM
The way I heard it first was about mushroom pickers.
The principle still applies.
EDIT: Hey, cool , 256 posts! I'm 8-bit! ;D
Wouldn't that have been at 255 since you started at 0?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: cjameshuff on January 25, 2013, 08:43:37 PM
EDIT: Hey, cool , 256 posts! I'm 8-bit! ;D

Actually, you just overflowed an 8-bit counter, that being post 0x100.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on January 25, 2013, 08:45:55 PM
Dang, you are both right.
And now I just made it worse. :'(
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Abaddon on January 25, 2013, 08:57:38 PM
The way I heard it first was about mushroom pickers.
The principle still applies.
EDIT: Hey, cool , 256 posts! I'm 8-bit! ;D
Wouldn't that have been at 255 since you started at 0?
For that you must define the theoretical null poster.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Abaddon on January 25, 2013, 08:59:05 PM
Dang, you are both right.
And now I just made it worse. :'(
No they are both wrong as there does not exist anyones 0th post. LOL
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 25, 2013, 09:16:34 PM
No, that argument is based on pure fantasy.

- - snip for space - -



Well said.  But don't you get tired of repeating yourself?
* Previous line should be read with an admiring nod and a wry smile.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Abaddon on January 25, 2013, 09:48:05 PM
No, that argument is based on pure fantasy.

- - snip for space - -



Well said.  But don't you get tired of repeating yourself?
* Previous line should be read with an admiring nod and a wry smile.
Don't discourage him. I enjoy what he writes.

Back on topic, as an engineer, I can see myself saying:

"What? I'm wrong?, I made a mistake? Quick, show me where."
And I have.

I cannot imagine ever saying:

"No I cannot be wrong, therefore you must be wrong"

This alone puts our current protagonists claim to expertise in the trash.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: frenat on January 25, 2013, 10:35:22 PM
Dang, you are both right.
And now I just made it worse. :'(
No they are both wrong as there does not exist anyones 0th post. LOL
A 0th post does not exist but one can have 0 posts.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on January 26, 2013, 01:28:57 AM
No, that argument is based on pure fantasy.

- - snip for space - -



Well said.  But don't you get tired of repeating yourself?
* Previous line should be read with an admiring nod and a wry smile.
Don't discourage him. I enjoy what he writes.

Back on topic, as an engineer, I can see myself saying:

"What? I'm wrong?, I made a mistake? Quick, show me where."
And I have.

I cannot imagine ever saying:

"No I cannot be wrong, therefore you must be wrong"

This alone puts our current protagonists claim to expertise in the trash.

I feel the same way.  You can bluff your colleagues, and you can bluff management, but you can't bluff the universe.  If I made a mistake, I'd rather it was caught by something OTHER than the laws of physics.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Inanimate Carbon Rod on January 26, 2013, 07:00:01 AM
No, that argument is based on pure fantasy.

- - snip for space - -

Well said.  But don't you get tired of repeating yourself?
* Previous line should be read with an admiring nod and a wry smile.


I expect Jay has a bazillion text files of rebuffs, facts and statistics meticulously indexed to call up when required.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 26, 2013, 10:31:32 AM
No, that argument is based on pure fantasy.

- - snip for space - -

Well said.  But don't you get tired of repeating yourself?
* Previous line should be read with an admiring nod and a wry smile.
Don't discourage him. I enjoy what he writes.

Heaven forbid. That's why I put the stage direction in... it wasn't intended as discouraging, just admiration at Jay's dedication to addressing issues in his extraordinarily understandable way.  Even though it falls on deaf ears (as far as his primary target is concerned) the rest of us benefit.


Quote
Quote
Back on topic, as an engineer, I can see myself saying:

"What? I'm wrong?, I made a mistake? Quick, show me where."
And I have.

I cannot imagine ever saying:

"No I cannot be wrong, therefore you must be wrong"

This alone puts our current protagonists claim to expertise in the trash.


ITA. Someone here has a sig with an Asimov quote, something about the best results from an experiment coming when the scientist says "That's funny...".  Results that differ from our expectations are almost always the beginning of a new understanding.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Andromeda on January 26, 2013, 10:43:21 AM
ITA. Someone here has a sig with an Asimov quote, something about the best results from an experiment coming when the scientist says "That's funny...".  Results that differ from our expectations are almost always the beginning of a new understanding.

Me.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 26, 2013, 11:40:18 AM
I expect Jay has a bazillion text files of rebuffs, facts and statistics meticulously indexed to call up when required.

Well aside from www.clavius.org, no.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Bob B. on January 26, 2013, 02:01:46 PM
Yes, genius, I have another stupid argument for you.  6 times they found nothing interesting?  But they kept going back to the lunar equator?  Now that's stupid.  Why didn't they go to the north pole?  They would have found tons of water and people would have been thrilled to death.  But, no... all they did was bring back moon rocks, and more moon rocks.  They might have found some kind of life in that water. But noooo... lets go to the equator again, and, duhhhh... we'll bring back some more moon rocks.

First, saying “they found nothing interesting” is an incredibly ignorant statement.  Saying that to a lunar geologist is like telling a marine biologist that there’s nothing of interest in the Oceans.  The statement is so ignorant, in fact, that I have to believe you’re just trolling.

Second, the lunar poles didn’t hold the interest in 1969 that they do today.  The idea that large amounts of water could be found in the permanently shadowed craters near poles didn’t develop until the 1990s.

Third, an engineer would recognize that not all parts of the Moon are equal in regard to what it takes to reach them.  Some parts of the Moon require more delta-v to reach than other parts.  Consequently, some parts of the Moon were out of reach of Apollo.

Furthermore, all the Apollo mission where initially launched on free return trajectories.  A free return trajectory greatly limits the areas of the Moon that can be reached to those in the equatorial zone.  Starting with Apollo 12 the missions began to use hybrid trajectories, which started out as free return trajectories but deviated from this after a mid-course correction.  This expanded the area of available landing sites but, since they stated out on as a free return, they were still limited to a low inclination band relatively close to the lunar equator.  This was a trade-off for having the safety factor of an initial free return.  However, with only five landings made, there were plenty of interesting and diverse sites available in the near side equatorial region that there was no need to consider high latitude landing sites.

Finally, consider that as the LM is on the surface of the Moon, the Moon is rotating.  This causes the landing site to move in relation to the orbital plane of the CSM.  Before the LM can launch and perform a rendezvous, the CSM must perform a plane change to bring the landing site back into the plane of the orbit.  If the CSM is in a low inclination orbit with the landing site near the equator, the movement of the landing site is mostly within the plane of the orbit, with only a small amount of movement outside (perpendicular to) the plane of the orbit.  This means that the CSM has to make only a  small plane change.  On the other hand, if the CSM is in a high inclination orbit with the landing site near a pole, as the Moon rotates the landing site moves mostly out of the plane of the orbit.  This means that after several days on the Moon, the CSM must perform a very large plane change to bring the landing site back into the orbital plane.  Anyone familiar with orbital mechanics knows that large plane changes are very costly in terms of delta-v, hence propellant.  The Apollo CSM simply didn’t have the capacity to perform such a maneuver.

In summary, Apollo was limited by the amount of propellant it could carry to landing sites in the equatorial region.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 26, 2013, 03:06:25 PM
If we fake it, the chances of success are 100% and nobody will ever suspect us.  What do you want to do Mr. President?

If someone had told the me, as the President, that faking the Moon missions would be 100% guaranteed to succeed and that no one would ever suspect us I would laugh in their face and then fire them for suggesting that we commit such a massive fraud.

Faking the Moon missions would be guaranteed to fail. How would you know (in 1969) that the Russians weren't going try to land right next to the spots that NASA claimed Apollo landed at? How do you stop people from photographing the landing sites basically for the rest of time? What's the point of faking it if some guy like Elon Musk is might start his own private space program someday? How do you guarantee that the hoax won't be exposed by a NASA employee with a guilty conscience?

The only thing more ridiculous than the hoax theory is the fact that you actually think it was 100% guaranteed to succeed. It shows that you haven't really thought it through properly.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: smartcooky on January 26, 2013, 03:13:46 PM
Furthermore, all the Apollo mission where initially launched on free return trajectories.

Someone who is more up with orbital mechanics may be able to correct me if I'm wrong, but AIUI, this was a very big factor in saving the crew of Apollo XIII. Had the trajectory not started out as a free return, it might have been much more difficult, if not impossible to have got them back.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Mag40 on January 26, 2013, 03:32:19 PM
Finally, consider that as the LM is on the surface of the Moon, the Moon is rotating.  This causes the landing site to move in relation to the orbital plane of the CSM.  Before the LM can launch and perform a rendezvous, the CSM must perform a plane change to bring the landing site back into the plane of the orbit.  If the CSM is in a low inclination orbit with the landing site near the equator, the movement of the landing site is mostly within the plane of the orbit, with only a small amount of movement outside (perpendicular to) the plane of the orbit.  This means that the CSM has to make only a  small plane change.  On the other hand, if the CSM is in a high inclination orbit with the landing site near a pole, as the Moon rotates the landing site moves mostly out of the plane of the orbit.  This means that after several days on the Moon, the CSM must perform a very large plane change to bring the landing site back into the orbital plane.  Anyone familiar with orbital mechanics knows that large plane changes are very costly in terms of delta-v, hence propellant.  The Apollo CSM simply didn’t have the capacity to perform such a maneuver.

In summary, Apollo was limited by the amount of propellant it could carry to landing sites in the equatorial region.

That answers the question I asked in this thread many thanks!

http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=345.0
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 27, 2013, 04:13:34 PM
My boss at McDonnell Douglas was Henry Dhuyvetter.  He was a really smart guy.  Best boss I ever had.  I found a patent by him for a redundant inertial measurement system.  I worked on DRIMS for a while (Delta Redundant Inertial Measurement System.)
http://www.google.com/patents/US4125017
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gillianren on January 27, 2013, 05:25:03 PM
Yes?  What did he think about Apollo?  Since he knew it really happened, and he was a really smart guy, how come you disagree with him?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 27, 2013, 05:32:23 PM
My boss at McDonnell Douglas was Henry Dhuyvetter.

And?

As we have already said, naming people you have supposedly worked with does not support your credentials as an engineer. We don't care who you worked for, we care about what you did.

But even if we suppose you are telling the truth, you now claim to have worked for or with people from three of the major contractors for the Apollo program. Do these people agree with your assertion that the engineering of Apollo was not up to the task of landing on the Moon and returning safely to Earth? And yes, that is what you are claiming.

If they do, why aren't they supporting you? If they don't, why do you disagree with these smart people?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 27, 2013, 06:52:14 PM
My boss at McDonnell Douglas was Henry Dhuyvetter.

And?

As we have already said, naming people you have supposedly worked with does not support your credentials as an engineer. We don't care who you worked for, we care about what you did.

But even if we suppose you are telling the truth, you now claim to have worked for or with people from three of the major contractors for the Apollo program. Do these people agree with your assertion that the engineering of Apollo was not up to the task of landing on the Moon and returning safely to Earth? And yes, that is what you are claiming.

If they do, why aren't they supporting you? If they don't, why do you disagree with these smart people?
In those days I didn't question the moon landings.  We didn't have the internet, for one thing.  I did however question how we took off from the moon knowing what went into putting a satellite in orbit from earth.  We were still using punched cards and magnetic core memory in 1980.  (I used to have a piece of core memory I ripped out of a smashed guidance computer that was sitting on a shelf.  It had been fished out of the ocean after a failed launch.  The computer was made by Delco in Goleta, Calif.)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 27, 2013, 07:03:13 PM
My boss at McDonnell Douglas was Henry Dhuyvetter.

And?

As we have already said, naming people you have supposedly worked with does not support your credentials as an engineer. We don't care who you worked for, we care about what you did.

But even if we suppose you are telling the truth, you now claim to have worked for or with people from three of the major contractors for the Apollo program. Do these people agree with your assertion that the engineering of Apollo was not up to the task of landing on the Moon and returning safely to Earth? And yes, that is what you are claiming.

If they do, why aren't they supporting you? If they don't, why do you disagree with these smart people?
If you didn't care, you wouldn't comment.  BTW, I have a patent on a software algorithm used by NASA.  I got a $2k bonus for it.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Laurel on January 27, 2013, 07:11:57 PM
What was about the internet that made you question that moon landings?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 27, 2013, 07:28:42 PM
What was about the internet that made you question that moon landings?
1)  Easy exchange of information and ideas.
2)  Youtube.
3)  Easy access to NASA video and photos.
4)  Sufficient computer power and available software for analysis.
http://goo.gl/nTFqN
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 27, 2013, 07:40:48 PM
My boss at McDonnell Douglas was Henry Dhuyvetter.

And?

As we have already said, naming people you have supposedly worked with does not support your credentials as an engineer. We don't care who you worked for, we care about what you did.

But even if we suppose...

Who's we?  Do you all live in the same house?  Do you all share the same brain?

It's easier to deceive a man than to convince him he's been deceived. - Mark Twain
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 27, 2013, 07:47:46 PM
Who's we?  Do you all live in the same house?  Do you all share the same brain?

Comments like that aren't going to get you taken off the moderation list any faster.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 27, 2013, 07:53:26 PM
What was about the internet that made you question that moon landings?
1)  Easy exchange of information and ideas.

Ease of access to information is great, for sure, but I would say the quality of information isn't necessarily better.

For instance...

Quote
2)  Youtube.

Youtube is the worse source of misinformation (at least in video form) about Apollo you'll find anywhere on the internet.

Quote
3)  Easy access to NASA video and photos.

Video and photos that clearly show the Apollo astronauts on the Moon.

Quote
4)  Sufficient computer power and available software for analysis.

http://goo.gl/nTFqN

Aulis? That's your source? lol
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 27, 2013, 08:01:03 PM
Who's we?  Do you all live in the same house?  Do you all share the same brain?

Comments like that aren't going to get you taken off the moderation list any faster.
Good!!!  You're the ones being denied alternative views.  What do you talk about when I'm not here?  How much you all have the exact same point of view? Sounds pretty boring.  Hey... who moved the LM in this picture?????
http://goo.gl/UPBJU
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: frenat on January 27, 2013, 08:04:07 PM

4)  Sufficient computer power and available software for analysis.
http://goo.gl/nTFqN

And what is that supposed to prove other than the late Jack White didn't understand perspective?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 27, 2013, 08:14:41 PM

4)  Sufficient computer power and available software for analysis.
http://goo.gl/nTFqN

And what is that supposed to prove other than the late Jack White didn't understand perspective?
Well, he knew a fake background when he saw one.  It's not perspective, it's parallax.  There's a clear and abrupt demarcation between the foreground and the background where there shouldn't be.

Between believing a thing and thinking you know is only a small step and quickly taken. - Mark Twain
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 27, 2013, 08:16:50 PM
Comments like that aren't going to get you taken off the moderation list any faster.
Good!!!  You're the ones being denied alternative views.  What do you talk about when I'm not here?

Reality.

Quote
How much you all have the exact same point of view?

That's the funny thing about "reality"... people tend to agree about it when they're rational. You don't see a lot of rational people disagreeing about what 2+2 equals, do you?

Quote
Sounds pretty boring.  Hey... who moved the LM in this picture?????
http://goo.gl/UPBJU

I recommend you read about "parallax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax)", Mr. Engineer.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 27, 2013, 08:18:21 PM

4)  Sufficient computer power and available software for analysis.
http://goo.gl/nTFqN

And what is that supposed to prove other than the late Jack White didn't understand perspective?
Well, he knew a fake background when he saw one.  It's not perspective, it's parallax.  There's a clear and abrupt demarcation between the foreground and the background where there shouldn't be.

Between believing a thing and thinking you know is only a small step and quickly taken. - Mark Twain

Why don't you show us the original source of the images or video that that animated GIF was made from. It might explain some things.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 27, 2013, 08:32:20 PM
Comments like that aren't going to get you taken off the moderation list any faster.
Good!!!  You're the ones being denied alternative views.  What do you talk about when I'm not here?

Reality.

Quote
How much you all have the exact same point of view?

That's the funny thing about "reality"... people tend to agree about it when they're rational. You don't see a lot of rational people disagreeing about what 2+2 equals, do you?

Quote
Sounds pretty boring.  Hey... who moved the LM in this picture?????
http://goo.gl/UPBJU

I recommend you read about "parallax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax)", Mr. Engineer.
Don't confuse reality with opinion.  There's a BIG difference.  And I suggest you read about perspective.  Duly noted that you avoided the question regarding who moved the LM.  In a real debate, you lost 1 point.  Better take another sip of your NASA cool-aide.  What flavor is that, btw?  Lemmie guess.. TANG?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 27, 2013, 08:48:02 PM

4)  Sufficient computer power and available software for analysis.
http://goo.gl/nTFqN

And what is that supposed to prove other than the late Jack White didn't understand perspective?
Well, he knew a fake background when he saw one.  It's not perspective, it's parallax.  There's a clear and abrupt demarcation between the foreground and the background where there shouldn't be.

Between believing a thing and thinking you know is only a small step and quickly taken. - Mark Twain

Why don't you show us the original source of the images or video that that animated GIF was made from. It might explain some things.
Excellent question!!! They are from the NASA website.  Sequential:  AS15-86-11601 and AS15-86-11602.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-86-11601HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-86-11602HR.jpg

Analysis done by OLEG OLEYNIK, Ph.D, Department of Physics and Technology, Kharkov State University, Ukraine
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 27, 2013, 08:59:19 PM
BTW, I have a patent on a software algorithm used by NASA.  I got a $2k bonus for it.

False.  Yes, there is a software algorithm patented under the name "Alex Sanchez" (the only such patent in the U.S. Patent Database as inventor or assignee), and it has nothing to do with engineering or space flight.  Nor does it require any engineering knowledge, simple I/O programming.

http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/7467065.html
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 27, 2013, 09:04:24 PM
Don't confuse reality with opinion.

Don't confuse intuition with knowledge.

Quote
And I suggest you read about perspective.

Well, let me see.  Since it's my profession, I know a lot about it.  And my personal skill at and knowledge of photographic interpretation and analysis has been published in Science.  You may have heard about it; it's only the most prestigious professional scientific journal in the English language.

Where did you receive your training?  Do you just realize that you demonstrated total ignorance of one of the most basic principles in the projective transformation?

Quote
Duly noted that you avoided the question regarding who moved the LM.

Begging the question.

Quote
Better take another sip of your NASA cool-aide.  What flavor is that, btw?  Lemmie guess.. TANG?

This is why you get banned.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 27, 2013, 09:08:26 PM
BTW, I have a patent on a software algorithm used by NASA.  I got a $2k bonus for it.

False.  Yes, there is a software algorithm patented under the name "Alex Sanchez" (the only such patent in the U.S. Patent Database as inventor or assignee), and it has nothing to do with engineering or space flight.  Nor does it require any engineering knowledge, simple I/O programming.

http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/7467065.html
Who said I'm using my real name?  Alex Sanchez is my nom de guerre.  My real name comes up on patentgenius.  If I google Jay Utah will I find you?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: cjameshuff on January 27, 2013, 09:10:41 PM
False.  Yes, there is a software algorithm patented under the name "Alex Sanchez" (the only such patent in the U.S. Patent Database as inventor or assignee), and it has nothing to do with engineering or space flight.  Nor does it require any engineering knowledge, simple I/O programming.

From a brief glance over http://www.google.com/patents?id=IzGxAAAAEBAJ, it's not actually a software patent, it's a simple interface converter with some storage functionality added in. But yeah, the software involved would be pretty trivial, and not likely to involve any novel algorithms.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 27, 2013, 09:14:10 PM
From a brief glance over http://www.google.com/patents?id=IzGxAAAAEBAJ, it's not actually a software patent, it's a simple interface converter with some storage functionality added in. But yeah, the software involved would be pretty trivial, and not likely to involve any novel algorithms.

And the assignee is a home health care equipment company.  That means they paid for him to do the work, which gives us better insight into his real occupation.

See, those of us who really do work in aerospace realize that the huge spectrum of his claimed work in that industry is the best evidence that it's bogus.  It's like he write the proposal, drew up the plans, wrote the software, tested everything, designed and sewed the uniforms, and printed the glossy brochures.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 27, 2013, 09:18:09 PM
Analysis done by OLEG OLEYNIK, Ph.D, Department of Physics and Technology, Kharkov State University, Ukraine

There's no "analysis" to be had.  It's a simple layman's misunderstanding of parallax such as has been foisted off by conspiracy hacks for the past 10 years.  It's not only wrong, it's laughably wrong.  It's like telling us oil filters are made from cheese.  Pasting some unverifiable Russian guy's name on it does not correct the obvious error.

ETA:  By the way, we already discussed Oleynik's home-grown method on this site and pointed out its many fatal flaws.  Note that he is retired and has conducted this outside any sort of scientific process involving review and validation.  While he purports that this method can be used to determine real photos from fake, he does not demonstrate this ability in a fair test.  Finally, he applies his method only to Apollo photographs to make that determination; there is no scientific control.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 27, 2013, 09:18:30 PM
Duly noted that you avoided the question regarding who moved the LM.

Huh? I didn't think you we're actually serious. No one moved the LM, it was the astronauts that moved.

Let me ask you something, Alex. If NASA faked the moon landings on a film set why would a large prop like the LM ever be moved around between shots? Don't your think the crews would be aware of the continuity problems that would create? Seriously... Does that really seem like a more plausible explanation than parallax?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 27, 2013, 09:21:55 PM
Don't confuse reality with opinion.

Don't confuse intuition with knowledge.

Quote
And I suggest you read about perspective.

Well, let me see.  Since it's my profession, I know a lot about it.  And my personal skill at and knowledge of photographic interpretation and analysis has been published in Science.  You may have heard about it; it's only the most prestigious professional scientific journal in the English language.

Where did you receive your training?  Do you just realize that you demonstrated total ignorance of one of the most basic principles in the projective transformation?

Quote
Duly noted that you avoided the question regarding who moved the LM.

Begging the question.

Quote
Better take another sip of your NASA cool-aide.  What flavor is that, btw?  Lemmie guess.. TANG?

This is why you get banned.
Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.

I simply asked who moved the LM.  You said to look up parallax.  You avoided the question.  BTW, I worked at Boeing for 12 years doing image processing on such things as the U2 and other aerial photography.

Appeal to Belief is a fallacy that has this general pattern:
    1. Most people believe that a claim, X, is true.
    2. Therefore X is true.

Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform.  - Mark Twain
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 27, 2013, 09:32:30 PM
Duly noted that you avoided the question regarding who moved the LM.

Huh? I didn't think you we're actually serious. No one moved the LM, it was the astronauts that moved.

Let me ask you something, Alex. If NASA faked the moon landings on a film set why would a large prop like the LM ever be moved around between shots? Don't your think the crews would be aware of the continuity problems that would create? Seriously... Does that really seem like a more plausible explanation than parallax?
It sounds plausible, but not necessarily more plausible.  It's just as plausible that the people who shot the photos were not the same people that selected what got published.  After all, during a photo shoot, you move things around and pick out the best shots later.  What seems incontestable (to me) is that the camera is at the exact same vantage point by virtue of the background mountains, yet the LM is clearly in two different places. 
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Grashtel on January 27, 2013, 09:32:38 PM
Good!!!  You're the ones being denied alternative views.  What do you talk about when I'm not here?  How much you all have the exact same point of view? Sounds pretty boring.  Hey... who moved the LM in this picture?????
http://goo.gl/UPBJU
No one, its right where it should be, the astronaut has just moved a few hundred yards away from it.  The mountains are just much further away than they look due to there being no air to produce fuzzyness or vegetation to provide cues as to the scale making judging distances on the Moon very difficult compared to earth.  Try looking up maps of the landing sites to see just how far away features are before assuming that they are a faked backdrop.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 27, 2013, 09:35:27 PM
False.  Yes, there is a software algorithm patented under the name "Alex Sanchez" (the only such patent in the U.S. Patent Database as inventor or assignee), and it has nothing to do with engineering or space flight.  Nor does it require any engineering knowledge, simple I/O programming.

From a brief glance over http://www.google.com/patents?id=IzGxAAAAEBAJ, it's not actually a software patent, it's a simple interface converter with some storage functionality added in. But yeah, the software involved would be pretty trivial, and not likely to involve any novel algorithms.
That's not my patent.  My patent is assigned to ITT (itt.com)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 27, 2013, 09:35:37 PM
Don't confuse intuition with knowledge.

Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.

I simply asked who moved the LM.  You said to look up parallax.  You avoided the question. 

I expect a greater attention to detail from an engineer. You seem to be confusing JayUtah for me.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 27, 2013, 09:37:53 PM
I simply asked who moved the LM.

That begs the question that it was moved.

Quote
BTW, I worked at Boeing for 12 years doing image processing on such things as the U2 and other aerial photography.

Hogwash.  How many more of these patently untrue claims to expertise are you going to attempt.  You can't even demonstrate basic spatial reasoning.  Now you're trying to tell us you're one of America's top photo interpreters?  Do you really think people aren't seeing your obvious errors and untruths?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 27, 2013, 09:45:21 PM
That's not my patent.  My patent is assigned to ITT (itt.com)

That's the only patent under your name.  So give us the patent number of yours.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 27, 2013, 09:45:37 PM
Let me ask you something, Alex. If NASA faked the moon landings on a film set why would a large prop like the LM ever be moved around between shots? Don't your think the crews would be aware of the continuity problems that would create? Seriously... Does that really seem like a more plausible explanation than parallax?
It sounds plausible, but not necessarily more plausible.  It's just as plausible that the people who shot the photos were not the same people that selected what got published.  After all, during a photo shoot, you move things around and pick out the best shots later.

If you're photographing fashion models you might move set pieces around and pick the best shots later. If you're trying to fool the world into believing that you're on the moon you want to keep the set the same between shots to avoid continuity errors that will attract close attention.

Quote
What seems incontestable (to me) is that the camera is at the exact same vantage point by virtue of the background mountains, yet the LM is clearly in two different places. 

And that is parallax. The mountains are really big and far away, so they don't appear to move much. The LM is smaller and closer to the camera, so when the photographer moves the mountains look the same but the LM appears to be in a different location.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 27, 2013, 09:47:04 PM
Don't confuse intuition with knowledge.

Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.

I simply asked who moved the LM.  You said to look up parallax.  You avoided the question. 

I expect a greater attention to detail from an engineer. You seem to be confusing JayUtah for me.

Sorry.  I saw the name as quoted.  Your name is quoted above it.  Anyway, how many engineers do you know?  Your expectations are a little high.  So, if I google Lunar Orbit, will I find you?  (or whoever questioned my patent.)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 27, 2013, 09:51:39 PM
Sorry.  I saw the name as quoted.  Your name is quoted above it.  Anyway, how many engineers do you know?  Your expectations are a little high.

Jeeze, I hope not! If it's common for engineers to have such poor attention to detail then I don't really feel safe in the building I'm in right now.

Quote
So, if I google Lunar Orbit, will I find you?  (or whoever questioned my patent.)

I recommend going back a few posts and reading them again.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 27, 2013, 09:52:57 PM
Let me ask you something, Alex. If NASA faked the moon landings on a film set why would a large prop like the LM ever be moved around between shots? Don't your think the crews would be aware of the continuity problems that would create? Seriously... Does that really seem like a more plausible explanation than parallax?
It sounds plausible, but not necessarily more plausible.  It's just as plausible that the people who shot the photos were not the same people that selected what got published.  After all, during a photo shoot, you move things around and pick out the best shots later.

If you're photographing fashion models you might move set pieces around and pick the best shots later. If you're trying to fool the world into believing that you're on the moon you want to keep the set the same between shots to avoid continuity errors that will attract close attention.

Quote
What seems incontestable (to me) is that the camera is at the exact same vantage point by virtue of the background mountains, yet the LM is clearly in two different places. 

And that is parallax. The mountains are really big and far away, so they don't appear to move much. The LM is smaller and closer to the camera, so when the photographer moves the mountains look the same but the LM appears to be in a different location.
I'm not on my regular computer right now, but if I was, I'd overlay one on the other.  However, in the left foreground, there is what appears to be a big dark hole in the lunar surface, which makes it look as though the camera is in the same position in both frames.  This would mean it's not an issue of parallax.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Bob B. on January 27, 2013, 10:03:08 PM
What seems incontestable (to me) is that the camera is at the exact same vantage point by virtue of the background mountains, yet the LM is clearly in two different places.

You better look again, Alex, because there are clear signs of parallax in those photos.  Although subtle, these parallax changes indicate that the vantage point is most certainly not the same.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 27, 2013, 10:04:57 PM
However, in the left foreground, there is what appears to be a big dark hole in the lunar surface, which makes it look as though the camera is in the same position in both frames.  This would mean it's not an issue of parallax.

Parallax is exactly such a mismatch between foreground and background due to the displacement of the photographer.  You really don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 27, 2013, 10:05:56 PM
I'm the one who questioned your patent, since you seem to have great difficulty keeping up.

Please post the patent number.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 27, 2013, 10:14:06 PM
However, in the left foreground, there is what appears to be a big dark hole in the lunar surface, which makes it look as though the camera is in the same position in both frames.  This would mean it's not an issue of parallax.

Parallax is exactly such a mismatch between foreground and background due to the displacement of the photographer.  You really don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.
I know exactly what I'm talking about.  I'm saying the foreground and background are the same, therefore the camera hasn't moved.  I'm saying the LM has moved a large distance while the camera position is the same (or almost the same.)  The large dark hole in the left foreground, using parallax, indicates that the camera is pointed maybe half a degree off between the two.
http://aulis.com/imagesfurther%20/compositevalley.jpg

This picture shows a clear demarcation between foreground and background.
http://aulis.com/stereoparallax/appolo_15_S1.gif
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 27, 2013, 10:21:49 PM
I know exactly what I'm talking about.  I'm saying the foreground and background are the same, therefore the camera hasn't moved.

Nope.  Originally you said your reason for believing the camera had not moved was the identical backgrounds.  Now you're changing your story based on feedback you've received.

Quote
The large dark hole in the left foreground, using parallax, indicates that the camera is pointed maybe half a degree off between the two.

Parallax has nothing to do with camera orientation.  It is strictly a product of camera location.  If there was previously any doubt whether you understood parallax, your claim to determine "using parallax" a different in camera orientation removed it.  You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Yes, we know you're just cribbing all these claims from Aulis.  What you have to realize is that none of what appears on Aulis is taken seriously by the professional photographic analysis community, and that the Aulis authors have many times refused to face anyone in open debate over their findings.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 27, 2013, 10:25:11 PM
http://aulis.com/imagesfurther%20/compositevalley.jpg

Are you honestly trying to tell us that those obviously dissimilar craterlets are the same one?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 27, 2013, 10:30:23 PM
I know exactly what I'm talking about.  I'm saying the foreground and background are the same, therefore the camera hasn't moved.

Nope.  Originally you said your reason for believing the camera had not moved was the identical backgrounds.  Now you're changing your story based on feedback you've received.

Quote
The large dark hole in the left foreground, using parallax, indicates that the camera is pointed maybe half a degree off between the two.

Parallax has nothing to do with camera orientation.  It is strictly a product of camera location.  If there was previously any doubt whether you understood parallax, your claim to determine "using parallax" a different in camera orientation removed it.  You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Yes, we know you're just cribbing all these claims from Aulis.  What you have to realize is that none of what appears on Aulis is taken seriously by the professional photographic analysis community, and that the Aulis authors have many times refused to face anyone in open debate over their findings.
In this case the parallax effect can be ignored due to a negligible small angle in orientation.  I'm saying parallax does not apply to explain the photos.

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: frenat on January 27, 2013, 10:35:51 PM

4)  Sufficient computer power and available software for analysis.
http://goo.gl/nTFqN

And what is that supposed to prove other than the late Jack White didn't understand perspective?
Well, he knew a fake background when he saw one.  It's not perspective, it's parallax.  There's a clear and abrupt demarcation between the foreground and the background where there shouldn't be.

Between believing a thing and thinking you know is only a small step and quickly taken. - Mark Twain

A fake background that shows the amount of parallax one would expect from distant mountains?  Jack White knew nothing and neither do you.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: frenat on January 27, 2013, 10:37:38 PM
Comments like that aren't going to get you taken off the moderation list any faster.
Good!!!  You're the ones being denied alternative views.  What do you talk about when I'm not here?

Reality.

Quote
How much you all have the exact same point of view?

That's the funny thing about "reality"... people tend to agree about it when they're rational. You don't see a lot of rational people disagreeing about what 2+2 equals, do you?

Quote
Sounds pretty boring.  Hey... who moved the LM in this picture?????
http://goo.gl/UPBJU

I recommend you read about "parallax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax)", Mr. Engineer.
Don't confuse reality with opinion.  There's a BIG difference.  And I suggest you read about perspective.  Duly noted that you avoided the question regarding who moved the LM.  In a real debate, you lost 1 point.  Better take another sip of your NASA cool-aide.  What flavor is that, btw?  Lemmie guess.. TANG?

He didn't avoid the question.  The answer is parallax.  How sad for you that you have the spatial reasoning skills of Jack White.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on January 27, 2013, 10:38:52 PM
I know exactly what I'm talking about.  I'm saying the foreground and background are the same, therefore the camera hasn't moved.

Nope.  Originally you said your reason for believing the camera had not moved was the identical backgrounds.  Now you're changing your story based on feedback you've received.

Quote
The large dark hole in the left foreground, using parallax, indicates that the camera is pointed maybe half a degree off between the two.

Parallax has nothing to do with camera orientation.  It is strictly a product of camera location.  If there was previously any doubt whether you understood parallax, your claim to determine "using parallax" a different in camera orientation removed it.  You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Yes, we know you're just cribbing all these claims from Aulis.  What you have to realize is that none of what appears on Aulis is taken seriously by the professional photographic analysis community, and that the Aulis authors have many times refused to face anyone in open debate over their findings.
In this case the parallax effect can be ignored due to a negligible small angle in orientation.  I'm saying parallax does not apply to explain the photos.


Parallax is also the name of a breakout board for a popular series of microcomputer chips.  The possible definitions of a word are not at issue here: a concept often summed up by that word is.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: frenat on January 27, 2013, 10:41:04 PM
Duly noted that you avoided the question regarding who moved the LM.

Huh? I didn't think you we're actually serious. No one moved the LM, it was the astronauts that moved.

Let me ask you something, Alex. If NASA faked the moon landings on a film set why would a large prop like the LM ever be moved around between shots? Don't your think the crews would be aware of the continuity problems that would create? Seriously... Does that really seem like a more plausible explanation than parallax?
It sounds plausible, but not necessarily more plausible.  It's just as plausible that the people who shot the photos were not the same people that selected what got published.  After all, during a photo shoot, you move things around and pick out the best shots later.  What seems incontestable (to me) is that the camera is at the exact same vantage point by virtue of the background mountains, yet the LM is clearly in two different places.

Except for the fact that the background mountains differ in the two photos in a way consistent with parallax.  You fail yet again.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Bob B. on January 27, 2013, 10:41:11 PM
In this case the parallax effect can be ignored due to a negligible small angle in orientation.  I'm saying parallax does not apply to explain the photos.

Parallax most definitely applies because it is evident in the photos, indicating a significant change in camera location.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: frenat on January 27, 2013, 10:43:44 PM
However, in the left foreground, there is what appears to be a big dark hole in the lunar surface, which makes it look as though the camera is in the same position in both frames.  This would mean it's not an issue of parallax.

Parallax is exactly such a mismatch between foreground and background due to the displacement of the photographer.  You really don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.
I know exactly what I'm talking about.  I'm saying the foreground and background are the same, therefore the camera hasn't moved.  I'm saying the LM has moved a large distance while the camera position is the same (or almost the same.)  The large dark hole in the left foreground, using parallax, indicates that the camera is pointed maybe half a degree off between the two.
http://aulis.com/imagesfurther%20/compositevalley.jpg

This picture shows a clear demarcation between foreground and background.
http://aulis.com/stereoparallax/appolo_15_S1.gif

Those craters are NOT the same.  There's your lack of attention to detail failing you again.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gillianren on January 27, 2013, 10:54:39 PM
Seriously--why does anyone take Jack White seriously?  Do they know nothing about him?  (By the way, the answer to "how many engineers do you know?" is best answered with another question--do you mean just the ones here, or in general?)  His mistakes are so many and so laughable that it only took one question to discover that his entire testimony could be disregarded!
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on January 27, 2013, 10:57:51 PM
Yah.

When you don't even know the name of the field you are pretending to be an expert in...
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 27, 2013, 11:36:49 PM
I'm the one who questioned your patent, since you seem to have great difficulty keeping up.

Please post the patent number.
I don't want to post the patent number because my real name is on it, and I don't want people searching on it to end up on this forum where I'm just messing around on my off time.

Furthermore, regarding the AULIS photos, I can't defend them as I could my own work.  They look reasonable at a glance.  If I get a chance to do my own analysis, and they don't hold up, I'll say so.  I just tried downloading the GIMP editor to analyze the photos , but it hung up this macbook I'm using.  I expect some of the claims may very well not hold up.  If somebody can do an overlay of these two photos, (which normally I could do in 15 seconds, until my laptop got stolen out of my car) then that particular claim will certainly be shot down.  However, it only takes one bogus photo to be found to indicate fakery by NASA, although it wouldn't prove going to the moon or not. 
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: smartcooky on January 28, 2013, 12:43:59 AM
BTW, I worked at Boeing for 12 years doing image processing on such things as the U2 and other aerial photography.

Interesting that you claim to have worked at Boeing on the U2 programme, (which, BTW, was built by Lockheed Martin, not Boeing), while you also claim to have been working at NASA and the Air Force and at McDonnell-Douglas under Henry J. Dhuyvetter.

As the lies get bigger, so the hole gets deeper!

Clue:
Boeing didn't process the film from the U2, nor did they have anything whatever to do with the camera, the magazines or the film. The camera was developed by Spica Incorporated in co-operation with Eastman Kodak who were the creators of the Aero-Ektar lens.

The film processing job fell to the CIA, a job which they did at their film-developing and photo interpreting units scattered all around the world at bases where the U2 operated from, e.g. Adana in Turkey, Wiesbaden, Gutesloh and Giebelstadt in West Germany, Lakenheath AFB in England, Atsugi NAS in Japan, Lahore in Pakistan,  and of course in the USA at Eilsten AFB (Alaska), Laughlin AFB and Davis-Monthan AFB.

Are you going to now tell us all that you worked for the CIA too?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Not Myself on January 28, 2013, 01:18:33 AM
Well, he knew a fake background when he saw one.

Quite a lot of fake backgrounds around these days, you know.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ChrLz on January 28, 2013, 02:44:21 AM
Ahem, is 'Alex' going to be allowed a Gish Gallop....?  I'd like to make a suggestion to the entire group not to allow that, but I'll put it in the form of a CHALLENGE to Alex...  Not for a million Euro's or nuthin, just for .. credibility.

Alex, instead of shallowly jumping around from topic to topic, why don't you - just as a REAL engineer would - nominate the best, most absolutely convincing and compelling proof that you have.  That would be the..
..best evidenced one, in your opinion.
..best documented one, in your opinion (whether that be by NASA or by some denial website).
..the one that you feel most confident you can support with your particular skill set...

And then, be prepared to go through that single issue in a thorough, step by step, logical, cited and referenced fashion (just as an engineer .. or scientist - or indeed any competent investigator - would).  That process would of course include properly applicable formulas and mathematics as/when/if required.  Why even a bit of photogrammetry, if such was appropriate..  8)

Are you up for it, Alex?  Wouldn't it be good for you to show this forum and the world how you *really* knew your stuff to the level required, how you got it right, and how your knowledge is what you claim?

Or would you *rather* paddle around in the wading pool?

Now.. if it was up to me, I'd be delighted if your favourite was the 'moved LM' - my skills are very much in the fields of photography and things like perspective, parallax, lens characteristics, general optics.  I'd even happily make up some little models to show you how it all works!  But take my advice - if THAT is your best, you are out of your depth even in the wading pool, and it will be over faster than you can say 'focal length'.

So I'm quite happy if that is your chosen best evidence, but I'm not wasting my time starting to go through it just to watch you dance off and launch a whole pile of other topics, when it starts to become clear that your 'knowledge' isn't what was claimed.

So, Alex. Be brave and tell us.  WHAT IS YOUR FAVORITE EVIDENCE?  Nominate it NOW.  Don't dance around and say, f'rinstance, it's 'all the {alleged} photographic anomalies' - just pick the NUMBER ONE.

If you are not willing to do that, then I'm going to have to assume that the Moved LM is IT...
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: onebigmonkey on January 28, 2013, 02:57:54 AM
I'm not on my regular computer right now, but if I was, I'd overlay one on the other.  However, in the left foreground, there is what appears to be a big dark hole in the lunar surface, which makes it look as though the camera is in the same position in both frames.  This would mean it's not an issue of parallax.

Allow me:

Different crater

(http://imageshack.us/a/img402/1894/auliscrap2.jpg)

Different viewpoint (aligned on the hill under 'E', exactly the same size selection area).

(http://imageshack.us/a/img534/71/auliscrap1.jpg)

Next.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on January 28, 2013, 03:05:49 AM
Wow.

Those craters are exactly alike in that they are both....craters.

In every other detail, they are obviously distinctly unquestionably different.

If this guy were an EE, he'd be one that thought that "transistor" and "resistor" were identical and could be transposed in a circuit.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 28, 2013, 04:48:50 AM
Alexsanchez,

Can you stick to one point rather than a gish-gallop of stuff please?

Can you please reply to the points that I raised in this post?
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=348.msg10717#msg10717
Specifically
Please explain the difference in sample return quantities between the American and Russian Lunar missions,
Where and when were the alleged USA robotic sample return missions?
If the US samples where returned robotically, then why do you insist that  a Lunar ascent is impossible without accurate co-ords?
Why did the US have 380Kg of Lunar rocks if they were all sourced from the Polar regions? Why does other sovereign states that have polar territories not have similar amounts?
Please explain the difference between moon-derived meteorites and the Apollo samples.
Please detail your qualifications that allows you to comment on the study of Lunar rocks.

Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: smartcooky on January 28, 2013, 06:44:20 AM
Goodness, those facts can be pesky little things can't they.

No matter how much gish-gallopiing and handwaving HB's do, those annoying little facts just keep getting in the way.


....snip...

Alex, instead of shallowly jumping around from topic to topic, why don't you - just as a REAL engineer would - nominate the best, most absolutely convincing and compelling proof that you have.  That would be the..
..best evidenced one, in your opinion.
..best documented one, in your opinion (whether that be by NASA or by some denial website).
..the one that you feel most confident you can support with your particular skill set...

And then, be prepared to go through that single issue in a thorough, step by step, logical, cited and referenced fashion (just as an engineer .. or scientist - or indeed any competent investigator - would).  That process would of course include properly applicable formulas and mathematics as/when/if required.... snip...

Don't be silly....that would be like asking a twoofer to put together a logical, reasoned argument when most of them can barely even put a sentence together.

Quote
Why even a bit of photogrammetry, if such was appropriate..  8)

*** snicker ****
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 28, 2013, 06:48:08 AM

Different viewpoint (aligned on the hill under 'E', exactly the same size selection area).

(http://imageshack.us/a/img534/71/auliscrap1.jpg)

Next.


Yep. Such an embarrassingly poor hoax example.

Here's the same images, overlaid using the apex of the larger mountain.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/Gadfium/Forum%20Uploads/Overlay1_zps5b7d868c.jpg)

And another using the same reference point as you did (the hill under "E")
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/Gadfium/Forum%20Uploads/Overlay2_zps8d8e7d4a.jpg)

Its clear that the photographer has moved position.
 Whichever joker originally made this claim (was it Jack White??) clearly didn't make any effort to check his claim. Based on this, I'd be very leery of using his/her "evidence" again. Unreliable witness and all that.


I know exactly what I'm talking about.  I'm saying the foreground and background are the same, therefore the camera hasn't moved. 
No you don't

Furthermore, regarding the AULIS photos, I can't defend them as I could my own work.  They look reasonable at a glance. 

(bold emphasis mine)
Haven't you been told about doing your own research first? Or at least quoting from reputable sources?? Why put something up that you haven't checked? Or even done a modicum of testing on?
And they don't look reasonably "at a glance". Unless the glance you took was from a moving train and the pictures were on the platform. In the dark.


If I get a chance to do my own analysis, and they don't hold up, I'll say so.

OK, so now its been shown that the point that you were trying to draw is bogus. Please retract the claim.

If somebody can do an overlay of these two photos, (which normally I could do in 15 seconds, until my laptop got stolen out of my car) then that particular claim will certainly be shot down.  However, it only takes one bogus photo to be found to indicate fakery by NASA, although it wouldn't prove going to the moon or not.

So, at what point do you say that the landings happened as described? When, in your opinion, does the agreed evidence overtake the hoax claims? Or are you like the vast majority of conspiracy "theorists" that thinks that one "anomaly" overrules and outweighs tonnes of verified evidence?
Your point about "one bogus photo" also works the other way. If the clown that created the claim above can't do a modicum of checking, then any similar claim from this source should be viewed as also bogus, shouldn't it???
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Mag40 on January 28, 2013, 07:10:18 AM
Jack White and Aulis.......are what I would regard as very dishonest, with a view to making money out of very easily led people. I came across this video a short while back.....it shows the most 'famous' of their fraudulent claims -



In that video's description is this animated gif.....more blatant evidence of either inept photographic analysis....or lies.

(http://imageshack.us/a/img803/7154/parallax.gif)

My question to alexsanchez : What does this say about the scruples or expertise of the Aulis website?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ChrLz on January 28, 2013, 07:15:17 AM
I'm staggered.  This (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=348.msg10954#msg10954) has to be one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever seen - it must surely be a troll, but I'll give it the benefit of any doubt..  And yes, this post contains several insults, and I'll *happily* wear any penalty for same - my defence being that sometimes insults are simply accurate descriptions...

I don't want to post the patent number because my real name is on it..
Well then, effectively you don't have a patent, as far as this forum is concerned.  Don't claim it if you can't back it up.

Quote
and I don't want people searching on it to end up on this forum where I'm just messing around on my off time.
That's an extra hint to your trolling, is it?
But you're right - you would be insane to have your real name attached to the embarrassing gaffes you have posted so far (and that continue in this post).  No one with half a brain would employ you after reading the tripe you've posted here - even MacDonalds wants employees who have the ability to apply basic logic..

Quote
Furthermore, regarding the AULIS photos, I can't defend them as I could my own work.
Then WHY in the name of all that is even vaguely sensible, did you bring that excrement here?  That entire site is garbage, and even those with a cursory engineering background, let alone those with other specialist skills like photography (many of whom reside here) - can see that.  But not you...

Quote
They look reasonable at a glance.
How bloody ridiculous.  So you admit your research was 'a glance'?  Gee, it doesn't show at all {/sarcasm}

Quote
If I get a chance to do my own analysis
Golly, do you think maybe you should have done that BEFORE making these unbelievably ignorant proclamations?

Quote
.. and they don't hold up, I'll say so.
Well, you haven't said so, so far.  I guess we need to give you some latitude while your posts are checked by a grown up.. but frankly, if you don't get back soon and start saying so, I think it is safe to assume that you haven't got a single clue.

Quote
I just tried downloading the GIMP editor to analyze the photos
So, you've been researching this sort of stuff, but didn't have a basic image editor? It justs gets worse, if that's possible.  Learn as you go, huh?

Quote
but it hung up this macbook I'm using.
Oh, what a terrible shame.  It *is* so difficult to download and install software, isn't it.  perhaps you should seek some professional help from people who know what they are doing..  perhaps you could apply this principle to a wider extent, also..

Quote
I expect some of the claims may very well not hold up.
Well, that's the closest to being right you have managed..  Pretty much all of it doesn't hold up.  If you had any knowledge of photography and the basics of perspective, parallax and photogrammetry, you would have been able to spot that AT A GLANCE... (See what i did there?)

Quote
If somebody can do an overlay of these two photos
Many here can, including me..

Quote
(which normally I could do in 15 seconds, until my laptop got stolen out of my car)
Oh you poor darling.  There there, never mind.  Would you like some cheese to go with your whine?

Quote
then that particular claim will certainly be shot down.
Oh look - an escape clause!!  What a surprise - gee, who didn't see that bit of Gish Galloping coming...  Anyway, others seem to have already done some overlays for you - I'd prefer not to waste my time until you commit to your very best piece of 'evidence'.

All the rest of this ignorant ranting by you is just meaningless handwaving - and you have given away the game you are planning to play by showing right there how you want to wriggle out of this one before it's too late.. Thank heavens that laptop was stolen, right, Alex?  Have you got the dog ready for the next excuse?

Quote
it only takes one bogus photo to be found to indicate fakery by NASA
So WHICH ONE IS THAT BOGUS PHOTO, ALEX?
Surely you picked the smokin' gun BEFORE you came here so confidently?

Quote
although it wouldn't prove going to the moon or not.
The burden of proof is YOURS, Alex.  History records we went.  You say we didn't, so show the BEST EVIDENCE YOU HAVE.  Go on, be BRAVE - COMMIT.  Your game is up - no more changing the subject, no more stolen laptops, no more galloping, no more escape clauses for every claim so you can simply jump from one bit of stupidity to the next.

Just grow some cojones and SHOW YOUR BEST EVIDENCE.

Consider that a direct request - I would ask the moderator to hold you to the rules of discussion.   And Alex, if you feel that request is unfair, please, do tell us exactly why.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 28, 2013, 07:31:48 AM
I did however question how we took off from the moon knowing what went into putting a satellite in orbit from earth.  We were still using punched cards and magnetic core memory in 1980.

And is there some reason you think that punched cards and core memory were not up to the tasks they were applied to on Apollo?

If you are indeed a qualified aerospace engineer, then you are the first I have ever seen to espouse the limitations of 'old' technology as a reason a task like Apollo could not be done, rather than proudly say that what could be done with that 'primitive' computer tech was remarkable if it was properly programmed.

I await your engineering explanation for what was so much harder about a manned lunar trip compared to all the other uses that 'primitive' tech was applied to.

Quote
If you didn't care, you wouldn't comment.

False reasoning there. I don't care what people you work with did. I do care about what you did, and I do care that you are making claims that you are basing on your supposed expertise and using your 'colleagues' as proof of that expertise. I have worked with a number of people whose names you will find on a number of published scientific papers. That doesn't make me an expert in the field.

Quote
BTW, I have a patent on a software algorithm used by NASA.  I got a $2k bonus for it.

Good for you. How does that relate to your ability to judge the capabilities of 1960s space technology?

Quote
Who's we?  Do you all live in the same house?  Do you all share the same brain?

Why do you have to be so childish? 'We' are quite clearly the people on this forum.

Quote
Good!!!  You're the ones being denied alternative views.

We are being denied nothing by having you on moderation apart from your rudeness. I'm quite happy with that. Do you wish to claim that your posts are being altered or hidden? It seems that quite a lot of your views are getting through.

Quote
What do you talk about when I'm not here?

Why do you think we should all be hanging around here talking about things?

Quote
How much you all have the exact same point of view? Sounds pretty boring.

There is a general tendency to all have the same point of view when discussing matters of fact. We all also believe the sky is blue, that the Sun is bright and that the sea is wet. Boring it may be, but since it happens to be true, that's the way it goes. Do we assume that your only reason for believing Apollo was fake is just to have an alternative point of view?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 28, 2013, 08:04:38 AM
Don't confuse reality with opinion.  There's a BIG difference.

Don't confuse analysis of the Apollo record with matters of opinion. There's an even bigger difference.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 28, 2013, 08:09:38 AM
Who said I'm using my real name?  Alex Sanchez is my nom de guerre.

Quote
That's not my patent.  My patent is assigned to ITT (itt.com)

Quote
I don't want to post the patent number because my real name is on it, and I don't want people searching on it to end up on this forum where I'm just messing around on my off time.

You mean you don't want people to see what a rude and unpleasant person you can actually be?

Even assuming we accept that explanation (despite there being no obvious way one could track from a name on a patent to a pseudonym on an unrelated messageboard), I notice you have no qualms about such an issue with the real Alex Sanchez, who does have a patent and who now, according to your reasoning, may be traced back here where your posts will be associated with him. Interesting double standard.

Quote
Furthermore, regarding the AULIS photos, I can't defend them as I could my own work.

Then maybve you should have done some work on them before bringing them to the discussion.

Quote
However, it only takes one bogus photo to be found to indicate fakery by NASA, although it wouldn't prove going to the moon or not.

You already maintain they did not go to the moon, and you based that on the problem of lunar liftoff and rendezvous. Why don't you stick to defending that claim? Or are you unable to, so you just have to throw in some ill-thought examples from someone else's work?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: onebigmonkey on January 28, 2013, 08:13:54 AM

 Whichever joker originally made this claim (was it Jack White??) clearly didn't make any effort to check his claim. Based on this, I'd be very leery of using his/her "evidence" again. Unreliable witness and all that.


I would suggest they didn't care about whether it was an accurate claim, because they assume that their target audience is so gullible that they won't check either.

It's an even more laughable argument than the 'no stars' hogwash - easily disprovable unless you are absolutely determined not to want to try.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Andromeda on January 28, 2013, 08:21:50 AM

 Whichever joker originally made this claim (was it Jack White??) clearly didn't make any effort to check his claim. Based on this, I'd be very leery of using his/her "evidence" again. Unreliable witness and all that.


I would suggest they didn't care about whether it was an accurate claim, because they assume that their target audience is so gullible that they won't check either.

It's an even more laughable argument than the 'no stars' hogwash - easily disprovable unless you are absolutely determined not to want to try.

Unfortunately the most persistent HBs will then say "You've got an answer for everything, haven't you?!"

Well.... yes.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Abaddon on January 28, 2013, 08:26:37 AM
This is me: David Burke

This is my patent: PN 8,064,085

You can look it up.

What, alexsanchez, are you afraid of?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: sts60 on January 28, 2013, 08:58:27 AM
What was about the internet that made you question that moon landings?
1)  Easy exchange of information and ideas.
2)  Youtube.
3)  Easy access to NASA video and photos.
4)  Sufficient computer power and available software for analysis.
http://goo.gl/nTFqN
That's interesting.   Here's some of the reasons I think the Apollo landings actually happened.

1) Exchange of information and ideas with Apollo engineers (and direct evaluation of their competence and integrity) and other demonstrably informed engineers and laymen, including working with plenty of both NASA and USAF personnel and contractors from many aerospace companies.
2) Inspection of actual technical documents and looking at flight hardware rather than idiot YouTube videos.
3) Easy access to NASA video and photos - and direct access to NASA materials before there was an Internet.
4) Not thinking that having a computer and Photoshop or Gimp makes me a photo analyst. 
And to add a couple of more:
5) Considerable time spent at both KSC and CCAFS, as well as JSC, and direct inspection of Apollo-era facilities.
6) My own actual experience with spacecraft and ground systems, including civil, military, and commercial projects.

I'm still a little unclear on some claims you have made about your background.  For example, you said you worked space station guidance and control at MacDac in Huntington Beach, and appealed to that experience to endorse your claim that the LM guidance approach was insufficient.  What exactly did you do?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: onebigmonkey on January 28, 2013, 09:20:07 AM
Just for fun, here's a quick look at the LRO view of the area in the photos with the supposedly dodgy craters and backgrounds.

The piece of equipment being deployed is the SEP, which we can see is deployed at a crossroads of rover tracks.

There is a nice LRO image available at the ALSJ, and you can see it below rotated so that the LM is in the right place compared with the photograph.

Apart from the LM, which I've left off the cropped panorama to make it more manageable, I've suggested the locations of some of the craters visible. I think the one by the labelled SEP is pretty obvious, what about the others? I think the larger unlabelled crater to the right of the green arrow is peeping out behind the astronaut.

(http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/334/auliscrap3.jpg)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ineluki on January 28, 2013, 09:28:47 AM
I expect a greater attention to detail from an engineer. You seem to be confusing JayUtah for me.

Of course, a real engineer should also understand that
- Jack White is considered laughing stock  when it comes to photogrammetry and related issues, and citing him as an authority is quite silly
- claiming to be an engineer (in an attempt to appeal to authority*), while refusing to prove ones status as an engineer is also rather stupid

* not a very strong argument anyway, but to a layman like me, actually showing that one is not simply lying about one's credentials, would at least be a step in the right direction. 
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on January 28, 2013, 10:45:39 AM
The government lies all the time.  NASA is the government.

Is everything just black and white to you, Alex? Do you really believe that just because the government has lied about some things it means that everything they have ever said was a lie? Does the fact that your parents lied to you about Santa Claus when you were a kid mean that you can't believe anything they told you? Don't you see how ridiculous you're being?

Let me ask you something, Alex. Where were Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins on July 20th, 1969?

"Does the fact that your parents lied to you about Santa Claus when you were a kid mean that you can't believe anything they told you?"

My parents also lied to me about the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, and where babies come from.  I never believed them after that.

"Where were Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins on July 20th, 1969?"

I know where they weren't.

With Santa?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Bob B. on January 28, 2013, 11:04:13 AM
My parents also lied to me about the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, and where babies come from.  I never believed them after that.

What did you do when mom told you dinner was ready?  Go hungry?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on January 28, 2013, 11:23:40 AM
My parents also lied to me about the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, and where babies come from.  I never believed them after that.

What did you do when mom told you dinner was ready?  Go hungry?
Just like he put on his wellies and mackintosh when told it was sunny, I shouldn't wonder. ::)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 28, 2013, 11:55:13 AM
I don't want to post the patent number because...

...because there is no patent.

How long are you going to keep vaunting an undeserved reputation with non-existent evidence and unverifiable claims before you wise up to the fact that no one here believes you?  And no one believes you anywhere else you've tried this same stunt.  Do you honestly think you're the first person to try to pretend to be a space expert who ends up just frantically Googling hoax web sites?

You want to enjoy the benefits of expertise without submitting to the process by which it is established and verified.  Sorry, but that's just not going to happen.

Quote
...my real name is on it

Yeah, that's how we know who it belongs to.  No one asked you to claim you had a patent.  If you are claiming it's yours and you want us to accept that as proof that you are the expert you claim to be, then that's what has to happen.  So when I call up all these companies and ask for "Alex Sanchez" I'll just be wasting my time?  Your alleged mentor with the guidance patent retired 13 years ago, so I cannot contact him to confirm that you worked for him.  And since you won't give us your real name, I can't do an ordinary employment verification on you with any of the companies.

Keep in mind that when you show up telling a far different story than the industry patently believes, and when challenged you tell us that your view is the correct one because of your considerable industry expertise, then you have set yourself up to be required to substantiate that expertise.  Otherwise the parsimonious response is to dismiss your outlying opinion.

Once again you're the one asking to be taken on faith.  Your claims to a career in aerospace are not credible, and you are exceptionally evasive about them.  I have no choice but to conclude they are deliberate lies.

Quote
...I don't want people searching on it to end up on this forum where I'm just messing around on my off time.

So your professional reputation was at first allegedly strong enough for you to stake your hoax claims on it.  But now you don't want it tainted, when you're called upon actually to substantiate it.  Your sniveling approach to qualifying yourself as an expert has had quite distinctly the opposite effect.  You should have quit when it was obvious no one was about to believe you were an engineer.  You're the one who lately upped the stakes by claiming patents.  Why do you keep trying things you know won't work?

You came here voluntarily claiming to be an expert.  On the basis of that alleged expertise you told everyone else here they were wrong and told us we were all religiously-minded sheep for not accepting your allegedly superior opinion.  You seemed pretty anxious to participate in the forum under that auspice.  Now that your claim to expertise is not the least credible and it's clear you're just cribbing hoax sites to try to look smart, the forum seems less important to you.  Why did it suddenly get less exciting to you as you had to start backpedaling?

Quote
Furthermore, regarding the AULIS photos, I can't defend them as I could my own work.

Then don't use them.  No one is forcing you to.  Did you research any of the characters you are trying to pass off here as authorities?  Jack White is a laughingstock.  Professional photographers and photo analysts don't consider him part of the field.  They recognize that he has practically no skill, no understanding, no training, and far less spatial reasoning skill than the ordinary layman.  Hitch your wagon to his star, if you want, but he'll be carrying you down the primrose path.

Quote
They look reasonable at a glance.

That's because they're meant to fool gullible laymen like you.

Quote
If I get a chance to do my own analysis, and they don't hold up, I'll say so.

Nonsense.  First, your trustworthiness is absolutely zero here.

Second, you can't demonstrate an understanding of even the most basic concepts of photogrammetric rectification or even basic observational skills.  What makes you think anyone here suddenly now believes you have the skill, training, and experience to determine the authenticity of photographs?  Do you really think you can be that dumb about the subject mere hours ago, then tell us you're going to do a valid investigation?

Quote
I just tried downloading the GIMP editor to analyze the photos...

That's like telling us you've purchased a chisel off eBay and are now asking us to accept you as a world-class sculptor.  Yes, by all means use the GIMP to explore photography.  But keep in mind that I studied and taught the relevant subjects at the university where its creators were schooled, under Dr. Richard Riesenfeld and others.  Don't even remotely think that this is just another avenue for you to bluff and bluster and not get caught.  Keep in mind that image analysis is not just mindlessly wiggling sliders and saying, "Aha!  Got ya!"  I will hold your feet to the fire and keep them there.

Also there are a number of professional photographers and professional lighting designers here.  You've already met some of them.  The lesson you should learn from this post is that if you pretend in the least to have expertise you don't have, you will be caught.  If you bluff in the least, it will be obvious.  You are not dealing with amateurs here, and I guarantee you we've heard every handwaving claim about photos that there ever has been.

Quote
However, it only takes one bogus photo to be found to indicate fakery by NASA, although it wouldn't prove going to the moon or not.

That's right, set the bar so very low for yourself.  You forgot that your foaming rant already revealed why you're really here.  You want to take a little hop over a low bar and congratulate yourself on not being one of the sheeple who believe NASA.  Unfortunately the rest of us aim a little higher, such as the truth.  Not a few days ago you were telling us missions to the Moon were impossible because they had no way to locate themselves on the lunar surface or align their guidance platform.  Now you're moving the goalposts.  So why would they fake any of the pictures if they really could go to the Moon?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: twik on January 28, 2013, 12:13:19 PM
alexsanchez, I understand why you would not want your name on the internet. It's good online safety.

However, you must understand that we know that humans lie. So, if you say you have a patent, and cannot give us evidence to that effect, we must only conclude that you are lying. Just as you say governments ALWAYS lie.

On the other hand, Apollo is confirmed with multiple forms of eyewitness, documentary and physical evidence. It's much more believable than one unidentified person saying he has a patent somewhere.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gillianren on January 28, 2013, 12:54:52 PM
Okay, let's assume that one photo is actually found to be faked.  No one has shown it yet, but let that go and let's play pretend.  One photo, out of the thousands, is not only a fake but an obvious fake.  One that even someone as ignorant as Jack White would be able to legitimately show is fake.  Okay, we'll pretend that for the moment.

So what?

What you have done is falsify a single photo.  The fact that it's fake gives you a reason to reinvestigate a lot of other things, including and especially all the other photos on that roll, but you have not proven that anything else is fake just by showing that a single photo is.  You still have to answer for all the other evidence.  You have to explain the other facts--and there are a lot of them.  You can't just say, "Well, that one photo is fake, so of course everything else is fake."  Because if a single piece of evidence, no matter what it is, cannot be shown to have been faked, well, that single piece of evidence is from an authentic trip to the Moon.  The more pieces of evidence that cannot be faked (and I can name plenty just off the top of my head despite not being an expert), the less any single faked piece of evidence means.

And remember, no one has shown a photograph was faked.  So far, all the "smoking guns" have instead been misunderstandings, and usually obvious ones, on the part of the people making hoax claims.  Most of the major hoax arguments have incredibly simple responses, many of which don't even require understanding much about science.  Certainly not more than you can pick up by just walking outside and looking at the world around you.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on January 28, 2013, 03:01:31 PM
I'm trying to coin a new phrase, something about a recursive bundle of straw.

Every Hoax Believer I've run into starts with one argument, but it is always presented in the context, "Plus all the other evidence."  When they switch to a different argument, it is still presented as, "Among the other evidence."

Even if you manage to follow their Gish Gallop all the way around the track back to the starting gate, only the specific argument of the moment is ever open to question.  All the others retreat to a Schrodinger-esque "Have not been proven or disproven."  No matter how thoroughly you exhaust their stack of arguments, they will always hold on to, "All the other stuff we were discussing."
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 28, 2013, 04:14:30 PM
Okay, let's assume that one photo is actually found to be faked.  No one has shown it yet, but let that go and let's play pretend.  One photo, out of the thousands, is not only a fake but an obvious fake.  One that even someone as ignorant as Jack White would be able to legitimately show is fake.  Okay, we'll pretend that for the moment.

So what?

What you have done is falsify a single photo.  The fact that it's fake gives you a reason to reinvestigate a lot of other things, including and especially all the other photos on that roll, but you have not proven that anything else is fake just by showing that a single photo is.  You still have to answer for all the other evidence.  You have to explain the other facts--and there are a lot of them.  You can't just say, "Well, that one photo is fake, so of course everything else is fake."  Because if a single piece of evidence, no matter what it is, cannot be shown to have been faked, well, that single piece of evidence is from an authentic trip to the Moon.  The more pieces of evidence that cannot be faked (and I can name plenty just off the top of my head despite not being an expert), the less any single faked piece of evidence means.

And remember, no one has shown a photograph was faked.  So far, all the "smoking guns" have instead been misunderstandings, and usually obvious ones, on the part of the people making hoax claims.  Most of the major hoax arguments have incredibly simple responses, many of which don't even require understanding much about science.  Certainly not more than you can pick up by just walking outside and looking at the world around you.

That reminds me of something that Vincent Bugliosi said about the prosecution case in a criminal trial:

It's a fallacy to think of it as a chain, 'only as strong as its weakest link'.  The defense often tries to take that approach, arguing that if any piece of evidence fails, the entire chain fails.

Bugliosi pointed out that it is, rather, a rope. Each item of evidence is like a strand in that rope, adding to its strength. Even if one item fails - say, for example, DNA is thrown out on a technicality, the other strands still hold.  Even if doubt could be introduced about the photographic record, there are still hundreds of kilograms of rocks and soil that the international scientific community agree are genuine.  And so on and so forth. Even if a person has what they believe to be legitimate doubts about some aspect of the record, there is just so much other evidence that the case is overwhelmingly convincing.

And as Penn Jillette once pointed out: Moon hoax? Two words....   Watergate.  Lewinski.  The government can't keep ANYTHING secret for long, much less a huge conspiracy.

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gillianren on January 28, 2013, 04:23:07 PM
I looked it up once, and both Watergate and Iran-Contra were kept secret for almost exactly the same length of time.  Eighteen months, I believe; I'd have to look it up again.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: onebigmonkey on January 28, 2013, 04:28:47 PM
I'm trying to coin a new phrase, something about a recursive bundle of straw.

Every Hoax Believer I've run into starts with one argument, but it is always presented in the context, "Plus all the other evidence."  When they switch to a different argument, it is still presented as, "Among the other evidence."

Even if you manage to follow their Gish Gallop all the way around the track back to the starting gate, only the specific argument of the moment is ever open to question.  All the others retreat to a Schrodinger-esque "Have not been proven or disproven."  No matter how thoroughly you exhaust their stack of arguments, they will always hold on to, "All the other stuff we were discussing."

'Etc'. Don't forget 'etc'. No good CT-er can manage without a good 'etc' to pad things out when actual ideas are thin on the ground.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 28, 2013, 04:31:00 PM
Alexsanchez,

Can you stick to one point rather than a gish-gallop of stuff please?

Can you please reply to the points that I raised in this post?
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=348.msg10717#msg10717
Specifically
Please explain the difference in sample return quantities between the American and Russian Lunar missions,
Where and when were the alleged USA robotic sample return missions?
If the US samples where returned robotically, then why do you insist that  a Lunar ascent is impossible without accurate co-ords?
Why did the US have 380Kg of Lunar rocks if they were all sourced from the Polar regions? Why does other sovereign states that have polar territories not have similar amounts?
Please explain the difference between moon-derived meteorites and the Apollo samples.
Please detail your qualifications that allows you to comment on the study of Lunar rocks.

Thanks in advance.
The issue of moon rocks is purely a matter for debate.  By that I mean I could just as well take either position.  If I accept the govt's assertion that the moon landings were real, I would use the same arguments as you.  However, given the number of lies and cover-ups engaged in by the govt, i.e., JFK, etc., I assert that the moon landings were fake.  I also assert that the Soviet Union lied about bringing back their moon rocks and that they only had rocks from Antarctica, or Siberia, if anything.  It's safe to say the Russians were adept at political propaganda and would not have hesitated to lie about it.  So maybe there are no rocks that were brought back from the moon.  But if the govt gives a geologist a rock and says it's from the moon, the geologist will assume it's from the moon, having nothing to go on to prove otherwise.  Moon rocks from Antarctica could be reconditioned to appear to have come from the moon.  No university researcher would cast doubt on the moon rocks as that would make them lose their funding.  Also, the leading scientific theory is that the moon is just a chunk of the earth that was blasted off a few billion years ago, so the composition of the moon rocks would be the same as earthly material.  Scientists would not be backing that theory if the alleged moon rocks were different in composition from rocks found on earth. 

I cast doubt on the lunar ascent for several reasons.  One being is that there is no record of the LM being tested for ascent or descent on earth (that I know of.)  They could have used a helium balloon to simulate 1/6 gravity.  The only video I've seen was Armstrong parachuting to safety after losing control of the LLTV.  And, regardless, the LLTV was not a LM.  I think NASA simply would not have attempted a moon landing with an untested LM, let alone have it work flawlessly 6 times.  I guess you could say the ascent was mathematically possible, but there are some grave problems with navigation to overcome.  First, you don't know exactly where you are on the moon due to the manual landing, and the fact that the moon had never been surveyed (no one had been there to do one) meaning there could be no IMU update to moon coordinates.  That leaves radar and optics (star finder) for navigation.  The star finder was useless on the moon (my assertion) because the astronauts claimed they couldn't see stars with the naked eye.  That means they had to rely on radar to rendezvous with a speeding bullet.  Getting to the exact orbit would be extremely difficult because the LM IMU did not have the inertial coordinates for the moon, they only had earth coordinates, and rough one's at that due to the gyro drift rate.  They wouldn't even have a gyro-compass to get a bearing before liftoff.  No theodolite bearing.  How do you lift off from an unknown location with an unknown bearing?  A Kalman filter takes time to settle out.  While sitting on the moon, the moon is rotating, and that rotation is is being fed into the gyros.  You can't just land on the moon and take off 2.5 hours later and get into a perfect orbit.  You could argue that they used dead reckoning and mid-course corrections in flight and flew to the dark side of the moon and used the star finder, but that's just smoke and mirrors. The least documented part of the mission, and the most complicated by far, is the rendezvous.  Note that before every space shuttle mission (and every rocket launch) a very careful IMU alignment was done to earth coordinates.  They don't just rely on radar to get to the ISS. 

None of this is definitive proof against a lunar ascent, but it explains the unlikelihood.  But there's no way for anyone to prove anything.  The retro-reflectors don't prove anything.  You only get a couple photons back from a laser burst according to UCSD.  You can slant an experiment to show anything you want.  Everything is hearsay.  NASA controls all of the information.  The missions were infinitely easier to fake than conduct for real, and faking guaranteed 100% success, including faking Apollo 13 to make it look like everything wasn't a success.  No one can deny the govt had the means and the motive to fake it.

Regarding an AULIS pic I put up, after some graphic analysis I have come to the conclusion that the claim is unsubstantiated by the photos.
http://aulis.com/imagesfurther%20/compositevalley.jpg


Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Abaddon on January 28, 2013, 06:45:08 PM
alexsanchez, I understand why you would not want your name on the internet. It's good online safety.

However, you must understand that we know that humans lie. So, if you say you have a patent, and cannot give us evidence to that effect, we must only conclude that you are lying. Just as you say governments ALWAYS lie.

On the other hand, Apollo is confirmed with multiple forms of eyewitness, documentary and physical evidence. It's much more believable than one unidentified person saying he has a patent somewhere.
I gave my real name and a link to a patent of mine up thread. Am I scared? Nope.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: dwight on January 28, 2013, 07:00:46 PM
My real name is plastered all over the first page of this website. To date exactly 0 people have threatened me or stalked me based on my position of Apollo.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Peter B on January 28, 2013, 07:10:31 PM
...It's a fallacy to think of it as a chain, 'only as strong as its weakest link'.  The defense often tries to take that approach, arguing that if any piece of evidence fails, the entire chain fails.

Bugliosi pointed out that it is, rather, a rope. Each item of evidence is like a strand in that rope, adding to its strength. Even if one item fails - say, for example, DNA is thrown out on a technicality, the other strands still hold.
The term Michael Shermer has used is 'convergence of evidence'.

Quote
Even if doubt could be introduced about the photographic record, there are still hundreds of kilograms of rocks and soil that the international scientific community agree are genuine.  And so on and so forth. Even if a person has what they believe to be legitimate doubts about some aspect of the record, there is just so much other evidence that the case is overwhelmingly convincing.
So let's summarise the evidence relating to the Apollo rocks.

1. The Apollo rocks total about 380 kilograms. That's more than 1000 times the material brought back by three unmanned Soviet sample retrieval missions.

2. The Apollo rocks show signs of having formed in a low gravity vacuum, in the absence of water. Geologically they're very obviously not from the Earth.

3. The Apollo rocks definitely aren't lunar meteorites as, unlike the lunar meteorites, they show no sign of having passed through the Earth's atmosphere at high speed, or of being contaminated by terrestrial factors like water. Instead, they show signs of alterations by impact by micrometeorites ('zap pits') and by solar radiation. Therefore the Apollo rocks were very obviously not collected in Antarctica. The fact that the origin of lunar meteorites was determined by comparing them with Apollo rocks is one little piece of irony.

4. The Apollo rocks definitely weren't collected by unmanned sample retriever missions. As pointed out above, the total weight of Apollo rocks is more than 1000 times that collected by three Soviet unmanned sample retriever missions. The Apollo rocks were often photographed on the ground prior to collection, and the photos often include astronauts. How then were the photos taken? If they were taken on the Moon by hypothetical sample retriever spacecraft, how did the astronauts get in the photos? But if they were taken on the Earth at a secret fake Moon set, what material was used to make the set? If lunar material, how much more "stuff" needed to be brought back to the Earth to dress the set? And if terrestrial material, how did it not contaminate the genuine samples? Therefore the Apollo rocks were very obviously not brought back to the Earth by unmanned sample retriever missions. In any case, the idea that unmanned spacecraft could safely land on the Moon when guidance problems prevented manned spacecraft from doing exactly the same thing is a second piece of irony.

5. The current consensus on the formation of the Moon was built on more than a decade's study of the Apollo rocks. The idea that the current consensus demonstrates the Apollo rocks are fake in some way when they were actually the foundation of the theory is a third piece of irony.

Three pieces of irony in a single subject? Either you know nothing about the lunar rocks, or you're trying to look ignorant.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 28, 2013, 07:31:26 PM
...It's a fallacy to think of it as a chain, 'only as strong as its weakest link'.  The defense often tries to take that approach, arguing that if any piece of evidence fails, the entire chain fails.

Bugliosi pointed out that it is, rather, a rope. Each item of evidence is like a strand in that rope, adding to its strength. Even if one item fails - say, for example, DNA is thrown out on a technicality, the other strands still hold.
The term Michael Shermer has used is 'convergence of evidence'.

Quote
Even if doubt could be introduced about the photographic record, there are still hundreds of kilograms of rocks and soil that the international scientific community agree are genuine.  And so on and so forth. Even if a person has what they believe to be legitimate doubts about some aspect of the record, there is just so much other evidence that the case is overwhelmingly convincing.
So let's summarise the evidence relating to the Apollo rocks.

1. The Apollo rocks total about 380 kilograms. That's more than 1000 times the material brought back by three unmanned Soviet sample retrieval missions.

2. The Apollo rocks show signs of having formed in a low gravity vacuum, in the absence of water. Geologically they're very obviously not from the Earth.

3. The Apollo rocks definitely aren't lunar meteorites as, unlike the lunar meteorites, they show no sign of having passed through the Earth's atmosphere at high speed, or of being contaminated by terrestrial factors like water. Instead, they show signs of alterations by impact by micrometeorites ('zap pits') and by solar radiation. Therefore the Apollo rocks were very obviously not collected in Antarctica. The fact that the origin of lunar meteorites was determined by comparing them with Apollo rocks is one little piece of irony.

4. The Apollo rocks definitely weren't collected by unmanned sample retriever missions. As pointed out above, the total weight of Apollo rocks is more than 1000 times that collected by three Soviet unmanned sample retriever missions. The Apollo rocks were often photographed on the ground prior to collection, and the photos often include astronauts. How then were the photos taken? If they were taken on the Moon by hypothetical sample retriever spacecraft, how did the astronauts get in the photos? But if they were taken on the Earth at a secret fake Moon set, what material was used to make the set? If lunar material, how much more "stuff" needed to be brought back to the Earth to dress the set? And if terrestrial material, how did it not contaminate the genuine samples? Therefore the Apollo rocks were very obviously not brought back to the Earth by unmanned sample retriever missions. In any case, the idea that unmanned spacecraft could safely land on the Moon when guidance problems prevented manned spacecraft from doing exactly the same thing is a second piece of irony.

5. The current consensus on the formation of the Moon was built on more than a decade's study of the Apollo rocks. The idea that the current consensus demonstrates the Apollo rocks are fake in some way when they were actually the foundation of the theory is a third piece of irony.

Three pieces of irony in a single subject? Either you know nothing about the lunar rocks, or you're trying to look ignorant.

Don't forget...

6.  Scientists from nations all over the world, many of which have no particular affection for the US, have independently reached these conclusions.  This is not "NASA propaganda".
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 28, 2013, 07:40:38 PM
I'm going to take Alex off of the moderation list since he has managed to remain polite.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 28, 2013, 07:46:54 PM
Quote
That leaves radar and optics (star finder) for navigation.  The star finder was useless on the moon (my assertion) because the astronauts claimed they couldn't see stars with the naked eye.

Seriously? Seriously?

Do you really not understand that looking through the "star finder" is not naked eye?? Even you referred to it as 'optics'.

I'm sure the resident experts will chew this post up like tissue, but that one really jumped out at me.  BTW, you whole pose is one long Argument from Incredulity. You can't believe it, so "it ain't so".
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Laurel on January 28, 2013, 07:50:40 PM
I think NASA simply would not have attempted a moon landing with an untested LM, let alone have it work flawlessly 6 times.
NASA didn't attempt a Moon landing with an untested LM. An unmanned LM was tested during Apollo 5. Manned LMs were tested in Earth orbit on Apollo 9 and in lunar orbit on Apollo 10. Only after these successes did they actually try landing a LM on the Moon. Shouldn't someone who has done even basic research on the Apollo program know this?

Also the LM did not work flawlessly. If it did, the Eagle wouldn't have had those program alarms during its descent.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: frenat on January 28, 2013, 08:04:21 PM
Alexsanchez,

Can you stick to one point rather than a gish-gallop of stuff please?

Can you please reply to the points that I raised in this post?
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=348.msg10717#msg10717
Specifically
Please explain the difference in sample return quantities between the American and Russian Lunar missions,
Where and when were the alleged USA robotic sample return missions?
If the US samples where returned robotically, then why do you insist that  a Lunar ascent is impossible without accurate co-ords?
Why did the US have 380Kg of Lunar rocks if they were all sourced from the Polar regions? Why does other sovereign states that have polar territories not have similar amounts?
Please explain the difference between moon-derived meteorites and the Apollo samples.
Please detail your qualifications that allows you to comment on the study of Lunar rocks.

Thanks in advance.
The issue of moon rocks is purely a matter for debate.  By that I mean I could just as well take either position.  If I accept the govt's assertion that the moon landings were real, I would use the same arguments as you.  However, given the number of lies and cover-ups engaged in by the govt, i.e., JFK, etc., I assert that the moon landings were fake.  I also assert that the Soviet Union lied about bringing back their moon rocks and that they only had rocks from Antarctica, or Siberia, if anything.  It's safe to say the Russians were adept at political propaganda and would not have hesitated to lie about it.  So maybe there are no rocks that were brought back from the moon.  But if the govt gives a geologist a rock and says it's from the moon, the geologist will assume it's from the moon, having nothing to go on to prove otherwise.  
Because geologists are stupid and gullible and the word of the government is the only thing they have to go on?


Moon rocks from Antarctica could be reconditioned to appear to have come from the moon.  No university researcher would cast doubt on the moon rocks as that would make them lose their funding.  Also, the leading scientific theory is that the moon is just a chunk of the earth that was blasted off a few billion years ago, so the composition of the moon rocks would be the same as earthly material.  Scientists would not be backing that theory if the alleged moon rocks were different in composition from rocks found on earth. 
Again, geologists are not as stupid as you think they are.  There is no evidence that "reconditioning" can even be done let alone be convincing.  Genuine Moon rocks show many characteristics that other rocks or rocks from Antarctica simply don't.  As for the "lose their funding" nonsense, that is a lame copout that doesn't even begin to explain why geologists in other countries around the world including those hostile to the US at the time would go along with it.

I cast doubt on the lunar ascent for several reasons.  One being is that there is no record of the LM being tested for ascent or descent on earth (that I know of.)
Nor should there be.  A craft that is designed to operate solely in a vacuum should be tested solely in a vacuum.  Good thing it was.

They could have used a helium balloon to simulate 1/6 gravity. 
Or jet engines like they did on the trainer?  That craft would be good for training but not for the actual article.  Good thing again that they tested it in space.

The only video I've seen was Armstrong parachuting to safety after losing control of the LLTV.  And, regardless, the LLTV was not a LM. 
At least you got that part right.  Too bad you didn't know they had hundred of successful flights besides that.

I think NASA simply would not have attempted a moon landing with an untested LM, let alone have it work flawlessly 6 times.
Good thing they tested it then.  Haven't you researched this at all?

I guess you could say the ascent was mathematically possible,
Nobody that actually understands it would say that.

but there are some grave problems with navigation to overcome.
Only in your mind and you haven't proven it.

First, you don't know exactly where you are on the moon due to the manual landing, and the fact that the moon had never been surveyed (no one had been there to do one) meaning there could be no IMU update to moon coordinates.  That leaves radar and optics (star finder) for navigation.  The star finder was useless on the moon (my assertion) because the astronauts claimed they couldn't see stars with the naked eye.  That means they had to rely on radar to rendezvous with a speeding bullet.  Getting to the exact orbit would be extremely difficult because the LM IMU did not have the inertial coordinates for the moon, they only had earth coordinates, and rough one's at that due to the gyro drift rate.  They wouldn't even have a gyro-compass to get a bearing before liftoff.  No theodolite bearing.  How do you lift off from an unknown location with an unknown bearing?  A Kalman filter takes time to settle out.  While sitting on the moon, the moon is rotating, and that rotation is is being fed into the gyros.  You can't just land on the moon and take off 2.5 hours later and get into a perfect orbit.  You could argue that they used dead reckoning and mid-course corrections in flight and flew to the dark side of the moon and used the star finder, but that's just smoke and mirrors. The least documented part of the mission, and the most complicated by far, is the rendezvous.  Note that before every space shuttle mission (and every rocket launch) a very careful IMU alignment was done to earth coordinates.  They don't just rely on radar to get to the ISS. 
This has already been answered.  Ignoring the answers doesn't make you look good.

None of this is definitive proof against a lunar ascent, but it explains the unlikelihood.
Only in your mind.

But there's no way for anyone to prove anything.  The retro-reflectors don't prove anything.  You only get a couple photons back from a laser burst according to UCSD.  You can slant an experiment to show anything you want.  Everything is hearsay.  NASA controls all of the information.  The missions were infinitely easier to fake than conduct for real, and faking guaranteed 100% success, including faking Apollo 13 to make it look like everything wasn't a success.  No one can deny the govt had the means and the motive to fake it.
Lots of opinion on your part, no proof and pretty much everything wrong.

Regarding an AULIS pic I put up, after some graphic analysis I have come to the conclusion that the claim is unsubstantiated by the photos.
http://aulis.com/imagesfurther%20/compositevalley.jpg
You mean Jack White had no idea what he was talking about?  What a shocker!
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on January 28, 2013, 08:06:43 PM

The issue of moon rocks is purely a matter for debate.  By that I mean I could just as well take either position.

I could take either position on the existence of unicorns..  That doesn't make both positions equally rational, or equally defensible.

If I accept the govt's assertion that the moon landings were real, I would use the same arguments as you.

Totally wrong.  Do you take a badminton birdie to a chess match?

We DON'T accept a "government assertion."  What we use as a starting point is a DESCRIPTION of an activity, as made by a government entity, which we then analyze for consistency and plausibility.

Which is to say; the starting point isn't "NASA says it was so, therefore..."  The starting point is, instead, "NASA claims they used a hypergolic fuel mixture with a specific impulse of 310 seconds."  And then the question is, "is this consistent with the performance of known propellants?  Does this provide sufficient delta-V given the described mass ration of the spacecraft?" and so on.

Your assumption is wrong, your belief about the framework of the debate is wrong, your understanding of the psychology of the members of this board is wrong, and the latter is so wrong you obviously haven't bothered to read any of the posting history here.  And that -- to waltz into an established board and begin arguing without understanding the history of that board -- is the act of a fool or a troll.


  However, given the number of lies and cover-ups engaged in by the govt, i.e., JFK, etc., I assert that the moon landings were fake.  I also assert that the Soviet Union lied about bringing back their moon rocks and that they only had rocks from Antarctica, or Siberia, if anything.  It's safe to say the Russians were adept at political propaganda and would not have hesitated to lie about it.  So maybe there are no rocks that were brought back from the moon.  But if the govt gives a geologist a rock and says it's from the moon, the geologist will assume it's from the moon, having nothing to go on to prove otherwise.

There is no space here to follow your Gish Horse off in this new direction, but you are wrong and it can be and has been illustrated at length.  There are web pages by qualified geologists explaining how what they know is entirely different from what you think they know.  I mean, really -- you think the entire field of geology has nothing more to go on than comparing one rock to another that looks similar?  I mean, really?



  Moon rocks from Antarctica could be reconditioned to appear to have come from the moon.

With a hand wave like that you could reach cruising altitude in a few minutes.


  No university researcher would cast doubt on the moon rocks as that would make them lose their funding.  Also, the leading scientific theory is that the moon is just a chunk of the earth that was blasted off a few billion years ago, so the composition of the moon rocks would be the same as earthly material.  Scientists would not be backing that theory if the alleged moon rocks were different in composition from rocks found on earth. 

And here you just regurgitate your previous claim, showing no evidence of having researched or even thought about it in the interim, much less, actually read any of the posts in reply.



I cast doubt on the lunar ascent for several reasons.

Why?  One reason isn't good enough?  Or is it that you want an easy fall-back position for when it becomes clear that the first reason you propose is untenable?  A diffused argument is not a better argument.  And a scatter-shot of half-made, poorly-defended claims is hardly the act of an engineer.


One being is that there is no record of the LM being tested for ascent or descent on earth (that I know of.)  They could have used a helium balloon to simulate 1/6 gravity.  The only video I've seen was Armstrong parachuting to safety after losing control of the LLTV.  And, regardless, the LLTV was not a LM.  I think NASA simply would not have attempted a moon landing with an untested LM, let alone have it work flawlessly 6 times.  I guess you could say the ascent was mathematically possible, but there are some grave problems with navigation to overcome.  First, you don't know exactly where you are on the moon due to the manual landing, and the fact that the moon had never been surveyed (no one had been there to do one) meaning there could be no IMU update to moon coordinates.  That leaves radar and optics (star finder) for navigation.  The star finder was useless on the moon (my assertion) because the astronauts claimed they couldn't see stars with the naked eye.  That means they had to rely on radar to rendezvous with a speeding bullet.  Getting to the exact orbit would be extremely difficult because the LM IMU did not have the inertial coordinates for the moon, they only had earth coordinates, and rough one's at that due to the gyro drift rate.  They wouldn't even have a gyro-compass to get a bearing before liftoff.  No theodolite bearing.  How do you lift off from an unknown location with an unknown bearing?  A Kalman filter takes time to settle out.  While sitting on the moon, the moon is rotating, and that rotation is is being fed into the gyros.  You can't just land on the moon and take off 2.5 hours later and get into a perfect orbit.  You could argue that they used dead reckoning and mid-course corrections in flight and flew to the dark side of the moon and used the star finder, but that's just smoke and mirrors. The least documented part of the mission, and the most complicated by far, is the rendezvous.  Note that before every space shuttle mission (and every rocket launch) a very careful IMU alignment was done to earth coordinates.  They don't just rely on radar to get to the ISS. 

This is just a mish-mosh.  You have much to learn about how to present a point with clarity and brevity.

All of these asides and maybes don't strengthen your argument -- they just make it less clear.  And your paraphrase of what has been explained to you (you obviously haven't read any of the documentation provided), is so completely bizarre as to bear no resemblance to any space flight, ever.


None of this is definitive proof against a lunar ascent, but it explains the unlikelihood.  But there's no way for anyone to prove anything.  The retro-reflectors don't prove anything.  You only get a couple photons back from a laser burst according to UCSD.  You can slant an experiment to show anything you want.  Everything is hearsay.  NASA controls all of the information.  The missions were infinitely easier to fake than conduct for real, and faking guaranteed 100% success, including faking Apollo 13 to make it look like everything wasn't a success.  No one can deny the govt had the means and the motive to fake it.

Ridiculous.  You think the only experiments ever performed on the LRRR are to confirm that they exist?  And the various independent observatories across dozens of nations are all willing to fake their results and spend YEARS on a fake set of experiments just on the off-chance of defending the reality of the Apollo Program against some internet weirdos who think Hubble could read a license plate off the Lunar Rover and that the VARB would cause astronauts to instantly burst into flames?


Regarding an AULIS pic I put up, after some graphic analysis I have come to the conclusion that the claim is unsubstantiated by the photos.
http://aulis.com/imagesfurther%20/compositevalley.jpg

Amazing.

I went through Aulis a year or two ago, and it took me an average of five minutes a "study" to debunk each.  (The average was dragged down by the one or two where I actually had to drag out a topo map or make a diagram of where things were in relation to each other).
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Peter B on January 28, 2013, 08:07:22 PM
Alexsanchez,

Can you stick to one point rather than a gish-gallop of stuff please?

Can you please reply to the points that I raised in this post?
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=348.msg10717#msg10717
Specifically
Please explain the difference in sample return quantities between the American and Russian Lunar missions,
Where and when were the alleged USA robotic sample return missions?
If the US samples where returned robotically, then why do you insist that  a Lunar ascent is impossible without accurate co-ords?
Why did the US have 380Kg of Lunar rocks if they were all sourced from the Polar regions? Why does other sovereign states that have polar territories not have similar amounts?
Please explain the difference between moon-derived meteorites and the Apollo samples.
Please detail your qualifications that allows you to comment on the study of Lunar rocks.

Thanks in advance.
The issue of moon rocks is purely a matter for debate. By that I mean I could just as well take either position.
Why not look at the evidence?

Quote
If I accept the govt's assertion that the moon landings were real, I would use the same arguments as you. However, given the number of lies and cover-ups engaged in by the govt, i.e., JFK, etc., I assert that the moon landings were fake.
Ri-i-ight. So we're starting with an assertion.

Quote
I also assert that the Soviet Union lied about bringing back their moon rocks and that they only had rocks from Antarctica, or Siberia, if anything.
Assertion number two. You have no evidence for this?

Quote
It's safe to say the Russians were adept at political propaganda and would not have hesitated to lie about it.
Accepted. We know the Soviets lied about certain aspects of their space missions. But this knowledge is based on evidence - for example, photographs altered to remove people subsequently dismissed as cosmonauts. The photos are known to be altered because either two differently altered versions of the photos have been published, or different photographs taken at the same time show different group compositions. Jim Oberg has been writing about this for 20+ years.

Likewise, American spy satellites provided information about the N-1 rocket which the Soviets "forgot" to publicise.

But there's other evidence which allows us to be sure the Soviets did make certain achievements in space - for example the British interception of signal from spacecraft at the Moon.

Quote
So maybe there are no rocks that were brought back from the moon. But if the govt gives a geologist a rock and says it's from the moon, the geologist will assume it's from the moon, having nothing to go on to prove otherwise.
Sorry, but that's wrong. As I mentioned above (posted before I saw your post), Moon rocks are identifiably different from Earth rocks. They show evidence of having formed in a low gravity vacuum, with no water present. You simply can't fake that on Earth. A geologist might have valid reasons for asking whether the rock came from the Moon, but (s)he certainly would know it can't have come from the Earth.

Quote
Moon rocks from Antarctica could be reconditioned to appear to have come from the moon.
How do you "recondition" a rock?

The Apollo rocks contain 'zap pits', tiny craters caused by the impact of grains of dust at speeds of tens of kilometres per second. Please describe the process for faking this.

The Apollo rocks contain evidence of having been subject to solar radiation for anywhere between millions and billions of years. Please describe the process for faking this?

Quote
No university researcher would cast doubt on the moon rocks as that would make them lose their funding.
Upsetting the status quo is what makes scientists famous. Galileo, Kepler, Newton and Einstein didn't become household names (more or less) by tamely agreeing with what everyone had said before them.

Quote
Also, the leading scientific theory is that the moon is just a chunk of the earth that was blasted off a few billion years ago, so the composition of the moon rocks would be the same as earthly material.
There's a lot of wrong in that statement.

1. "Debris", not "chunk". The Moon was formed by the accretion of lots of small pieces of material blasted off the Earth by the impact.

2. The impact would have generated high temperatures, which would vaporise volatile materials. This explains why the Moon is deficient in volatile materials like water, and thus in turn why the rocks on the Moon are different from those of the Earth.

May I suggest you read a little more about the topic.

Quote
Scientists would not be backing that theory if the alleged moon rocks were different in composition from rocks found on earth. 

Yes, they would if it's the best explanation of the evidence. The theory also fits in well with the conditions of the early Solar System - a lot more planets and planetesimals than we have today. What do you think is likely to happen in such a chaotic environment?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 28, 2013, 08:08:05 PM
alexsanchez, I understand why you would not want your name on the internet. It's good online safety.

However, you must understand that we know that humans lie. So, if you say you have a patent, and cannot give us evidence to that effect, we must only conclude that you are lying. Just as you say governments ALWAYS lie.

On the other hand, Apollo is confirmed with multiple forms of eyewitness, documentary and physical evidence. It's much more believable than one unidentified person saying he has a patent somewhere.
Yes, these days it's good to be anonymous.  Anything you say can and will be used against you, and the internet is forever.

My patent has really nothing to do with my arguments.  The patent happens to be for translating NASA software from an old language to object oriented C++, or any other modern language.  It could just as well be used for converting accounting software to C++.  My arguments about Apollo stand on their own.  Some of my arguments fail to hold up even for me if they are based on someone else's findings.  It's not like there's any reward for making my arguments.  However, I'm actually thinking right this minute of having an article published in a magazine since I'm doing all this writing.  I used to have a Hollywood literary agent, which I'm sure no one would believe.  (I'll get flak for this.)  The article would not be about proving anything, rather what it's like to argue with a group of people who are all of like mind, and taking the opposing view.

I think my main point here is to show people that the moon-landings are like a religion.  It's faith.  (Yes, that can be debated, and I'll gladly debate it.)  Picking a random religion, like Mormonism, how would I prove that when you die you don't become a God and get your own planet to rule over? (or whatever their doctrine is, something like that, no offense to Mormons.)   Many people passionately believe things they read in the Bible, or other religious text, all without evidence (says me.)  Hey... God said it and I believe it.  With the moon landings, it's NASA said it and I believe it.  Yes, there are photos, but who says they were taken on the moon?  NASA.  NASA said it and I believe it.  Moon rocks that came back from the moon?  NASA said it and I believe it.  The retro reflectors are a bit more interesting.  I'd have to do some more research to attempt to prove they aren't there, although they could have more easily have been put there on unmanned missions, like the Soviets claimed.  People's belief's are like a brick wall around them whether it's religion, or otherwise.  If you say something didn't happen which goes against their beliefs, the first reaction is they get offended, call you a liar, or say you can't prove it didn't happen.  That's just human nature. Lots of people believe the Genesis story about Noah's ark.  You can explain the problem of logistics with gathering Penguins, Wooly Mammoths, Blue Whales, down to protozoa and viruses, but that still won't sway them.  They will just say God did it.  Just like saying NASA did it.  I like to quote Mark Twain in that a man is easier to deceive then to convince him he's been deceived.  Without sending you own LRO to the moon, you can't prove anything.  And even if you managed to send an LRO up there, you could only prove it to yourself because how could you prove you sent an LRO up there.  You'd be back to square 1.

I'm not here to prove anything.  I can't.  I'm just here to debate.  A devils advocate.  It would be great if people could do that with a sense of humor.  Maybe I should put my facebook picture in my profile.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on January 28, 2013, 08:09:06 PM
I think NASA simply would not have attempted a moon landing with an untested LM, let alone have it work flawlessly 6 times.
NASA didn't attempt a Moon landing with an untested LM. An unmanned LM was tested during Apollo 5. Manned LMs were tested in Earth orbit on Apollo 9 and in lunar orbit on Apollo 10. Only after these successes did they actually try landing a LM on the Moon. Shouldn't someone who has done even basic research on the Apollo program know this?

Also the LM did not work flawlessly. If it did, the Eagle wouldn't have had those program alarms during its descent.

Like every other hoaxie, he thinks NASA should have landed an LM before attempting to land an LM.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 28, 2013, 08:12:50 PM
Alexsanchez,

Can you stick to one point rather than a gish-gallop of stuff please?

Can you please reply to the points that I raised in this post?
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=348.msg10717#msg10717
Specifically
Please explain the difference in sample return quantities between the American and Russian Lunar missions,
Where and when were the alleged USA robotic sample return missions?
If the US samples where returned robotically, then why do you insist that  a Lunar ascent is impossible without accurate co-ords?
Why did the US have 380Kg of Lunar rocks if they were all sourced from the Polar regions? Why does other sovereign states that have polar territories not have similar amounts?
Please explain the difference between moon-derived meteorites and the Apollo samples.
Please detail your qualifications that allows you to comment on the study of Lunar rocks.

Thanks in advance.
The issue of moon rocks is purely a matter for debate. By that I mean I could just as well take either position.
Why not look at the evidence?

Quote
If I accept the govt's assertion that the moon landings were real, I would use the same arguments as you. However, given the number of lies and cover-ups engaged in by the govt, i.e., JFK, etc., I assert that the moon landings were fake.
Ri-i-ight. So we're starting with an assertion.

Quote
I also assert that the Soviet Union lied about bringing back their moon rocks and that they only had rocks from Antarctica, or Siberia, if anything.
Assertion number two. You have no evidence for this?

Quote
It's safe to say the Russians were adept at political propaganda and would not have hesitated to lie about it.
Accepted. We know the Soviets lied about certain aspects of their space missions. But this knowledge is based on evidence - for example, photographs altered to remove people subsequently dismissed as cosmonauts. The photos are known to be altered because either two differently altered versions of the photos have been published, or different photographs taken at the same time show different group compositions. Jim Oberg has been writing about this for 20+ years.

Likewise, American spy satellites provided information about the N-1 rocket which the Soviets "forgot" to publicise.

But there's other evidence which allows us to be sure the Soviets did make certain achievements in space - for example the British interception of signal from spacecraft at the Moon.

Quote
So maybe there are no rocks that were brought back from the moon. But if the govt gives a geologist a rock and says it's from the moon, the geologist will assume it's from the moon, having nothing to go on to prove otherwise.
Sorry, but that's wrong. As I mentioned above (posted before I saw your post), Moon rocks are identifiably different from Earth rocks. They show evidence of having formed in a low gravity vacuum, with no water present. You simply can't fake that on Earth. A geologist might have valid reasons for asking whether the rock came from the Moon, but (s)he certainly would know it can't have come from the Earth.

Quote
Moon rocks from Antarctica could be reconditioned to appear to have come from the moon.
How do you "recondition" a rock?

The Apollo rocks contain 'zap pits', tiny craters caused by the impact of grains of dust at speeds of tens of kilometres per second. Please describe the process for faking this.

The Apollo rocks contain evidence of having been subject to solar radiation for anywhere between millions and billions of years. Please describe the process for faking this?

Quote
No university researcher would cast doubt on the moon rocks as that would make them lose their funding.
Upsetting the status quo is what makes scientists famous. Galileo, Kepler, Newton and Einstein didn't become household names (more or less) by tamely agreeing with what everyone had said before them.

Quote
Also, the leading scientific theory is that the moon is just a chunk of the earth that was blasted off a few billion years ago, so the composition of the moon rocks would be the same as earthly material.
There's a lot of wrong in that statement.

1. "Debris", not "chunk". The Moon was formed by the accretion of lots of small pieces of material blasted off the Earth by the impact.

2. The impact would have generated high temperatures, which would vaporise volatile materials. This explains why the Moon is deficient in volatile materials like water, and thus in turn why the rocks on the Moon are different from those of the Earth.

May I suggest you read a little more about the topic.

Quote
Scientists would not be backing that theory if the alleged moon rocks were different in composition from rocks found on earth. 

Yes, they would if it's the best explanation of the evidence. The theory also fits in well with the conditions of the early Solar System - a lot more planets and planetesimals than we have today. What do you think is likely to happen in such a chaotic environment?
You're probably right on all points.  Thanks.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Laurel on January 28, 2013, 08:13:20 PM
I'm not here to prove anything.  I can't.  I'm just here to debate.
Why didn't you do basic research on the LM (like how many missions it flew) before you started to "debate"?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: AtomicDog on January 28, 2013, 08:15:30 PM
I'm trying to imagine a LM trainer swinging from its balloon tether every time its RCS fires.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on January 28, 2013, 08:16:19 PM
However, given the number of lies and cover-ups engaged in by the govt, i.e., JFK, etc., I assert that the moon landings were fake.

This is really all you have to say in the matter.  Everything else, such as your engineering credentials and the photos you have used, you have backed away from as soon as you were challenged.   You think the government lies about somethings or everything so the moon landings are faked.  And you know what, that is really boring.   It is a sad dogma that stops you from understanding independent inquiry into what really happens in this world.   It is the way that boring people understand the world.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on January 28, 2013, 08:21:07 PM
Yes, these days it's good to be anonymous.  Anything you say can and will be used against you, and the internet is forever....However, I'm actually thinking right this minute of having an article published in a magazine since I'm doing all this writing.

You want to remain anonymous and run away from the professional responsibility for your hoax claims while wanting to publish the same thing in a magazine?  The contradictions never stop.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on January 28, 2013, 08:22:41 PM
I'm not here to prove anything.  I can't.  I'm just here to debate.  A devils advocate.

In other words, you are trolling. 
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Halcyon Dayz, FCD on January 28, 2013, 08:28:23 PM
Moon rocks that came back from the moon?  NASA said it and I believe it.
The lad doth project too much, methinks.

It's not what NASA said, it is what several thousand scientific papers on these samples say.
Some of those studies where performed by Soviet scientists.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 28, 2013, 08:38:03 PM
Yes, these days it's good to be anonymous.  Anything you say can and will be used against you, and the internet is forever....However, I'm actually thinking right this minute of having an article published in a magazine since I'm doing all this writing.

You want to remain anonymous and run away from the professional responsibility for your hoax claims while wanting to publish the same thing in a magazine?  The contradictions never stop.
Well, hoax claims are not my profession.  I'm not getting paid.  Skepticism is what I do in my spare time.  And writers often use a pen name.  Take Mark Twain... Samuel Langhorne Clemens.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 28, 2013, 08:43:09 PM
I'm not here to prove anything.  I can't.  I'm just here to debate.  A devils advocate.

In other words, you are trolling.
What's the opposite of trolling?  Not trolling?  What's the opposite of collecting stamps?  Not collecting stamps?  The title of this forum section says:
Do you believe the Apollo moon landings were faked? Share your theories here, but be prepared to defend them.

Sounds like an invitation to me.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on January 28, 2013, 08:49:36 PM
I'm not here to prove anything.  I can't.  I'm just here to debate.  A devils advocate.

In other words, you are trolling.
What's the opposite of trolling?  Not trolling?  What's the opposite of collecting stamps?  Not collecting stamps?  The title of this forum section says:
Do you believe the Apollo moon landings were faked? Share your theories here, but be prepared to defend them.

Sounds like an invitation to me.

Do you need help understanding the bolded phrase?

This is not The Argument Clinic here.  If we wanted someone who just disagreed, with no knowledge, ability, or intent to explore his/her ideas in any depth, we'd write a bot.

I am not willing to forget that you came here claiming to be an engineer, and claiming both the ability and the intention to discuss technical issues.  Your back-pedal here is enough to lap Lance Armstrong going the other way.  Now you claim just to be out for a little fun?  Or maybe a writer, but you obviously are no more serious about that than you are about engineering!
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 28, 2013, 08:51:08 PM
I'm trying to imagine a LM trainer swinging from its balloon tether every time its RCS fires.
You're right.  It would be hard to test it.  Although they wouldn't need RCS with a helium balloon.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on January 28, 2013, 08:51:52 PM
Yes, these days it's good to be anonymous.  Anything you say can and will be used against you, and the internet is forever....However, I'm actually thinking right this minute of having an article published in a magazine since I'm doing all this writing.

You want to remain anonymous and run away from the professional responsibility for your hoax claims while wanting to publish the same thing in a magazine?  The contradictions never stop.
Well, hoax claims are not my profession.  I'm not getting paid.  Skepticism is what I do in my spare time.  And writers often use a pen name.  Take Mark Twain... Samuel Langhorne Clemens.

Are you presenting the claim that this isn't true of all members of the forum?  That some of them may be getting paid for it?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 28, 2013, 08:56:39 PM
The issue of moon rocks is purely a matter for debate.

Not for geologists.  They universally hold an informed belief that the Apollo samples are genuine pieces of the Moon collected in situ by the astronauts.

Quote
If I accept the govt's assertion that the moon landings were real, I would use the same arguments as you.

It is not "the government's" assertion.  It is the assertion of the relevant experts in the relevant industries.  "Government" is a red herring.

Quote
However, given the number of lies and cover-ups engaged in by the govt, i.e., JFK, etc., I assert that the moon landings were fake.

I discussed why that's an illogical position to hold.  You haven't acknowledged or rebutted it.

Quote
I also assert that the Soviet Union lied about bringing back their moon rocks and that they only had rocks from Antarctica, or Siberia, if anything.

Asked and answered.  Repeating the same rebutted claim is fruitless.

Quote
It's safe to say the Russians were adept at political propaganda and would not have hesitated to lie about it.

Same red herring as above.  You are trying to answer scientific arguments with political ones.

Quote
But if the govt gives a geologist a rock and says it's from the moon, the geologist will assume it's from the moon, having nothing to go on to prove otherwise.

10-year-old refuted argument based on layman's assumptions of how geologists work.

Quote
Moon rocks from Antarctica could be reconditioned to appear to have come from the moon.

Explain in detail how.  Keep in mind that this claim has been put to practicing geologists who roundly laugh at it.

Quote
No university researcher would cast doubt on the moon rocks as that would make them lose their funding.

Supposition.  You are offering a speculative excuse for why the evidence and expert testimony roundly contradict your beliefs.  Pretending that your critics are financially or ideologically motivated is a sign of a religious belief held on faith.

Quote
Also, the leading scientific theory is that the moon is just a chunk of the earth that was blasted off a few billion years ago, so the composition of the moon rocks would be the same as earthly material.

Asked and answered.  Repeating a refuted claim without addressing the refutation is a sign of a religious belief held on faith, not a rational conclusion based on logic and evidence.

Quote
Scientists would not be backing that theory if the alleged moon rocks were different in composition from rocks found on earth.

Are you actually aware of the theories and supporting evidence?  No, you're just stabbing in the dark.  Practicing geologists are able to explain in great detail how the Apollo samples resemble Earth minerals and in equally great detail how they differ in important ways that reveal a lunar origin. 

Quote
One being is that there is no record of the LM being tested for ascent or descent on earth (that I know of.)

Why would that be a relevant test?

Quote
The only video I've seen was Armstrong parachuting to safety after losing control of the LLTV.  And, regardless, the LLTV was not a LM.

Agreed, so why bring it up if not to simply trying to trump up some kind of controversy or contradiction?

Quote
I think NASA simply would not have attempted a moon landing with an untested LM...

Why do you assert the LM was "untested?"  Can you describe the test program for the LM in any great detail?  Do you realize that Apollo 11 was characterized as the final test flight?  Apollo 12 was the first Apollo mission considered an operational mission.

Quote
...let alone have it work flawlessly 6 times.

Why do you assert it worked "flawlessly?"

Quote
First, you don't know exactly where you are on the moon due to the manual landing...

Asked and answered at length.  Such knowledge was not required in order to use a standard multiple phase ascent and rendezvous technique, the kind that is standard practice.  Again, you are simply trying to foist your layman's misconceptions and pretend they represent actual technique and practice.  We are not fooled.

Quote
...meaning there could be no IMU update to moon coordinates.

The IMU is not updated to "moon coordinates."  It is corrected to a space-fixed orientation.  Or more precisely, the reference matrix between the stable member orientation and the space-fixed orientation is refined to account for drift.

Quote
The star finder was useless on the moon (my assertion) because the astronauts claimed they couldn't see stars with the naked eye.

They weren't using their naked eyes.  They were using the optics.

Quote
That means they had to rely on radar to rendezvous with a speeding bullet.

Asked and answered repeatedly.  The "speeding bullet" notion is the layman's misconception of how orbital rendezvous is accomplished.  I explained at length how it is actually done.  You clearly either don't care or you couldn't understand it.  In any case, you're still wrong.

Quote
Getting to the exact orbit would be extremely difficult because the LM IMU did not have the inertial coordinates for the moon, they only had earth coordinates, and rough one's at that due to the gyro drift rate.

Asked and answered repeatedly.

Phased rendezvous does not require reaching an exact orbit on ascent, for the reasons already given.

The IMU doesn't have inertial coordinates either "for the moon" or "earth coordinates."  You lack a basic understanding of how the IMU works in an overall space flight setting.

Quote
How do you lift off from an unknown location with an unknown bearing?

Asked and answered repeatedly.  Ignoring the answer in favor of your layman's misconception is a sign of a religious belief taken on faith, not a rational conclusion based on study, facts, and expert understanding.

Quote
A Kalman filter takes time to settle out.

Why is a Kalman filter relevant to this problem?

Quote
While sitting on the moon, the moon is rotating, and that rotation is is being fed into the gyros.

No.  You are attempting to force concepts cribbed from terrestrial gyroscopic navigation into a different problem.  The LM IMU did not work like an airplane's grycompass.  You're Googling for the wrong things.

Quote
You can't just land on the moon and take off 2.5 hours later and get into a perfect orbit.

Asked and answered.  Insertion into a "perfect" orbit on ascent was not required, for the reasons already given and for the same reasons practiced today in any orbital rendezvous problem.  Further, the LM was not on the surface for only 2.5 hours.  You lack sufficient knowledge of the facts.

Quote
You could argue that they used dead reckoning and mid-course corrections in flight and flew to the dark side of the moon and used the star finder, but that's just smoke and mirrors.

Straw man.  That's not the way it was done.

Quote
The least documented part of the mission, and the most complicated by far, is the rendezvous.

Correct in the sense that it was considered the most complicated.  Incorrect in the sense that it is the "least documented."  I know of two textbooks and at least three technical papers that discuss the different rendezvous scenarios in great depth.  The mission reports detail how well each performed, and specify that the rendezvous problem was so well studied and practiced that later missions were able to use more sensitive and fuel-efficient forms.

Quote
Note that before every space shuttle mission (and every rocket launch) a very careful IMU alignment was done to earth coordinates.

And you still don't understand why that's the preferred method of recording fine IMU alignment when launching from Earth.  You don't yet understand that there are many other ways of fine-aligning an IMU.

Quote
They don't just rely on radar to get to the ISS.

Correct.  As a matter of fact the shuttle IMU is aligned to space-fixed references by star sighting.

Quote
None of this is definitive proof against a lunar ascent, but it explains the unlikelihood.

Nonsense.  It proves only that you don't know what you're talking about.  Which is why you believe one thing and why the unanimity of the aerospace industry believes something else.   You are not the lone "engineer" who got it right.  You are a crackpot trying to parlay some frantic Googling and a smattering of misapplied and misunderstood technical knowledge to trump up a pseudo-intellectual argument for what is obviously a religiously-held socio-political belief.

Quote
But there's no way for anyone to prove anything.

Nonsense.  All the relevant evidence shows Apollo was real.  This is the evidence that you and other hoax claimants frantically try to explain away with hypothetical supposition and pseudo-technical misunderstanding.  Granted, much of that fools laymen, but you're not talking here to laymen.

  You can slant an experiment to show anything you want. 

Quote
Everything is hearsay.

Nonsense.  You're talking to people who do this for a living and have real-world, hands-on experience.

[quote[NASA controls all of the information.[/quote]

Hogwash.  The techniques for accomplishing the lunar landing and subsequent space missions were developed by the aerospace industry.  They remain there, and have been extended and refined for subsequent commercial space operations.

Quote
The missions were infinitely easier to fake than conduct for real...

Nonsense.  In 45 years not one single author has managed to propose an end-to-end scenario for faking the entire Apollo record and produce even a scintilla of evidence to suggest it was done.

Quote
...and faking guaranteed 100% success, including faking Apollo 13 to make it look like everything wasn't a success.

Nonsense.  What guarantee did your alleged hoaxsters and conspirators have that they wouldn't be discovered?  Especially since the first hoax claims surfaced in print only a few years after the Apollo program ended?

Quote
No one can deny the govt had the means and the motive to fake it.

Begging the question.  I deny both those claims strenuously.  You're asking us to take such propositions on faith.  I do not; I require them to be proven to me.

Quote
Regarding an AULIS pic I put up, after some graphic analysis I have come to the conclusion that the claim is unsubstantiated by the photos.

Congratulations, you have demonstrated your willingness to retract a claim.  That is genuinely admirable.  However for the rest of your argument you have simply restated your same misconceptions as if none of the intervening argument had taken place.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on January 28, 2013, 08:58:31 PM
I'm trying to imagine a LM trainer swinging from its balloon tether every time its RCS fires.
You're right.  It would be hard to test it.

Poor paraphrase.

But then, you are being remarkably unclear about what you mean by "the LM" when you speak of something not being tested.

Do you mean the ability of the cabin to preserve life?  Do you mean the ability of the landing legs to absorb shock and support the craft in an upright position?  Do you mean the functionability of the DPS and RCS quads and AGC and descent radar and so forth in making a controlled landing?  Do you mean the ability of the APS to fire and to bring the spacecraft to orbital height and velocity?  Do you mean the RCS and rendezvous radar and the rest of the equipment used to return to the CM?

All of these are separate aspects; separate enough that the LM is often referred to as two spacecraft in one (the Ascent Module and the Descent Module).

Which of these was not tested? Which integration of the various systems was not tested?  Where are you drawing the line for total test of the spacecraft, systems, operational environment and mission and how can you explain why such an artificial line exists for this LM but you can see no similar line in any other spacecraft or aircraft past or present?

Let's give you a little hint; the astronaut core were test pilots.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 28, 2013, 09:00:39 PM
Well, hoax claims are not my profession.

What is your profession?

Quote
I'm not getting paid.

I don't get paid to do this either.  I do it in my spare time.  However what I do in my spare time is help invent machines to fly in the air and in space.  That gives me the knowledge to do this spare-time activity with a degree of skill and knowledge.  You seem to be doing this based on frantic Googling and bluster.  Why does your unpaid footing here relieve you of a responsibility to know what you're talking about and answer questions?

Quote
And writers often use a pen name.  Take Mark Twain... Samuel Langhorne Clemens.

You're not a literary genius.  You're someone obviously trying to evade an examination of the basis of his claims.  That makes your motivation slightly different than Clemens'.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on January 28, 2013, 09:03:04 PM
I'm not here to prove anything.  I can't.  I'm just here to debate.  A devils advocate.

In other words, you are trolling.
What's the opposite of trolling?  Not trolling?  What's the opposite of collecting stamps?  Not collecting stamps?  The title of this forum section says:
Do you believe the Apollo moon landings were faked? Share your theories here, but be prepared to defend them.

Sounds like an invitation to me.
Except for the part about not having any theory and backing away from your disjointed claims.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Bob B. on January 28, 2013, 09:05:27 PM
Although they wouldn't need RCS with a helium balloon.

Then what's the point of the test?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on January 28, 2013, 09:10:32 PM
Skepticism is what I do in my spare time.  And writers often use a pen name.  Take Mark Twain... Samuel Langhorne Clemens.

Your base dogma is "the governmental lies all the time about everything," that is not skepticism.

Quote
And writers often use a pen name.  Take Mark Twain... Samuel Langhorne Clemens.
 

I've read your posts.  Don't give up your day job.  Do you think that an anonymous article alleging a moon hoax is of interested to other than fringe readers exercising confirmation bias?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on January 28, 2013, 09:13:07 PM
Although they wouldn't need RCS with a helium balloon.

Then what's the point of the test?

Or to be more precise -- if you are not testing how the APS works as part of the total systems of the Ascent Module, then why doesn't a static test tell you what you need to know?

Again, this seems like an arbitrary line.

(Or rather, not arbitrary; it is the typical hoaxie requirement that whatever it is that NASA should have done, it is something the hoaxie in question is pretty sure NASA didn't do.)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 28, 2013, 09:14:22 PM
My patent has really nothing to do with my arguments.

Then why did you bring it up?

Quote
My arguments about Apollo stand on their own.

No they don't.  They're based on presumptions of expertise you claim, but don't have.  You're giving the typical layman's misconceptions for topics that are properly the domain of highly trained experts, and demanding that they be taken on faith.

Quote
The article would not be about proving anything, rather what it's like to argue with a group of people who are all of like mind, and taking the opposing view.

You haven't considered the possibility that we are "of like mind" because that's where the facts inexorably lead.  You came to this debate with the preconception that any agreement among your critics would be irrational groupthink, not the unanimous findings of logic and knowledge.

Quote
I think my main point here is to show people that the moon-landings are like a religion.  It's faith.

Asked and answered.  I showed that, in fact, you are the one expressing religious behavior.  Since you didn't bother to respond, I'll assume you have no argument.

Quote
With the moon landings, it's NASA said it and I believe it.

Expressly the opposite.  As you were told, but chose to ignore, you desperately want all your listeners and critics to be laymen.  Not all are, and those who aren't unanimously disagree with you.  Not only do they disagree with you, they can show you reasons for their disagreement that have nothing to do with faith or groupthink, and everything to do with you simply not knowing what you're talking about.  This isn't some lofty philosophical exercise.  This is just the typical experience of a crank Googling frantically to appear to be something he isn't.

Quote
I'm not here to prove anything.  I can't.  I'm just here to debate.  A devils advocate.

Whether you believe sincerely in your claims or not, you simply don't know what you're talking about.  Your arguments are made from a position of considerable ignorance about how the equipment worked, was purported to work, and about the problems being solved.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 28, 2013, 09:21:27 PM
Alexsanchez,

Thanks in advance.
The issue of moon rocks is purely a matter for debate. By that I mean I could just as well take either position.
Why not look at the evidence?

Quote
If I accept the govt's assertion that the moon landings were real, I would use the same arguments as you. However, given the number of lies and cover-ups engaged in by the govt, i.e., JFK, etc., I assert that the moon landings were fake.
Ri-i-ight. So we're starting with an assertion.

Quote
I also assert that the Soviet Union lied about bringing back their moon rocks and that they only had rocks from Antarctica, or Siberia, if anything.
Assertion number two. You have no evidence for this?

Quote
It's safe to say the Russians were adept at political propaganda and would not have hesitated to lie about it.
Accepted. We know the Soviets lied about certain aspects of their space missions. But this knowledge is based on evidence - for example, photographs altered to remove people subsequently dismissed as cosmonauts. The photos are known to be altered because either two differently altered versions of the photos have been published, or different photographs taken at the same time show different group compositions. Jim Oberg has been writing about this for 20+ years.

Likewise, American spy satellites provided information about the N-1 rocket which the Soviets "forgot" to publicise.

But there's other evidence which allows us to be sure the Soviets did make certain achievements in space - for example the British interception of signal from spacecraft at the Moon.

Quote
So maybe there are no rocks that were brought back from the moon. But if the govt gives a geologist a rock and says it's from the moon, the geologist will assume it's from the moon, having nothing to go on to prove otherwise.
Sorry, but that's wrong. As I mentioned above (posted before I saw your post), Moon rocks are identifiably different from Earth rocks. They show evidence of having formed in a low gravity vacuum, with no water present. You simply can't fake that on Earth. A geologist might have valid reasons for asking whether the rock came from the Moon, but (s)he certainly would know it can't have come from the Earth.

Quote
Moon rocks from Antarctica could be reconditioned to appear to have come from the moon.
How do you "recondition" a rock?

The Apollo rocks contain 'zap pits', tiny craters caused by the impact of grains of dust at speeds of tens of kilometres per second. Please describe the process for faking this.

The Apollo rocks contain evidence of having been subject to solar radiation for anywhere between millions and billions of years. Please describe the process for faking this?

Quote
No university researcher would cast doubt on the moon rocks as that would make them lose their funding.
Upsetting the status quo is what makes scientists famous. Galileo, Kepler, Newton and Einstein didn't become household names (more or less) by tamely agreeing with what everyone had said before them.

Quote
Also, the leading scientific theory is that the moon is just a chunk of the earth that was blasted off a few billion years ago, so the composition of the moon rocks would be the same as earthly material.
There's a lot of wrong in that statement.

1. "Debris", not "chunk". The Moon was formed by the accretion of lots of small pieces of material blasted off the Earth by the impact.

2. The impact would have generated high temperatures, which would vaporise volatile materials. This explains why the Moon is deficient in volatile materials like water, and thus in turn why the rocks on the Moon are different from those of the Earth.

May I suggest you read a little more about the topic.

Quote
Scientists would not be backing that theory if the alleged moon rocks were different in composition from rocks found on earth. 

Yes, they would if it's the best explanation of the evidence. The theory also fits in well with the conditions of the early Solar System - a lot more planets and planetesimals than we have today. What do you think is likely to happen in such a chaotic environment?
You're probably right on all points.  Thanks.
Now that I've had time to think about it...

They [moon rocks] show evidence of having formed in a low gravity vacuum, with no water present.

Are you saying there's no water on the moon?

"Glass beads within moon rocks suggest that water seen on the lunar surface originates from the solar wind, researchers say." - space.com
http://www.space.com/18058-moon-water-solar-wind.html

The Apollo rocks contain 'zap pits', tiny craters caused by the impact of grains of dust at speeds of tens of kilometres per second. Please describe the process for faking this.

Did the astronauts come back with any 'zap pits'?

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gillianren on January 28, 2013, 09:22:38 PM
Alex, the difference between you and the estimable Mr. Clemens is that he knew how to write well.  He could form sentences worth reading that always said what he meant them to.  He also knew enough to know what he didn't know, which you don't appear to.

To be perfectly honest, I think of myself as "the token layman" around here.  This place is swarming with people who work in fields directly relevant to the Apollo missions.  We have aerospace engineers, professional photographers, physicists, chemists, and so forth.  Heck, even I know enough about movies to know that the Apollo footage is still impossible to fake accurately.  If you want to dispute that fact, go ahead and explain how it was done.  Exactly.  Using brand names where necessary and with exact instructions that could be followed to produce the uninterrupted hours of footage we know came out of Apollo.

What's that?  You don't know enough to know how it was done?  Than how can you state that faking it was easy?  How can you state that faking it was possible?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Laurel on January 28, 2013, 09:30:34 PM
I'm a layperson too. But you don't have to be an engineering expert to contest such obviously wrong claims as "the LM was untested."
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: DataCable on January 28, 2013, 09:30:47 PM
Hey... who moved the LM in this picture? ??? ?
http://goo.gl/UPBJU (http://goo.gl/UPBJU)
http://www.dis.uniroma1.it/~demetres/photos/Dec-26-2000/images/miss-liberty-and-manhattan.JPG (http://www.dis.uniroma1.it/~demetres/photos/Dec-26-2000/images/miss-liberty-and-manhattan.JPG)
http://www.dis.uniroma1.it/~demetres/photos/Dec-26-2000/images/manhattan-skyline.JPG (http://www.dis.uniroma1.it/~demetres/photos/Dec-26-2000/images/manhattan-skyline.JPG)

Hey.... who moved Liberty Island in the second picture? ??? ?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 28, 2013, 09:32:12 PM
Alex, the difference between you and the estimable Mr. Clemens is that he knew how to write well.  He could form sentences worth reading that always said what he meant them to.  He also knew enough to know what he didn't know, which you don't appear to.

To be perfectly honest, I think of myself as "the token layman" around here.  This place is swarming with people who work in fields directly relevant to the Apollo missions.  We have aerospace engineers, professional photographers, physicists, chemists, and so forth.  Heck, even I know enough about movies to know that the Apollo footage is still impossible to fake accurately.  If you want to dispute that fact, go ahead and explain how it was done.  Exactly.  Using brand names where necessary and with exact instructions that could be followed to produce the uninterrupted hours of footage we know came out of Apollo.

What's that?  You don't know enough to know how it was done?  Than how can you state that faking it was easy?  How can you state that faking it was possible?
So how much do you really know about movies?  Give me $30 billion and I'll fake it.  Watch 2001: A Space Odyssey.  And the way to fake a moon video is to use a telecine.  It's explained perfectly here:
http://gizmodo.com/5977205/why-the-moon-landings-could-have-never-ever-been-faked-the-definitive-proof
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 28, 2013, 09:35:28 PM
So how much do you really know about movies?  Give me $30 billion and I'll fake it.  Watch 2001: A Space Odyssey.  And the way to fake a moon video is to use a telecine.  It's explained perfectly here:
http://gizmodo.com/5977205/why-the-moon-landings-could-have-never-ever-been-faked-the-definitive-proof

I think you missed the point of that video.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Bob B. on January 28, 2013, 09:36:14 PM
Alex, how many socks are in your drawer?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Abaddon on January 28, 2013, 09:40:30 PM
Come on alexsanchez, why are you afraid? Up thread, I identified me and my patent. Why are you scared?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on January 28, 2013, 09:42:08 PM
Oh boy, when conspiracy theorists say they didn't test things.
It's like when they say every photo was perfect, as it shows a critical lack of research.
"Alex", are you aware of Apollo 5, testing the LM unmanned in orbit? How about Apollo 9, where it was tested manned in Earth orbit? No? What about Apollo 10, testing the whole smash in lunar orbit and had an intentionally short fuelled LM ascent stage so that Snoopy's crew would not get any funny ideas about taking that LM down for the final descent?
Apollo 11 you obviously heard of but seem to be unaware its position as literally the final possible test. As has been asked before, just what in heck was left to test?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 28, 2013, 09:42:36 PM
I'm a layperson too. But you don't have to be an engineering expert to contest such obviously wrong claims as "the LM was untested."
What is the obvious part?  That it worked?  Only if you take NASA's word for it.  Is there any video of it being tested in flight?  There's video of the LM research vehicle crashing and Armstrong ejecting.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 28, 2013, 09:44:30 PM
Only if you take NASA's word for it.

You keep asserting this is why we disagree with you.  Point to anywhere where any poster here has said simply that they believe NASA and take their word for it.  If you cannot, stop using this straw man.

Quote
Is there any video of it being tested in flight?

Apollo 9, 10, and 11.

Quote
There's video of the LM research vehicle crashing and Armstrong ejecting.

Why is this relevant to the LM?

Why is this indicative of anything?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on January 28, 2013, 09:46:02 PM

So how much do you really know about movies?  Give me $30 billion and I'll fake it.  Watch 2001: A Space Odyssey

Which part?

Do you mean the part where the Earth is lit from the wrong side, is too large, and is in the wrong place in the sky?

Do you mean the part where the lunar terrain is craggy and sharp and quite unlike the Moon we know?

Do you mean the part where stars are perfectly visible in scenes featuring spacecraft with white (or light-colored) hulls (even though said stars form into no recognizable constellations and indeed resemble no part of the night sky).

Do you mean the part where men on a craft traveling across the surface of the Moon move as if in 1G, or the part where men on the surface of the Moon aren't shown in any way being under lunar gravity (aka, the shots are cropped so you often can't even see their lower bodies), or perhaps the part where a pen in zero-G rotates around something other than its own COG?

Perhaps you mean the part where a spacecraft clearly reveals the presence of an atmosphere (in Kubrick's defense, the shot does take place in the depths of an artificial structure that probably does have non-zero contamination by exhausts and similar).

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 28, 2013, 09:48:25 PM
Oh boy, when conspiracy theorists say they didn't test things.
It's like when they say every photo was perfect, as it shows a critical lack of research.
"Alex", are you aware of Apollo 5, testing the LM unmanned in orbit? How about Apollo 9, where it was tested manned in Earth orbit? No? What about Apollo 10, testing the whole smash in lunar orbit and had an intentionally short fuelled LM ascent stage so that Snoopy's crew would not get any funny ideas about taking that LM down for the final descent?
Apollo 11 you obviously heard of but seem to be unaware its position as literally the final possible test. As has been asked before, just what in heck was left to test?
Well, I guess, if NASA said so.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Laurel on January 28, 2013, 09:49:41 PM
Only if you take NASA's word for it.

You keep asserting this is why we disagree with you.  Point to anywhere where any poster here has said simply that they believe NASA and take their word for it.  If you cannot, stop using this straw man.
Did you miss Jay's request here?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 28, 2013, 09:51:24 PM
Well, I guess, if NASA said so.

Straw man.  Why can't you speak in any detail about LM testing?  Why do you keep resorting to calling everyone gullible sheep?

You're saying the LM wasn't appropriately tested.  We want to know from you to what extent you are aware the LM was tested.  We also want to know from you what you believe would have constituted a valid LM test, why your test program would be the proper one, and what evidence you can give that the aerospace industry would agree with your reasons.

Put up or shut up.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 28, 2013, 09:53:56 PM
Did you miss Jay's request here?

Of course he didn't.  He's just backed into a corner here, so the only thing he has left is to stick his fingers in his ears, close his eyes, and call everyone around him sheep.

He's way to inexperienced and undereducated to deal with the real topics of aerospace flight test.  I feel embarrassed for him.  He's failed this way so many other times.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 28, 2013, 09:57:08 PM

So how much do you really know about movies?  Give me $30 billion and I'll fake it.  Watch 2001: A Space Odyssey

Which part?

Do you mean the part where the Earth is lit from the wrong side, is too large, and is in the wrong place in the sky?

Do you mean the part where the lunar terrain is craggy and sharp and quite unlike the Moon we know?

Do you mean the part where stars are perfectly visible in scenes featuring spacecraft with white (or light-colored) hulls (even though said stars form into no recognizable constellations and indeed resemble no part of the night sky).

Do you mean the part where men on a craft traveling across the surface of the Moon move as if in 1G, or the part where men on the surface of the Moon aren't shown in any way being under lunar gravity (aka, the shots are cropped so you often can't even see their lower bodies), or perhaps the part where a pen in zero-G rotates around something other than its own COG?

Perhaps you mean the part where a spacecraft clearly reveals the presence of an atmosphere (in Kubrick's defense, the shot does take place in the depths of an artificial structure that probably does have non-zero contamination by exhausts and similar).
The parts in 2001: ASO that looks like they are in zero gravity (they're close enough.)  The scenes shot on the moon were intentionally made to look bad.  Kubrick would have been told to do an intentionally bad job showing them walking on the moon in 1968, a time when he would have been working for NASA.  The moon scenes are the only scenes in the movie that look fake.  The lack of continuity is obvious and sticks out like a sore thumb.  Kubrick knew walking on the moon wouldn't have looked like that.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 28, 2013, 10:00:01 PM
NASA can give you all sorts of details about Apollo that I doubt anyone would think of if the whole thing was a hoax. For example, NASA can tell you the estimated weight of the ice that formed on the sides of the Saturn V rocket prior to launch. Now, who would have even thought to include that kind of detail in press kits about a fake moon rocket?

NASA can answer any question that we might ask them about Apollo. Hoax believers can only offer you speculation. That is why I asked Alex where the astronauts were on July 20, 1969. If he can't answer that then he hasn't given an alternative to NASA's version of events.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Laurel on January 28, 2013, 10:01:43 PM
The parts in 2001: ASO that looks like they are in zero gravity (they're close enough.)  The scenes shot on the moon were intentionally made to look bad.  Kubrick would have been told to do an intentionally bad job showing them walking on the moon in 1968, a time when he would have been working for NASA.  The moon scenes are the only scenes in the movie that look fake.  The lack of continuity is obvious and sticks out like a sore thumb.  Kubrick knew walking on the moon wouldn't have looked like that.
Oh goody, more unsupported assertion. ::)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 28, 2013, 10:02:33 PM
Kubrick would have been told to do an intentionally bad job showing them walking on the moon in 1968, a time when he would have been working for NASA.

Hysterical.  At first you tell us to look to Kubrick's 2001 for secrets of how to fake the Moon landings.  Then just a few posts later you're telling us NASA told him to make it look bad, lest he give away the secrets.

Are you just making stuff up now?

By the way, I've spoken at length to Anthony Frewin, Kubrick's long-time assistant.  He assures us that Kubrick himself and the Kubrick estate is alternately amused and enraged at the notion that Kubrick was in any way involved with faking a Moon landing.  He's even kind enough to show how the "facts" the hoaxsters tell about Kubrick are unsupported by evidence and in fact roundly contradicted.

Sorry, no one here buys the "Kubrick faked the Moon landings" claim, and that is an informed repudiation.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Bob B. on January 28, 2013, 10:05:34 PM
What is the obvious part?  That it worked?  Only if you take NASA's word for it.  Is there any video of it being tested in flight?  There's video of the LM research vehicle crashing and Armstrong ejecting.

For the record, the LLRV was successfully flown hundreds of times.


Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 28, 2013, 10:06:47 PM
Well, I guess, if NASA said so.

Straw man.  Why can't you speak in any detail about LM testing?  Why do you keep resorting to calling everyone gullible sheep?

You're saying the LM wasn't appropriately tested.  We want to know from you to what extent you are aware the LM was tested.  We also want to know from you what you believe would have constituted a valid LM test, why your test program would be the proper one, and what evidence you can give that the aerospace industry would agree with your reasons.

Put up or shut up.
LM testing doesn't prove they landed on the moon, let alone took off from the moon.  I never said the technology wasn't there to go to the moon.  Putting men on the moon and getting them back is another thing.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on January 28, 2013, 10:06:55 PM
What is the obvious part?  That it worked?  Only if you take NASA's word for it.  Is there any video of it being tested in flight?  There's video of the LM research vehicle crashing and Armstrong ejecting.

The LLTV was a flying flight simulator, used to help train the pilots in the kind of flight that the LM would undergo.
That being said, it actually had a harder job in certain respects. For one, the LM would never have to deal with wind gusts and other atmospheric effects that would disturb its stability.
There is video of it landing and taking off safely though, all in a single take (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5mxqz_neil-armstrong-llrv-aka-flying-beds_music&start=212).
The LM however could not be test flown on Earth. Components could and were tested, (or are you claiming all of Grumman and the LM subcontractors are lying?) but the LM had far too little thrust to hover, let alone ascend in Earth gravity. Moreover, the nozzle, the cooling system and likely a whole bunch of other stuff. was designed for use in a vacuum, so it wouldn't be a very good test to try test flying it on Earth, even if it were possible.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Laurel on January 28, 2013, 10:10:23 PM
LM testing doesn't prove they landed on the moon, let alone took off from the moon.  I never said the technology wasn't there to go to the moon.  Putting men on the moon and getting them back is another thing.
You said the LM was "untested." That was a blatant error. It makes me wonder what else you didn't research.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 28, 2013, 10:12:49 PM
LM testing doesn't prove they landed on the moon, let alone took off from the moon.

You brought up LM testing.  If you'd rather not talk about it, then concede that you were in error.  If you wish to continue talking about it, answer my questions.

Quote
I never said the technology wasn't there to go to the moon.

You insinuated that was the reason the LM was "untested."  The suggestion was that if it had been a real spacecraft, it would have been tested differently that the record shows.  You are unable to give a description of the "proper" way to test a lunar module, hence we reject your suggestion that the LM was not real.

Will you explicitly concede that the LM was a real spacecraft?

Quote
Putting men on the moon and getting them back is another thing.

Asked and answered repeatedly.  Your characterization of the LM ascent and rendezvous is wrong.  Your expectations are based on layman's error.  You have been told what's wrong with your claims.  Repeating them again is a sign of religious faith, not reason.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 28, 2013, 10:17:38 PM
NASA can give you all sorts of details about Apollo that I doubt anyone would think of if the whole thing was a hoax. For example, NASA can tell you the estimated weight of the ice that formed on the sides of the Saturn V rocket prior to launch. Now, who would have even thought to include that kind of detail in press kits about a fake moon rocket?

NASA can answer any question that we might ask them about Apollo. Hoax believers can only offer you speculation. That is why I asked Alex where the astronauts were on July 20, 1969. If he can't answer that then he hasn't given an alternative to NASA's version of events.
Who said the moon rocket was fake?  Not me.  NASA had lots of experience with rockets icing up.  What's so remarkable about them being able to estimate how much ice there would be?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Laurel on January 28, 2013, 10:18:54 PM
If they had a real Moon rocket, why not use it to, I don't know, fly to the Moon?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 28, 2013, 10:22:51 PM
Who said the moon rocket was fake?  Not me.

Straw man.  The question was why there are so many verifiable details about a project that you say was fake.  Answer that one, not the one you wish she had asked.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on January 28, 2013, 10:27:51 PM

The parts in 2001: ASO that looks like they are in zero gravity (they're close enough.)

Err, no.

There are three sequences which take place in zero G; the Pan Am flight, Bowman's re-entry to the Discovery, and the lobotomy of HAL.

Within the Pan Am flight, the following is shown; a man strapped in his seat, asleep, with one arm moving as if weightless.  Two pilots, also strapped in their seats, moving normally.  A stewardess in (purportedly) velcro shoes, walking in an unusual fashion but otherwise showing no signs of lower gravity.  A trick shot of the same actress moving VERY carefully in a rotating set.  And two FX shots of a pen, neither of which is the least convincing in describing a free trajectory or motion about its own center of gravity.

In both other sequences, the actor is suspended from a single-point flying rig; in the famous entry sequence, the camera is looking straight up and Bowman is being lowered towards it.  His motions -- such as the complete lack of any movement about any other than a single axis -- reveals the trick.  The lobotomy sequence breaks this up by shooting from several different directions, but the actor never propels himself or somersaults or does any of the other motions other astronauts typically perform in zero G.  He stays in a single limited orientation throughout the sequence.

I believe I might suggest you watch the film before making further commentary on it.

The scenes shot on the moon were intentionally made to look bad.

So lemme get this straight; your best evidence that the Apollo surface video would be easy to fake is that there is a contemporary movie that does a bad job of faking it?

Are you even listening to yourself here?


  Kubrick would have been told to do an intentionally bad job showing them walking on the moon in 1968, a time when he would have been working for NASA.  The moon scenes are the only scenes in the movie that look fake.  The lack of continuity is obvious and sticks out like a sore thumb.  Kubrick knew walking on the moon wouldn't have looked like that.

You got one thing right; Kubrick knew better, and made choices for drama and story-telling.

You are wrong otherwise.  Every space scene is flawed.  The lack of any real zero-G and the failure of most of the gags that were used.  The presence of stars (and absence of a real starscape).  The line-up of the planets, astronomically implausible and wrongly proportioned.  The various circular promenades; from the stumbling Russians up on the curve of the space station, to the lack of any shot where both astronauts are moving freely around the Discovery ring at the same time.

And you are still requiring that Kubrick...that Stanley Kubrick, the man whose picture appears in the definition for "auteur film-maker"...would chose to produce intentionally poor shots that sabotaged the quality of his most ambitious film.

For what?  For the loan of a couple lenses?  (Good lenses, but still...!)

But I'm unwilling to accept your premise here.  2001 is a great film, and the choices are sound for that film.  He didn't arbitrarily insert a jaguar to the detriment of the Dawn of Man sequence because he was getting a pay-off from the fledgling Apple Corporation (looking forward a few decades to their cat-themed operating systems).  And he didn't chose claustrophobic shots filled with glare and stately motion because he was requested to do so as a contrast to the radically different kinds of shots of Apollo EVAs.

Sheesh.  As if you wanted a man who told stories and was famed for lighting and the framing of image and the creative use of FILM to direct long unbroken video from a single camera moving restlessly about the same landscape for hour after hour.

The first hoaxie that mentions Doug Trumbell instead will have my undying admiration.  Still a poor match, but....!
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on January 28, 2013, 10:32:50 PM
If they had a real Moon rocket, why not use it to, I don't know, fly to the Moon?
And if they had a real LM, why not land on it? After all, if Grumman and subcontractors weren't in on the hoax, they would do their very best to make a working LM. Having them be in on it is such an infeasible containment problem, that even many conspiracy theorists say they weren't.
 Even if Apollo was fake, you'd still need a working CSM to at least attempt to film the extended free-fall seen in Apollo video and 16mm film, not to mention to conduct Skylab.
In short, you need everything working, plus all the extra hardware, like sample return vehicles and reflector planters, to fake it.
So, as asked in this sketch, why not just go (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw)?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 28, 2013, 10:41:10 PM
NASA can give you all sorts of details about Apollo that I doubt anyone would think of if the whole thing was a hoax. For example, NASA can tell you the estimated weight of the ice that formed on the sides of the Saturn V rocket prior to launch. Now, who would have even thought to include that kind of detail in press kits about a fake moon rocket?

NASA can answer any question that we might ask them about Apollo. Hoax believers can only offer you speculation. That is why I asked Alex where the astronauts were on July 20, 1969. If he can't answer that then he hasn't given an alternative to NASA's version of events.
Who said the moon rocket was fake?  Not me.  NASA had lots of experience with rockets icing up.  What's so remarkable about them being able to estimate how much ice there would be?

That was just one example of how NASA has a lot a details about things that people wouldn't think of if the moon landings were faked.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on January 28, 2013, 10:44:07 PM
Perhaps he believes that the functional nature of a spacecraft can be divorced from the mission requirements.  That like a car, knowing it can drive is not the same as knowing it can drive on a particular road. 

Which just moves the problem.  Since Grumman and MIT and what-not knew the mission requirements and were building an LM with functional navigational equipment, they would be presumed to know if the thing could actually make an orbital rendezvous.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 28, 2013, 10:49:31 PM

The parts in 2001: ASO that looks like they are in zero gravity (they're close enough.)

Err, no.

There are three sequences which take place in zero G; the Pan Am flight, Bowman's re-entry to the Discovery, and the lobotomy of HAL.

Within the Pan Am flight, the following is shown; a man strapped in his seat, asleep, with one arm moving as if weightless.  Two pilots, also strapped in their seats, moving normally.  A stewardess in (purportedly) velcro shoes, walking in an unusual fashion but otherwise showing no signs of lower gravity.  A trick shot of the same actress moving VERY carefully in a rotating set.  And two FX shots of a pen, neither of which is the least convincing in describing a free trajectory or motion about its own center of gravity.

In both other sequences, the actor is suspended from a single-point flying rig; in the famous entry sequence, the camera is looking straight up and Bowman is being lowered towards it.  His motions -- such as the complete lack of any movement about any other than a single axis -- reveals the trick.  The lobotomy sequence breaks this up by shooting from several different directions, but the actor never propels himself or somersaults or does any of the other motions other astronauts typically perform in zero G.  He stays in a single limited orientation throughout the sequence.

I believe I might suggest you watch the film before making further commentary on it.

The scenes shot on the moon were intentionally made to look bad.

So lemme get this straight; your best evidence that the Apollo surface video would be easy to fake is that there is a contemporary movie that does a bad job of faking it?

Are you even listening to yourself here?


  Kubrick would have been told to do an intentionally bad job showing them walking on the moon in 1968, a time when he would have been working for NASA.  The moon scenes are the only scenes in the movie that look fake.  The lack of continuity is obvious and sticks out like a sore thumb.  Kubrick knew walking on the moon wouldn't have looked like that.

You got one thing right; Kubrick knew better, and made choices for drama and story-telling.

You are wrong otherwise.  Every space scene is flawed.  The lack of any real zero-G and the failure of most of the gags that were used.  The presence of stars (and absence of a real starscape).  The line-up of the planets, astronomically implausible and wrongly proportioned.  The various circular promenades; from the stumbling Russians up on the curve of the space station, to the lack of any shot where both astronauts are moving freely around the Discovery ring at the same time.

And you are still requiring that Kubrick...that Stanley Kubrick, the man whose picture appears in the definition for "auteur film-maker"...would chose to produce intentionally poor shots that sabotaged the quality of his most ambitious film.

For what?  For the loan of a couple lenses?  (Good lenses, but still...!)

But I'm unwilling to accept your premise here.  2001 is a great film, and the choices are sound for that film.  He didn't arbitrarily insert a jaguar to the detriment of the Dawn of Man sequence because he was getting a pay-off from the fledgling Apple Corporation (looking forward a few decades to their cat-themed operating systems).  And he didn't chose claustrophobic shots filled with glare and stately motion because he was requested to do so as a contrast to the radically different kinds of shots of Apollo EVAs.

Sheesh.  As if you wanted a man who told stories and was famed for lighting and the framing of image and the creative use of FILM to direct long unbroken video from a single camera moving restlessly about the same landscape for hour after hour.

The first hoaxie that mentions Doug Trumbell instead will have my undying admiration.  Still a poor match, but....!
2001 ASO = Front Screen Projection.  And let's not forget about Doug Trumbell?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on January 28, 2013, 10:55:01 PM
LM testing doesn't prove they landed on the moon, let alone took off from the moon.  I never said the technology wasn't there to go to the moon. 

There you go again.  Make a claim then pull it right back when challenged.

Quote
Putting men on the moon and getting them back is another thing.
So what specifically was the showstopper?  What do you think made it impossible to go to the moon? And what do you have to support the assertion?  Until you answer this question you are just another in a long line of common deniers that we get here.  Is that what you want the alexsanchez online legacy to be?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: frenat on January 28, 2013, 11:00:47 PM

So how much do you really know about movies?  Give me $30 billion and I'll fake it.  Watch 2001: A Space Odyssey

Which part?

Do you mean the part where the Earth is lit from the wrong side, is too large, and is in the wrong place in the sky?

Do you mean the part where the lunar terrain is craggy and sharp and quite unlike the Moon we know?

Do you mean the part where stars are perfectly visible in scenes featuring spacecraft with white (or light-colored) hulls (even though said stars form into no recognizable constellations and indeed resemble no part of the night sky).

Do you mean the part where men on a craft traveling across the surface of the Moon move as if in 1G, or the part where men on the surface of the Moon aren't shown in any way being under lunar gravity (aka, the shots are cropped so you often can't even see their lower bodies), or perhaps the part where a pen in zero-G rotates around something other than its own COG?

Perhaps you mean the part where a spacecraft clearly reveals the presence of an atmosphere (in Kubrick's defense, the shot does take place in the depths of an artificial structure that probably does have non-zero contamination by exhausts and similar).
The parts in 2001: ASO that looks like they are in zero gravity (they're close enough.)  The scenes shot on the moon were intentionally made to look bad.  Kubrick would have been told to do an intentionally bad job showing them walking on the moon in 1968, a time when he would have been working for NASA.  The moon scenes are the only scenes in the movie that look fake.  The lack of continuity is obvious and sticks out like a sore thumb.  Kubrick knew walking on the moon wouldn't have looked like that.

I dare you to prove ANY of that.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on January 28, 2013, 11:01:21 PM
Front Screen Projection would be of no use for faking Apollo.
For one, the cameras have to be kept pretty still or the shadows of the foreground objects will be seen on the screen, yet Apollo did 360 degree pans (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw). Moreover, these foreground objects have to be kept pretty pretty dark, or the projection will be visible on them. Notice how in 2001 the apes are all quite darkly furred.
Yet Apollo astronauts wore white suits with gold mirror visors, the exact opposite of dark!
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Peter B on January 28, 2013, 11:05:09 PM
Now that I've had time to think about it...

They [moon rocks] show evidence of having formed in a low gravity vacuum, with no water present.

Are you saying there's no water on the moon?
No. I said the moon rocks show evidence of having formed in a low gravity vacuum, with no water present. I said nothing about water subsequently arriving, whether on comets or as described in the article below.

Quote
"Glass beads within moon rocks suggest that water seen on the lunar surface originates from the solar wind, researchers say." - space.com
http://www.space.com/18058-moon-water-solar-wind.html
Yes. From the solar wind - an ongoing process which is completely different from the process which formed the rock 3.5 billion years or more ago. That process involved no water, making moon rocks noticeably different from Earth rocks.

Quote
The Apollo rocks contain 'zap pits', tiny craters caused by the impact of grains of dust at speeds of tens of kilometres per second. Please describe the process for faking this.

Did the astronauts come back with any 'zap pits'?
Not that I know of. Why should they? The rocks had been collecting zap pits for millions of years at least. The astronauts were on the surface of the Moon for a maximum of 25 hours, proportionately a slightly smaller period of time. You might like to research the rate of micrometeor impact on the Moon.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on January 28, 2013, 11:05:22 PM

2001 ASO = Front Screen Projection.  And let's not forget about Doug Trumbell?

And...?

If you are thinking Dave's silly claims, by the by, there is a basic bit of information about the use of Scotchlite materials on 2001 that he doesn't appear to know (because he based several of his arguments upon this failure of knowledge).

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on January 28, 2013, 11:07:45 PM
Oh, and Alex?

What's with the sock on Cosmo Quest?  Not getting enough respect here?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 28, 2013, 11:16:03 PM
LM testing doesn't prove they landed on the moon, let alone took off from the moon.  I never said the technology wasn't there to go to the moon. 

There you go again.  Make a claim then pull it right back when challenged.

Quote
Putting men on the moon and getting them back is another thing.
So what specifically was the showstopper?  What do you think made it impossible to go to the moon? And what do you have to support the assertion?  Until you answer this question you are just another in a long line of common deniers that we get here.  Is that what you want the alexsanchez online legacy to be?
As I've said several times, from a technical standpoint, it's the navigation problem of lifting off from the moon.  You can go back through my earlier posts about IMU alignment to moon-centered coordinates, and the inability to do so.  My main objection is from both a political and statistical standpoint - the only way to insure a guaranteed 100% success was to fake it.  It was infinitely more valuable to appear to have gone to the moon than it was to have risked going.  What if the astronauts had been stranded on the moon and were forced to sit there until their oxygen ran out?  Imagine how sick this country would have felt listening to their final transmissions down to their last gasp for air.  Imagine the astronauts saying goodbye to their families from the moon, broadcast on live TV.  Image the embarrassment to NASA.  Americans would have said cancel the space program because we can't live through that again.  The entire world would have been listening to the astronauts as they waited to die.  Given those political odds, what to you think Nixon, a career politician enamored with his own image, would have chosen to do?  We got nothing out of going to the moon except national prestige, and political and military advantage, and supposedly a bunch of moon rocks.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on January 28, 2013, 11:21:54 PM
Except that would not insure 100% success. After all, there is the huge, huge chance of it being found out, to the endless humiliation of NASA and the United States of America as a whole, especially if the evidence were what is claimed.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Laurel on January 28, 2013, 11:22:15 PM
Gene Kranz said in his book that NASA fully expected to lose one or two astronauts during Mercury. Gemini had at least two life-threatening emergencies I can think of right now (Gemini 8 spinning out of control and Gene Cernan's self-described "EVA from hell" on Gemini 9). But NASA was not willing to risk lives for Apollo? Explain please.

And why did three astronauts die during a test of the Command Module? If it wasn't really going to the Moon, why did they have to test it?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on January 28, 2013, 11:26:52 PM

As I've said several times, from a technical standpoint, it's the navigation problem of lifting off from the moon.  You can go back through my earlier posts about IMU alignment to moon-centered coordinates, and the inability to do so.  My main objection is from both a political and statistical standpoint - the only way to insure a guaranteed 100% success was to fake it.  It was infinitely more valuable to appear to have gone to the moon than it was to have risked going.  What if the astronauts had been stranded on the moon and were forced to sit there until their oxygen ran out?  Imagine how sick this country would have felt listening to their final transmissions down to their last gasp for air.  Imagine the astronauts saying goodbye to their families from the moon, broadcast on live TV.  Image the embarrassment to NASA.  Americans would have said cancel the space program because we can't live through that again.  The entire world would have been listening to the astronauts as they waited to die.  Given those political odds, what to you think Nixon, a career politician enamored with his own image, would have chosen to do?  We got nothing out of going to the moon except national prestige, and political and military advantage, and supposedly a bunch of moon rocks.

You mean 100% guaranteed success like Iran-Contra, the Watergate break-in and tapes, Potempkin villages, Piltdown Man, the Bruno Hat...?

By what measure have you determined that any campaign of falsehood is guaranteed to escape discovery?

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: AtomicDog on January 28, 2013, 11:30:12 PM
LM testing doesn't prove they landed on the moon, let alone took off from the moon.  I never said the technology wasn't there to go to the moon. 

There you go again.  Make a claim then pull it right back when challenged.

Quote
Putting men on the moon and getting them back is another thing.
So what specifically was the showstopper?  What do you think made it impossible to go to the moon? And what do you have to support the assertion?  Until you answer this question you are just another in a long line of common deniers that we get here.  Is that what you want the alexsanchez online legacy to be?
As I've said several times, from a technical standpoint, it's the navigation problem of lifting off from the moon.  You can go back through my earlier posts about IMU alignment to moon-centered coordinates, and the inability to do so.  My main objection is from both a political and statistical standpoint - the only way to insure a guaranteed 100% success was to fake it.  It was infinitely more valuable to appear to have gone to the moon than it was to have risked going.  What if the astronauts had been stranded on the moon and were forced to sit there until their oxygen ran out?  Imagine how sick this country would have felt listening to their final transmissions down to their last gasp for air.  Imagine the astronauts saying goodbye to their families from the moon, broadcast on live TV.  Image the embarrassment to NASA.  Americans would have said cancel the space program because we can't live through that again.  The entire world would have been listening to the astronauts as they waited to die.  Given those political odds, what to you think Nixon, a career politician enamored with his own image, would have chosen to do?  We got nothing out of going to the moon except national prestige, and political and military advantage, and supposedly a bunch of moon rocks.

So Nixon, who was inaugurated in January, 1969, told NASA to scrap its successful moon landing program, (which had already successfully performed Apollo 8 a month before he took office), and fake it instead?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 28, 2013, 11:34:35 PM
LM testing doesn't prove they landed on the moon, let alone took off from the moon.  I never said the technology wasn't there to go to the moon. 

There you go again.  Make a claim then pull it right back when challenged.

Quote
Putting men on the moon and getting them back is another thing.
So what specifically was the showstopper?  What do you think made it impossible to go to the moon? And what do you have to support the assertion?  Until you answer this question you are just another in a long line of common deniers that we get here.  Is that what you want the alexsanchez online legacy to be?
As I've said several times, from a technical standpoint, it's the navigation problem of lifting off from the moon.  You can go back through my earlier posts about IMU alignment to moon-centered coordinates, and the inability to do so.  My main objection is from both a political and statistical standpoint - the only way to insure a guaranteed 100% success was to fake it.  It was infinitely more valuable to appear to have gone to the moon than it was to have risked going.  What if the astronauts had been stranded on the moon and were forced to sit there until their oxygen ran out?  Imagine how sick this country would have felt listening to their final transmissions down to their last gasp for air.  Imagine the astronauts saying goodbye to their families from the moon, broadcast on live TV.  Image the embarrassment to NASA.  Americans would have said cancel the space program because we can't live through that again.  The entire world would have been listening to the astronauts as they waited to die.  Given those political odds, what to you think Nixon, a career politician enamored with his own image, would have chosen to do?  We got nothing out of going to the moon except national prestige, and political and military advantage, and supposedly a bunch of moon rocks.

So Nixon, who was inaugurated in January, 1969, told NASA to scrap its successful moon landing program, (which had already successfully performed Apollo 8 a month before he took office), and fake it instead?
Well, make it Lyndon Baines "Gulf of Tonkin" Johnson.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: AtomicDog on January 28, 2013, 11:37:35 PM
You tapdance good, son.

So why didn't Nixon blow the whistle on Johnson, a bitter political rival, and humiliate him and his administration?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: cjameshuff on January 28, 2013, 11:43:25 PM
No. I said the moon rocks show evidence of having formed in a low gravity vacuum, with no water present. I said nothing about water subsequently arriving, whether on comets or as described in the article below.

And the water implanted into glassy bits of regolith is in minute quantities that were only detectable by techniques developed decades after the moon landings. The only significant water on the moon is in polar ice deposits that were nowhere near any landing locations, and which only exist because of their extreme low temperatures due to being constantly shadowed by terrain...the Apollo landings weren't even equipped to explore such areas. That water has been discovered doesn't change the fact that most of the lunar surface is far drier than anywhere on Earth.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 28, 2013, 11:51:48 PM
You tapdance good, son.

So why didn't Nixon blow the whistle on Johnson, a bitter political rival, and humiliate him and his administration?
Maybe Nixon didn't want to end up like JFK (not that I'm insinuating anything... just saying).  And Nixon had the rest of the Apollo missions to milk.  Why ruin a good thing.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 28, 2013, 11:56:17 PM

2001 ASO = Front Screen Projection.  And let's not forget about Doug Trumbell?

And...?

If you are thinking Dave's silly claims, by the by, there is a basic bit of information about the use of Scotchlite materials on 2001 that he doesn't appear to know (because he based several of his arguments upon this failure of knowledge).
Who's Dave?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: AtomicDog on January 29, 2013, 12:01:13 AM
You tapdance good, son.

So why didn't Nixon blow the whistle on Johnson, a bitter political rival, and humiliate him and his administration?
Maybe Nixon didn't want to end up like JFK (not that I'm insinuating anything... just saying).  And Nixon had the rest of the Apollo missions to milk.  Why ruin a good thing.

"Just saying" is a weasley way of making an insinuation and denying it at the same time.

And Nixon loved to milk the Apollo missions so much that he cancelled them the first chance he got.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on January 29, 2013, 12:04:22 AM
You tapdance good, son.

So why didn't Nixon blow the whistle on Johnson, a bitter political rival, and humiliate him and his administration?
Maybe Nixon didn't want to end up like JFK (not that I'm insinuating anything... just saying).  And Nixon had the rest of the Apollo missions to milk.  Why ruin a good thing.
(bolded for emphases)
Then why say it? What a blatantly dishonest statement!
"I am not saying this, except I am."
Couldn't spread the bull shit thicker with a leaking honey wagon.
Nixon hated Apollo, as he well knew that it was mostly the work of his bitter political rivals. The fruit may have undergone its final ripening while under his purview, but the actual planting and tending was by others.
 If he wanted to milk it, why did he almost axe Apollo 16 and 17? Why were Apollo 18, 19 and 20 cancelled?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Bob B. on January 29, 2013, 12:07:08 AM
It was infinitely more valuable to appear to have gone to the moon than it was to have risked going.

I disagree.  Nothing is achieved by faking it.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 29, 2013, 12:22:19 AM
You tapdance good, son.

So why didn't Nixon blow the whistle on Johnson, a bitter political rival, and humiliate him and his administration?
Maybe Nixon didn't want to end up like JFK (not that I'm insinuating anything... just saying).  And Nixon had the rest of the Apollo missions to milk.  Why ruin a good thing.
(bolded for emphases)
Then why say it? What a blatantly dishonest statement!
"I am not saying this, except I am."
Couldn't spread the bull shit thicker with a leaking honey wagon.
Nixon hated Apollo, as he well knew that it was mostly the work of his bitter political rivals. The fruit may have undergone its final ripening while under his purview, but the actual planting and tending was by others.
 If he wanted to milk it, why did he almost axe Apollo 16 and 17? Why were Apollo 18, 19 and 20 cancelled?
Not saying and not insinuating are two different things.  Apollo was a legacy of JFK.  Nixon was the president at the time of the moon landing (referring to my previous post.)  Nixon was the one handed the Apollo 11 death speech.  I don't know why Nixon almost axed 16 and 17.  You'd have to ask him.
President Nixon spoke to Aldrin and Armstrong during their first walk on the surface of the moon, praising the astronauts and observing the unique importance of the mission.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_in_popular_culture

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: DataCable on January 29, 2013, 12:24:37 AM
What if the astronauts had been stranded on the moon and were forced to sit there until their oxygen ran out? [...] Americans would have said cancel the space program because we can't live through that again.
What if a single spark during a ground test caused the pressurized pure-O2 environment of an Apollo capsule to burst into flames, killing all three crewmembers?  That surely would have caused such public uproar that the entire program would be scrapped... wait, no, that didn't happen.  Well, how about a spacecraft in-transit to the moon has an explosion aboard, severely crippling it, causing the crew to barely get back to earth alive.  Nobody would dare let another mission... oh, wait... yes, yes they did... four more times.

Now, supposing it was a hoax:  In front of millions of live witnesses, a Saturn V booster, supposedly with 3 live crewmembers atop it, explodes seconds after launch and the LES clearly failed, "killing" the crew.  How do you propose the conspirators would have planned to deal with that scenario?  What were they to do with the inconveniently still-breathing would-be astronauts?  How does one guarantee a "fake" success when there are still unfakeable elements (e.g. a rocket launch) which cannot be guaranteed to succeed?  If that atrocious film Capricorn 1 is good for anything, it demonstrates just how ludicrous the hoax logic is.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 29, 2013, 12:29:29 AM
What if the astronauts had been stranded on the moon and were forced to sit there until their oxygen ran out? [...] Americans would have said cancel the space program because we can't live through that again.
What if a single spark during a ground test caused the pressurized pure-O2 environment of an Apollo capsule to burst into flames, killing all three crewmembers?  That surely would have caused such public uproar that the entire program would be scrapped... wait, no, that didn't happen.  Well, how about a spacecraft in-transit to the moon has an explosion aboard, severely crippling it, causing the crew to barely get back to earth alive.  Nobody would dare let another mission... oh, wait... yes, yes they did... four more times.

Now, supposing it was a hoax:  In front of millions of live witnesses, a Saturn V booster, supposedly with 3 live crewmembers atop it, explodes seconds after launch and the LES clearly failed, "killing" the crew.  How do you propose the conspirators would have planned to deal with that scenario?  What were they to do with the inconveniently still-breathing would-be astronauts?  How does one guarantee a "fake" success when there are still unfakeable elements (e.g. a rocket launch) which cannot be guaranteed to succeed?  If that atrocious film Capricorn 1 is good for anything, it demonstrates just how ludicrous the hoax logic is.
I'm sure NASA had their fingers crossed either way.  If it blew up, I'm sure they had a contingency plan.  If the astronauts were prepared to die, I'm sure they were prepared to go into hiding.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 29, 2013, 12:33:13 AM
As I've said several times, from a technical standpoint, it's the navigation problem of lifting off from the moon.  You can go back through my earlier posts about IMU alignment to moon-centered coordinates, and the inability to do so.

You mean that steaming pile of ignorance you keep repeating over and over as if you knew what you were talking about?

You don't understand ascent and rendezvous.  You keep trying to tell us that it's a one-shot deal that requires great precision at the outset.  In fact no kind of rendezvous is or was ever attempted the way you say.  Multiple phase ascent and rendezvous was explained to you several times.

You don't understand inertial guidance.  You think the IMU on a spacecraft works the way a gyrocompass on an airplane works.  It doesn't.

You don't understand IMU alignment.  You think it's to establish location when in fact it's to establish orientation in 3D space.  Toward that end you think that IMU alignment requires a fixed survey point on a planetary surface.  It does not.  You can only conceive of silly straw-man methods.  You ignore the actual method employed.

Let's be absolutely clear:  it's painfully obvious that you don't understand even the rudimentary basics of this type of navigation or orbital mechanics.  And several people have explained to you exactly what's wrong with your expectations and exactly what was actually done to accomplish the parts of the mission you say were impossible.  You simply keep repeating the same egregious ignorance over and over again.

Quote
My main objection is from both a political and statistical standpoint...

No.  You spilled the beans earlier.  You gave your reason as purely political -- you religiously assert that governments always lie, and that your faith on this point is reliable enough to ignore all evidence.

Quote
the only way to insure a guaranteed 100% success was to fake it.

Asked and answered repeatedly.

Quote
What if the astronauts had been stranded on the moon and were forced to sit there until their oxygen ran out?

Oddly enough, NASA and the administration had a plan for this.  It wasn't discovered until many years later.  Why would they need to plan for that, and keep the plan confidential, if there was no chance of that happening?

Quote
Imagine how sick this country would have felt listening to their final transmissions down to their last gasp for air.

Straw man.  Why do you think that would have been broadcast?

Quote
Imagine the astronauts saying goodbye to their families from the moon, broadcast on live TV.

Straw man.  Why do you think it would have been broadcast?

If you're interested, the actual plan for what would have happened is now unclassified.  Go read it.

Quote
Image the embarrassment to NASA.

Well if you propose silly morbid scenarios, then yes.  Are you really so arrogant as to think that the way you envision it would have been the way it would have played out.

Quote
Americans would have said cancel the space program because we can't live through that again.

You mean like they did after Apollo 1 and Apollo 13?

Quote
The entire world would have been listening to the astronauts as they waited to die.

No, that was not the plan.

Quote
Given those political odds, what to you think Nixon, a career politician enamored with his own image, would have chosen to do?

Well he didn't plan to do it the stupid way you lay out.  But there was a plan.

Quote
We got nothing out of going to the moon except national prestige, and political and military advantage, and supposedly a bunch of moon rocks.

Wow, you really have absolutely no clue how the aerospace industry works, do you?

Obvious troll is obvious.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 29, 2013, 12:34:24 AM
I'm sure NASA had their fingers crossed either way.  If it blew up, I'm sure they had a contingency plan.  If the astronauts were prepared to die, I'm sure they were prepared to go into hiding.

Do you have any actual evidence for any such contingency plans?  Or are these things you just believe and take on faith?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on January 29, 2013, 12:35:32 AM
Not saying and not insinuating are two different things.  Apollo was a legacy of JFK.  Nixon was the president at the time of the moon landing (referring to my previous post.)  Nixon was the one handed the Apollo 11 death speech.  I don't know why Nixon almost axed 16 and 17.  You'd have to ask him.
President Nixon spoke to Aldrin and Armstrong during their first walk on the surface of the moon, praising the astronauts and observing the unique importance of the mission.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_in_popular_culture
Then just what did you mean by when you said, "Nixon didn't want to end up like JFK"?
I am asking you about the near cancellation of Apollo 16 and 17  because you are the one claiming he was trying to milk Apollo for political gain. That claim is contradicted by the fact he almost cancelled two missions and that the three last missions were cancelled.
Also, you think he is going to publicly say on the air how much he hated the whole thing?
The man was a lifetime politician. Public smiles/private frowns are his stock in trade!
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ka9q on January 29, 2013, 12:38:36 AM
if you say you have a patent, and cannot give us evidence to that effect, we must only conclude that you are lying. Just as you say governments ALWAYS lie.
Every time some conspiracist claims certain credentials we always take the bait and demand proof of their validity. The resulting rathole diverts the argument away from their original claims, just as they intended.

Folks, it doesn't matter if alexsanchez had invented sliced bread; his Apollo claims are still crap, and they should be treated as such.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 29, 2013, 12:39:57 AM
http://watergate.info/1969/07/20/an-undelivered-nixon-speech.html

That's the speech Nixon would have delivered if Apollo 11 had been unable to lift off from the Moon.  Michael Collins writes in Carrying the Fire about the parts of the flight plan that would have required him to fly home alone.  Along with Nixon's speech, there were procedures to be carried out at Mission Control, which included allowing loved ones private communication time with the crew, then terminating the connection to the let crew work out their final preparations according to their own conscience.

Your silly "must have been faked" scenario avoids all that documented dignity in favor of your hypothetical macabre televised gasping death throes.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Chew on January 29, 2013, 12:44:22 AM
As I've said several times, from a technical standpoint, it's the navigation problem of lifting off from the moon.  You can go back through my earlier posts about IMU alignment to moon-centered coordinates, and the inability to do so.

It has already been explained to you: gravity and a celestial mark.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on January 29, 2013, 01:02:51 AM
Reading that speech almost leaves me in tears.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 29, 2013, 01:03:45 AM
The parts in 2001: ASO that looks like they are in zero gravity (they're close enough.)  The scenes shot on the moon were intentionally made to look bad.  Kubrick would have been told to do an intentionally bad job showing them walking on the moon in 1968, a time when he would have been working for NASA.  The moon scenes are the only scenes in the movie that look fake.  The lack of continuity is obvious and sticks out like a sore thumb.  Kubrick knew walking on the moon wouldn't have looked like that.

No, not really - one glaring example that comes to mind is a scene on the "moon shuttle" where a tray floats up off someone's lap,supposedly in zero-G, visibly swinging from side to side in apparent violation of Newton's First Law of Motion.

Or are Newton's Laws also suspect because they're taught in publicly funded schools?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ka9q on January 29, 2013, 01:06:40 AM
Also the LM did not work flawlessly. If it did, the Eagle wouldn't have had those program alarms during its descent.
That's just one well-known LM glitch. Here are two more. Both have to do with the S-band steerable antenna so I'm familiar with them.

Eagle had S-band comm dropouts early in the descent phase serious enough to require Mike Collins to relay via VHF. There were two contributing causes: Armstrong had the windows facing down to perform landmark checks (which is how he knew they would land long), and in that orientation the S-band steerable antenna had to point through one of the just-added RCS plume deflectors. The problem was worked around in real time with a yaw maneuver, and when Eagle later yawed so the windows faced up the problem went away.

The S-band steerable antenna on Apollo 16 totally failed because a retaining pin did not release when commanded to do so. The entire mission was flown on the omni antennas and with the separate antennas on the LRV.

These are classic examples of the kinds of problems that happen all the time in complex, real-world systems, and they'll ring true to any experienced engineer. (As opposed, say, to someone pretending to be an experienced engineer.) Something gets changed, usually for a perfectly good reason but often at the last minute, and it doesn't occur to anybody that this will affect some other subsystem. But it's always obvious in hindsight...

This is why we spend interminable hours in meetings. And it's why we test, test and test again -- and then we do some testing. Apollo 5 tested the basic operation of the LM in its design environment: vacuum and freefall. Apollo 7 did the same thing for the CSM, with a crew. Apollo 8 tested the entire system for getting to lunar orbit and back. Apollo 9 tested the LM in space with a crew, and rendezvous procedures with the CSM. Apollo 10 tested flying the LM separately in lunar orbit and getting it back to the CSM.

So by the time Apollo 11 landed, everything had already been done at least once except for the powered descent and actual landing, and so it's no surprise at all that that's where most of the problems appeared. The hardware, software, people and procedures were hardly "untested" as some ignorant conspiracists would have us believe.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 29, 2013, 01:13:06 AM
The parts in 2001: ASO that looks like they are in zero gravity (they're close enough.)  The scenes shot on the moon were intentionally made to look bad.  Kubrick would have been told to do an intentionally bad job showing them walking on the moon in 1968, a time when he would have been working for NASA.  The moon scenes are the only scenes in the movie that look fake.  The lack of continuity is obvious and sticks out like a sore thumb.  Kubrick knew walking on the moon wouldn't have looked like that.

No, not really - one glaring example that comes to mind is a scene on the "moon shuttle" where a tray floats up off someone's lap,supposedly in zero-G, visibly swinging from side to side in apparent violation of Newton's First Law of Motion.

Or are Newton's Laws also suspect because they're taught in publicly funded schools?
Maybe we really went to the moon.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 29, 2013, 01:16:33 AM
Maybe we really went to the moon.

That's certainly how all the available evidence is interpreted unanimously by the appropriately educated and experienced people.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 29, 2013, 01:26:13 AM
Gene Kranz said in his book that NASA fully expected to lose one or two astronauts during Mercury. Gemini had at least two life-threatening emergencies I can think of right now (Gemini 8 spinning out of control and Gene Cernan's self-described "EVA from hell" on Gemini 9). But NASA was not willing to risk lives for Apollo? Explain please.

And why did three astronauts die during a test of the Command Module? If it wasn't really going to the Moon, why did they have to test it?
And Cernan again, on Apollo 10 when the LM ascent stage computers sent them into a tumbling cartwheel less than 10 miles off the surface and came (according to Cernan) within two seconds of crashing.

Performed flawlessly every time, indeed. The only reason the missions appeared to go flawlessly was month and years of hard work by all concerned.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 29, 2013, 01:29:02 AM
Maybe we really went to the moon.

That's certainly how all the available evidence is interpreted unanimously by the appropriately educated and experienced people.
If I have any other questions I know where to come.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on January 29, 2013, 01:34:05 AM
If I have any other questions I know where to come.
I have a question for you. Actually, I have several, but this one is forefront. Why the sudden change?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 29, 2013, 01:43:47 AM
The issue of moon rocks is purely a matter for debate. 

Of course you can. But you'd have no evidence (not one shred) to support your argument.

The rest of this outlandish post has been thoroughly debunked, so I'll not repeat others, bar a couple of points:

1) You have provided no evidence of American sample returns,
2) You have provided no evidence that you have nay geological qualifications or experience (remember hoaxie, just because you say that something could have happened, doesn't mean that it did. Especially if there's not a jot of evidence to support your belief)
3) A test LM hanging from a helium balloon? Awww come on! What sort of engineering have you been involved in? Baby buggy engineering????
4) Still no offer to complete on your bet. I told you that I'm prepared to put money on the line. Whats up hoaxie...not able to put up the evidence??
5) Now that you've admitted that Jack White was talking through his ass, you are yet to say at what point the evidence becomes believable. Or put it another way- whats your next bit to be debunked. So far you've had your daft LM cant take off without a theodolite debunked. now you've had White's images debunked. Whats next?

I await your response with bated breath.....
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Peter B on January 29, 2013, 01:46:01 AM
...We got nothing out of going to the moon except national prestige, and political and military advantage, and supposedly a bunch of moon rocks.
What's with the supposedly?

Did NASA acquire genuine Moon rocks or not? If not, in the light of what we've explained about them, please explain what they are.

What are your objections to the reality of the Apollo rocks?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ka9q on January 29, 2013, 01:46:07 AM
You only get a couple photons back from a laser burst according to UCSD.
This is a good example of the worthlessness of uninformed incredulity.That's right, you only get a couple of photons. But they're enough.

Yes, even when the laser is off the moon sends many photons toward the earth. But not all photons are the same, and that's the crucial difference. For the telescope to count a particular photon it must first pass this gauntlet:

1. The telescope sees only photons from a tiny part of the lunar surface centered on the reflector in use. All other lunar photons don't even make it through the telescope.

2. The detector only sees photons with the wavelength of the laser. Reflected sunlight is spread over many wavelengths, so most are filtered and ignored.

3. Most important of all, the ranging system already knows the approximate distance to the moon so it only responds to photons arriving within literally nanoseconds of the expected time.

These criteria are so selective that when you apply them to the huge numbers of reflected solar photons, essentially none make it through. And that's what makes it possible to detect those few laser photons that do make it back to the telescope.

The Mythbusters episode, if you watched it, showed a scatter plot of received photons vs time at the Apache Point site. When the laser was off or not pointed at a reflector, you only saw a few points scattered randomly over the graph. When a return was acquired, a very obvious black bar of dots formed right across the middle. There is simply no way around it: the system works, and only because of the artificial reflectors placed there by Apollo and Luna.

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 29, 2013, 01:50:23 AM
Ya gotta give him points for technique on the flounce, though.

 ::)If not for sincerity...
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 29, 2013, 01:52:43 AM
My spidey senses are picking up a stealth flounce.....


(http://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/flounce2.jpg)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 29, 2013, 01:56:22 AM
If I have any other questions I know where to come.
I have a question for you. Actually, I have several, but this one is forefront. Why the sudden change?
While I still maintain it was possible to fake, there's adequate argument to maintain that it wasn't.  There's still a few things I want to check out though.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on January 29, 2013, 01:58:21 AM
Another fun fact.
SMART-1 did some  remote spectrography work when it was orbiting the moon, using known results from Luna sample return  (http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/SMART-1_on_the_trail_of_the_Moon_s_beginnings)and Apollo  (http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/SMART-1_birthday_postcard_of_Apollo_11_landing_site)sites to help calibrate the instrument, both Luna and Apollo which you claimed were faked somehow and/or used lunar meteorites. These results make that rather impossible as there is no way the results could agree, either with each other or the SMART-1 results. In case the big ESA logo didn't give it away, SMART-1 was a European Space Agency probe, affiliated with neither the United States or Russia.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 29, 2013, 02:03:19 AM
Performed flawlessly every time, indeed. The only reason the missions appeared to go flawlessly was month and years of hard work by all concerned.


Indeed. Tom Kelly's book is a great read on just how many issues they experienced. Welds cracking, leaking pipework, windows shattering are just a couple that spring to mind.

What about Apollo 5? Software errors meant the LM didn't perform as expected (a suspected fuel leak meant that the tanks weren't pressurised at the right time, which "tripped" the computer up).
What about Apollo 11? The famous 1202 alarms?

Just about every mission had issues or failures in the system that could have lead to an abort (not all down to the LM). Rigorous testing and good contingency planning meant that the missions could proceed despite these errors.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 29, 2013, 02:07:20 AM
While I still maintain it was possible to fake, there's adequate argument to maintain that it wasn't.  There's still a few things I want to check out though.

Your adherence to that is noted. However it was not possible to fake it. Not to anywhere near the level of detail that the historical record clearly shows.

Stick around and check them out here. We might all learn something. Though my gut feeling is that you won't. You'll stealth flounce and continue to peddle your hoaxie claims under another name somewhere else.

It's also a shame that you have deprived a charity of some cash as well....

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Abaddon on January 29, 2013, 02:08:15 AM
If I have any other questions I know where to come.
I have a question for you. Actually, I have several, but this one is forefront. Why the sudden change?
While I still maintain it was possible to fake, there's adequate argument to maintain that it wasn't.  There's still a few things I want to check out though.
You are going to attempt a fringe reset, right?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Glom on January 29, 2013, 02:59:39 AM
So wait, 2001 is both so well done is shows how you can fake a real moonlanding and already deliberately done poorly.

That's not the most ridiculous thing a conspiracy theorist has said.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 29, 2013, 03:09:21 AM
So wait, 2001 is both so well done is shows how you can fake a real moonlanding and already deliberately done poorly.

That's not the most ridiculous thing a conspiracy theorist has said.


(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l6fc7h9coM1qcvp5n.jpg)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ka9q on January 29, 2013, 03:52:41 AM
What about Apollo 5? Software errors meant the LM didn't perform as expected (a suspected fuel leak meant that the tanks weren't pressurised at the right time, which "tripped" the computer up).
The writers of that software take exception to that characterization. The problem was that they were given an incorrect parameter; the software behaved correctly with the given value.

The computer was programmed to abort a burn if it did not see thrust (chamber pressure and/or +X acceleration) within a specified time. Because it was the first DPS burn, the pyro valves on the pressurization system had to be blown. Extra time should have been allowed for the helium to flow, but it wasn't factored into the burn abort timer.

This is why we test...

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 29, 2013, 04:04:44 AM
What about Apollo 5? Software errors meant the LM didn't perform as expected (a suspected fuel leak meant that the tanks weren't pressurised at the right time, which "tripped" the computer up).
The writers of that software take exception to that characterization. The problem was that they were given an incorrect parameter; the software behaved correctly with the given value.

The computer was programmed to abort a burn if it did not see thrust (chamber pressure and/or +X acceleration) within a specified time. Because it was the first DPS burn, the pyro valves on the pressurization system had to be blown. Extra time should have been allowed for the helium to flow, but it wasn't factored into the burn abort timer.

This is why we test...

I'm sure that the writers will cope.  ;)

The point stands. The LM did not perform flawlessly, as Alexsanchez contended. It performed well enough to get the job done, thanks to tens of thousands of hours testing, correcting, adapting, training and so on.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ka9q on January 29, 2013, 04:11:59 AM
The point stands. The LM did not perform flawlessly, as Alexsanchez contended.
Absolutely true. And the failures it did have, while never serious enough to abort a mission or injure a crew, are of the type that any experienced engineer will most definitely recognize. They came in at least three kinds:

Last minute changes that impact some other system in an unforseen way. Because they're last minute, there wasn't time for a complete system integration retest.

Things that were never really tested at all - like the exact configuration of the rendezvous radar and computer during the Apollo 11 landing. Some of the switches in the simulators were just dummies because nothing meaningful could be done with them.

Random failures of things that worked before, due to quality control or just random bad luck.


Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: smartcooky on January 29, 2013, 05:03:22 AM
You mean 100% guaranteed success like Iran-Contra, the Watergate break-in and tapes, Potempkin villages, Piltdown Man, the Bruno Hat...

... Korea, Bay of Pigs, The Pueblo, Francis Gary Powers, Vietnam....
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: tikkitakki on January 29, 2013, 05:28:08 AM
There's video of the LM research vehicle crashing and Armstrong ejecting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Qhcs6qiHLI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Qhcs6qiHLI)
That's not Armstrong, but Joe Algranti (LLRV/LLTV crash #2 of 3).

This video has all three crashes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8EegsMCLnQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8EegsMCLnQ)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ChrLz on January 29, 2013, 05:50:43 AM
Quote from: alexsanchez
If I have any other questions I know where to come.
Might have been better to ask questions right at the start, rather than making the allegation of fakery so stridently and ignorantly, and then having all your goofs and errors pointed out to you in excruciating detail.

Just as well it's not your real name, huh?

Quote
While I still maintain it was possible to fake
And you're wrong there too - I can nominate several things that would have been impossible to fake.  Surely you are aware of the wonderful analyses that are out there showing details that have only recently been able to be verified due to the newly available technologies?  A couple of those examples came from posters hereabouts.. I won't nominate them - someone needs to try to teach you to get off your lazy backside and do some decent research.  I'll give you a hint for one, though - 'weather'.

Quote
there's adequate overwhelming argument to maintain that it wasn't. Along with a comprehensive and completely coherent and consistent historical record, that could only be doubted by someone who hasn't bothered to look at it properly
Fixed that for you.

Quote
There's still a few things I want to check out though.
As I posted earlier, and you refused to acknowledge, why don't you just do that but *thoroughly*, and then bring back your best, well-researched 'thing'?, instead of the train wreck that has just transpired..
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 29, 2013, 08:02:10 AM
Comin in late due to time differences, but here's my two penn'orth.

However, given the number of lies and cover-ups engaged in by the govt, i.e., JFK, etc., I assert that the moon landings were fake.

So not based on any actual examination of evidence then?

What you are doing is the equivalent of trying to convict me of murdering my wife because you have evidence that I lied about things, so I am probably lying about my innocence. Only thing is, you're so fixated on that you've neglected to check if my wife is actually dead. She's not (and she might well pop up here to confirm that in a minute). Since the case hinges on that rather salient point, it would be prudent to check the facts before singing on about motives and likelihood of lying.

Quote
But if the govt gives a geologist a rock and says it's from the moon, the geologist will assume it's from the moon, having nothing to go on to prove otherwise.

Typical layman's mistake: assume that without prior samples we would have no way to confirm anything. Science doesn't work solely by comparison.

Quote
Moon rocks from Antarctica could be reconditioned to appear to have come from the moon.

How?

Quote
The only video I've seen was Armstrong parachuting to safety after losing control of the LLTV.

That's because that's the only one that ever appears on conspiracy theory websites and TV shows. Those of us who have done a little more research have seen a lot more of the record.

Quote
I think NASA simply would not have attempted a moon landing with an untested LM,

How do you test a landing craft designed to be flown by two men? Could it be that you put two men in it and get them to land it?

The LM was tested on three flights before Apollo 11. Apollo 11 was the final test.

Quote
First, you don't know exactly where you are on the moon due to the manual landing,

That applies only to one landing. What about the other five? Apollo 12 in particular did have a reference and was sighted from orbit by the CSM optics, just on the other side of a crater that had Surveyor 3 in it.

Quote
The star finder was useless on the moon (my assertion) because the astronauts claimed they couldn't see stars with the naked eye.

But through the navigation optics?

Quote
That means they had to rely on radar to rendezvous with a speeding bullet.

Again the layman's error. The rendezvous was accomplished at closing speeds measured in the low feet per second range.

Quote
Getting to the exact orbit would be extremely difficult because the LM IMU did not have the inertial coordinates for the moon, they only had earth coordinates, and rough one's at that due to the gyro drift rate.  They wouldn't even have a gyro-compass to get a bearing before liftoff.  No theodolite bearing.  How do you lift off from an unknown location with an unknown bearing?

You don't have an unknown bearing. You don't need to lift off into exactly the right orbit, as has been explained to you over and over again. Why can't you grasp the simple fact that getting into orbit and the rendezvous were decoupled?

Quote
The least documented part of the mission, and the most complicated by far, is the rendezvous.

Absolute rubbish.

Quote
You can slant an experiment to show anything you want.

No you can't.

Quote
The missions were infinitely easier to fake than conduct for real,

Prove it. We hear that all the time. Literally. And no-one has ever been able to explain how faking is easier than going.

Quote
My patent has really nothing to do with my arguments.  The patent happens to be for translating NASA software from an old language to object oriented C++, or any other modern language.  It could just as well be used for converting accounting software to C++.  My arguments about Apollo stand on their own.

No, you don't get out of it that easily. You have used your patent and your former colleagues as evidence of your own credentials, having made arguments that are based on your supposed expertise. You have been unable to substantiate that expertise, and when pressed to do so your attempts to bluff us failed miserably.

Quote
With the moon landings, it's NASA said it and I believe it.

What absolute utter rubbish. You can try all you like to reduce this to an argument of faith with no right or wrong answer, but the reality is exactly the opposite of that. We have tools and methods for analysing the evidence available. It is absolutely NOT a matter of faith.

Quote
I'd have to do some more research to attempt to prove they aren't there

And this is why the real engineers and scientists here don't take your claims of expertise seriously. What you should have said is 'I'd have to do some more research to attempt to find out if they are there or not'. You have clearly illustrated your agenda of choosing what the answer is before starting the research.
 
Quote
I'm not here to prove anything.  I can't.  I'm just here to debate.  A devils advocate.  It would be great if people could do that with a sense of humor.

It would be great if you could have done it without childish rudeness and insults. Sorry, you don't get it forgotten that easily when you suddenly say 'hey, I'm just here to debate'.

Quote
Are you saying there's no water on the moon?

Are you going down this road as well? How boring.

Yes, there is water on the Moon. It seems to be formed by interaction with the solar wind on the surface of the rocks and soil. It was not present when the rocks formed. Moon rocks are chemically anhydrous once you remove the outer layers.

Water was found in the Apollo samples, but not in parts of the rock and soil they could conclusively say had not been contaminated by water here on Earth. Since water is everywhere, contamination is almost impossible to avoid. Since they could not rule it out they could not say the water was part of the rock while it was on the moon. Inside the rock, there is no water chemically bound at all.

Quote
Did the astronauts come back with any 'zap pits'?

They hadn't been sitting on the Moon for billions of years to acquire them.

Quote
And the way to fake a moon video is to use a telecine.

And once again, as someone who knows what a telecine is and how it works, I will say again, no, that would not work.

Quote
The parts in 2001: ASO that looks like they are in zero gravity (they're close enough.)

No, they're not. They're really not. They're ingeniously shot but they do not pass muster under close examination as true zero gravity footage.

Quote
Kubrick would have been told to do an intentionally bad job showing them walking on the moon in 1968, a time when he would have been working for NASA.

I am always amused by this claim. Do you happen to know where Kubrick lived and worked during the 1960s, or where 2001 was actually shot?

Quote
As I've said several times, from a technical standpoint, it's the navigation problem of lifting off from the moon.

So you are indeed saying the engineering was not up to the task, despite your claim otherwise. You've supposedly worked for and with some of the companies that actually participated in Apollo. Why don't you contact your former colleagues with your ideas?

Quote
You can go back through my earlier posts about IMU alignment to moon-centered coordinates, and the inability to do so.

And you can go back and read the explanations as to why that is not right, and you can answer the questions that have been put to you. I'll repeat my question:

To what degree of precision and accuracy would they need to know their position to be able to get into orbit similar to that of the CSM? Provide your evidence.

Quote
My main objection is from both a political and statistical standpoint - the only way to insure a guaranteed 100% success was to fake it.

Prove that.

Quote
It was infinitely more valuable to appear to have gone to the moon than it was to have risked going.

Prove that.

Quote
What if the astronauts had been stranded on the moon and were forced to sit there until their oxygen ran out?

Yes, it's a risk, but that's why there was an extensive testing program.

Apollo 1 killed three men on the pad. Challenger killed 7 people on ascent. Columbia killed seven people on re-entry. The space program goes on.

Quote
If the astronauts were prepared to die, I'm sure they were prepared to go into hiding.

Wow, you really have no idea about how people work, do you? Why do you think someone who is prepared to die risking their life for a worthy goal would be prepared to go into hiding to maintain a lie? That's just about the flimsiest argument ever.

Quote
While I still maintain it was possible to fake, there's adequate argument to maintain that it wasn't.

So now you finally realised we don't believe a word you say about your expertise and technical know-how, you're trying this lame about-face? Rather than defend your arguments against people who actually do have experience in the aerosapce industry that goes beyond software development patents, you've wimped out?

I still want answers to the following questions:

What do your former friends and colleagues at Boeing, General Dynamics and MacDonnell Douglas say about your ideas, and if they disagree why do you maintain your views?

How do you explain your absurd claim that you did image processing for Boeing on the U2 program, when those three things have nothing to do with each other?

What have you to say about your bare-faced lie about being kicked off a forum for believing the ISS was real?

Do you think we can't see a poor attempt at a face-saving exit after realising you can't actually discuss the technical details with the people here who actually know what they are talking about and recognise your arguments for the rubbish they are?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Andromeda on January 29, 2013, 08:25:56 AM
Comin in late due to time differences, but here's my two penn'orth.

However, given the number of lies and cover-ups engaged in by the govt, i.e., JFK, etc., I assert that the moon landings were fake.

So not based on any actual examination of evidence then?

What you are doing is the equivalent of trying to convict me of murdering my wife because you have evidence that I lied about things, so I am probably lying about my innocence. Only thing is, you're so fixated on that you've neglected to check if my wife is actually dead. She's not (and she might well pop up here to confirm that in a minute). Since the case hinges on that rather salient point, it would be prudent to check the facts before singing on about motives and likelihood of lying.

I am actually getting worried about the number of times you have used this example...
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Glom on January 29, 2013, 09:00:56 AM
Yes. What is it about domestic violence that lends itself to use in demonstrating logical fallacies?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on January 29, 2013, 09:09:55 AM
As I've said several times, from a technical standpoint, it's the navigation problem of lifting off from the moon.  You can go back through my earlier posts about IMU alignment to moon-centered coordinates, and the inability to do so. 

Since you have demonstrated absolutely no knowledge of the the relevant engineering issues nor of orbital mechanics, your claim has been defeated. 

Quote
My main objection is from both a political and statistical standpoint - the only way to insure a guaranteed 100% success was to fake it.  It was infinitely more valuable to appear to have gone to the moon than it was to have risked going.  What if the astronauts had been stranded on the moon and were forced to sit there until their oxygen ran out?  Imagine how sick this country would have felt listening to their final transmissions down to their last gasp for air.  Imagine the astronauts saying goodbye to their families from the moon, broadcast on live TV.  Image the embarrassment to NASA.  Americans would have said cancel the space program because we can't live through that again.  The entire world would have been listening to the astronauts as they waited to die.  Given those political odds, what to you think Nixon, a career politician enamored with his own image, would have chosen to do?  We got nothing out of going to the moon except national prestige, and political and military advantage, and supposedly a bunch of moon rocks.

I'll give you your due for being open about the motivation for your belief being primarily political.  While political beliefs underlay most HBs' arguments, it is refreshing to find one who is so straight forward about it.  It is unfortunate for you that an after the fact political rationalization in a support of your beliefs, with no evidence supplied, serves no real purpose.  The claim of an Apollo hoax is a claim to an interpretation of history and the theory must be developed with reference to documentation and artifacts.  Since you provide none, your claim is nothing more than a "if I ran the zoo" argument. 

You have left the intellectual legacy of "alexsanchez" is in tatters. 
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: twik on January 29, 2013, 09:21:11 AM
There's a common belief that "if I can find one faked photograph, the whole thing was a fake." This is a logical fallacy. Actually, as long as at least one photograph on the moon's surface is NOT a fake, it means that the landing occurred.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on January 29, 2013, 09:36:37 AM
Yes. What is it about domestic violence that lends itself to use in demonstrating logical fallacies?
The beginning and ending (or at least potential ending) of relationships have the most dramatic qualities and there is nothing more dramatic than murder.  The middle relationship stuff about who is cooking dinner tonight or taking out the garbage is really boring.  Murder is a poor way to start a relationship, except in those select few Gothic movies. 
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 29, 2013, 09:44:50 AM
As I've said several times, from a technical standpoint, it's the navigation problem of lifting off from the moon.  You can go back through my earlier posts about IMU alignment to moon-centered coordinates, and the inability to do so. 

But it's been pointed out time and again that it WAS possible. The problem seems to be in your understanding of it.

the only way to insure a guaranteed 100% success was to fake it.  It was infinitely more valuable to appear to have gone to the moon than it was to have risked going.
 <handwaving deleted>

There are very few things in life that are 100% guaranteed. I can only think of two things.....death and taxes.
Nobody goes into anything expecting 100% success. Stock market investments, marriages, friendships, engineering projects all carry risk. But that's rarely a reason for not doing it. in engineering the risk is planned for and managed as far as possible. That's what makes engineering great...the way that meticulous planning can cover the vast majority of eventualities (but then, as an engineer you would know this... ;) ::) ::)).

The greater the risk, generally, the greater the rewards. And in the case of Apollo, the risks were very well managed (just look at the Mission Rules for a start). But success was not guaranteed. It never is. Thats not a reason for not doing something though.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: sts60 on January 29, 2013, 10:12:05 AM
While I still maintain it was possible to fake, there's adequate argument to maintain that it wasn't.  There's still a few things I want to check out though.
When you come back, please don't continue to maintain the fiction that you're some sort of aerospace engineer.  I asked you politely about your claimed experience, and didn't really get answers.  I don't need them any more; it's clear that not only have you inflated your resume, you've performed a burst test on it - and failed rather badly.

There's really nothing to add at this point; others here have picked clean your claims, all of which were just regurgitations of standard hoax-believer cliches anyway.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 29, 2013, 10:14:04 AM
If I have any other questions I know where to come.

You were never "asking questions."  You were never "seeking knowledge."  Your entire tenure here has been trying to foist naive layman's expectations and nonsense you cribbed from elsewhere, under the color of expertise, in order to validate your socio-political belief.  You aren't curious; you're condescending.  You had hoped that if you armed yourself with a smattering of Googled factoids and some handwaving (but obviously false) qualifications, and stirred it liberally with bluff and bluster, someone might praise you for your knowledge and cleverness.

While I still maintain it was possible to fake, there's adequate argument to maintain that it wasn't.  There's still a few things I want to check out though.

Clever but unconvincing.  You acknowledge that you can't answer the challenges to your claims, but you don't change your mind.  You still believe as you did when you arrived.  It's a non-conceding concession that lets you save face for the fringe reset.

I predict you'll be back before too long, having "checked out" another set of conspiracy sites and cribbed their ignorance to pass off here as "knowledge" on yet another subject.  You tried navigation -- failed.  You tried photo analysis -- failed.  You tried geology -- failed.  My guess is space radiation.  That's usually the next topic the hoax believers push.  You'll have suddenly remembered some unverifiable credential that supposedly gives you expertise in radiation, and you'll copypaste more lay ignorance.  And all that "research" you did in your absence will predictably re-solidify your belief in the Apollo hoax.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 29, 2013, 10:14:58 AM
...it's clear that not only have you inflated your resume, you've performed a burst test on it --

Excellent.  That just went into my lexicon.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 29, 2013, 11:20:15 AM
I am actually getting worried about the number of times you have used this example...

Obviously it's because you are always uppermost in my mind. :)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Stout Cortez on January 29, 2013, 12:02:17 PM

The first hoaxie that mentions Doug Trumbell instead will have my undying admiration.  Still a poor match, but....!


Doug Trumbull, I think. Though I'm not a hoaxie.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: twik on January 29, 2013, 12:33:02 PM
As I've said several times, from a technical standpoint, it's the navigation problem of lifting off from the moon.  You can go back through my earlier posts about IMU alignment to moon-centered coordinates, and the inability to do so.  My main objection is from both a political and statistical standpoint - the only way to insure a guaranteed 100% success was to fake it.  It was infinitely more valuable to appear to have gone to the moon than it was to have risked going.  What if the astronauts had been stranded on the moon and were forced to sit there until their oxygen ran out?  Imagine how sick this country would have felt listening to their final transmissions down to their last gasp for air.  Imagine the astronauts saying goodbye to their families from the moon, broadcast on live TV.  Image the embarrassment to NASA.  Americans would have said cancel the space program because we can't live through that again.  The entire world would have been listening to the astronauts as they waited to die.  Given those political odds, what to you think Nixon, a career politician enamored with his own image, would have chosen to do?  We got nothing out of going to the moon except national prestige, and political and military advantage, and supposedly a bunch of moon rocks.

Sure. Just like having a space shuttle blow up on national TV would have ended NASA. I mean, imagine the trauma of millions of people watching brave men and women entering the shuttle, and then, in a few minutes, watching pieces rain down. It would devastate both NASA and the administration, with an unsurvivable impact.

Right?

Heck, when the idea for D-Day was floated to General Eisenhower, he shot it down with a laconic, "have you any idea how many people would get killed trying that?"
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 29, 2013, 12:40:54 PM
There exists an audio recording of the 13 seconds of Apollo 1 communications between "Fire in the cockpit!" and the cessation of movement within the command module.  While a transcript is available, just try to get access to the audio.  The notion that NASA would have broadcast the Apollo 11 crew's last gasps for air is simply too ludicrous for words.  This is what happens when one's faith in a hoax claim is so strong that reason flies completely out the window.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on January 29, 2013, 01:03:54 PM

The first hoaxie that mentions Doug Trumbell instead will have my undying admiration.  Still a poor match, but....!


Doug Trumbull, I think. Though I'm not a hoaxie.

And there were others, on the magnificent SFX team, but like many hoaxies I am casualty to the name that is easiest to remember.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: twik on January 29, 2013, 01:13:20 PM
If I get a chance to do my own analysis, and they don't hold up, I'll say so.  I just tried downloading the GIMP editor to analyze the photos , but it hung up this macbook I'm using.  I expect some of the claims may very well not hold up.  If somebody can do an overlay of these two photos, (which normally I could do in 15 seconds, until my laptop got stolen out of my car) then that particular claim will certainly be shot down.  However, it only takes one bogus photo to be found to indicate fakery by NASA, although it wouldn't prove going to the moon or not.

Why is it that so many HBers can't get their computers to work? Even those with patents in software?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on January 29, 2013, 01:16:50 PM
It's those black teams from the CIA constantly hacking into them, making sure the path to the truth remains strewn with obstacles.

They are subtle, they are.  Amateurs might just wipe the hard drive, but the CIA teams are content with jumbling their search history so it takes twenty seconds longer to find the thread they are losing an argument on.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Andromeda on January 29, 2013, 01:39:51 PM
There exists an audio recording of the 13 seconds of Apollo 1 communications between "Fire in the cockpit!" and the cessation of movement within the command module.  While a transcript is available, just try to get access to the audio.  The notion that NASA would have broadcast the Apollo 11 crew's last gasps for air is simply too ludicrous for words.  This is what happens when one's faith in a hoax claim is so strong that reason flies completely out the window.

We have it.  It's on the Spacecraft Films Apollo 1 DVD. It's an optional track, but it's all there.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: BazBear on January 29, 2013, 01:47:40 PM
Why is it that so many HBers can't get their computers to work? Even those with patents in software?
Well at least Alex didn't pull a JW, and claim his computer issues were caused by Jay putting a virus on his computer.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on January 29, 2013, 01:51:04 PM
Oh God, and that isa real prayer, I am never, ever listening to that.
I watched Challenger explosion a couple years ago on youtube. It was horrible. My brain did a Blue Screen of Death after for quite some time. It still glitches out thinking about it.
As I have said before, now I know what a time traveller feels. :'(
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: smartcooky on January 29, 2013, 01:51:32 PM
As I've said several times, from a technical standpoint, it's the navigation problem of lifting off from the moon.  You can go back through my earlier posts about IMU alignment to moon-centered coordinates, and the inability to do so.  My main objection is from both a political and statistical standpoint - the only way to insure a guaranteed 100% success was to fake it.  It was infinitely more valuable to appear to have gone to the moon than it was to have risked going.  What if the astronauts had been stranded on the moon and were forced to sit there until their oxygen ran out?  Imagine how sick this country would have felt listening to their final transmissions down to their last gasp for air.  Imagine the astronauts saying goodbye to their families from the moon, broadcast on live TV.  Image the embarrassment to NASA.  Americans would have said cancel the space program because we can't live through that again.  The entire world would have been listening to the astronauts as they waited to die.  Given those political odds, what to you think Nixon, a career politician enamored with his own image, would have chosen to do?  We got nothing out of going to the moon except national prestige, and political and military advantage, and supposedly a bunch of moon rocks.

You keep trying to tell us this and we keep telling you that you are wrong

Why not read the words of the ACTUAL people who were responsible for getting the LM off the moon at the right time for LOR

Quote
H. David Reed, flight dynamics officer (FIDO), Green Team, Mission Control:
My job was to come in prior to ascent, find out where they landed, and use that information to compute their launch time. Then we'd upload that to the crew. When I called the tracking people, the guy at the other end of the line said, "Dave, take your pick. I've got five different landing sites." He said: We know where the lunar module thinks it landed, where the backup guidance system thinks it landed, where the radars on the ground tracked them, where we targeted them, and now we've got the geologists saying a different location.

I took my headset off, which is what you do if you don't want anybody to hear what you are about to say, and told Gene Kranz, "We have a problem: We do not know where the hell they are." There was only one way to figure that out. The capcom woke Buzz Aldrin one rev early to do a rendezvous radar check. Because I knew where the command module was and I had the vectors that allowed me to translate back down to the surface, I could find out where the lunar module was. They were off another 5 miles from anything that we had.

Bruce McCandless, astronaut (CAPCOM), Green Team, Mission Control:
In the meantime, Mike Collins in the command module orbiting overhead was tasked to use a telescope to try to locate the lunar module. Poor guy never really got any sleep for trying to find it.

Hugh Blair-Smith, software engineer for the Apollo guidance computer, MIT Instrumentation Laboratory:
The lunar orbit rendezvous wasn't that different from what the Geminis did in Earth orbit. But it was more nerve-wracking because if it didn't work, where everybody would be left was not going to be very good for them. Deciding to do the lunar orbit rendezvous, to put the pieces back together to come home, took big, big balls. But they did it because everything else had much bigger problems.

In order to dock with the command/service module, the lunar module executed a series of burns--including two behind the moon--in a complex sequence lasting nearly 4 hours.

You can read more here;

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/moon-mars/4318496
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gillianren on January 29, 2013, 01:55:40 PM
I can add "Kubrick as a person" to the list of things HBs know nothing about.  (Leaving aside that I did give fairly detailed requirements for what I would accept as "how to fake the footage," and "Kubrick did it" doesn't even begin to cover it.)  I mean, for one thing, the dialogue would have been much hokier if Kubrick had directed.  He was a brilliant filmmaker with one of the best eyes in the business, but the man had a tin ear for plot and dialogue.  Yes, the lenses for Barry Lyndon were great, but they unfortunately resulted in Barry Lyndon.  Though I guess it's not his fault the studio insisted on box-office draw and noted bad actor Ryan O'Neal as his lead!

First, Kubrick, as alluded to, would not have gone where NASA wanted him to direct.  If NASA wanted Kubrick to direct, the Apollo footage would have been filmed where Kubrick was.  Let Coppola and Stone and whoever traipse about Southeast Asia to film their Vietnam epics.  Kubrick is by-Gods going to film where it's convenient for him!  The studio could force a casting choice on Kubrick, but they couldn't make him move.

Second, Buzz would have punched him at some point.  Seriously.  The way Kubrick directed would have driven him crazy.  Kubrick was known for doing sometimes literally hundreds of takes, trying to drive all emotion out of his actors.  He got takes the way he wanted, and he felt the only way to do that was to be a slave driver.  He emotionally abused poor, miscast Shelley Duvall to make her act the way he felt her character should in The Shining.  Frankly, I've always been surprised that Jack Nicholson didn't punch him.

Third, as pointed out repeatedly, the Apollo footage would have looked much different if Kubrick had done it, in that it actually would have met audience expectations of what it "should" look like.  And that's layman's expectations.  Even Kubrick knew that various things in 2001 were wrong--though he didn't know all of them--but he knew that it was what the audience thought they should look like.  All the things that look strange because they aren't what things look like on Earth would look more like what they look like on Earth.

Fourth, not even Kubrick can control dust.  Though Gods know he tried.  It isn't merely a matter of the astronauts and the large things.  The way dust moves in the footage looks like dust in 1/6 gravity and vacuum.  The fakest looking scene in Apollo 13 is when Tom-Hanks-as-Jim-Lovell is imagining standing on the Moon, because the Vomit Comet was of no use to Ron Howard there.  As a layman, albeit a slightly more educated one, I can spot the flaws.  That scene is very short.  Some of the Apollo footage is several uninterrupted hours, and it doesn't have those flaws anywhere.

Oh, and I'm never listening to the Apollo 1 audio, either--and the Safire speech always makes me tear up.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Mag40 on January 29, 2013, 01:58:43 PM
"They were off another 5 miles from anything that we had."

That can't be right ???
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 29, 2013, 01:59:41 PM
Indeed the audio is on the DVD. From the sleeve notes written by Mark Gray on the DVD:

Quote
...I discovered the complete spacecraft communications audio was not resitricted.

...

My initial thought was that we would not include it in this set.

As I listened to the material myself, the Apollo 1 fire was transformed from a historical event into a human tragedy with definable features.

...

We included the audio because it is part of the story of Apollo 1, and space flight is a dangerous business. The conquest of space has already cost several human lives, and will doubtless cost more. This cost in precious treasure should be faced directly, and as the mission of Spacecraft Films has been to present the history of space exploration in as real a manner as possible, I felt this record should be included. Since one cannot "look away from a sound" we have also provided an edited version of this material should you wish to refrain from hearing the very short but disturbing last transmission.

I've listened to it. It's a very... strange experience. The result is that, as Mark says in his DVD sleeve notes, Apollo 1 has become much more than an account of some deaths in the space program to me.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 29, 2013, 02:07:08 PM
If NASA wanted Kubrick to direct, the Apollo footage would have been filmed where Kubrick was.

And as much as I love the notion that the entire Apollo footage was faked just up the road from where I live right now....  :)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: smartcooky on January 29, 2013, 02:08:29 PM
"They were off another 5 miles from anything that we had."

That can't be right ???

It could be, if he's talking about the the rendezvous radar check.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 29, 2013, 02:09:57 PM
We have it.  It's on the Spacecraft Films Apollo 1 DVD. It's an optional track, but it's all there.

Oh, I wasn't aware of that.  But then again I haven't tried since the early 2000s to get hold of it.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Andromeda on January 29, 2013, 02:10:56 PM
Oh God, and that isa real prayer, I am never, ever listening to that.
I watched Challenger explosion a couple years ago on youtube. It was horrible. My brain did a Blue Screen of Death after for quite some time. It still glitches out thinking about it.
As I have said before, now I know what a time traveller feels. :'(

I had that feeling, that stunning shock, when I found out that these are Christa McAuliffe's parents a couple of years ago:

(http://i1336.photobucket.com/albums/o657/Andromeda_Apollo/7E925462-57EA-464E-AF4F-56897F42090C-467-0000003A1FD4D758.jpg)

Cameras were on them at the moment of the explosion.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: dwight on January 29, 2013, 02:11:43 PM
I was actually one of the people who advised Mark to keep the As-204 audio complete for historical accuracy. When I hear it I get goopsebumps, though I'm more freaked by the comments about a minute prior to the fire. The irony is heartbreaking. What ticks me off to no end is HBs like Jarrah placing these guys on a hero's pedastle for all the WRONG reasons.

But to backup Jay, until the Apollo 1 DVD came out, there was only ever one other instance on US television where that audio was played (a doco in the 70's on ABC IIRC).
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Andromeda on January 29, 2013, 02:17:20 PM

Second, Buzz would have punched him at some point.  Seriously.  The way Kubrick directed would have driven him crazy.  Kubrick was known for doing sometimes literally hundreds of takes, trying to drive all emotion out of his actors.  He got takes the way he wanted, and he felt the only way to do that was to be a slave driver.  He emotionally abused poor, miscast Shelley Duvall to make her act the way he felt her character should in The Shining.  Frankly, I've always been surprised that Jack Nicholson didn't punch him.



There was no snake in the A Clockwork Orange book - Kubrick put in a pet snake for Alex when he found out Malcolm McDowell was terrified of reptiles.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Andromeda on January 29, 2013, 02:20:55 PM
Indeed the audio is on the DVD. From the sleeve notes written by Mark Gray on the DVD:

Quote
...I discovered the complete spacecraft communications audio was not resitricted.

...

My initial thought was that we would not include it in this set.

As I listened to the material myself, the Apollo 1 fire was transformed from a historical event into a human tragedy with definable features.

...

We included the audio because it is part of the story of Apollo 1, and space flight is a dangerous business. The conquest of space has already cost several human lives, and will doubtless cost more. This cost in precious treasure should be faced directly, and as the mission of Spacecraft Films has been to present the history of space exploration in as real a manner as possible, I felt this record should be included. Since one cannot "look away from a sound" we have also provided an edited version of this material should you wish to refrain from hearing the very short but disturbing last transmission.

I've listened to it. It's a very... strange experience. The result is that, as Mark says in his DVD sleeve notes, Apollo 1 has become much more than an account of some deaths in the space program to me.

I haven't.  I probably won't, but if I do I will listen when I am alone.

It looks like it has been uploaded to the web several times.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: twik on January 29, 2013, 02:35:06 PM
My mother watched the first shuttle explosion on live tv. It took her many years to be able to watch Apollo 13, even though she knew they survived, because it gave her flashbacks to that.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on January 29, 2013, 02:38:57 PM
There was some crackly audio at the start of the film Apollo 13 along with a voice over by Cronkite, though I am guessing that wasn't the real deal?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Mag40 on January 29, 2013, 02:40:20 PM
"They were off another 5 miles from anything that we had."

That can't be right ???

It could be, if he's talking about the the rendezvous radar check.

Please can you expand on that? Is he not talking about the actual lunar location of the LM?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 29, 2013, 02:46:03 PM
I was actually one of the people who advised Mark to keep the As-204 audio complete for historical accuracy.

Thanks, I'm glad you did.  I actually own way too few of the Spacecraft Films series.  I keep hoping people will gift them to me, but it seems they never do.  However on the plus side, we have a public monitor in our office pod here, and we run through what we have on a regular basis.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 29, 2013, 02:48:43 PM
Please can you expand on that? Is he not talking about the actual lunar location of the LM?

The estimate of LM location came back about 4-5 miles aware from where most of the other estimates were clustered.  Keep in mind that the radar-based method was not a "magic bullet."  In fact it was an untested ad hoc method.  Someone invented it on the fly.  But Patrick Tekeli believed it was a magic bullet simply because it was the outlier.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Laurel on January 29, 2013, 02:49:41 PM
I believe the documentary Failure Is Not An Option has some Apollo 1 audio in it also.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gillianren on January 29, 2013, 03:17:48 PM
There was no snake in the A Clockwork Orange book - Kubrick put in a pet snake for Alex when he found out Malcolm McDowell was terrified of reptiles.

Yup, that's Kubrick.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 29, 2013, 03:41:30 PM
For all his foolishness, alexsanchez got me thinking about a question I'm hoping Jay or some of the other aerospace expert types here can answer.

Assume that Eagle had some kind of catastrophic computer/electronic failure.  Would it be possible for a human being with Neil Armstrong's level of skill and training, assuming that the absolutely essential systems were still somewhat functional, to manually lift off and get into an orbit from which Collins could maneuver to a rendezvous?

On the face of it, it seems that you should. Eagle was sitting right on the equator (well, almost); it seems that if they could get the ascent engine to fire, if Armstrong could keep the spacecraft stable, all you really need to do is get enough altitude to make sure you clear the terrain, then - keeping your "back to the sun" - pitch over and gain about, what, 1500 m/s or so of tangential velocity to get into some kind of orbit.

Collins had spent endless hours working on "alternate rendezvous" scenarios, trying to work out all the possible ways to go after the LM if they were unable to rendezvous as planned. If they could get into almost any kind of orbit high enough for him to reach them he probably could have. Even if they couldn't get the ascent stage into a stable enough attitude for him to dock with it, they still had the "space walk" option to get back into the CM.

Maybe it would have been impossible - I don't know, that's why I'm asking. But despite the stranded-on-the-moon scenario, I just can't picture Aldrin or Armstrong sitting down and waiting to die while there was anything at all they could reroute, hot-wire, or bang on with a hammer.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on January 29, 2013, 03:53:33 PM
Well. Gordon Cooper did something like that, rather the reverse actually, to deorbit his Faith 7 capsule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury-Atlas_9#Technical_problems_on_the_flight). This is just my layman's conjecture, but it would not surprise me.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 29, 2013, 03:59:33 PM
Assume that Eagle had some kind of catastrophic computer/electronic failure.  Would it be possible for a human being with Neil Armstrong's level of skill and training, assuming that the absolutely essential systems were still somewhat functional, to manually lift off and get into an orbit from which Collins could maneuver to a rendezvous?

I'm not an expert by any means, but it would amaze me if it was rendered impossible as long as they still had control over the ascent engine and RCS system. Remember, on Apollo 13 they performed one burn without any computer assistance by way of keeping Earth in one window as a fixed reference point and timing the burn with a wristwatch.

Quote
But despite the stranded-on-the-moon scenario, I just can't picture Aldrin or Armstrong sitting down and waiting to die while there was anything at all they could reroute, hot-wire, or bang on with a hammer.

Keep in mind this would also be true of the people at Mission Control. If they could hammer out a launch plan involving engine firing times, using the RCS at specific times to pitchover, and find some way for Amrstrong and Aldrin to have a visual reference to keep the spacecraft steady, then they could probably do it using the manual controls and a wristwatch to time the burns.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: dwight on January 29, 2013, 04:10:19 PM
I was actually one of the people who advised Mark to keep the As-204 audio complete for historical accuracy.

Thanks, I'm glad you did.  I actually own way too few of the Spacecraft Films series.  I keep hoping people will gift them to me, but it seems they never do.  However on the plus side, we have a public monitor in our office pod here, and we run through what we have on a regular basis.

Mark does frequent specials, and Apollo 1 is a title that pops up frequently. Free shipping was one of the last actions he did. If I'm not mistaken the current offer is 10% of certain titles. Check out the blog on www.spacecraftfilms.com
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on January 29, 2013, 04:11:51 PM
Puts me in mind of some of those golden-age SF stories, when the computer is on the fritz and the pilots are frantically working their slide rules to plot a course back home.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on January 29, 2013, 04:20:34 PM
Puts me in mind of some of those golden-age SF stories, when the computer is on the fritz and the pilots are frantically working their slide rules to plot a course back home.
In the real old stories, the computer being on the fritz means some guy (or gal, lots of women in that field) is taking a sick day. ;D
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Al Johnston on January 29, 2013, 05:19:36 PM
Puts me in mind of some of those golden-age SF stories, when the computer is on the fritz and the pilots are frantically working their slide rules to plot a course back home.

Like Arthur C Clarke's Into The Comet, where they build and use wire & bead abaci... ;D
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ka9q on January 29, 2013, 06:12:10 PM

No, they're (zero gravity sequences in '2001') not. They're really not. They're ingeniously shot but they do not pass muster under close examination as true zero gravity footage.
Anybody who thinks the reduced or zero-g sequences in '2001' are accurate hasn't seen the movie recently (or ever). While a breakthrough for its time, it was released in the spring of 1968, half a year before the first manned Apollo flight. No one had ever seen astronauts in a weightless environment big enough to actually let them move, and it would be five more years before astronauts could move around in a volume even remotely comparable to the huge spaceships we see in '2001'.

Kubrick, Clarke and their audiences had no real idea how weightless people would actually look, behave and adapt. So besides the obvious physics errors like the pen and the food tray, we get absurdities like the flight attendant in velcro shoes walking tediously down the aisle. A real astronaut would have just pushed off, sailed to the front of the cabin in a few seconds and turned a somersault to go through the door to the flight deck.

We see many similar scenes in the Discovery. Only the centrifuge is in artificial gravity. The command module (where Frank and Dave monitor each others' EVAs) and the pod bay (where they begin their EVAs, analyze the AE-35 unit, and discuss Hal) are in zero-G, just like Hal's "brain room". But neither actor moves as we now know every real astronaut moves in a roomy weightless area, especially when they've been in space for a long time. It's that same tedious walking on velcro shoes.

Obviously this was done to simplify filming, but that just raises the question why, if the Apollo footage was faked on earth, those doing the faking made it so much harder for themselves with so many gratuitous, lengthy scenes of people and objects in zero- and reduced gravity. Any one of these sequences could have failed the test of time and eventually tripped them up -- if they hadn't been real.

Ron Howard knew his 1994 audience for 'Apollo 13' was a lot more sophisticated than the 1968 audience for '2001', so he went to great expense to use real zero gravity for at least some of his space sequences, hiding the short durations possible in an airplane with frequent edits. It wouldn't have worked otherwise.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ka9q on January 29, 2013, 06:19:29 PM
Puts me in mind of some of those golden-age SF stories, when the computer is on the fritz and the pilots are frantically working their slide rules to plot a course back home.
Or where Captain Kirk successfully talks said fritzed computer into destroying itself. Ah, those were the days...

"Your logic was impeccable, Captain. We are in grave danger."
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 29, 2013, 06:24:06 PM
raven:
Quote
Well. Gordon Cooper did something like that, rather the reverse actually, to deorbit his Faith 7 capsule. This is just my layman's conjecture, but it would not surprise me.

Actually, I thought of that while I was typing that post. Not taking anything away from Gordo - he was some helluva pilot - but he only had to hold attitude for a few seconds while the retros fired. That's a far cry from several minutes of guiding a busted spacecraft near the ground.

Assume that Eagle had some kind of catastrophic computer/electronic failure.  Would it be possible for a human being with Neil Armstrong's level of skill and training, assuming that the absolutely essential systems were still somewhat functional, to manually lift off and get into an orbit from which Collins could maneuver to a rendezvous?

I'm not an expert by any means, but it would amaze me if it was rendered impossible as long as they still had control over the ascent engine and RCS system. Remember, on Apollo 13 they performed one burn without any computer assistance by way of keeping Earth in one window as a fixed reference point and timing the burn with a wristwatch.

I'm sure the hardware was up to it; my question was whether, without computer control of the RCS, a human pilot could keep the LM stable enough to achieve orbit.  The ascent stage was pretty stable just by virtue of its design and the location of its engine and propellant tanks, much more so than it looks in an exterior drawing. Still, is it likely that a human could have made fine-tuning adjustments quickly enough?

Quote
Quote
But despite the stranded-on-the-moon scenario, I just can't picture Aldrin or Armstrong sitting down and waiting to die while there was anything at all they could reroute, hot-wire, or bang on with a hammer.

Keep in mind this would also be true of the people at Mission Control. If they could hammer out a launch plan involving engine firing times, using the RCS at specific times to pitchover, and find some way for Armstrong and Aldrin to have a visual reference to keep the spacecraft steady, then they could probably do it using the manual controls and a wristwatch to time the burns.
I'm sure of it, along with every engineer, assistant, and errand boy at Grumman.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 29, 2013, 06:30:55 PM
If I have any other questions I know where to come.
I have a question for you. Actually, I have several, but this one is forefront. Why the sudden change?
While I still maintain it was possible to fake, there's adequate argument to maintain that it wasn't.  There's still a few things I want to check out though.
You are going to attempt a fringe reset, right?
Please explain this clip.  The astronaut is clearly hoisted up while trying to stand up.  (it's cued at 2:05)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Zz9Bzi_GyD0#t=125s
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 29, 2013, 06:34:26 PM
Please explain this clip.

Diminished gravity.

Quote
The astronaut is clearly hoisted up while trying to stand up.

No, the astronaut is operating in diminished gravity.

Your fake contrition lasted less than 24 hours.  Do you see why no one believes you?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: AtomicDog on January 29, 2013, 06:39:27 PM
Cue the William Tell Overture.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 29, 2013, 06:42:38 PM
Please explain this clip.  The astronaut is clearly hoisted up while trying to stand up.  (it's cued at 2:05)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Zz9Bzi_GyD0#t=125s

Didn't last long, did you? You're painfully transparent, predictable and dull.

And you still don't get how research works. You are asking us to explain somethng after you have drawn your conclusion. That is NOT how to do proper research.

Please explain why you think he should not be able to do that in lower gravity and in a space suit with a tendency to adopt the standing configuration when pressurised, and with assistance from his colleague.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ka9q on January 29, 2013, 06:42:58 PM
Assume that Eagle had some kind of catastrophic computer/electronic failure.  Would it be possible for a human being with Neil Armstrong's level of skill and training, assuming that the absolutely essential systems were still somewhat functional, to manually lift off and get into an orbit from which Collins could maneuver to a rendezvous?
I think the computers were considered "absolutely essential systems". That's why they had an AGS (Abort Guidance System) completely separate from the PNGS (Primary Navigation and Guidance System, the LM's version of the Apollo Guidance Computer). You hear the crews comparing them constantly during descent and ascent.

The AGS had its own "strapdown" gyro sensors, less accurate but simpler and more reliable than the gimballed PNGS platform. As the name implies, AGS could only perform an abort, not a landing.

You're right that Collins would have been able to effect a rescue provided Eagle got into some kind of orbit, presuming the orbital planes were sufficiently close. The issue of manual flight into orbit was a favorite flash point between the engineers and the astronauts, who after all were gung-ho military test pilots who called it a "joystick" for a reason.

But I think the engineers were right on this one. The manual fallback modes that did exist in Apollo, such as the CDR's ability to fly the Saturn into earth orbit, still assumed the proper functioning of at least one inertial guidance platform. Without it the crew would have been totally blind, and even the best pilot can't fly that way.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 29, 2013, 06:47:07 PM
The voice on the video is David Percy.  He was given two separate opportunities to defend his hoax claims face-to-face with me, by two independent filmmakers.  He refused both times.   Percy used to run a web forum on his site much like this one.  I used it to challenge his claims about Apollo video and photography.  When he was unable to answer the questions, the web forum suddenly disappeared "for maintenance" for three months, then disappeared altogether without a trace.  Yet on his web site he was using cherry-picked quotes from me, from that site, carefully edited to appear to support him.  Then they had a guestbook.  Again, people began to point out his egregious errors.  When it was pointed out that his own sample photographs didn't obey his "Photo Rules," again the feedback portion disappeared without a trace.  He no longer participates in the Moon landing hoax debate; last heard he was hiding out somewhere in France.  His book and video are still for sale, but he will not answer any questions.

Percy talks over the native audio in the video.  In the video the prone astronaut gives his hand to the standing astronaut.  The standing astronaut tells him to press against him, to help him to stand.  Percy edits that comment out of his version of the video.  Why?  Is it so the viewer won't understand everything that's going in the video and will be more likely to accept the pasted-on interpretation that some hypothetical, invisible wire is employed?

Why are you taking such proven liars on faith?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 29, 2013, 06:52:23 PM
I think the computers were considered "absolutely essential systems".

Somehow my reply to this question got lost.  The LM could only be flown meaningfully using fly-by-wire, using either PGNS (spelt this way but pronounced "pings") or AGS.  While direct-control methods existed to couple the RHC and THC to the RCS control logic, it is unlikely the LM could be flown manually in this way to a stable orbit.  However, with some guesswork, it might be flown to a suborbital trajectory suitable for one of the eccentric CSM rescue procedures.  But they would have only an hour or two to devise and effect the intercept.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: dwight on January 29, 2013, 06:53:02 PM
Funny thing is there is a film sequence of a technician kneeling in the vomit comet who does a trick to stand which knocks the pants of the Percy clip for visual impact. If anyone has the SCF Apollo 17 DVD set, its in the prep film sequence.

How did they do it? Simple circa 30 seconds of 1/6th G. Pretty straight forward to exptrapolate that to explain the "hoist up" to taking place in 1/6th G - which is from an extremely long sequence of TV with no change in the low G envoronment for that time. Geeze Sanchez you seriously gotta do better than that.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 29, 2013, 07:12:56 PM
Please explain this clip.

Diminished gravity.

Quote
The astronaut is clearly hoisted up while trying to stand up.

No, the astronaut is operating in diminished gravity.

Your fake contrition lasted less than 24 hours.  Do you see why no one believes you?
So he had really good ankle strength?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ka9q on January 29, 2013, 07:14:11 PM
The estimate of LM location came back about 4-5 miles aware from where most of the other estimates were clustered.
Has there ever been a final, definitive explanation for Eagle having overshot its planned landing point?

I've heard several theories. Gene Kranz claims it was due to Eagle undocking from Columbia with some residual air pressure in the tunnel, but that doesn't seem right to me. The mission report begins the discussion with:
Quote
Particular care was exercised in the operation of both spacecraft throughout the undocking and separation sequences to ensure that the lunar module guidance computer maintained an accurate knowledge of position and velocity.
It then says the LM primary guidance system saw the 0.4 fps delta-V and the crew manually nulled it. Any residual delta-V not seen onboard would still have accumulated and been noticed in ground tracking. They undocked a full 2.5 hours before landing, just as they came around to the near side. This gave the ground a full near-side tracking pass before DOI.

I think the most likely explanation was simply a poor lunar gravity model, due largely to our inability to directly track spacecraft on the far side. Only recently was a dedicated mission, GRAIL, flown to the moon specifically to measure the moon's entire gravity field with very high precision. Two spacecraft ranged each other so they could do so even on the far side when neither could be seen from earth.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Laurel on January 29, 2013, 07:39:53 PM
Alex, this wire claim was debunked on the old board about eight years ago. Next?
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1 (http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ka9q on January 29, 2013, 07:40:29 PM
The LM could only be flown meaningfully using fly-by-wire, using either PGNS (spelt this way but pronounced "pings") or AGS.
Right (and thanks for the PGNS correction, I wasn't sure about that).

The LM and CSM were both purely fly-by-wire in that every thruster was controlled by solenoid valves that could only be actuated with an electric current. But Apollo fly-by-wire came in two distinct forms: with and without the computer in the path between astronaut and thruster valves.
Quote
While direct-control methods existed to couple the RHC and THC to the RCS control logic
Right. By pushing the stick beyond a certain angle the computer was bypassed and the corresponding engine valves were directly actuated. I suspect (but do not actually know) that this was tested on Apollo 9 but never used operationally. Even Armstrong's much-touted "manual" landing was anything but; the computer was very much involved in making the LM react to his stick inputs as though it was a helicopter.
Quote
it is unlikely the LM could be flown manually in this way to a stable orbit.
I fully agree -- astronaut bluster notwithstanding. Gene Cernan says that during his Saturn V launch on Apollo 17, he practically 'dared' the IU to fail so he could take over and fly it manually into earth orbit. I'd like to ask him what he would have done had he lost his (IMU and computer-driven) 8-ball at the same time, especially since it was a night launch.
Quote
However, with some guesswork, it might be flown to a suborbital trajectory suitable for one of the eccentric CSM rescue procedures.  But they would have only an hour or two to devise and effect the intercept.
Wow, I had not known there were any suborbital rescue options. That would have been even hairier than the Apollo 13 recovery. A lot faster-paced, too.


Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 29, 2013, 07:54:05 PM
So he had really good ankle strength?

No, not especially.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 29, 2013, 08:05:06 PM
Alex, this wire claim was debunked on the old board about eight years ago. Next?
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1 (http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1)

He's cribbing from Aulis.  That was all debunked 8-10 years ago.  It's hilarious when people call you sheeple after they just stumbled across a web site full of old claims for the first time.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 29, 2013, 08:09:33 PM
Alex, this wire claim was debunked on the old board about eight years ago. Next?
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1 (http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1)
I see the guy who argued for it was banned.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on January 29, 2013, 08:10:53 PM
raven:
Quote
Well. Gordon Cooper did something like that, rather the reverse actually, to deorbit his Faith 7 capsule. This is just my layman's conjecture, but it would not surprise me.

Actually, I thought of that while I was typing that post. Not taking anything away from Gordo - he was some helluva pilot - but he only had to hold attitude for a few seconds while the retros fired. That's a far cry from several minutes of guiding a busted spacecraft near the ground.
Fair enough, not an engineer.
There was also the Lunar Escape Systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Escape_Systems), probably about the most bare bones thing ever designed to put a human into orbit around any celestial body.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ka9q on January 29, 2013, 08:14:52 PM
I see the guy who argued for it was banned.
Can you figure out why?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: AtomicDog on January 29, 2013, 08:18:07 PM
Alex, this wire claim was debunked on the old board about eight years ago. Next?
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1 (http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1)
I see the guy who argued for it was banned.

For violating the Terms of Service.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on January 29, 2013, 08:21:15 PM
I see the guy who argued for it was banned.

If you want to choose an angry English truck driver to champion, please go right ahead.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 29, 2013, 08:23:48 PM
I see the guy who argued for it was banned.

Yes.  Your point?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on January 29, 2013, 08:24:17 PM
Please explain this clip.  The astronaut is clearly hoisted up while trying to stand up.  (it's cued at 2:05)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Zz9Bzi_GyD0#t=125s

Do please tell us why the was "clearly" hoisted up? What makes it clear and obvious to you as a layman as opposed to something you simply do not understand?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 29, 2013, 08:29:33 PM
OK, thx, Jay and others who answered about the LM - that's about what I thought, but I just started wondering.

Jay, what was the name of the program you did the desert photography segment for a few years back? I was looking for it the other day and couldn't remember.

Speaking of programs, has anyone else ever seen a video called Apollo 12 Uncensored ? It was some informal interviews with the AS-12 crew done around 1996 and was pretty hilarious in spots.

But more to the point, that's the kind of thing that adds yet another (non-technical, non-scientific) brick to the wall of Apollo truth; would an evile gubment agency allow three old farts heroes to ramble on in front of a video camera, not knowing what they might blurt out in an unguarded moment?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 29, 2013, 08:30:34 PM
Alex, this wire claim was debunked on the old board about eight years ago. Next?
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1 (http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1)
I see the guy who argued for it was banned.

Yes, he was... for posting images of someone who had been executed.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 29, 2013, 08:35:44 PM
raven:
Quote
Well. Gordon Cooper did something like that, rather the reverse actually, to deorbit his Faith 7 capsule. This is just my layman's conjecture, but it would not surprise me.

Actually, I thought of that while I was typing that post. Not taking anything away from Gordo - he was some helluva pilot - but he only had to hold attitude for a few seconds while the retros fired. That's a far cry from several minutes of guiding a busted spacecraft near the ground.
Fair enough, not an engineer.
There was also the Lunar Escape Systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Escape_Systems), probably about the most bare bones thing ever designed to put a human into orbit around any celestial body.
Yeah, me neither. The question was probably my laymannishness showing.

That LES is something - right up there with the briefly contemplated circumlunar Gemini shot.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Bob B. on January 29, 2013, 08:37:14 PM
Alex, this wire claim was debunked on the old board about eight years ago. Next?
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1 (http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1)
I see the guy who argued for it was banned.

And here's the explanation why...

http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=announce&thread=1401&page=1#37313
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 29, 2013, 08:38:21 PM
Right (and thanks for the PGNS correction, I wasn't sure about that).

I always remember it as "not the way you think it should be spelled."

Quote
By pushing the stick beyond a certain angle the computer was bypassed and the corresponding engine valves were directly actuated.

Yes, there's control hardover.  But I recall there's also a mode where the RCS control logic could be switched into the hand controller signals.

You owe it to yourself to read MITs papers on LM control.  The LM control axes were not orthogonal.  This lead to an overgeneralized control system.  By overgeneralized I don't mean overdesigned; I mean that the control laws as implemented are more general than they would be in, say, a launch vehicle.

The high-order logic for the ascent was open-loop.  It simply fed precomputed attitude vectors to the DAP at fixed time intervals.  The DAP translates those set points into attitude errors and rates, then gave high-order attitude corrections according to the resolution algorithm, to return the LM to the proper attitude.  The attitude corrections translate to RCS jet commands.  That is, the RCS controller is told to "roll" but the actual jet firings are determined by the RCS jet logic.  That indirection is meant to accommodate RCS jet failure.  So "roll" has a nominal jet firing sequence, but "roll" under partial RCS failure might be an alternate set of jet commands.  IIRC, you could couple the hand controllers directly into the RCS controller.

Quote
Wow, I had not known there were any suborbital rescue options.

Strictly there weren't.  But one of the 17 contingency plans called for a low-altitude intercept with the CSM as the active vehicle.  It was meant for early APS cutoff or APS failure.

Keep in mind that since the Moon doesn't have an atmosphere, the perilune could be six inches off the surface and it would still work.  But the APS had enough delta-v to get to any number of wacky orbits, however the trick is to keep the perilune at a postive altitude.  Not an easy task under manual control with no attitude, velocity, or altitude reference.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: frenat on January 29, 2013, 08:39:35 PM
If I have any other questions I know where to come.
I have a question for you. Actually, I have several, but this one is forefront. Why the sudden change?
While I still maintain it was possible to fake, there's adequate argument to maintain that it wasn't.  There's still a few things I want to check out though.
You are going to attempt a fringe reset, right?
Please explain this clip.  The astronaut is clearly hoisted up while trying to stand up.  (it's cued at 2:05)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Zz9Bzi_GyD0#t=125s

You can see the astronaut getting up has he left hand on the arm of the other.  What is supposed to be so hard about that?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: frenat on January 29, 2013, 08:41:12 PM
Alex, this wire claim was debunked on the old board about eight years ago. Next?
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1 (http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1)
I see the guy who argued for it was banned.

he was banned because he was a troll that couldn't follow simple rules of the forum, NOT because he argued for that clip.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Laurel on January 29, 2013, 08:51:38 PM
OK, thx, Jay and others who answered about the LM - that's about what I thought, but I just started wondering.

Jay, what was the name of the program you did the desert photography segment for a few years back? I was looking for it the other day and couldn't remember.

Speaking of programs, has anyone else ever seen a video called Apollo 12 Uncensored ? It was some informal interviews with the AS-12 crew done around 1996 and was pretty hilarious in spots.

But more to the point, that's the kind of thing that adds yet another (non-technical, non-scientific) brick to the wall of Apollo truth; would an evile gubment agency allow three old farts heroes to ramble on in front of a video camera, not knowing what they might blurt out in an unguarded moment?
The Apollo 12 interview sounds like something I would enjoy. I laughed out loud reading the interviews with Conrad and Bean in the ALSJ.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gillianren on January 29, 2013, 09:07:13 PM
For heaven's sake, why is there this ridiculous insistence that we ban HBs out of hand around here?  (By "we," of course, I mean "LO."  But close enough.)  Heck, I'm not sure if Turbonium ever actually got banned.  Certainly if everyone who espoused a conspiracist position were banned, the conversations wouldn't last as long as they do!
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Abaddon on January 29, 2013, 09:14:07 PM
Alex, this wire claim was debunked on the old board about eight years ago. Next?
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1 (http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1)
I see the guy who argued for it was banned.
Not because of his belief in a hoax.

Now, I have posted my real name, a patent in my name and my accreditation as a real engineer. Why is it that you cannot? What are you afraid of?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: smartcooky on January 29, 2013, 09:15:27 PM
For all his foolishness, alexsanchez got me thinking about a question I'm hoping Jay or some of the other aerospace expert types here can answer.

Assume that Eagle had some kind of catastrophic computer/electronic failure.  Would it be possible for a human being with Neil Armstrong's level of skill and training, assuming that the absolutely essential systems were still somewhat functional, to manually lift off and get into an orbit from which Collins could maneuver to a rendezvous?

One of the experts on here may know for sure, but I'm betting that either Armstrong or Aldrin could have done all the necessary calculations to give them the best chance of a successful docking, using only a pen and paper, including lift off time, burn time, and the timeline for pitchover and then manually flown the the LM into an orbit sufficiently close to have a chance of a successful LOR.

Of course, Mission Control would likely have done all the for them.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Bob B. on January 29, 2013, 09:22:48 PM
Certainly if everyone who espoused a conspiracist position were banned, the conversations wouldn't last as long as they do!

Margamatix was an active member of the old forum for four months and made 403 posts before he was banned.  He had ample time and freedom to express his views.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 29, 2013, 09:25:29 PM
The ascent is a little more involved.

"Pitchover" is the beginning of a programmed set of attitudes that gradually deflect from the local vertical, aimed downrange, at various timed intervals designed to optimally achieve the proper altitude, direction, and downrange velocity.  Prior to pitchover, the program is "go straight up."  That's the terrain avoidance maneuver.  If the pilot had a working "eight ball" (and it could be zeroed manually) then Mission Control could read him a series of pitch angles to fly.

Aldrin could probably have computed a line-of-sight rendezvous, as he did with Gemini.  And yes, that's why he was on the Apollo 11 mission.  His nickname was "Dr. Rendezvous."
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 29, 2013, 09:26:31 PM
Certainly if everyone who espoused a conspiracist position were banned, the conversations wouldn't last as long as they do!

Margamatix was an active member of the old forum for four months and made 403 posts before he was banned.  He had ample time and freedom to express his views.

I even allowed him to post as several sockpuppets after his initial ban. I will bend over backwards to give hoax believers a chance. If they get banned it's usually because they tried very hard to provoke me.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Chew on January 29, 2013, 09:28:27 PM
Right (and thanks for the PGNS correction, I wasn't sure about that).

I always remember it as "not the way you think it should be spelled."

I could never remember it, so for a while I had it in my MyWords Firefox add-on.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 29, 2013, 09:29:29 PM
Jay, what was the name of the program you did the desert photography segment for a few years back?

The Truth About The Moon Landings, although it was slightly retitled in each market.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Abaddon on January 29, 2013, 09:34:35 PM
For all his foolishness, alexsanchez got me thinking about a question I'm hoping Jay or some of the other aerospace expert types here can answer.

Assume that Eagle had some kind of catastrophic computer/electronic failure.  Would it be possible for a human being with Neil Armstrong's level of skill and training, assuming that the absolutely essential systems were still somewhat functional, to manually lift off and get into an orbit from which Collins could maneuver to a rendezvous?

One of the experts on here may know for sure, but I'm betting that either Armstrong or Aldrin could have done all the necessary calculations to give them the best chance of a successful docking, using only a pen and paper, including lift off time, burn time, and the timeline for pitchover and then manually flown the the LM into an orbit sufficiently close to have a chance of a successful LOR.

Of course, Mission Control would likely have done all the for them.
It's already been said. All the LM had to do was achieve orbit. After that, there was a simple matter (haha) of matching orbit with the CSM. Difficult, but not unattainable. Simply one more engineering challenge among many.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: dwight on January 29, 2013, 09:44:51 PM
I think from now on we need to explain being banned for bad behaviour via the use of finger puppets. Plain and simple english doesn't seem to work with Air Force Engineer types.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Bob B. on January 29, 2013, 09:52:29 PM
"Pitchover" is the beginning of a programmed set of attitudes that gradually deflect from the local vertical, aimed downrange, at various timed intervals designed to optimally achieve the proper altitude, direction, and downrange velocity.  Prior to pitchover, the program is "go straight up."  That's the terrain avoidance maneuver.  If the pilot had a working "eight ball" (and it could be zeroed manually) then Mission Control could read him a series of pitch angles to fly.

For my Lunar Module Ascent Simulation (http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/LM-ascent.htm) I had to derive a set of pitch angles by trial and error.  Surely my angles aren't the same as those actually used, but they have to be pretty close or else my simulation wouldn't have worked.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: onebigmonkey on January 30, 2013, 12:28:58 AM
For all his foolishness, alexsanchez got me thinking about a question I'm hoping Jay or some of the other aerospace expert types here can answer.

Assume that Eagle had some kind of catastrophic computer/electronic failure.  Would it be possible for a human being with Neil Armstrong's level of skill and training, assuming that the absolutely essential systems were still somewhat functional, to manually lift off and get into an orbit from which Collins could maneuver to a rendezvous?

One of the experts on here may know for sure, but I'm betting that either Armstrong or Aldrin could have done all the necessary calculations to give them the best chance of a successful docking, using only a pen and paper, including lift off time, burn time, and the timeline for pitchover and then manually flown the the LM into an orbit sufficiently close to have a chance of a successful LOR.

Of course, Mission Control would likely have done all the for them.

Possible the most obscure and geeky 'museum' site I've come across:

http://sliderulemuseum.com/Aerospace.htm (http://sliderulemuseum.com/Aerospace.htm)

(parent site herehttp://sliderulemuseum.com/ (http://sliderulemuseum.com/))

A little way down the page is Buzz Aldrin's flown slide rule with letter of authenticity. As I'm sure everyone here knows, Buzz's PhD was in orbital rendez-vous and he could probably have done the maths in his head.

There is, of course, the recently auctioned document from Apollo 13 showing the hand-written guidance re-calculations.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 30, 2013, 12:36:46 AM
A little way down the page is Buzz Aldrin's flown slide rule with letter of authenticity.

I gave Apollo-model Picketts to my senior staff two years ago as Christmas presents.  They are still available if you know where to look.  My lead system administrator has a Curta from about 1958.  Amazing little device.

Yes. Buzz was passionate about orbital mechanics and rendezvous.  His nickname was "Dr. Rendezvous."
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: smartcooky on January 30, 2013, 02:40:44 AM
"Pitchover" is the beginning of a programmed set of attitudes that gradually deflect from the local vertical, aimed downrange, at various timed intervals designed to optimally achieve the proper altitude, direction, and downrange velocity.

My bad. I was using the term "pitchover" incorrectly

I was meaning that they would have no trouble calculating where they would have to begin to manually pitch the AS over from vertical to horizontal to make orbit, and at what rate they would need to do that.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ka9q on January 30, 2013, 03:18:57 AM
I was meaning that they would have no trouble calculating where they would have to begin to manually pitch the AS over from vertical to horizontal to make orbit, and at what rate they would need to do that.
But could they do that accurately enough by eye, without computers or (even more important) an inertial reference platform? Even with the LMP reading his watch and the attitude table to the CDR?

To get the launch azimuth and orbital plane right, you'd need a series of landmarks over which to fly by visual reference during the ascent burn. To get the correct perilune and apolune, both hopefully positive, you'd have to set up a pitch-vs-time table. You could start to fly it by sighting the horizon with the LPD marks on the commander's window. But the horizon would quickly move off the top of the scale, so you'd need some another sighting reference on the LM. There's the overhead rendezvous window, but it's very small and you couldn't get close to it under acceleration. You could roll over on your back and sight the earth if it's in the right place, but then you can't see your ground landmarks for azimuth steering.

It would be extremely difficult, but the only way to find out would be to have some astronauts try it in a simulator. That would be fun to watch. If one succeeded, you'd never hear the end of it.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 30, 2013, 04:04:45 AM

Please explain this clip.  The astronaut is clearly hoisted up while trying to stand up.  (it's cued at 2:05)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Zz9Bzi_GyD0#t=125s


Alex, Alex, Alex....come here and sit down, son. Haven't you learned anything about checking your sources before regurgitating them? Remember this post?

Regarding an AULIS pic I put up, after some graphic analysis I have come to the conclusion that the claim is unsubstantiated by the photos.
http://aulis.com/imagesfurther%20/compositevalley.jpg


Sheesh...you Air Force, aerospace engineers sure are hard of learning......

And by the way, remember that little bet that you offered out, that I took up? Any chance of a response to it? You don't have to post your details in the public forum (wouldn't want to jeopardise your precious anonymity, now would we?) Just PM the details to the other people that can verify them. I'm happy to accept their word that the details check out. Once that happens, you can let me know your charity of choice.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Count Zero on January 30, 2013, 04:15:51 AM
You could start to fly it by sighting the horizon with the LPD marks on the commander's window. But the horizon would quickly move off the top of the scale, so you'd need some another sighting reference on the LM. There's the overhead rendezvous window, but it's very small and you couldn't get close to it under acceleration. You could roll over on your back and sight the earth if it's in the right place, but then you can't see your ground landmarks for azimuth steering.


He could roll it on its side.  The vertical LPD axis would then line-up with the horizon.  He might still have azimuth errors, but he'd be in orbit and could finesse it from there, fuel allowing.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Glom on January 30, 2013, 04:39:47 AM
I'm pretty sure I've gotten into orbit when playing on space simulators through manual control. And that was launching from Earth.

Mind you, I'm not sure if I ever stuck around long enough to check if my perigee was really good enough.

Just get up to a decent altitude, point at the horizon, then burn until you can't burn anymore. It will be crude, but I'm counting on the CSM to come to the rescue.

The question whether the spacecraft will just go tumbling.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Tedward on January 30, 2013, 05:46:13 AM
Slightly OT, I played a new demo a few years ago (it was new then and free, think it costs now). Kerbal space program? Not visited that game for a while but I found it tricky to get into orbit, not impossible but there in lies my problem. I only had on or two goes at it.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ka9q on January 30, 2013, 06:52:22 AM
He could roll it on its side.  The vertical LPD axis would then line-up with the horizon.  He might still have azimuth errors, but he'd be in orbit and could finesse it from there, fuel allowing.
It might work. You'd have to estimate and control the angle between the LPD axis and the horizon, perhaps by using the small horizontal scale markings on the LPD; not sure what they were for. (Actually, this particular maneuver would be yaw, not roll. The LM axes were defined with respect to the astronauts' heads when in their flight positions, not with respect to the primary thrust axis.)

However, it would still be really important to control your launch azimuth. Otherwise you might well get into a stable orbit only to discover that your orbital plane is so far from the CSM's that you can't rendezvous with the available fuel. Even small plane changes can be very expensive in fuel, which is why the latitude of the launch site, the flight azimuth, and the launch time are all so important.

Perhaps you could do both by frequently yawing between heads down and heads to the side, or maybe even doing a continuous yaw that shows you the lunar surface, one horizon, the earth and the other horizon in sequence through the front windows.

The problem is that without a guidance system you'll have to continually compensate for the thrust vector not going directly through your center of mass. Note how even with a functioning guidance system all the LMs "wallowed" quite rapidly during ascent as the RCS engines were fired to compensate for this small unwanted torque from off-axis APS thrust. Come to think of it, a continuous yaw might help this problem too. Many satellite kick motors are fired with the satellite rolling around the thrust axis specifically to cancel out off-axis thrust.




Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 30, 2013, 07:57:46 AM
So he had really good ankle strength?

Given the low gravity on the Moon, in any lifting exercise, including lifting his own weight, he had about six times the apparent strength in his muscles that he did on Earth.

While you're here, please explain how precisely the LM's lunar co-ordinates would need to be known in order to safely get into orbit and rendezvous with the CSM, and your claims to engineering expertise that don't match reality. Your earlier fake flounce does not absolve you of responsibility for those claims. They're still very much here on the table for discussion, and you have neither adequately defended nor retracted them.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Peter B on January 30, 2013, 08:51:42 AM
Please explain this clip.  The astronaut is clearly hoisted up while trying to stand up.  (it's cued at 2:05)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Zz9Bzi_GyD0#t=125s
Did you keep watching? In the next clip the fake is supposedly achieved by filming at normal speed and then playing it back at half speed.

So which is it? Wires or half-speed film? Remember, in a single hour-long clip you can't switch between the two methods. (Someone on what's now Cosmoquest tried for something like that - reckoned that long shots were filmed in the desert while close-ups were filmed in a vacuum chamber, but didn't really have an answer for clips which contained both long shots and close-ups.)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: onebigmonkey on January 30, 2013, 09:07:18 AM
Please explain this clip.  The astronaut is clearly hoisted up while trying to stand up.  (it's cued at 2:05)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Zz9Bzi_GyD0#t=125s
Did you keep watching? In the next clip the fake is supposedly achieved by filming at normal speed and then playing it back at half speed.

So which is it? Wires or half-speed film? Remember, in a single hour-long clip you can't switch between the two methods. (Someone on what's now Cosmoquest tried for something like that - reckoned that long shots were filmed in the desert while close-ups were filmed in a vacuum chamber, but didn't really have an answer for clips which contained both long shots and close-ups.)

And there's also the small fact of the missing hoist. Go back to before the cue-ing point and look at the massive harness the astornaut is wearing when trying to simulate low gravity on Earth. Where is this? Where are the wires attached (at both ends?) Where is the team of people helping them - must have been a very very long piece of nano-wire.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Trebor on January 30, 2013, 12:15:51 PM
And there's also the small fact of the missing hoist. Go back to before the cue-ing point and look at the massive harness the astornaut is wearing when trying to simulate low gravity on Earth. Where is this? Where are the wires attached (at both ends?) Where is the team of people helping them - must have been a very very long piece of nano-wire.

One significant problem with these 'wires' and 'hoists' is that they ignore the motion of other objects.
Like the lunar regolith for example when the astronauts are digging or moving about.

Like in this clip for example :


While digging the dust flies in very nice neat parabolic arcs, some of them well over head height, all falling much slower than in 1g.
Perhaps it's all done with wires?

There is another problem with wire systems in that they just do not give convincing reduced gravity or have other issues; such as only allowing the astronaut to move in a straight line and not turn around.
Shown in this apparatus for example :


Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 30, 2013, 02:27:30 PM
Alex, this wire claim was debunked on the old board about eight years ago. Next?
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1 (http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1)
I see the guy who argued for it was banned.

For violating the Terms of Service.
It seems the terms of service only apply to dissidents.

Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Andromeda on January 30, 2013, 02:31:16 PM
Alex, this wire claim was debunked on the old board about eight years ago. Next?
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1 (http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1)
I see the guy who argued for it was banned.

For violating the Terms of Service.
It seems the terms of service only apply to dissidents.


They apply to everyone.  However, it tends to be "dissidents" who have been the ones to break them - the rest of us have better manners than that.


Quote
Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg

Yup, in a lander.

The Gish Gallop continues.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 30, 2013, 02:33:50 PM
It seems the terms of service only apply to dissidents.

No, it's just that so far only 'dissidents' have actually violated them. Or do you have evidence of other members getting away with posting such things as that particular member did?

Quote
Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?

Yes. now that's been answered, perhaps you'll answer the questions outstanding:

To what degree of precision did the Apollo 11 astronauts need to know their position on the Moon to effect a successful ascent and rendezvous?

What are you actual techncial qualifications and expertise? Not who you have worked with, what are your qualifications?

You claim Kubrick was responsible for faking the footage. Do you know where Kubrick actually lived and worked at that time, and where 2001 was actually shot?

You may not brush those claims under the carpet. Either defend them or retract them.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 30, 2013, 02:35:33 PM
It seems the terms of service only apply to dissidents.

Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg

It applies to all, but only eejits tend to violate them.

Yes, Luokhod landed. As did a later version:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Lunokhod2.jpg)

What of it?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: sts60 on January 30, 2013, 02:36:26 PM
It seems the terms of service only apply to dissidents.
Margamatix was banned for posting a graphic image violating the hosting service's TOS.
Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg
Yes, it did, but not by itself.  It rolled of its descent stage.  As far as "steampunk", well...
First of all, "steampunk" machines generally don't include solar cells, X-ray spectrometers, radioisotope heaters and such. 
Second of all, appeal to ridicule is a standard tool of ignorant laymen; why would someone who alleges himself to be an experienced aerospace engineer do that?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Bob B. on January 30, 2013, 02:41:24 PM
Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg

Not all by itself.  That photo is just the rover, which was carried to the Moon on Luna 17.  The lander part of the spacecraft isn't shown in that photo.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: onebigmonkey on January 30, 2013, 02:43:46 PM

Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg

Yes, you can see it on this site:

http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/index.php?/archives/538-Lunokhod-1-Revisited.html (http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/index.php?/archives/538-Lunokhod-1-Revisited.html)

Which, weirdly, is the same place your image can be found.  ::)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 30, 2013, 02:49:33 PM
It seems the terms of service only apply to dissidents.

No, you are not being persecuted for your beliefs.  Get over yourself.

Quote
Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?

Yes.  What does that have to do with your claims?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Daggerstab on January 30, 2013, 02:56:39 PM
Quote
Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?

Yes.  What does that have to do with your claims?

I suspect that he has found the anti-Apollo pages of a certain CT author...
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on January 30, 2013, 02:57:54 PM
The Lunokod rovers were an ingenious piece of engineering.
You really don't know much about them if you call them Jules Verne-esque, Alex.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Trebor on January 30, 2013, 02:58:50 PM
It seems the terms of service only apply to dissidents.

I would hope that anyone who posts graphic pictures of execution victims to the boards would be banned no matter what their stance on Apollo.

Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg

Come up with something better; you are becoming boring.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Andromeda on January 30, 2013, 02:59:32 PM
Read some more pages of this: http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=announce&action=display&thread=1401&page=2, alexsanchez, and you will see that anti-hoaxers were also banned for violations of TOS.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Daggerstab on January 30, 2013, 03:02:16 PM
Speaking of the Lunokhods, here's some galleries with panoramic images made by them:
http://www.mentallandscape.com/c_catalogmoon.htm#Luna17
http://www.planetology.ru/panoramas/lunokhod1.php
http://www.planetology.ru/panoramas/lunokhod2.php

Just in case. ;D
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 30, 2013, 03:16:51 PM
I suspect that he has found the anti-Apollo pages of a certain CT author..

Yes, he's been cribbing from Aulis the whole time.  Not as if he's keeping that a secret.  I just wonder where the Gish Gallop is heading.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 30, 2013, 03:25:10 PM
It seems the terms of service only apply to dissidents.

I would hope that anyone who posts graphic pictures of execution victims to the boards would be banned no matter what their stance on Apollo.

Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg

Come up with something better; you are becoming boring.
So boring this thread has stretched to 33 pages.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 30, 2013, 03:33:31 PM
I suspect that he has found the anti-Apollo pages of a certain CT author..

Yes, he's been cribbing from Aulis the whole time.  Not as if he's keeping that a secret.  I just wonder where the Gish Gallop is heading.
I debunked one of the Aulis claims myself using a graphic editor.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Bob B. on January 30, 2013, 03:39:57 PM
So boring this thread has stretched to 33 pages.

You're boring and predictable.  The topic is interesting.  We always like talking about Apollo.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Andromeda on January 30, 2013, 03:43:38 PM
I suspect that he has found the anti-Apollo pages of a certain CT author..

Yes, he's been cribbing from Aulis the whole time.  Not as if he's keeping that a secret.  I just wonder where the Gish Gallop is heading.
I debunked one of the Aulis claims myself using a graphic editor.

Suuuuuuuuure you did.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Andromeda on January 30, 2013, 03:44:31 PM
So boring this thread has stretched to 33 pages.

You're boring and predictable.  The topic is interesting.  We always like talking about Apollo.

Ha!  Alex, you haven't read the whole thread, have you?  It's not all about you ;)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: twik on January 30, 2013, 03:44:35 PM
Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg

Why should the aesthetics of the vehicle affect its performance. (BTW, I think this looks seriously cool.)

If you think it couldn't land on the Moon, what specific parts of the design appear not to be suitable?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: onebigmonkey on January 30, 2013, 03:46:05 PM
I debunked one of the Aulis claims myself using a graphic editor.

Before or after I did it for you? What analysis did you perform and what results did you get?

Now that you have done such excellent work in exposing just how dishonest and baseless the Aulis version of events is, why carry on thinking that they are worth using as a resource?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: AtomicDog on January 30, 2013, 03:48:42 PM
Alex, this wire claim was debunked on the old board about eight years ago. Next?
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1 (http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1)
I see the guy who argued for it was banned.

For violating the Terms of Service.
It seems the terms of service only apply to dissidents.

Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg

So what's your idea of what a lunar rover should look like, and why?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on January 30, 2013, 03:55:34 PM
Let's see, the wide lid covered in solar cells providing ample power and closing at night to help contain the heat generated by a nuclear source to keep the electronics from being affected. Several sets of wheels for stability with an open design so they would not collect dust that could slow them down. Video camera's facing forward for navigation.
I'm just a layman, but it seems like a pretty good design for the moon.
Please, Alex, tell us all just why it wouldn't have worked.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 30, 2013, 03:57:18 PM
I debunked one of the Aulis claims myself using a graphic editor.

No.  You presented the Aulis photographs and advocated them as hoax evidence.  You did so vigorously, showing (in the process) an astounding ignorance of the basics of photographic interpretation.

We debunked them.  You persisted against that.  We continued to debunk them.

Then you announced you had downloaded the GIMP and would look at the photos yourself.  Then, not surprisingly, much later, you announced you had come to the conclusion they were not evidence of fraud.  That is, you finally agreed with your critics, but in a way that wouldn't make it seem like you had been corrected and refuted.  You had to wait until it was "your" determination, not simply your belated concession.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Mag40 on January 30, 2013, 04:00:30 PM
Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg

Well if it didn't.....there goes the standard hoax defence ;D

To paraphrase.....if the Russians could land their laser reflectors on the Moon.....the Apollo ones could also be unmanned. Only they appear at the exact spot the Lunar Modules landed......photographed by the LROC of course.

Any response to your foot shooting post? Care to back peddle and say...."of course they could"?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 30, 2013, 04:07:26 PM
Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg

Why should the aesthetics of the vehicle affect its performance. (BTW, I think this looks seriously cool.)

If you think it couldn't land on the Moon, what specific parts of the design appear not to be suitable?
I didn't say it couldn't land on the moon.  I just think the Soviet Union had a predilection for lying.  I think the robot looks very cool.  I might build one some day.  It reminds me of Crab Fu.
http://www.crabfu.com/steamtoys/
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 30, 2013, 04:10:07 PM
While you're here, how about answering my questions?

What was the level of precision needed for the LM's position in order to effect a successful liftoff and docking?

What are your qualifications?

Do you know where Stanley Kubrick lived and worked at the time you say he was faking Apollo footage?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gillianren on January 30, 2013, 04:17:07 PM
I just think the Soviet Union had a predilection for lying.

So what?  Unless you can prove they were lying, the other lies are irrelevant.  Seriously, why is this so hard to understand?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: dwight on January 30, 2013, 04:23:27 PM
Alex, this wire claim was debunked on the old board about eight years ago. Next?
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1 (http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1)
I see the guy who argued for it was banned.

For violating the Terms of Service.
It seems the terms of service only apply to dissidents.

Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg

So what's your idea of what a lunar rover should look like, and why?

Something like this http://littleurl.info/hwc ?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on January 30, 2013, 04:36:43 PM
I suspect that he has found the anti-Apollo pages of a certain CT author..

Yes, he's been cribbing from Aulis the whole time.  Not as if he's keeping that a secret.  I just wonder where the Gish Gallop is heading.
I debunked one of the Aulis claims myself using a graphic editor.

I debunked several using a brain.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gillianren on January 30, 2013, 04:36:59 PM
Dwight, the funny thing is that one of the things Homer asked for is now standard--until quite recently, I drove a van that was about as old as that episode, and I can promise you that cup holders have gotten bigger.  The cup holders on my old van wouldn't hold anything larger than a can of soda, and on the new (2002) car, you can fit a twenty-ounce bottle.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Andromeda on January 30, 2013, 04:38:18 PM
That seems to be a very American thing.  I don't think I have ever seen a car with more than one tiny cup holder - my current one is 2008 and has none!
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 30, 2013, 04:41:27 PM
The ascent is a little more involved.

"Pitchover" is the beginning of a programmed set of attitudes that gradually deflect from the local vertical, aimed downrange, at various timed intervals designed to optimally achieve the proper altitude, direction, and downrange velocity.  Prior to pitchover, the program is "go straight up."  That's the terrain avoidance maneuver.  If the pilot had a working "eight ball" (and it could be zeroed manually) then Mission Control could read him a series of pitch angles to fly.

Aldrin could probably have computed a line-of-sight rendezvous, as he did with Gemini.  And yes, that's why he was on the Apollo 11 mission.  His nickname was "Dr. Rendezvous."

Computed, yes. It was the physical execution I was wondering about, given the design limitations of the human neurological system.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: sts60 on January 30, 2013, 04:47:33 PM
I didn't say it couldn't land on the moon.  I just think the Soviet Union had a predilection for lying...
So, an uninformed appeal to ridicule, followed by a wish-washy half-retraction.

You said you worked space station guidance.  What exactly did you do?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 30, 2013, 04:50:37 PM
I didn't say it couldn't land on the moon.

Indeed, you didn't say anything that would inform a reader why you had posted it.  You ignored the straightforward answers to your questions and pounced on the ones that assumed you were making yet another hoax claim.

Childish much?

Quote
I just think the Soviet Union had a predilection for lying.

Ambiguous much?  You take people to task for assuming you were going to say the Russian rover wasn't credible, then you drop another hint that the Russians aren't credible.

When you're finished playing games, there are several serious questions awaiting you about your claims.

Quote
I think the robot looks very cool.  I might build one some day.  It reminds me of Crab Fu.

Who cares?   Troll much?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 30, 2013, 04:52:05 PM
...you can fit a twenty-ounce bottle.

I hire and work with some of the most consummate nerds on the planet.  "Cup holder" for them means 64-128 oz.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Bob B. on January 30, 2013, 04:57:37 PM
When I think about "cup size" soda bottles aren't the first think that pops into my head.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Chew on January 30, 2013, 05:08:22 PM
When I think about "cup size" soda bottles aren't the first think that pops into my head.

+1
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Andromeda on January 30, 2013, 05:17:51 PM
When I think about "cup size" soda bottles aren't the first think that pops into my head.

+1


(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/no/wagging-finger-no-no-smiley-emoticon.gif)

 ::)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: dwight on January 30, 2013, 05:31:22 PM
Who says dicsussions here are boring??
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 30, 2013, 05:33:42 PM
Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg

Well if it didn't.....there goes the standard hoax defence ;D

To paraphrase.....if the Russians could land their laser reflectors on the Moon.....the Apollo ones could also be unmanned. Only they appear at the exact spot the Lunar Modules landed......photographed by the LROC of course.

Any response to your foot shooting post? Care to back peddle and say...."of course they could"?
Here is NASA image 20385 and 20837.  2 shots on the same roll of film directly from the nasa.gov website.  Why is the earth seen on the second pic but not the first?  The sun's glint on the helmet in both pics is the same and the reflection in the visor is almost the same, which means the camera is in about the same place, not from a completely different angle horizontally or vertically.  How did the earth get into the 2nd pic? (lemmie guess... it's been debunked before...)  This is why people have questions.  Of course, NASA wouldn't have been so stupid to let this slip by I think.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20385.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20387.jpg
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Trebor on January 30, 2013, 05:33:53 PM
Who says dicsussions here are boring??

Oh; the discussions are not, and I even learn things from them.

The conspiracy theorist (and his many socks) are boring and repetitive.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 30, 2013, 05:38:23 PM
Here is NASA image 20385 and 20837.

I don't care about those images. Answer the outstanding questions:

What degree of precision is needed for a luanr liftoff and rendezvous in terms of knowing the position of the LM on the surface?

What are your qualifications?

Do you know where Stanley Kubrick lived and worked during the time you say he was faking Apollo footage?

Quote
The sun's glint on the helmet in both pics is the same and the reflection in the visor is almost the same, which means the camera is in about the same place, not from a completely different angle horizontally or vertically.

It is blatantly obvious from the flag and the astronaut that the second picture was taken from a lower angle. Your ignorance of the record shows again as you are evidently unaware that things like this were actually seen on the TV footage, in which you can actually watch the astronaut taking the picture crouch down to get the angle needed to get the Earth in shot.

Not only that, in the really high resolution versions of those images you can see the astronaut taking the picture reflected in the visor, and you can see clearly the difference in his posture in each picture.

You need to do better than that if you're going to convince us you have any idea what you are talking about.

Now, about those questions you keep evading...
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Andromeda on January 30, 2013, 05:41:16 PM
Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg

Well if it didn't.....there goes the standard hoax defence ;D

To paraphrase.....if the Russians could land their laser reflectors on the Moon.....the Apollo ones could also be unmanned. Only they appear at the exact spot the Lunar Modules landed......photographed by the LROC of course.

Any response to your foot shooting post? Care to back peddle and say...."of course they could"?
Here is NASA image 20385 and 20837.  2 shots on the same roll of film directly from the nasa.gov website.  Why is the earth seen on the second pic but not the first?  The sun's glint on the helmet in both pics is the same and the reflection in the visor is almost the same, which means the camera is in about the same place, not from a completely different angle horizontally or vertically.  How did the earth get into the 2nd pic? (lemmie guess... it's been debunked before...)  This is why people have questions.  Of course, NASA wouldn't have been so stupid to let this slip by I think.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20385.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20387.jpg

Are you joking?  Look at the background.  Those two photos were taken from very different angles.

Please answer Jason's questions.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: dwight on January 30, 2013, 06:02:58 PM
What is this? Amateur week for HBs?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 30, 2013, 06:05:19 PM
Here is NASA image 20385 and 20837.

And the Gish Gallop continues.

Quote
Why is the earth seen on the second pic but not the first?

Really?  You can't figure it out?

Quote
The sun's glint on the helmet in both pics is the same...

No, it's clearly in a different position.  In one its a good 2-3 inches below the shield tab.  In the other it's partially occluded by the shield tab.

Quote
...and the reflection in the visor is almost the same

But clearly not identical.  So if you're going to make a quantitative argument, don't beg the question of how much is close enough.

Quote
which means the camera is in about the same place...

How sure are you?  Are there any other cues in the image?  What do you know about the image?

Quote
lemmie guess... it's been debunked before...

Many times.

Quote
This is why people have questions.

You don't have "questions."  You just mindlessly regurgitate someone else's 10-year-old stuff to try to look smart.

First of all, no, a spherical reflector is not a good line of sight reference.  And if you'd actually paid attention to the visor reflection, you can see for yourself that the photographer is standing in one frame and kneeling in the other.  He's reflected in the visor.

Second, there are at least half a dozen cues to the camera position and orientation that I was able to find just glancing at the photo.

The trump card is that the LRV caught video of Cernan taking both pictures.  We can see him kneel, detach the camera from the RCU, and aim it upward to take the second shot, which includes the Earth.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 30, 2013, 06:09:23 PM
I didn't say it couldn't land on the moon.  I just think the Soviet Union had a predilection for lying...
So, an uninformed appeal to ridicule, followed by a wish-washy half-retraction.

You said you worked space station guidance.  What exactly did you do?
uninformed = false premise
on ISS I took equations from a requirements document and coded them into Ada (using a HP Unix workstation and some drag and drop CASE program, called X-something).  Target code ran on an i386.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: dwight on January 30, 2013, 06:13:13 PM
I worked on Apollo 11 EVA TV technologies. I took a betamax recording of the first moonwalk and converted it to DVD.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 30, 2013, 06:15:02 PM
uninformed = false premise

No, it is an observation.  As in, we observe that you are uninformed.

Quote
on ISS I took equations from a requirements document and coded them into Ada...

What document?  What kind of equations?  Did you derive the equations and understand what they were for?  Or was it simply mindless entry-level coding?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 30, 2013, 06:26:49 PM
Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg

Well if it didn't.....there goes the standard hoax defence ;D

To paraphrase.....if the Russians could land their laser reflectors on the Moon.....the Apollo ones could also be unmanned. Only they appear at the exact spot the Lunar Modules landed......photographed by the LROC of course.

Any response to your foot shooting post? Care to back peddle and say...."of course they could"?
Here is NASA image 20385 and 20837.  2 shots on the same roll of film directly from the nasa.gov website.  Why is the earth seen on the second pic but not the first?  The sun's glint on the helmet in both pics is the same and the reflection in the visor is almost the same, which means the camera is in about the same place, not from a completely different angle horizontally or vertically.  How did the earth get into the 2nd pic? (lemmie guess... it's been debunked before...)  This is why people have questions.  Of course, NASA wouldn't have been so stupid to let this slip by I think.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20385.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20387.jpg
Lower angle, of course. Look at the level of the horizon against Cernan's PLSS.

Honestly, is this that hard?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 30, 2013, 06:35:24 PM
Here is NASA image 20385 and 20837.

And the Gish Gallop continues.

Quote
Why is the earth seen on the second pic but not the first?

Really?  You can't figure it out?

Quote
The sun's glint on the helmet in both pics is the same...

No, it's clearly in a different position.  In one its a good 2-3 inches below the shield tab.  In the other it's partially occluded by the shield tab.

Quote
...and the reflection in the visor is almost the same

But clearly not identical.  So if you're going to make a quantitative argument, don't beg the question of how much is close enough.

Quote
which means the camera is in about the same place...

How sure are you?  Are there any other cues in the image?  What do you know about the image?

Quote
lemmie guess... it's been debunked before...

Many times.

Quote
This is why people have questions.

You don't have "questions."  You just mindlessly regurgitate someone else's 10-year-old stuff to try to look smart.

First of all, no, a spherical reflector is not a good line of sight reference.  And if you'd actually paid attention to the visor reflection, you can see for yourself that the photographer is standing in one frame and kneeling in the other.  He's reflected in the visor.

Second, there are at least half a dozen cues to the camera position and orientation that I was able to find just glancing at the photo.

The trump card is that the LRV caught video of Cernan taking both pictures.  We can see him kneel, detach the camera from the RCU, and aim it upward to take the second shot, which includes the Earth.
Yes, I can figure it out.  Like I said, I don't believe NASA would let that slip by.  But, it looks like the FOV has changed.  They should be 63 degrees.  I'm looking at the angle between the top of the antenna and the earth.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 30, 2013, 06:43:51 PM
Yes, I can figure it out.

Then why did you volunteer a wrong answer?

Quote
Like I said, I don't believe NASA would let that slip by.

Meaning what, exactly?

Quote
But, it looks like the FOV has changed.  They should be 63 degrees.  I'm looking at the angle between the top of the antenna and the earth.

Are you really that clueless?  Yes, that's a serious question.  Why do you think that's a valid way of reckoning a field of view between two uncontrolled photographs?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on January 30, 2013, 06:47:23 PM
Yes, I can figure it out.

Then why did you volunteer a wrong answer?


Because everything alex has said has been rebutted.  There is nothing left but trolling.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 30, 2013, 06:50:59 PM
There is nothing left but trolling.

Agreed.  At this point I have a hard time believing his are serious questions anymore.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ka9q on January 30, 2013, 07:19:07 PM
As far as "steampunk", well...
First of all, "steampunk" machines generally don't include solar cells, X-ray spectrometers, radioisotope heaters and such. 
Second of all, appeal to ridicule is a standard tool of ignorant laymen
I can't really object too much to this word. Traditional Russian space engineering practice was visually distinctive. They often used tank-like structures (sometimes even pressurized) for thermal control, while the Americans preferred lightweight structures open to vacuum and to control temperatures with more intricate (and delicate) optical coatings.

Another noticeable difference is in antennas. The Russians seem very fond of broadband antennas, many of which have a conical or corkscrew appearance.

Their stuff still worked; they simply took a different approach to the same set of engineering problems.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Mag40 on January 30, 2013, 07:22:47 PM
But, it looks like the FOV has changed.  They should be 63 degrees.  I'm looking at the angle between the top of the antenna and the earth.

The Hasselblad EDC used  a 70mm Biogon lens....how exactly does one change the FOV on a fixed lens? The FOV was 49 degrees on a 6x6 plate.

Correction: The FOV on the ALSJ pictures is nearer 47 degrees, because the blurred bits on the edges were cropped out. I did have a link to the full negative scans but can't find it.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ka9q on January 30, 2013, 07:37:31 PM
The trump card is that the LRV caught video of Cernan taking both pictures.
Schmitt took these two pictures. They are of Cernan, as we can tell from the red commander's stripes on his helmet and upper arms.

Do I get a T-shirt?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 30, 2013, 08:07:46 PM
The trump card is that the LRV caught video of Cernan taking both pictures.
Schmitt took these two pictures. They are of Cernan, as we can tell from the red commander's stripes on his helmet and upper arms.

Do I get a T-shirt?

What red stripes? They are obviously maroon. Besides, the Bertol radiation would have effected* the film emulsion in such a way that colours are unreliable, anyway. I've made an extensive study of film emulsions - it took me almost half an hour on the internet. And how could the earth be in the sky, anyway? Wasn't it "daytime"?  If you can't see the moon from the earth in the daytime, you can't see the earth from the moon. That's logic even a six-year-old could understand, innit?  I don't know why I even waste my time - you apollogists always have an answer for everything, doncha? Huh?

Peace on you.




 ??? "Effected"?
 ;) On purpose, Dear.
 ::)Oooohhh. Like 'colour'?
 :DYer catchin' on, Cutie.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 30, 2013, 08:14:28 PM
Do I get a T-shirt?

Probably, but for obvious reasons I don't get to decide that.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 30, 2013, 08:21:56 PM
The Hasselblad EDC used  a 70mm Biogon lens....how exactly does one change the FOV on a fixed lens?

I think that's his point.  With a fixed-length lens, each photo it takes should have the same field of view.  Alex informs us he is able to determine that one of his two photos has a different field of view than the other.  How?  By looking at the distance two movable objects are together in one versus the other.  Not to mention the movable camera.

What can we expect from someone who doesn't have the first clue what parallax is?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Abaddon on January 30, 2013, 08:25:28 PM
It seems the terms of service only apply to dissidents.

I would hope that anyone who posts graphic pictures of execution victims to the boards would be banned no matter what their stance on Apollo.

Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg

Come up with something better; you are becoming boring.
So boring this thread has stretched to 33 pages.
I posted my real name, a patent in my real name and my accreditation from the institute of engineers just up thread. What are you afraid of?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Laurel on January 30, 2013, 09:10:25 PM
The trump card is that the LRV caught video of Cernan taking both pictures.
Schmitt took these two pictures. They are of Cernan, as we can tell from the red commander's stripes on his helmet and upper arms.

Do I get a T-shirt?

Cernan did however take photos of Schmitt with the earth above him too; AS17-134-20383 and AS17-134-20384. There's also a very clear change in angle between those two photographs. Apparently it was Cernan's idea to get the earth in the flag pictures, and I for one am very glad he thought of it.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: frenat on January 30, 2013, 09:15:17 PM
Alex, this wire claim was debunked on the old board about eight years ago. Next?
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1 (http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1)
I see the guy who argued for it was banned.

For violating the Terms of Service.
It seems the terms of service only apply to dissidents.
No, it is the "dissidents" as you call them that can't seem to post without breaking multiple rules or even outright trolling.  But even non-"dissidents" have been banned too.


Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg
Why not?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: frenat on January 30, 2013, 09:18:06 PM
It seems the terms of service only apply to dissidents.

I would hope that anyone who posts graphic pictures of execution victims to the boards would be banned no matter what their stance on Apollo.

Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg

Come up with something better; you are becoming boring.
So boring this thread has stretched to 33 pages.

And?

How DARE we be polite and try to answer your questions, clear up your misconceptions, and call you on your falsehoods of being an engineer!  How DARE we!     ::)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Halibut on January 30, 2013, 09:57:56 PM
I realise this is my first post here and I do apologise for jumping in in such a long thread, but:

Even if the photographs were fake (they weren't)
Even if stars were not visible in the photography (they should not have been)
Even if space travel is impossible (it's not)
Even if all the radio transmissions were faked such that no-one on the surface of the earth noticed (they weren't)

EVEN IF all that -
There remains one thing. And it's only short. Just 6 words. I have never seen it answered. This:

HOW DO YOU FAKE A ROCK?

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ka9q on January 30, 2013, 10:00:53 PM
The Hasselblad EDC used  a 70mm Biogon lens....
Actually the lunar surface cameras had nonremovable 60 mm f/5.6 lenses carefully matched to their Reseau plates. The cameras for internal cabin use lacked Reseau plates so they could use removable lenses with a variety of focal lengths.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ka9q on January 30, 2013, 10:13:20 PM
There's also a very clear change in angle between those two photographs.
Yes, there is.

Their lens had a fixed focal length, and they were far from the mountain in the background (to say nothing of the earth in the sky above it). This means the picture distance between the earth and the top of the mountain could not be changed by moving the camera a few meters or pointing it in a different direction.

Sure enough, when you measure the distance between the earth and mountain top in the second picture and then measure the same distance above the mountain top in the first picture, you see that the earth was off the top edge of the frame.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: dwight on January 30, 2013, 10:46:20 PM
I am amazed that our resident former USAF engineer couldn't work that out. I blame the lack of finger puppets.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on January 30, 2013, 11:42:05 PM
I didn't say it couldn't land on the moon.  I just think the Soviet Union had a predilection for lying...
So, an uninformed appeal to ridicule, followed by a wish-washy half-retraction.

You said you worked space station guidance.  What exactly did you do?
uninformed = false premise
on ISS I took equations from a requirements document and coded them into Ada (using a HP Unix workstation and some drag and drop CASE program, called X-something).  Target code ran on an i386.

So what happened?  You use your entire brain to do your work, but to show that every one of your co-workers is either an idiot or a liar you don't need to actually think that hard?

Lemme ask you this.  If you are about to program in an unfamiliar environment, do you just assume you will get it right purely by instinct and accident, or do you actually ask for the development package?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 30, 2013, 11:48:50 PM
But, it looks like the FOV has changed.  They should be 63 degrees.  I'm looking at the angle between the top of the antenna and the earth.

The Hasselblad EDC used  a 70mm Biogon lens....how exactly does one change the FOV on a fixed lens? The FOV was 49 degrees on a 6x6 plate.

Correction: The FOV on the ALSJ pictures is nearer 47 degrees, because the blurred bits on the edges were cropped out. I did have a link to the full negative scans but can't find it.
I thought the Apollo camera film made positives (slides), not negatives?

The possible changing of FOV is what makes me wonder.  I haven't checked the pics in a graphic editor yet.  Probably somebody has done that, but I haven't seen anything.  Hard to say for sure just eyeballing it.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 30, 2013, 11:54:26 PM
I didn't say it couldn't land on the moon.  I just think the Soviet Union had a predilection for lying...
So, an uninformed appeal to ridicule, followed by a wish-washy half-retraction.

You said you worked space station guidance.  What exactly did you do?
uninformed = false premise
on ISS I took equations from a requirements document and coded them into Ada (using a HP Unix workstation and some drag and drop CASE program, called X-something).  Target code ran on an i386.

So what happened?  You use your entire brain to do your work, but to show that every one of your co-workers is either an idiot or a liar you don't need to actually think that hard?

Lemme ask you this.  If you are about to program in an unfamiliar environment, do you just assume you will get it right purely by instinct and accident, or do you actually ask for the development package?
I get it right by instinct.  The development package was crap and we had to correct errors in the generated code all the time.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: AtomicDog on January 30, 2013, 11:59:48 PM
But, it looks like the FOV has changed.  They should be 63 degrees.  I'm looking at the angle between the top of the antenna and the earth.

But, it looks like the FOV has changed.  They should be 63 degrees.  I'm looking at the angle between the top of the antenna and the earth.

The Hasselblad EDC used  a 70mm Biogon lens....how exactly does one change the FOV on a fixed lens? The FOV was 49 degrees on a 6x6 plate.

Correction: The FOV on the ALSJ pictures is nearer 47 degrees, because the blurred bits on the edges were cropped out. I did have a link to the full negative scans but can't find it.
I thought the Apollo camera film made positives (slides), not negatives?

The possible changing of FOV is what makes me wonder.  I haven't checked the pics in a graphic editor yet.  Probably somebody has done that, but I haven't seen anything.  Hard to say for sure just eyeballing it.


The Hasselblad EDC used  a 70mm Biogon lens....how exactly does one change the FOV on a fixed lens? The FOV was 49 degrees on a 6x6 plate.

Correction: The FOV on the ALSJ pictures is nearer 47 degrees, because the blurred bits on the edges were cropped out. I did have a link to the full negative scans but can't find it.
I thought the Apollo camera film made positives (slides), not negatives?

The possible changing of FOV is what makes me wonder.  I haven't checked the pics in a graphic editor yet.  Probably somebody has done that, but I haven't seen anything.  Hard to say for sure just eyeballing it.

The Apollo 12 cameras shot black and white negative film as well as color transparencies.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on January 31, 2013, 12:03:36 AM
But, it looks like the FOV has changed.  They should be 63 degrees.  I'm looking at the angle between the top of the antenna and the earth.

The Hasselblad EDC used  a 70mm Biogon lens....how exactly does one change the FOV on a fixed lens? The FOV was 49 degrees on a 6x6 plate.

Correction: The FOV on the ALSJ pictures is nearer 47 degrees, because the blurred bits on the edges were cropped out. I did have a link to the full negative scans but can't find it.
I thought the Apollo camera film made positives (slides), not negatives?

The possible changing of FOV is what makes me wonder.  I haven't checked the pics in a graphic editor yet.  Probably somebody has done that, but I haven't seen anything.  Hard to say for sure just eyeballing it.

Hard to tell without the appropriate skills, too.

Starting with plane geometry.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 31, 2013, 12:06:44 AM
I am amazed that our resident former USAF engineer couldn't work that out. I blame the lack of finger puppets.
Why so testy?  Sounds like someone who knows they're on thin ice.  I must be striking a nerve.  The truth does not suffer investigation.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on January 31, 2013, 12:06:59 AM
I didn't say it couldn't land on the moon.  I just think the Soviet Union had a predilection for lying...
So, an uninformed appeal to ridicule, followed by a wish-washy half-retraction.

You said you worked space station guidance.  What exactly did you do?
uninformed = false premise
on ISS I took equations from a requirements document and coded them into Ada (using a HP Unix workstation and some drag and drop CASE program, called X-something).  Target code ran on an i386.

So what happened?  You use your entire brain to do your work, but to show that every one of your co-workers is either an idiot or a liar you don't need to actually think that hard?

Lemme ask you this.  If you are about to program in an unfamiliar environment, do you just assume you will get it right purely by instinct and accident, or do you actually ask for the development package?
I get it right by instinct.  The development package was crap and we had to correct errors in the generated code all the time.

I'd love to see you do that transporting code to a different embedded processor.  Especially when the registers and timer flags don't always match.

The thing is, when you are writing on metal, you don't get a compiler error and a chance to go back and fix it.  You get components in smoke.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on January 31, 2013, 12:10:29 AM
I am amazed that our resident former USAF engineer couldn't work that out. I blame the lack of finger puppets.
Why so testy?  Sounds like someone who knows they're on thin ice.  I must be striking a nerve.  The truth does not suffer investigation.

Better to say that engineers don't suffer fools.



And...amazing.  You really think your blundering, undirected flailing, with all the mistakes you've already aimed up to, turned up anything useful?  And you also think that this forum is filled with people who actually know the truth you are in hopes of wandering into one day, and are willingly posting despite the risk of giving away something they shouldn't?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on January 31, 2013, 12:27:57 AM
Why so testy?  Sounds like someone who knows they're on thin ice.  I must be striking a nerve.  The truth does not suffer investigation.
More like someone who is impatient with a wilful ignorant. I think the members of this bored have been more than considerate to your prattle.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 31, 2013, 12:28:15 AM
I didn't say it couldn't land on the moon.  I just think the Soviet Union had a predilection for lying...
So, an uninformed appeal to ridicule, followed by a wish-washy half-retraction.

You said you worked space station guidance.  What exactly did you do?
uninformed = false premise
on ISS I took equations from a requirements document and coded them into Ada (using a HP Unix workstation and some drag and drop CASE program, called X-something).  Target code ran on an i386.

So what happened?  You use your entire brain to do your work, but to show that every one of your co-workers is either an idiot or a liar you don't need to actually think that hard?

Lemme ask you this.  If you are about to program in an unfamiliar environment, do you just assume you will get it right purely by instinct and accident, or do you actually ask for the development package?
I get it right by instinct.  The development package was crap and we had to correct errors in the generated code all the time.

I'd love to see you do that transporting code to a different embedded processor.  Especially when the registers and timer flags don't always match.

The thing is, when you are writing on metal, you don't get a compiler error and a chance to go back and fix it.  You get components in smoke.
What do you mean "writing on metal?"  This was software.  Sounds like you think I don't know what I'm talking about, even though I did it.  If I want to transport code to a different processor, I recompile the source code for that target processor.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 31, 2013, 12:42:38 AM
The possible changing of FOV is what makes me wonder.

And you haven't yet figured out your colossal error?

Quote
I haven't checked the pics in a graphic editor yet.

A graphic editor won't help.  The problem is in your brain.

Quote
Hard to say for sure just eyeballing it.

That was your problem before -- "just eyeballing."  Why haven't you corrected that?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 31, 2013, 12:44:24 AM
Why so testy?  Sounds like someone who knows they're on thin ice.  I must be striking a nerve.  The truth does not suffer investigation.

Get over yourself.  You're cribbing from a 10-year-old long-debunked web site and pretending it's fresh new material that supports your political belief.  Plus the blatant lies you're telling about being any sort of competent engineer.

No, we don't suffer fools.  Your arrogance, dishonestly, and ineptness are what's provoking curt responses.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 31, 2013, 12:44:34 AM
Why so testy?  Sounds like someone who knows they're on thin ice.  I must be striking a nerve.  The truth does not suffer investigation.
More like someone who is impatient with a wilful ignorant. I think the members of this bored have been more than considerate to your prattle.
Wilful?  Prattle?  You must have gone to Oxford.  Wait a minute... ignorant is an adjective.  You can't use it like that in a sentence.  Bored [sic] is misspelled.  This is the kind of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: cjameshuff on January 31, 2013, 12:45:50 AM
What do you mean "writing on metal?"  This was software.  Sounds like you think I don't know what I'm talking about, even though I did it.  If I want to transport code to a different processor, I recompile the source code for that target processor.

I'm getting flashbacks to Jack White being questioned about his knowledge of the term "photogrammetry"...
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 31, 2013, 12:48:48 AM
Reduced to flames over grammar.  What was that about pedantry?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on January 31, 2013, 12:53:44 AM
Why so testy?  Sounds like someone who knows they're on thin ice.  I must be striking a nerve.  The truth does not suffer investigation.
More like someone who is impatient with a wilful ignorant. I think the members of this bored have been more than considerate to your prattle.
Wilful?  Prattle?  You must have gone to Oxford.  Wait a minute... ignorant is an adjective.  You can't use it like that in a sentence.  Bored [sic] is misspelled.  This is the kind of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put.
Sir, your errors far exceed even the most generous definition of pedantry.
Title: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Sus_pilot on January 31, 2013, 12:56:04 AM
Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg

Why should the aesthetics of the vehicle affect its performance. (BTW, I think this looks seriously cool.)

If you think it couldn't land on the Moon, what specific parts of the design appear not to be suitable?

The Lunokhod always conjures up the short story "Callahan and the Wheelies" for me.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 31, 2013, 01:03:13 AM
Sir, your errors far exceed even the most generous definition of pedantry.

Indeed; obvious troll is obvious.  He has no leg to stand upon for any of his on-topic material, so he stoops to critiquing spelling, grammar, and punctuation.  I'll bet in a few minutes he'll be complaining about the font.

I'm not feeding him the details of his latest error in photographic interpretation.  If I did that, he'd just wait a bit and then "confirm" my details through "his" investigation.  But I'm not giving him any clues -- just the proposition that his analysis is wrong.  Watch how he scrambles trying to guess what he has to do to discover it.  This is how you root out the charlatans, the ones who pump you for details that they can regurgitate later and pretend it was "their" analysis that found it.  They'll admit error, but only errors they "find" themselves and "correct."  It's anathema for this type to have to admit there's something they don't know.  Such fragile egos.  The kind that quibble over spelling.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gillianren on January 31, 2013, 01:06:53 AM
Alex, I promise you that you do not want to go down the "picking on grammar" road with me.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 31, 2013, 01:14:11 AM
Alex, I promise you that you do not want to go down the "picking on grammar" road with me.
bring it on.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 31, 2013, 01:33:04 AM
Alex, give it up. Who do you think you are impressing here? Every post you make just adds to the image of you as a pointless, ignorant troll.

I repeat: what are your qualifications? What degree of precision is needed in determining the LM's position on the Moon? Where did Stanley Kubrick live and work at the time of Apollo?

If you are talking about 'the truth', as you so often insist, why do you have to resort to cheap jibes about grammar and such? Why do you refuse to answer questions?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on January 31, 2013, 01:37:00 AM
If I may make my guess, at this point he is trying to get banned.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 31, 2013, 01:43:19 AM
If I may make my guess, at this point he is trying to get banned.
anybody figure out how to do a lunar rendezvous without an IMU alignment yet?  I'm looking into that.  I know that's a touchy subject.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: BazBear on January 31, 2013, 01:46:37 AM
If I may make my guess, at this point he is trying to get banned.
I wouldn't doubt it, it seems to be a badge of honor in HB circles. Of course, they never admit that they were banned for their behavior, and not their beliefs.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on January 31, 2013, 01:50:06 AM
Sir, your errors far exceed even the most generous definition of pedantry.

Indeed; obvious troll is obvious.  He has no leg to stand upon for any of his on-topic material, so he stoops to critiquing spelling, grammar, and punctuation.  I'll bet in a few minutes he'll be complaining about the font.

I'm not feeding him the details of his latest error in photographic interpretation.  If I did that, he'd just wait a bit and then "confirm" my details through "his" investigation.  But I'm not giving him any clues -- just the proposition that his analysis is wrong.  Watch how he scrambles trying to guess what he has to do to discover it.  This is how you root out the charlatans, the ones who pump you for details that they can regurgitate later and pretend it was "their" analysis that found it.  They'll admit error, but only errors they "find" themselves and "correct."  It's anathema for this type to have to admit there's something they don't know.  Such fragile egos.  The kind that quibble over spelling.

Heh.  I'd never thought of hoax believer behavior on forums as analogous to Cold Reading...it does sorta fit.

Except that it is more like cold reading on a skeptic.  They keep getting what other audiences might applaud as "hits," and don't understand why the skeptic remains unimpressed.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Chew on January 31, 2013, 02:06:47 AM
anybody figure out how to do a lunar rendezvous without an IMU alignment yet?

Your enthymeme fails. Only two reference sources are required to align an IMU. The references used while on the Moon were gravity and a celestial body.

Quote
I'm looking into that.  I know that's a touchy subject.

Do you know how IMUs are aligned on the Earth? Hint: it is not done how you previously stated. I operated inertia navigation systems for 20 years in the US Navy. Several times I have had to start up IMUs in the middle of the ocean after my sub lost all electrical power. The reference sources used for aligning them are gravity and true north. True north was provided by the ship's master gyrocompass, which automatically finds true north when started. The accuracy of the gyrocompass was verified by taking a bearing to a celestial body.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 31, 2013, 02:17:39 AM
anybody figure out how to do a lunar rendezvous without an IMU alignment yet?  I'm looking into that.  I know that's a touchy subject.

Since you're back on the subject, how about telling us exactly what degree of precision is needed in determining the LM's position in order to afect a successful liftoff and rendezvous. Have you managed to grasp that those two things were not one and the same process yet?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on January 31, 2013, 02:19:26 AM
It's that last that is hardest for our friend to understand.   He seems to have a one-chance, do-or-die, one ring to rule them all idea of how any of these alignments or maneuvers or, really, anything else can be performed.  The idea of a quorum, or even of error bars, seems totally alien to him.

And stuck in this idea that there has to be one gold standard perfect reference at the start of the process, he simply can not adapt to the idea that -- as Jay so well explained it many posts back -- rendezvous isn't designed that way.  It isn't ballistic.  You don't have to compute the final landing based upon the first position reckoning you made, ever.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Chew on January 31, 2013, 02:45:55 AM
It's that last that is hardest for our friend to understand.   He seems to have a one-chance, do-or-die, one ring to rule them all idea of how any of these alignments or maneuvers or, really, anything else can be performed.  The idea of a quorum, or even of error bars, seems totally alien to him.

And stuck in this idea that there has to be one gold standard perfect reference at the start of the process, he simply can not adapt to the idea that -- as Jay so well explained it many posts back -- rendezvous isn't designed that way.  It isn't ballistic.  You don't have to compute the final landing based upon the first position reckoning you made, ever.

Patrick went down that twisted line of reasoning at the JREF. He thought the LM's position on the surface had to be known within a gnat's ass or the LM would miss the CSM's docking cone! He was told over and over again that rendezvous and docking doesn't work that way until one poster at the JREF realized Patrick didn't know spacecraft have RCS! Can you imagine? To criticize LOR and not even know about RCS!
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 31, 2013, 02:46:18 AM
anybody figure out how to do a lunar rendezvous without an IMU alignment yet?  I'm looking into that.  I know that's a touchy subject.

Since you're back on the subject, how about telling us exactly what degree of precision is needed in determining the LM's position in order to afect a successful liftoff and rendezvous. Have you managed to grasp that those two things were not one and the same process yet?
How about 3 decimal places in feet, since the CM is only 60 miles up?  If you're off by a hair, it turns into miles down range.  I've personally witnessed that when somebody gave me an equation with a wrong sign (+/-) that caused an error in the least significant bit of a calculation related to IMU alignment, which gets integrated (added repeatedly), and they almost aborted a launch in flight (that's when they blow it up.) I've got to talk to some people about this alignment issue. 

In the meantime, what year are we supposed to have another manned lunar mission?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Glom on January 31, 2013, 03:01:39 AM
Alex, do you know that the LM has RCS?

Tell us what RCS is so we can be assured your criticism isn't just because you don't know how it works.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on January 31, 2013, 03:02:46 AM
anybody figure out how to do a lunar rendezvous without an IMU alignment yet?  I'm looking into that.  I know that's a touchy subject.

Since you're back on the subject, how about telling us exactly what degree of precision is needed in determining the LM's position in order to afect a successful liftoff and rendezvous. Have you managed to grasp that those two things were not one and the same process yet?
How about 3 decimal places in feet, since the CM is only 60 miles up?  If you're off by a hair, it turns into miles down range.  I've personally witnessed that when somebody gave me an equation with a wrong sign (+/-) that caused an error in the least significant bit of a calculation related to IMU alignment, which gets integrated (added repeatedly), and they almost aborted a launch in flight (that's when they blow it up.) I've got to talk to some people about this alignment issue. 

In the meantime, what year are we supposed to have another manned lunar mission?

Would you characterize a downrange error as being the most problematic for successful rendezvous?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 31, 2013, 03:08:33 AM

How about 3 decimal places in feet, since the CM is only 60 miles up?  If you're off by a hair, it turns into miles down range.  I've personally witnessed that when somebody gave me an equation with a wrong sign (+/-) that caused an error in the least significant bit of a calculation related to IMU alignment, which gets integrated (added repeatedly), and they almost aborted a launch in flight (that's when they blow it up.) I've got to talk to some people about this alignment issue. 

In the meantime, what year are we supposed to have another manned lunar mission?

Forgive my ignorance (I'm not an engineer and talk of orbital mechanics leaves me feeling like a chimpanzee on hearing scientists talk about quantum physics), but isn't that a bit like saying that if I get my car an inch in the wrong place when I move off my driveway, then I'm going to miss my destination by a mile???
Title: Re: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Glom on January 31, 2013, 03:10:58 AM

How about 3 decimal places in feet, since the CM is only 60 miles up?  If you're off by a hair, it turns into miles down range.  I've personally witnessed that when somebody gave me an equation with a wrong sign (+/-) that caused an error in the least significant bit of a calculation related to IMU alignment, which gets integrated (added repeatedly), and they almost aborted a launch in flight (that's when they blow it up.) I've got to talk to some people about this alignment issue. 

In the meantime, what year are we supposed to have another manned lunar mission?

Forgive my ignorance (I'm not an engineer and talk of orbital mechanics leaves me feeling like a chimpanzee on hearing scientists talk about quantum physics), but isn't that a bit like saying that if I get my car an inch in the wrong place when I move off my driveway, then I'm going to miss my destination by a mile???

It would except for the fact you have a steering wheel.

And so did the LM of sorts.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on January 31, 2013, 03:13:36 AM

How about 3 decimal places in feet, since the CM is only 60 miles up?  If you're off by a hair, it turns into miles down range.  I've personally witnessed that when somebody gave me an equation with a wrong sign (+/-) that caused an error in the least significant bit of a calculation related to IMU alignment, which gets integrated (added repeatedly), and they almost aborted a launch in flight (that's when they blow it up.) I've got to talk to some people about this alignment issue. 

In the meantime, what year are we supposed to have another manned lunar mission?

Forgive my ignorance (I'm not an engineer and talk of orbital mechanics leaves me feeling like a chimpanzee on hearing scientists talk about quantum physics), but isn't that a bit like saying that if I get my car an inch in the wrong place when I move off my driveway, then I'm going to miss my destination by a mile???

Sort of.  He's assuming you can steer, all right, but you have to do it by dead reckoning.  That is; you get one long look around the driveway then you have to keep your eye closed for the rest of the trip.

To the extent that he recognizes IMU drift, it is to label it as more evidence that space travel is impossible.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Abaddon on January 31, 2013, 03:14:12 AM
anybody figure out how to do a lunar rendezvous without an IMU alignment yet?  I'm looking into that.  I know that's a touchy subject.

Since you're back on the subject, how about telling us exactly what degree of precision is needed in determining the LM's position in order to afect a successful liftoff and rendezvous. Have you managed to grasp that those two things were not one and the same process yet?
How about 3 decimal places in feet, since the CM is only 60 miles up?  If you're off by a hair, it turns into miles down range.  I've personally witnessed that when somebody gave me an equation with a wrong sign (+/-) that caused an error in the least significant bit of a calculation related to IMU alignment, which gets integrated (added repeatedly), and they almost aborted a launch in flight (that's when they blow it up.) I've got to talk to some people about this alignment issue. 

In the meantime, what year are we supposed to have another manned lunar mission?
Albeit this is all kinds of wrong.
1. I have given you my real name.
2. I have provided you a patent in my name.
3. I have scanned my accreditation as an engineer and handed it to you.

You have done nothing. Because you are scared.

Real engineers don't do that.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 31, 2013, 03:18:57 AM
How about 3 decimal places in feet, since the CM is only 60 miles up?

Why are those two things linked?

Quote
If you're off by a hair, it turns into miles down range.

Do you believe a downrange error in orbital position is impossible to correct with the spacecraft RCS system? Do you even know what the RCS system is?

Again, do you understand that getting into orbit and meeting the CSM are two separate processes?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 31, 2013, 03:21:13 AM
anybody figure out how to do a lunar rendezvous without an IMU alignment yet?  I'm looking into that.  I know that's a touchy subject.

Since you're back on the subject, how about telling us exactly what degree of precision is needed in determining the LM's position in order to afect a successful liftoff and rendezvous. Have you managed to grasp that those two things were not one and the same process yet?
How about 3 decimal places in feet, since the CM is only 60 miles up?  If you're off by a hair, it turns into miles down range.  I've personally witnessed that when somebody gave me an equation with a wrong sign (+/-) that caused an error in the least significant bit of a calculation related to IMU alignment, which gets integrated (added repeatedly), and they almost aborted a launch in flight (that's when they blow it up.) I've got to talk to some people about this alignment issue. 

In the meantime, what year are we supposed to have another manned lunar mission?

Would you characterize a downrange error as being the most problematic for successful rendezvous?
yes
Title: Re: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Glom on January 31, 2013, 03:35:22 AM
anybody figure out how to do a lunar rendezvous without an IMU alignment yet?  I'm looking into that.  I know that's a touchy subject.

Since you're back on the subject, how about telling us exactly what degree of precision is needed in determining the LM's position in order to afect a successful liftoff and rendezvous. Have you managed to grasp that those two things were not one and the same process yet?
How about 3 decimal places in feet, since the CM is only 60 miles up?  If you're off by a hair, it turns into miles down range.  I've personally witnessed that when somebody gave me an equation with a wrong sign (+/-) that caused an error in the least significant bit of a calculation related to IMU alignment, which gets integrated (added repeatedly), and they almost aborted a launch in flight (that's when they blow it up.) I've got to talk to some people about this alignment issue. 

In the meantime, what year are we supposed to have another manned lunar mission?

Would you characterize a downrange error as being the most problematic for successful rendezvous?
yes

Was this at all correctable during the course of the rendezvous process?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 31, 2013, 04:03:15 AM
Would you characterize a downrange error as being the most problematic for successful rendezvous?
yes

Why? And do you believe it was impossible to correct?
Title: Re: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 31, 2013, 04:11:20 AM
'
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Glom on January 31, 2013, 04:17:17 AM
We're trying to tease out of him whether he recognises the RCS.
Title: Re: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 31, 2013, 04:27:40 AM
anybody figure out how to do a lunar rendezvous without an IMU alignment yet?  I'm looking into that.  I know that's a touchy subject.

Since you're back on the subject, how about telling us exactly what degree of precision is needed in determining the LM's position in order to afect a successful liftoff and rendezvous. Have you managed to grasp that those two things were not one and the same process yet?
How about 3 decimal places in feet, since the CM is only 60 miles up?  If you're off by a hair, it turns into miles down range.  I've personally witnessed that when somebody gave me an equation with a wrong sign (+/-) that caused an error in the least significant bit of a calculation related to IMU alignment, which gets integrated (added repeatedly), and they almost aborted a launch in flight (that's when they blow it up.) I've got to talk to some people about this alignment issue. 

In the meantime, what year are we supposed to have another manned lunar mission?

Would you characterize a downrange error as being the most problematic for successful rendezvous?
yes

Was this at all correctable during the course of the rendezvous process?
I'd actually say about 1 foot accuracy in xyz, but small fraction of a degree in azimuth and elevation.  Do you have thrust vectoring on the LM?  I don't think RCS is ever used with the main engine.
Title: Re: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on January 31, 2013, 04:43:33 AM
anybody figure out how to do a lunar rendezvous without an IMU alignment yet?  I'm looking into that.  I know that's a touchy subject.

Since you're back on the subject, how about telling us exactly what degree of precision is needed in determining the LM's position in order to afect a successful liftoff and rendezvous. Have you managed to grasp that those two things were not one and the same process yet?
How about 3 decimal places in feet, since the CM is only 60 miles up?  If you're off by a hair, it turns into miles down range.  I've personally witnessed that when somebody gave me an equation with a wrong sign (+/-) that caused an error in the least significant bit of a calculation related to IMU alignment, which gets integrated (added repeatedly), and they almost aborted a launch in flight (that's when they blow it up.) I've got to talk to some people about this alignment issue. 

In the meantime, what year are we supposed to have another manned lunar mission?

Would you characterize a downrange error as being the most problematic for successful rendezvous?
yes

Was this at all correctable during the course of the rendezvous process?
I'd actually say about 1 foot accuracy in xyz, but small fraction of a degree in azimuth and elevation.  Do you have thrust vectoring on the LM?  I don't think RCS is ever used with the main engine.

Interesting.  You are unsure if they can vector the APS, and you think the RCS can't be used concurrently.  This strongly implies that all of the acceleration during the ascent is along a single vector.  Do you believe this is an accurate way to describe a launch to orbit of any spacecraft?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 31, 2013, 04:46:40 AM
Zakalwe:
Quote
I think that's what I am getting at. Is Alexsanchez saying that the LM is nothing more than a glorified skyrocket (albeit, one that can keep itself pointing in the direction that it was launched at)...basically, pick a target in the sky and it fires at that position?  :o :o
Even a dumb-ass like me recognises that the embedded computer system, along with the control system, inertial platform, inputs from rendezvous radar and so on, could react in real-time to new data and alter its trajectory. ::)
One non engineer to another:

Alexsanchez is saying that [1] It was impossible for the crew of the LM to determine their precise position on the surface without at least one reference point on the ground, and [2] Without knowing their precise location, it would be impossible to accurately launch into a rendezvous orbit.

Everyone is trying to convince him that [1] It was NOT necessary to know their precise surface location, because getting to an acceptable orbit is a matter of 'aiming' for a particular position in space, and they could determine their position in 3D space by determining the local vertical and taking a bearing on two known stars, both of which they were equipped to do, so [2] is incorrect, because their orbit could be corrected - within reason - to make rendezvous.

They did a lot of this sort of thing during the Gemini Program. On Gemini 10, John Young and Mike Collins did a rendezvous and docking with an Agena vehicle that had been launched a few minutes before them, then undocked and did a rendezvous with the Agena that was used as a target for Gemini 8, 5 months before.






Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: smartcooky on January 31, 2013, 04:48:37 AM
Do you believe a downrange error in orbital position is impossible to correct with the spacecraft RCS system? Do you even know what the RCS system is?

I doubt that he knows what it is or understands how it works

Again, do you understand that getting into orbit and meeting the CSM are two separate processes?

I am beginning to wonder about this myself. Surely he must understand that getting into orbit and orbital rendezvous with another spacecraft are two separate issues. While it is very efficient and saves a lot of time and fuel to arrive in orbit just as the spacecraft you are to rendezvous arrives, it doesn't have to be this way.
Title: Re: Re: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Glom on January 31, 2013, 04:58:17 AM
Do you have thrust vectoring on the LM?

You don't know? Don't you think you should have familiarised yourself with such things because making audacious assertions?

The answer is no. The LM APS was fixed and attitude control was provided by the LM RCS.

And that course means...

Quote
I don't think RCS is ever used with the main engine.

... you're wrong!

Interesting you call it the main engine. How many engines were there on the LM?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Mag40 on January 31, 2013, 05:16:36 AM
The Hasselblad EDC used  a 70mm Biogon lens....
Actually the lunar surface cameras had nonremovable 60 mm f/5.6 lenses carefully matched to their Reseau plates. The cameras for internal cabin use lacked Reseau plates so they could use removable lenses with a variety of focal lengths.

Yes of course! It always made me wonder why they called it a 70mm..... when it had a 60mm lens fitted, and of course the film is colour positive not negative(thank you for the correction alexsanchez). The high standards of this forum are hard to live up to for novice debunkers ;D

p.s. I'm not a photographer, this is just from stuff I've read in the past.
Title: Re: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 31, 2013, 05:40:20 AM
Do you have thrust vectoring on the LM?  I don't think RCS is ever used with the main engine.

Wouldn't it be better to do some research before you swagger into the forum, calling people morons, and mouthing off about subjects that you clearly have no idea about?
Title: Re: Moonrocks in the head.
Post by: Halcyon Dayz, FCD on January 31, 2013, 06:14:30 AM
HOW DO YOU FAKE A ROCK?
Dontcha know that NASA can do anything it sets its mind to, except go to the Moon.

So they used the:

The New and Improved MagiTech™ MoonRock Oven®
Will fool every geologist in the world, even those you haven't bribed yet!
*

(*Not available in this and the next 3 parallel Universes. Sales Taxes where applicable.)

Come to think of it, how many geologists live in million-dolar mansions and drive Maseratis?


Why so testy?  Sounds like someone who knows they're on thin ice.  I must be striking a nerve.  The truth does not suffer investigation.
So why don't you start investigating.

So far you have only mindlesly regurgitated nonsense fabricated by hoax promoters.
Why are you such a sheeple?
Title: Re: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Glom on January 31, 2013, 06:40:05 AM
The Hasselblad EDC used  a 70mm Biogon lens....
Actually the lunar surface cameras had nonremovable 60 mm f/5.6 lenses carefully matched to their Reseau plates. The cameras for internal cabin use lacked Reseau plates so they could use removable lenses with a variety of focal lengths.

Yes of course! It always made me wonder why they called it a 70mm..... when it had a 60mm lens fitted, and of course the film is colour positive not negative(thank you for the correction alexsanchez). The high standards of this forum are hard to live up to for novice debunkers ;D

p.s. I'm not a photographer, this is just from stuff I've read in the past.

70mm refers to the film it takes.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 31, 2013, 07:17:17 AM
I'd actually say about 1 foot accuracy in xyz, but small fraction of a degree in azimuth and elevation.

Based on what? Since:

Quote
Do you have thrust vectoring on the LM?  I don't think RCS is ever used with the main engine.

You don't even know the capabilities of the machine you are presuming to pass judgement on. Since the abilities of the ascent engine and the RCS system are absolutely critical to answering the question of how precisely the take off position needed to be known, don't you think that's a staggeringly huge omission for an engineer to make in his argument?

Why don't you know if the ascent engine was gimballed? Why do you think the RCS couldn't be operated with the ascent engine firing? And what difference would it make anyway, since the rendezvous was carried out some time after APS shutdown?

One more time: do you understand that ascent into orbit and rendezvous with the CSM were separate events?
Title: Re: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: smartcooky on January 31, 2013, 07:27:56 AM
The Hasselblad EDC used  a 70mm Biogon lens....
Actually the lunar surface cameras had nonremovable 60 mm f/5.6 lenses carefully matched to their Reseau plates. The cameras for internal cabin use lacked Reseau plates so they could use removable lenses with a variety of focal lengths.

Yes of course! It always made me wonder why they called it a 70mm..... when it had a 60mm lens fitted, and of course the film is colour positive not negative(thank you for the correction alexsanchez). The high standards of this forum are hard to live up to for novice debunkers ;D

p.s. I'm not a photographer, this is just from stuff I've read in the past.

70mm refers to the film it takes.

It was unusual to see 70mm film used in still image cameras; it was more commonly used for movie films, especially when shot in Panavision or Cinemascope.

The vast majority of medium format still cameras used the 61.5mm wide "120", "220" or "620" films, but these films are sprocketless, so I guess the fact that 70mm has sprocket holes making film transport more reliable might have influenced their decision to use it.

Could also be that 70mm film is not backed, so more film per magazine - weight saving etc.

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on January 31, 2013, 07:29:48 AM
HOW DO YOU FAKE A ROCK?

Welcome to the forum, Halibut.

The standard answers are to cook earth rocks in magical mystical radiation oven, or perhaps to make rocks by some unknown process in the radiation oven, or....  Whatever it takes to deflect objections to the hoax idea.

Quote
I realise this is my first post here and I do apologise for jumping in in such a long thread, but:

Just dive on in anytime.  Headfirst if you want to.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: AtomicDog on January 31, 2013, 09:39:35 AM
It seems to me that infusing a rock with radiation would, if anything,  make a rock appear to be younger,  not older.

And the Apollo astronauts were looking for the oldest rocks they could find.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on January 31, 2013, 09:51:21 AM
It seems to me that infusing a rock with radiation would, if anything,  make a rock appear to be younger,  not older.
[HB]Not when using government top secret particle beam weapon technology![/HB]  ;)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Trebor on January 31, 2013, 09:53:49 AM
It seems to me that infusing a rock with radiation would, if anything,  make a rock appear to be younger,  not older.
[HB]Not when using government top secret particle beam weapon technology![/HB]  ;)

sshhh, they are not supposed to know that....
Just see if you get your NWO check this month.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 31, 2013, 10:01:24 AM
anybody figure out how to do a lunar rendezvous without an IMU alignment yet?  I'm looking into that.  I know that's a touchy subject.

It's not a touchy subject.  Everyone but you knows how to do it, and how it was done.  Don't pretend your ignorance on the subject is anyone's problem but yours.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on January 31, 2013, 10:05:07 AM
sshhh, they are not supposed to know that....
Just see if you get your NWO check this month.

I guess you don't know about the sad state of the Space City chapter.  The louts who run it are such loose lipped drunkards and have let out the secret so many times that the membership has swelled.  The Chapter is so big now that all it can afford to do is pay the bar tab for the monthly happy hour.  I haven't seen a check in years.  It is amazing how much loyalty the promise of a few rounds of drinks each month will get you.
Title: Re: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 31, 2013, 10:11:38 AM
I'd actually say about 1 foot accuracy in xyz, but small fraction of a degree in azimuth and elevation.

Wow, you have absolutely no clue how a phased rendezvous works.  You know less about this than many high school students.

No, don't bother trying to talk about signs on equations or other meaningless jargon you think will make people believe you know anything about this.  You have no expertise.

I can launch a spacecraft from 180 degrees around the planet from my target vehicle and still effect a rendezvous with it using a series of phasing steps.  These techniques were worked out in the early 1960s and practiced during Gemini.  And it's how we've accomplished every orbital rendezvous since -- 4 decades' worth.  You're still suck on the "hit a bullet with a bullet" layman's misconception.

Quote
Do you have thrust vectoring on the LM?

No, the APS is not gimballed.

Quote
I don't think RCS is ever used with the main engine.

Then you're even more clueless than I could possibly imagine.
Title: Re: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Not Myself on January 31, 2013, 10:39:06 AM
You know less about this than many high school students.

I'm glad your experience with high school students has been more positive than mine :)

You're still suck on the "hit a bullet with a bullet" layman's misconception.

I can count many successful bicycle rendezvous, and have even had somewhat extended conversations with the other cyclist.  Slightly slower bullets :)  Developed this rendezvous technique after the 1960s, but we had the space programme to learn from.

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Not Myself on January 31, 2013, 10:42:23 AM
Everyone but you knows how to do it, and how it was done.

I'm pretty sure there exist other people who don't know how to do it.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: sts60 on January 31, 2013, 11:12:41 AM
I didn't say it couldn't land on the moon.  I just think the Soviet Union had a predilection for lying...
So, an uninformed appeal to ridicule, followed by a wish-washy half-retraction.

You said you worked space station guidance.  What exactly did you do?
uninformed = false premise
No.  You are manifestly uninformed.  You've repeatedly shown you haven't the slightest knowledge of Apollo technology, science, or techniques.  You didn't even know the LM had an RCS, but that was just the latest entrant in your parade of Apollo ignorance.  I stand by my characterization.

...on ISS I took equations from a requirements document and coded them into Ada (using a HP Unix workstation and some drag and drop CASE program, called X-something).  Target code ran on an i386.
So, even if I am willing to stipulate to this claim, what you did was programming something an engineer handed you.  You've characterized yourself as an experienced aerospace engineer; you're not.  You don't know what you're talking about, and even if the few details of your alleged CV are true you're a computer programmer/technician - and I guarantee that none of the high-powered aerospace buddies you claim to have endorse your nonsense about Apollo.  And you certainly are not qualified to comment on Apollo guidance issues, despite your misrepresentation to the contrary.  That wasn't only dishonest, but also foolish; did you really think you had a chance to fool guys like Jay, ka9q, Bob, etc.?

But after reading your posts and observing the silly games you've been playing, I am no longer willing to even believe your minimal claims about doing a little coding here and working at the Cape there.  I think you've sponged up bits of stuff and thrown them out to lend yourself some spurious credibility, and since that has fallen apart, you've moved on to outright trolling.
Title: Re: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 31, 2013, 11:17:37 AM
I'm glad your experience with high school students has been more positive than mine :)

I said "some."  Generally the ones I meet in that context are the ones who were taking college classes I was teaching.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: stutefish on January 31, 2013, 11:18:46 AM
This was more relevant a couple pages back, but I believe it is still topical now:

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Andromeda on January 31, 2013, 11:31:46 AM
sts60, your posts are EPIC.

(http://i1336.photobucket.com/albums/o657/Andromeda_Apollo/salute_1300_zpsb7a2173e.jpg)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Count Zero on January 31, 2013, 11:32:55 AM
The Hasselblad EDC used  a 70mm Biogon lens....
Actually the lunar surface cameras had nonremovable 60 mm f/5.6 lenses carefully matched to their Reseau plates. The cameras for internal cabin use lacked Reseau plates so they could use removable lenses with a variety of focal lengths.


The lenses were replaceable.  On the J-missions they took a 500mm lens for shooting mosaics of distant terrain.  I recall dialogue (I think it was from Apollo 16 last EVA) where an astronaut asks if they're done with the long lens, and the Capcom tells him, yeah, he can toss it.  *cringe*
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Al Johnston on January 31, 2013, 11:38:30 AM
I recall dialogue (I think it was from Apollo 16 last EVA) where an astronaut asks if they're done with the long lens, and the Capcom tells him, yeah, he can toss it.  *cringe*

*also cringe*
*turn particularly bilous shade of envious green*

On the bright side, 1/6th g should mean only a few cosmetic scratches on the barrel; now if I could only scrape together the $40bn or so it would take to go & pick it up... ;D
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Count Zero on January 31, 2013, 11:43:36 AM
Re: Lunokhod, I seem to recall a conspiracy theory about them from several years ago.  It was the perfect compliment to Apollo hoax CTs.  You see, while NASA did not have the technology to send people to the Moon, the USSR did not have the technology to build a remotely-controlled lunar rover so they put a human midget inside each one on a suicide-mission to drive them on the Moon.

 :o
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: sts60 on January 31, 2013, 12:16:52 PM
sts60, your posts are EPIC.
(blushes) Well, thank you, but Jay, Bob, ka9q, etc. are doing all the heavy lifting in this thread.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on January 31, 2013, 12:21:41 PM
they put a human midget inside each one on a suicide-mission to drive them on the Moon.

 :o

Because of course if you were a midget in the Soviet Union, there would be no greater honor than to glorify the proletariat by dying anomalously on the moon.  :o
Title: Re: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on January 31, 2013, 12:24:31 PM
I don't think RCS is ever used with the main engine.

You don't know?..why do you post about something you know nothing about?


edit to add...and why do I post essentially the same as others already have?....because I missed reading a page...DOH!
Title: Re: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on January 31, 2013, 12:35:17 PM
I don't think RCS is ever used with the main engine.

You don't know?..why do you post about something you know nothing about?


edit to add...and why do I post essentially the same as others already have?....because I missed reading a page...DOH!
It is a little mean spirited of me, but a blunder of such magnitude bears reminding, especially since they have shown, as yet, no understanding of exactly what they got wrong.
They tried to Bluff, but rolled a 1. And the DM in the sky gave them a circumstance penalty for ignorance of the topic matter.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gillianren on January 31, 2013, 12:43:41 PM
bring it on.

Let's start simple.  You have to capitalize the first letter of every sentence every time, junior.  Not just when you feel like it.  Work on that, and then we can build up to the big leagues--your woeful misunderstandings about orbital mechanics.
Title: Re: Moonrocks in the head.
Post by: alexsanchez on January 31, 2013, 01:13:34 PM
HOW DO YOU FAKE A ROCK?
Dontcha know that NASA can do anything it sets its mind to, except go to the Moon.

So they used the:

The New and Improved MagiTech™ MoonRock Oven®
Will fool every geologist in the world, even those you haven't bribed yet!
*

(*Not available in this and the next 3 parallel Universes. Sales Taxes where applicable.)

Come to think of it, how many geologists live in million-dolar mansions and drive Maseratis?


Why so testy?  Sounds like someone who knows they're on thin ice.  I must be striking a nerve.  The truth does not suffer investigation.
So why don't you start investigating.

So far you have only mindlesly regurgitated nonsense fabricated by hoax promoters.
Why are you such a sheeple?
You should be nice to me.  I'm the one trying to get you off the moon.  I'm not regurgitating nonsense.  My nonsense (IMU alignment) is original.  I understand your discomfort with originality.  Sheeple?  Moi?  That's called "projecting."  A great man once said, or maybe it was Pee Wee Herman, "I know you are but what am I?"


Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people.
Title: Re: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 31, 2013, 01:15:23 PM
I can launch a spacecraft from 180 degrees around the planet from my target vehicle and still effect a rendezvous with it using a series of phasing steps.  These techniques were worked out in the early 1960s and practiced during Gemini.  And it's how we've accomplished every orbital rendezvous since -- 4 decades' worth.  You're still suck on the "hit a bullet with a bullet" layman's misconception.

On first reading, I took that as "180o out of plane". Duh. I was thinking, boy, I hope he brought a BP credit card along. :-[
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on January 31, 2013, 01:20:07 PM
I'm not regurgitating nonsense.  My nonsense (IMU alignment) is original.

It may be original to you...it is not original to us.


Quote
I understand your discomfort with originality.

It's time for you to knock off this "amateur psychiatry" crap. I'm getting tired of it, and it obviously does not apply.




Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 31, 2013, 01:24:21 PM
How about 3 decimal places in feet, since the CM is only 60 miles up? If you're off by a hair, it turns into miles down range.

No.  It's hard to imagine where to begin addressing all the fail[ure] in this statement.

First, three decimal places in feet is 0.001 foot or 0.012 inch, or about 3 sheets of cheap laser printer paper (ca. 0.004 inch per page).  Do you really think rockets launched from Earth are routinely placed on the launch pad to that precision?  Do you really think the have to be?  Do you honestly think through these claims before you make them?

No, it was never a requirement to fix the launch position of any space vehicle to that precision, no matter its mission or destination.  You're just pulling numbers out of your orifice because you have no clue what you're talking about and want to sound impressive.  Laymen think everything in aerospace has to be established to absurd tolerances.  Some things yes.  It takes an engineer to know which.  Laymen just apply absurd requirements across the board.

Second, guidance and propulsion dispersion accounts for far more error.  Dispersion can be thought of as fastening a rifle in a vise on a sturdy anchor and then firing several shots at a very distant target.  The shots still cluster and do not simply pass through the same hole exactly.  This is due to the compounded error of several factors that generally cannot be controlled to sufficient precision, such as jitter in the IMU pickoffs or thrust bursts below the resolution of the accelerometers.  This is practical space flight, which accounts for all such things and trims them at the end.  Guidance is never just open-loop dead reckoning, although a layman might mistakenly think so.

Third, no -- errors in launch site position do not compound, as the attached drawing illustrates.  Downrange position errors at the launch site result in commensurate downrange position errors at the insertion point.  They do not compound.  This is a classic layman's mistake.  No one who has any experience with inertial guidance of any sort would make this sort of error.  It is fundamental.  It is elementary.  It's like an "expert" chef not knowing the difference between cheese and an egg.

Quote
I've personally witnessed that when somebody gave me an equation with a wrong sign (+/-) that caused an error in the least significant bit of a calculation related to IMU alignment, which gets integrated (added repeatedly),

Yes, IMU alignment is important.  However it has nothing to do with the launch position.

IMU gimbal angles are picked off as a 16-bit unsigned value, typically.  The physics of how it's measured preclude much higher resolution without unacceptable noise.  The AGC had a 15-bit word, so the Apollo IMUs read out in 15-bit unsigned values.  So 360°/(215) produces a metrical resolution of 0.011°.  You can't measure angles any smaller than that using the IMU.  Here's the part you didn't know:  Theodolite alignments are precise only to about 0.05°.  So you've already accumulated five times as much measurement error as you say your coding bug caused.

Optical measurement in a stationary LM is possible to 0.02° (with astronauts demonstrating interpolation ability to near 0.01°) using the AOT.  The pre-launch IMU alignment procedure uses three factors, although theoretically only two factors are required to achieve suitable alignment.  These are combinations of gravity measurements and celestial sightings.  Three factors are used to allow one factor to be grossly in error; only two of the factors have to work.  Today's off-the-shelf automatic star trackers achieve 3-10 arcseconds (0.0008-0.0027°) of precision, now finer than most IMU resolutions.

The salient points are these.

1. Your reliance on the necessity of theodolite measurements from a carefully surveyed reference point is a red herring.  In fact (and this was demonstrated in ICBM programs), celestial sighting is and has always been a better method.  It is not used for initial IMU measurements at Earth launch because it is generally not available.

2. Existing guidance system performance is already demonstrably sloppier than what you claim is required, yet we manage to operate spacecraft successfully in missions that include substantial pointing constraints.

3. Dispersions resulting from guidance jitter are common and accepted.

Quote
...and they almost aborted a launch in flight...

Name the vehicle and payload, launch date and location.  You won't because I know you're lying again.  No launch is ever aborted because of LSb errors in guidance.  That's negligible.  Strap-down gyros generate far more error than that just in normal operation, and are tolerable.

Do you honestly think these tall tales are really fooling anyone?

The minimum IMU alignment error -- that is, the finest the IMU could be aligned by any means -- accepts a downrange error in the final insertion point, at an altitude of roughly 9 nautical miles, on the order of 3,000 feet.  More than half a nautical mile!  That's as accurate as any such IMU could ever be, even in an Earth launch (which goes to much higher altitudes and compounds the IMU jitter to a much greater error).  Tell me all about the bullet-with-a-bullet expectation again.  Let's say the astronaut bungled the IMU celestial alignment by as much as 0.1° -- an absurdly large error, corresponding to an uncorrected IMU drift.  With the error compounded through guidance integration, that's a downrange error on the order of 5 nautical miles, which is well within the sequencing maneuver's tolerance.

So what do you do about it?

Well, you simply adjust the timing of the next phasing burn.  See, you're under the mistaken impression that you're trying to hit the CSM flying overhead in a single-shot maneveuver -- the "bullet with a bullet" misconception.  That's not how rendezvous works.  In fact you let the CSM fly overhead and go downrange a bit.  Then you ascend and insert into a lower (and therefore faster) orbit.  You may botch that insertion.  You may be significantly up- or downrange from your desired insertion point.

Doesn't matter!  The CSM is far ahead of you, and you're in a lower orbit.  You have a whole set of rendezvous sequencing maneuvers ahead of you to make those orbits coincide.  There never was a constraint that the inserted orbit coincide with the target orbit, hence no expectation that it should.  The ascent flight plan required these maneuvers in all cases, so any ascent dispersions are simply folded into the exact parameters for those maneuvers, to be determined on the fly (literally).

Determined how?  By using your radar to measure the angle, distance, and relative velocity between you and the target vehicle.  If you know the orbit of one of those vehicles, you can use those measurements to derive the orbit of the other.  Then the rendezvous phasing computations take hold.  It doesn't matter what those orbits are.  It only matters that you can measure what they end up to be.

So you discover that because your IMU was grossly out of alignment, you ended up five nautical miles downrange from your desired insertion point.  Ermagherd!  How will it ever be possible to fix that!  By the highly touchy procedure of ... (wait for it) ... starting the next phasing burn 5.5 seconds earlier than the baseline.  Oh my golly, how can any astronaut hope to be able to do that!?  Yes, we can literally be miles off and still rendezvous.

So why bother trying to fix the launch position at all?  Why bother timing the liftoff at all?  Because to ascend and redezvous quickly and with the minimum expenditure of fuel is safer.  We have the ability to fix the launch position to within a few miles, so do it.  We have the ability to time the launch to the split-second, so do it.  If done well, the result is a minimal phasing burn with minimum wait time.  Earlier I said I could launch with the CSM an hour ahead of me and still be able to rendezvous.  The catch is that in my lower orbit I'd have to wait several hours for those orbits to come into the proper phase, and with limited consumables on my spacecraft I don't want to.  Those orbits will still coincide, but may do so only after I run out of oxygen.  So I can perform a retrograde burn (velocity is a vector) and drop to an even lower, even faster orbit to speed up the rendezvous.  But that's energy I'll need back later.  I'll need to perform a bigger posigrade burn on my next sequencing step.  And fuel is a scalar, which means I may run out of fuel if I speed up the process to fit within my oxygen consumables window.

But wait!  There's another spacecraft!  The CSM also has the ability to change its orbit.  If I'm so far out of phase that I won't be able to get in phase before my oxygen runs out, and too low on fuel to be able to speed that process up before, I can ask the CSM to ascend to a higher, slower orbit so that I can catch up faster.  Then it can perform active-vehicle phasing burns to get me there.  What a wonderfully well thought out process that was!

Now keep in mind that this had nothing to with the LM's launch position.  You are constantly and amusingly conflating those.  IMU alignment and launch position are not at all related.  Yes, both can produce errors that result in errors in the insertion point, to be corrected by adjusting the rendezvous sequencing timing.  But you attribute the effects of one to the kind of error produced by the other -- something no one would do if they had any knowledge or experience in this.

If I'm making an impression on you, it should be that you demonstrably have absolutely no clue how to fly a spacecraft in space.  Don't pretend you do.

Quote
In the meantime, what year are we supposed to have another manned lunar mission?

As soon as the political will supports it.
Title: Re: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 31, 2013, 01:25:28 PM
On first reading, I took that as "180o out of plane". Duh. I was thinking, boy, I hope he brought a BP credit card along. :-[

Out of phase, out of plane.  It's all the same right?  You still have to hit a bullet with a bullet, right?  ;D
Title: Re: Moonrocks in the head.
Post by: Andromeda on January 31, 2013, 01:30:19 PM
You should be nice to me. 

We've been very restrained in the face of your abuse and insults.

Quote
I'm the one trying to get you off the moon.

We know how to get off the moon.  YOU don't.


Quote
I'm not regurgitating nonsense.  My nonsense (IMU alignment) is original.

No, it's not.


Quote
I understand your discomfort with originality.

HA!  What was more original that going to the moon?


Quote
Sheeple?  Moi?  That's called "projecting."

Cut the armchair psychiatry.  You know less about that than you do the LM... and that's saying something.



Quote
A great man once said, or maybe it was Pee Wee Herman, "I know you are but what am I?"

Oh, yeah, quote a sex offender while demanding respect  ::)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 31, 2013, 01:30:49 PM
You should be nice to me.

You need to earn that now.

Quote
I'm the one trying to get you off the moon.

Given your total lack of demonstrable expertise on the subject, I'm bloody glad I'm not sitting on the moon with a dwindling oxygen supply waiting for you to get me off it!

Quote
I'm not regurgitating nonsense.  My nonsense (IMU alignment) is original.

Really? That's odd, because I saw exactly the same argument here:

http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=3203

But that wasn't written by anyone called 'alexsanchez'. So we'll take that as either a lie or an admission that you are in fact that same person we all suspected you were some time ago. Neither of those is a good thing for you to be crowing about.

And knock off the 'projection' crap. Your inability to answer the actual questions asked of you is noted yet again. You really are quite tedious.

By the way, if you aren't sure if the RCS can be fired while the ascent engine is going, I suggest you look up the term 'pitchover'. You might even see it being done if you look at the Apollo 17 acent video. How do you think that was achieved if not by using the RCS to pitch the LM during ascent?

And while we're here:

What are your qualifications?

Do you know where Stanley Kubrick lived and worked during the Apollo program?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: sts60 on January 31, 2013, 01:38:22 PM
How about 3 decimal places in feet, since the CM is only 60 miles up? If you're off by a hair, it turns into miles down range.

No.  It's hard to imagine where to begin addressing all the fail[ure] in this statement.

First, three decimal places in feet is 0.001 foot or 0.012 inch, or about 3 sheets of cheap laser printer paper (ca. 0.004 inch per page).  Do you really think rockets launched from Earth are routinely placed on the launch pad to that precision?  Do you really think the have to be?  Do you honestly think through these claims before you make them?

No, it was never a requirement to fix the launch position of any space vehicle to that precision, no matter its mission or destination.  You're just pulling numbers out of your orifice because you have no clue what you're talking about and want to sound impressive.  Laymen think everything in aerospace has to be established to absurd tolerances.  Some things yes.  It takes an engineer to know which.  Laymen just apply absurd requirements across the board.

Second, ...
I think we have a lock for Post Of The Thread award.  Andromeda, take note!
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 31, 2013, 01:43:34 PM
Thanks Jay. Corrected a few of my own layman's misconceptions there.

Of course I'm not claiming to be an engineer, so...
Title: Re: Moonrocks in the head.
Post by: JayUtah on January 31, 2013, 01:47:46 PM
You should be nice to me.

We are.  We are tolerating your abusive and condescending behavior with reasonably good measure of restraint.  You are hardly distinguishable from a petulant teenager.  Don't be surprised when you are treated as such by adults.

Quote
I'm the one trying to get you off the moon.

No, you patently have no clue what you're talking about, as has been amply demonstrated.  What you're doing is a lot of handwaving and ignorant guesswork trying to build yourself up as some authority in the field, for no purpose other than to ridicule and insult the people who do, and have done, what you cannot seem to understand.  There is nothing lofty or praiseworthy or skillful in anything you've done here so far.  You're simply yet another ignorant layman arrogantly trying to pretend you've outsmarted NASA -- but who ultimately cannot walk the walk.

Quote
I'm not regurgitating nonsense.

Manifestly yes.  We even know exactly which nonsense you're regurgitating and where it comes from.

Quote
My nonsense (IMU alignment) is original.

No.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=216531
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=3203

Quote
I understand your discomfort with originality.

Guess again.  The discomfort is from your arrogance coupled with your willful dishonesty.  Is this how you think educated adults are meant to behave?  Grow up.

Quote
Sheeple?  Moi?  That's called "projecting."

Guess again.  We went through this and I showed how projection really applies to this thread.  For the second time now you have mentioned the subject without being able to refute my post on it.  Therefore I conclude you cannot.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on January 31, 2013, 01:49:13 PM
It seems to me that infusing a rock with radiation would, if anything,  make a rock appear to be younger,  not older.
[HB]Not when using government top secret particle beam weapon technology![/HB]  ;)

Don't forget "scalar."

I always wanted to ask one of them if they'd stand behind a "scalar" machine gun.  We know the bullets are traveling at high speed, but we have no way of determining which way they will go...
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Halcyon Dayz, FCD on January 31, 2013, 01:51:24 PM
You should be nice to me.
Why?

You've been lying to us from day one.

I'm the one trying to get you off the moon.
You are the one spouting ignorant nonsense.
IF you had any interrest in learning the truth about Apollo you would have learned about Apollo.
You would not use confabulations as your basis for speculation.

I'm not regurgitating nonsense.
Yes, you are.

My nonsense (IMU alignment) is original.
Heard it before.

I understand your discomfort with originality.
"Originality" is useless if it gets wrong results.

People here are trying to educate you.
You refuse to learn.
You are NOT interrested in the truth.

Sheeple?  Moi?
Oui.

That's called "projecting."
It's an observation.

Hoaxies, to the man, and woman, just crib their talking points from youchube and garishly coloured websites.
They do not critically examine these points, they do not research these points, they rarely actually understand these points.
They just happen to match their worldview so there must be something to them.
And like good little spambots proselytizing for the cult of unreason they unsanitarily regurgitate these brainfarts all over the good tableware.

They are mindless sheeple.
They just happen to be sheeple of a non-standard colour.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Donnie B. on January 31, 2013, 01:58:13 PM
I think this thread is starting to exhibit a bit too much bullet-on-bullet violence.  Let's keep it clean, okay? :)

Jay, that bit about "almost aborted a launch in flight" jumped out at me too.  Well, did they or didn't they?  An abort isn't exactly a judgment call.  There are parameters and limits.  If the trajectory passes outside a limit, it's an abort, otherwise not.  So what does "almost aborted" even mean?  Only that the trajectory came closer to a limit than was intended.  So since the launch wasn't aborted, gosh, I guess things don't have to be absolutely perfect for the mission to be a success.  You can tolerate some error and still be okay!

After all, I'm pretty sure they didn't diagnose the software bug, fix it, and upload the corrected firmware to the rocket in flight, amirite?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gillianren on January 31, 2013, 02:08:00 PM
A great man once said, or maybe it was Pee Wee Herman, "I know you are but what am I?"

Grammatically, this would be better rendered as "A great man, or maybe it was Pee Wee Herman, once said . . . ."

I would also argue that the singular of "sheeple" is "sherson," so Alex, don't be such a sherson.  Stop citing Jack White; it only makes you look foolish.  Don't claim your arguments are original; they're not.  Unless you are confessing to sock puppetry, you are not the first person to use them.  Even if you were, who cares?  What matters is not if the argument is original or not.  What matters is if it is right.  Hint--it isn't.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 31, 2013, 02:18:24 PM
anybody figure out how to do a lunar rendezvous without an IMU alignment yet?  I'm looking into that.  I know that's a touchy subject.

It's not a touchy subject.  Everyone but you knows how to do it, and how it was done.  Don't pretend your ignorance on the subject is anyone's problem but yours.
Did Apollo 11 go to the moon and land while still faking the video?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on January 31, 2013, 02:22:19 PM
How about 3 decimal places in feet, since the CM is only 60 miles up? If you're off by a hair, it turns into miles down range.

No.  It's hard to imagine where to begin addressing all the fail[ure] in this statement.

First, three decimal places in feet is 0.001 foot or 0.012 inch, or about 3 sheets of cheap laser printer paper (ca. 0.004 inch per page).  Do you really think rockets launched from Earth are routinely placed on the launch pad to that precision?  Do you really think the have to be?  Do you honestly think through these claims before you make them?


Wow.  My math hat was NOT on when he first wrote this.  I'd guess the thermal expansion of the Saturn V stack was greater than that.  Much greater.  Heck, that sounds within the range for subsidence and rebound over the rainy season.


Optical measurement in a stationary LM is possible to 0.02° (with astronauts demonstrating interpolation ability to near 0.01°) using the AOT.  The pre-launch IMU alignment procedure uses three factors, although theoretically only two factors are required to achieve suitable alignment.  These are combinations of gravity measurements and celestial sightings.  Three factors are used to allow one factor to be grossly in error; only two of the factors have to work.  Today's off-the-shelf automatic star trackers achieve 3-10 arcseconds (0.0008-0.0027°) of precision, now finer than most IMU resolutions.

Heh.  So they probably don't take sightings on Rigel Kent!  Although I suppose the tracker could compensate for the date of observation as well... (makes me want to turn over a bill and start scribbling to see what other numbers come within range at that degree of accuracy!)

(And scribble it would be...my math hat barely made it out of algebra.)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 31, 2013, 02:25:25 PM
Did Apollo 11 go to the moon and land while still faking the video?

Was this post meant to have a point?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 31, 2013, 02:28:47 PM
I'd guess the thermal expansion of the Saturn V stack was greater than that.  Much greater.

Yes.  Also, wiggling around in your couch in the CM would cause the tip of the LES to sway by more than that amount.

Quote
Although I suppose the tracker could compensate for the date of observation as well...

No, but they're not meant to last longer than about 10 years.

The top-of-the-line models give you 3-arcsecond precision at 10 Hz.  That's pretty good.  For some applications I wouldn't even need a separate IMU.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 31, 2013, 02:30:09 PM
Did Apollo 11 go to the moon and land while still faking the video?

Was this post meant to have a point?
Asking what you think.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on January 31, 2013, 02:32:36 PM
My nonsense (IMU alignment) is original.

First of all, you obviously have not done a sufficient prior art search to back your originality claim.  Secondly novel ignorance is still ignorance.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 31, 2013, 02:33:00 PM
Did Apollo 11 go to the moon and land while still faking the video?

Begging the question.

Apollo 11 did go to the moon and land, and did not fake the video.

But instead of asking questions, why don't you answer some instead?

What are your qualifications?

Do you know where Stanley Kubrick lived and worked during the time you say he was faking Apollo?

Do you have any response at all to the numerous replies to your absurd comments about IMU alignment precision?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 31, 2013, 02:34:09 PM
Asking what you think.

This is a convenient time to start caring what I think.  How about, instead of trying to play childish games, you address the part where I tore your IMU argument to shreds?  When you demonstrate you care what I think about that, you can start asking me questions about something else.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Andromeda on January 31, 2013, 02:34:53 PM
Did Apollo 11 go to the moon and land while still faking the video?

Was this post meant to have a point?
Asking what you think.

That's known as "begging the question".

The Eagle landed on the moon.  Nothing was faked about it.


Edit: Jason posted while I was typing, I see we agree.... as usual :)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Andromeda on January 31, 2013, 02:37:13 PM
Alexsanchez


What are your qualifications?

Do you know where Stanley Kubrick lived and worked during the time you say he was faking Apollo?

Do you have any response at all to the numerous replies to your absurd comments about IMU alignment precision?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 31, 2013, 02:40:51 PM
Do you have any response at all to the numerous replies to your absurd comments about IMU alignment precision?

Obvious troll is obvious.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 31, 2013, 02:42:14 PM
Yeah, but it never hurts to make them even more obvious...
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 31, 2013, 02:44:24 PM
Did Apollo 11 go to the moon and land while still faking the video?

Begging the question.

Apollo 11 did go to the moon and land, and did not fake the video.

But instead of asking questions, why don't you answer some instead?

What are your qualifications?

Do you know where Stanley Kubrick lived and worked during the time you say he was faking Apollo?

Do you have any response at all to the numerous replies to your absurd comments about IMU alignment precision?
Every rocket launched on earth goes through an IMU alignment.  Is that absurd?  Some people think the landing was real, but they faked the video.  I was asking Jay.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Andromeda on January 31, 2013, 02:47:06 PM
Did Apollo 11 go to the moon and land while still faking the video?

Begging the question.

Apollo 11 did go to the moon and land, and did not fake the video.

But instead of asking questions, why don't you answer some instead?

What are your qualifications?

Do you know where Stanley Kubrick lived and worked during the time you say he was faking Apollo?

Do you have any response at all to the numerous replies to your absurd comments about IMU alignment precision?
Every rocket launched on earth goes through an IMU alignment.  Is that absurd?  Some people think the landing was real, but they faked the video.  I was asking Jay.


Ooh ooh ooh!  Claiming to none new to the idea of the hoax but quickly focussing on Jay?  Where have we seen that before?!
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Mag40 on January 31, 2013, 02:49:25 PM
Asking what you think.

This is a convenient time to start caring what I think.  How about, instead of trying to play childish games, you address the part where I tore your IMU argument to shreds?  When you demonstrate you care what I think about that, you can start asking me questions about something else.

I think he got what he was after, a detailed rebuttal to manipulate as his own.....at a later date. Now he's been suspended at CQ....probably banned for socking for about the 50th time....he'll be here more of the time.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 31, 2013, 02:52:05 PM
Every rocket launched on earth goes through an IMU alignment.  Is that absurd?

No, the absurdity was in your given level of precision and your ideas about how the ascent and rendezvous actually worked, and the notion that you need to know exactly where you lift off from in order to successfully rendezvous with an orbiting spacecraft, and you know that. Stop playing idiotic, childish games.

Once again (and yes, I will ask this until I get an answer): do you understand that getting into orbit and the rendezvous were separate elements?

Quote
Some people think the landing was real, but they faked the video.

No-one here does.

Quote
I was asking Jay.

And? This is an open discussion.

Again:

What are your qualifications?

Do you know where Stanely Kubrick lived and worked during Apollo?

Do you have anythign to say about how utterly wrong you were about the LM's ability to align the IMU and the precision with which it needed to do so, or about your ignorance of the engine and RCS capabilities, which would be rather useful for you to know if you're going to pronounce judgement on the capabilities of the spacecraft?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Bob B. on January 31, 2013, 02:54:18 PM
sts60, your posts are EPIC.
(blushes) Well, thank you, but Jay, Bob, ka9q, etc. are doing all the heavy lifting in this thread.

I agree with Andromeda.  I always like reading your stuff, sts60.  Very informative and a hoot to read.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on January 31, 2013, 02:55:36 PM
Some people think the landing was real, but they faked the video.  I was asking Jay.

You were asking Jay, what? If he agreed with you?

You simply can not be that ignorant.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on January 31, 2013, 02:56:22 PM
Every rocket launched on earth goes through an IMU alignment.  Is that absurd?  Some people think the landing was real, but they faked the video.  I was asking Jay.
'Some people', eh? Do those people include you?
Enough with the weasel words. ::)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 31, 2013, 03:02:44 PM
Every rocket launched on earth goes through an IMU alignment.  Is that absurd?

I have answered this question three times.  You have ignored the answer all three times.  I have given you a complete analysis of your error and misconception.  Since you cannot even acknowledge it, much less answer it, much less provide a suitable rejoinder, I conclude you are trolling.

Quote
Some people think the landing was real, but they faked the video.  I was asking Jay.

I will not play your games.  You have my answer.  Deal with it.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 31, 2013, 03:06:09 PM
(blushes) Well, thank you, but Jay, Bob, ka9q, etc. are doing all the heavy lifting in this thread.

Perhaps, but that is not always the case, nor is it ever an excuse to deprive us of your unique skill and insight, so appropriately and succinctly phrased.  "Epic" is the single best word.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 31, 2013, 03:21:24 PM
Some people think the landing was real, but they faked the video.  I was asking Jay.

You were asking Jay, what? If he agreed with you?

You simply can not be that ignorant.
I heard a guy named Jay on a radio show one time saying Apollo was real, but for some reason the video was fake.  Don't remember the last name.  Thought it might have been the same Jay by chance.  Guess not.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on January 31, 2013, 03:27:28 PM
Some people think the landing was real, but they faked the video.  I was asking Jay.

You were asking Jay, what? If he agreed with you?

You simply can not be that ignorant.
I heard a guy named Jay on a radio show one time saying Apollo was real, but for some reason the video was fake.  Don't remember the last name.  Thought it might have been the same Jay by chance.  Guess not.

Ok...maybe you can be that ignorant.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Laurel on January 31, 2013, 03:28:34 PM
Of course he can. Remember "Buzz Armstrong"?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Andromeda on January 31, 2013, 03:34:29 PM
Of course he can. Remember "Buzz Armstrong"?

(http://i1336.photobucket.com/albums/o657/Andromeda_Apollo/451B647A-1DA5-4B76-9A1D-1175CA2B170A-862-000000969FB96A49.jpg)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Chew on January 31, 2013, 03:44:42 PM
Wow. I was just reminiscing about old times when I brought up Patrick not knowing about the RCS. It never occurred to me that there could be two hoax believers out there so full of hubris they would call 'gotcha' without bothering to learn the absolute minimal basics of space flight. Just wow.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 31, 2013, 03:54:51 PM
Alex,

I'm still waiting on your response about your bet. Are you going to confirm your qualifications or not?

Im also still waiting on your response about the Apollo rocks. Are you going to answer these questions or not?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 31, 2013, 04:14:38 PM
I heard a guy named Jay on a radio show one time saying Apollo was real, but for some reason the video was fake.  Don't remember the last name.  Thought it might have been the same Jay by chance.  Guess not.

Guess not.  Now do you have anything material to say to the several posts here that effectively refute your claims and illustrate your deception and incompetence?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on January 31, 2013, 04:50:13 PM
I was just reminiscing about old times when I brought up Patrick not knowing about the RCS.

Wasn't that the same guy that had a special fixation on astronaut poo?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 31, 2013, 05:02:15 PM
Wasn't that the same guy that had a special fixation on astronaut poo?

Yeah, and there's someone doing that on Cosmoquest too, but he got suspended.  A little creepy if you ask me.  Yes, poo is a fact of life, and when you're an astronaut it's a slightly less pleasant fact of life than for the rest of us mammals.  But to be that fixated on it is just asking to be mocked.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: smartcooky on January 31, 2013, 06:08:29 PM
I heard a guy named Jay on a radio show one time saying Apollo was real, but for some reason the video was fake.  Don't remember the last name.  Thought it might have been the same Jay by chance.  Guess not.

Maybe it was Jay Armstrong?  8)

(http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o35/smartcooky99/JayArmstrong.jpg)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on January 31, 2013, 06:12:00 PM
Yeah, and there's someone doing that on Cosmoquest too, but he got suspended.

Makes a man wonder why old astronaut poo is becoming so popular online these days.  I guess it like every thing else, people with common interests naturally congregate. If CQ is out, I wonder where they will go next?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 31, 2013, 06:23:27 PM
...I wonder where they will go next?

Above Poop Secret?
Pooplike Productions?
Call Of Doodie?
YouPoop?

Okay, I'm done.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on January 31, 2013, 06:30:25 PM
...I wonder where they will go next?

Above Poop Secret?
Pooplike Productions?
Call Of Doodie?
YouPoop?

Okay, I'm done.
I am pleased someone is able to do the dirty work around here when it needs doing.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ka9q on January 31, 2013, 06:33:09 PM
Heh.  So they probably don't take sightings on Rigel Kent!
As a matter of fact, no they don't. It wasn't on the list of Apollo guide stars despite its brightness, and I haven't heard of star trackers using it either. The yearly parallax and the fact that it's a double (or maybe triple) star probably both contribute to that.

As I understand it (Jay, correct me if I'm wrong), the two stars traditionally used with star trackers were Canopus and Sirius. They're not as far apart as you'd like (90 degrees would be ideal) nor is Sirius all that far away but they're both bright and easy to spot.

Nowadays more stars are used, and in some cases entire star field images are looked up in a catalog, which is pretty neat.

Title: Re: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ka9q on January 31, 2013, 06:41:44 PM
The vast majority of medium format still cameras used the 61.5mm wide "120", "220" or "620" films
Learn something every day! I handled a lot of medium format film way back in my junior high school photography days, and I'd always just assumed it was the same width as 70mm movie film, just no sprocket holes. I never measured it or did the math.

Yes, Apollo used 70mm film because it was a standard size that came without a weight and volume-wasting backing. Kodak also made it especially thin using their then-new Estar (polyester) base, which is much stronger and more temperature-insensitive than the cellulose acetate stock that replaced nitrate. Both factors allowed many more (hundreds) of exposures to be crammed into each magazine. As far as I know, the color emulsion was standard Ektachrome. I don't remember if we've discussed why it wasn't Kodachrome, which has better dye stability.

We also know polyester as DuPont's Mylar. Rumor has it that Kodak developed Estar film for spy satellite photography, which makes a lot of sense.

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 31, 2013, 06:43:35 PM
As I understand it (Jay, correct me if I'm wrong), the two stars traditionally used with star trackers were Canopus and Sirius.

Yes, Canopus more so because of its unique chromatic signature and its considerable distance from the ecliptic.  Early probes used a sun tracker and a Canopus tracker.

Quote
Nowadays more stars are used, and in some cases entire star field images are looked up in a catalog, which is pretty neat.

Yes, third-generation star trackers can go from no-initial-fix to 90% confidence of a 3-arcsecond tolerance in a little under a minute.  With an initial fix, 3-10 arcseconds at 10 Hz.  As I said, for many purposes they can supplant an angular IMU.
Title: Re: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on January 31, 2013, 06:45:32 PM
As far as I know, the color emulsion was standard Ektachrome.

Yes, the E-3 process.

Quote
I don't remember if we've discussed why it wasn't Kodachrome, which has better dye stability.

More latitude in the darkroom.  The theory was to have professional photo lab people correct the mistakes of amateur astronaut photographers.

Quote
Rumor has it that Kodak developed Estar film for spy satellite photography, which makes a lot of sense.

Yes, the Estar base was invented for Project Corona and, at the time of Apollo, was still secret.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ka9q on January 31, 2013, 07:00:56 PM
The lenses were replaceable.  On the J-missions they took a 500mm lens for shooting mosaics of distant terrain.
I'm pretty sure those were separate cameras with 500mm lenses permanently attached. They were carried in addition to the usual EDCs with 60mm lenses. They did take some spectacular pictures, such as the west face of Hadley Rille and the flanks of the mountains around the J-sites.

I think there were two likely reasons to make the lenses fixed in the surface cameras: a) removing them on the lunar surface would invite in too much dust, and b) each lens/reseau plate combination was carefully calibrated before flight, and removing a lens would disturb this calibration.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ka9q on January 31, 2013, 07:25:53 PM
Yes, third-generation star trackers can go from no-initial-fix to 90% confidence of a 3-arcsecond tolerance in a little under a minute.
I wonder how hard that would be to build from scratch with cheap CCD cameras. I'm thinking of an AMSAT application.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: cjameshuff on January 31, 2013, 08:30:45 PM
I wonder how hard that would be to build from scratch with cheap CCD cameras. I'm thinking of an AMSAT application.

There's parts available that are basically a camera-on-a-chip, a sensor (often CMOS instead of CCD) and everything needed to read out an image, sometimes even with on-chip resampling and JPEG compression. I've actually been wondering if they have the sensitivity needed for a star tracker...
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: frenat on January 31, 2013, 08:44:17 PM
If I may make my guess, at this point he is trying to get banned.
anybody figure out how to do a lunar rendezvous without an IMU alignment yet?  I'm looking into that.  I know that's a touchy subject.

Only in your mind.  You've been told before why you're wrong.  Why should they tell you again?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ka9q on January 31, 2013, 09:01:21 PM
There's parts available that are basically a camera-on-a-chip, a sensor (often CMOS instead of CCD) and everything needed to read out an image
My main concern is the sun. Even though modern cameras aren't damaged by it, it will severely overload the sensor and produce major artifacts like bleeding. If I could knock the sensitivity down enough to minimize these artifacts, I could use the sun's position in the image as attitude data. Alternatively I'd have to build a separate dedicated sun sensor, or simply analyze solar cell currents to determine the sun's direction.

I'd also want the sensor to recover quickly enough to provide usable star field images when the spacecraft is spinning and alternately viewing the sun and dark sky. Of course there would be a limit to the tolerable spin rate as it would limit exposure times and sensitivity would suffer. Maybe I'd need some other kind of attitude sensor for this situation and reserve the star trackers for when the spacecraft is almost stable.

Sunshades would be a good idea to minimize lens flares when the sun is just outside the field of view. They seem standard on commercial star trackers, but bulky.

As for sensitivity, nearly all of the stars in the Apollo catalog were 2nd magnitude or brighter, yet the astronauts still complained that they were often hard to see.

Title: Re: Moonrocks in the head.
Post by: frenat on January 31, 2013, 09:17:26 PM
HOW DO YOU FAKE A ROCK?
Dontcha know that NASA can do anything it sets its mind to, except go to the Moon.

So they used the:

The New and Improved MagiTech™ MoonRock Oven®
Will fool every geologist in the world, even those you haven't bribed yet!
*

(*Not available in this and the next 3 parallel Universes. Sales Taxes where applicable.)

Come to think of it, how many geologists live in million-dolar mansions and drive Maseratis?


Why so testy?  Sounds like someone who knows they're on thin ice.  I must be striking a nerve.  The truth does not suffer investigation.
So why don't you start investigating.

So far you have only mindlesly regurgitated nonsense fabricated by hoax promoters.
Why are you such a sheeple?
You should be nice to me.  I'm the one trying to get you off the moon.  I'm not regurgitating nonsense.  My nonsense (IMU alignment) is original.  I understand your discomfort with originality.  Sheeple?  Moi?  That's called "projecting."  A great man once said, or maybe it was Pee Wee Herman, "I know you are but what am I?"


Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people.


It may be "original" but it is still crap.  You prove with every post that you have no idea what you are talking about.  Rather humorous actually.  You were going for humor, right?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: cjameshuff on January 31, 2013, 10:23:10 PM
I'd also want the sensor to recover quickly enough to provide usable star field images when the spacecraft is spinning and alternately viewing the sun and dark sky. Of course there would be a limit to the tolerable spin rate as it would limit exposure times and sensitivity would suffer. Maybe I'd need some other kind of attitude sensor for this situation and reserve the star trackers for when the spacecraft is almost stable.

CMOS sensors generally behave better when overloaded...you don't get whole lines obliterated. You might use sun tracking to get control of your rotation, but I think it'd be better to just use a MEMS gyro for a first approximation than to try to find a cheap image sensor that can spot stars while the sun is sweeping through the field of view.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: frenat on January 31, 2013, 11:10:09 PM
anybody figure out how to do a lunar rendezvous without an IMU alignment yet?  I'm looking into that.  I know that's a touchy subject.

It's not a touchy subject.  Everyone but you knows how to do it, and how it was done.  Don't pretend your ignorance on the subject is anyone's problem but yours.
Did Apollo 11 go to the moon and land while still faking the video?

Prove ANY of the video was faked.  I'll bet you that you can't.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gillianren on February 01, 2013, 01:11:27 AM
The vast majority of medium format still cameras used the 61.5mm wide "120", "220" or "620" films
Learn something every day! I handled a lot of medium format film way back in my junior high school photography days, and I'd always just assumed it was the same width as 70mm movie film, just no sprocket holes. I never measured it or did the math.

The only film camera I ever personally owned was a 120.  It came in these little cartridges that you just dropped in place.  I think my dad had owned a camera that used the reel kind, one that he'd bought in Germany when he was there with the Air Force, but my older sister inherited that, and by the time I bought a camera as an adult, it was a digital.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ka9q on February 01, 2013, 01:22:45 AM
Cartridges? 120 film came in rolls, little metal or plastic spools maybe 2cm in diameter. You dropped it into the supply slot, cut the tape holding the paper leader in place, and threaded it across the camera into the takeup spool.

Were you maybe thinking of the "Instamatic" format, aka 126? They used molded black plastic cartridges that you just dropped into place. There was also a "baby" Instamatic format, 110.

Those cartridges were a pain to develop. You had to break them open in the dark, usually by smashing them on the corner of the countertop, and fish out the film to put on the developing reel.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gillianren on February 01, 2013, 01:41:59 AM
Okay, it was the 110, I think.  I know it was 1-something, but I haven't had the camera in years.  Why would I?  They probably don't make film for it!
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on February 01, 2013, 01:46:45 AM
I still miss my little Minolta 201.  Took a lot of pictures on it, got very used to manually dialing in.  And loading the film under the shade of a jacket.
Title: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: PetersCreek on February 01, 2013, 02:43:11 AM
Okay, it was the 110, I think.  I know it was 1-something, but I haven't had the camera in years.  Why would I?  They probably don't make film for it!

It could have been another Instamatic cartridge: 126.  It was much larger than 110, producing images about 26 mm square.  As I recall, the film stock was also 35 mm wide.

ETA:  Ach!  Beaten to it by ka9q.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gillianren on February 01, 2013, 02:55:06 AM
No, it was a small cartridge, the smallest available.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Al Johnston on February 01, 2013, 05:37:13 AM
That would be 110 then  :)

If you still have the camera, the Lomography people have restarted production of 110 film cartidges...
Title: Re: Moonrocks in the head.
Post by: ineluki on February 01, 2013, 06:45:21 AM
My nonsense (IMU alignment) is original.

Thanks for finally admitting you are writing nonsense...
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: smartcooky on February 01, 2013, 07:11:05 AM
Learn something every day! I handled a lot of medium format film way back in my junior high school photography days, and I'd always just assumed it was the same width as 70mm movie film, just no sprocket holes. I never measured it or did the math.

Well there is another thing that many people don't realise, but there is a type of 35mm film that is sprocketless as well. We used to use it in the Minipan Camera installed on our A4K Skyhawks. They came equipped with (very pricey) Perkin-Elmer 20mm aperture f1.2 lenses and a very clever "rotating shutter" that exposed about 4½" if film per frame and gave the camera a 170° field of view.

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: smartcooky on February 01, 2013, 07:19:08 AM
No, it was a small cartridge, the smallest available.

There were two film cartridges smaller than the 110.

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8429/7736941430_e9e87a1b64_z.jpg)

Top = 110
Middle = Minolta 16
Bottom = Minnox
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: twik on February 01, 2013, 09:50:10 AM
Did Apollo 11 go to the moon and land while still faking the video?

Was this post meant to have a point?
Asking what you think.

Everyone on here thinks that is ridiculous. Faking the video would be much harder than going to the Moon and landing.

So, now you know what we think, you will go ahead and tell us we were wrong, which again leads to the question, what was the point?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Bob B. on February 01, 2013, 10:08:30 AM
Did Apollo 11 go to the moon and land while still faking the video?

Was this post meant to have a point?
Asking what you think.

What do you think, Alex.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on February 01, 2013, 12:14:15 PM
OK guys and gals, fun's fun but can we lay off just a bit.
Yes, 'Alex' has shown gross ignorance even I can see, but its getting a bit much. We don't have to treat him nice, but we should be at least somewhat civil.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gillianren on February 01, 2013, 01:10:48 PM
OK guys and gals, fun's fun but can we lay off just a bit.
Yes, 'Alex' has shown gross ignorance even I can see, but its getting a bit much. We don't have to treat him nice, but we should be at least somewhat civil.

I started there, but he appears to be ignoring me anyway.  I also did warn him.

I do, however, think that a certain amount of rudeness does leak into a lot of the rebuttals, and I think it's a bad idea.  It's tempting to start out with mockery--after all, the ideas are always so eminently mockable!--but I don't think it's actually helpful.  I really do believe that mocking HBs just makes them dig their heels in further, to "show us."  Or else they go with "you're making fun of me because it's all you've got!  You don't have facts."  Which is, of course, wrong, but I can see why they'd go there, too.  Don't give them the chance.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Captain Swoop on February 01, 2013, 01:28:41 PM
My first camera when I was very young was a 126 Cartridge camera. Grey and black plastic. thumb wheel winder and a 'bright' or 'cloudy' setting
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on February 01, 2013, 01:46:04 PM
120 roll film is sprocketless.  It's wound simply by the take-up reel in the normal magazines.  The film rolls produced for Apollo -- E-3 process emulsion on a 70mm 6x6-frame Estar thin base -- were sprocketed down one side.

When I interned for a year at Herman Miller I actually met Dean Peterson, who designed the Kodak Instamatic and the idea of cartridge film.  He was basically a minor deity in the industrial design world and was visiting HM's offices.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on February 01, 2013, 01:46:34 PM
My first camera when I was very young was a 126 Cartridge camera. Grey and black plastic. thumb wheel winder and a 'bright' or 'cloudy' setting
That pretty much matches my first camera.  It had a very wide angle lens. I took many photos of birds that came out as nothing but a dark spots, until I got some instruction on how to take photos rather than just use the camera. 
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Hal on February 01, 2013, 02:04:45 PM
We had various Instamatics and Polaroids around the house when I was a kid, but I was the only one in the family who had any particular interest in the craft of photography.  The first film I processed was from a camera exactly like this:

(http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/7460/bullseyek.jpg)

I'd scavenged the camera and a complete darkroom setup from a neighbor's trash, and with nothing but the processing notes included in the film box, I set out to teach myself how to process my own film and prints.

Maybe not the best choice for me, as medium format film (with the paper backing) is much, much harder to load on the reel for a first-timer with no instruction whatsoever.  I was probably 10-11 yrs old, and I still remember standing in the dark bathroom in tears.  But, I finally managed it.  (Later, I seriously injured myself cracking open one of those stupid 126 cartridges.)

I have no idea whatever became of those first murky images of Muir Woods, or the equipment that produced them.  But then, my interest in photography hasn't survived the years, either.

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: cos on February 01, 2013, 02:40:12 PM
I see Patrick/fattydash/goodnightsnookums/alexsanchez has been banned (again) from cosmoquest for being a sock puppet.  He did leave with the hilarious accusation that apollo 14 was a fake because the astronauts couldn't have found their way back to the lm without knowing their position by the stars. I suppose following their footprints on a rock that had never been inhabited for 4 billion years could have led them anywhere!  Much better to bring a theodolite and a plumb line.  I think it is marvellous that he is bringing his 'expertise' to the problem of orbital rendezvous. 
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: twik on February 01, 2013, 03:02:05 PM
That was one of the more ludicrous pro-hoax arguments. Particularly when we can still see their trails today.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: smartcooky on February 01, 2013, 03:04:03 PM
Maybe not the best choice for me, as medium format film (with the paper backing) is much, much harder to load on the reel for a first-timer with no instruction whatsoever.

You ain't kidding. I still have difficulty with this, especially when loading 220, which is slightly thinner.

Quote
Later, I seriously injured myself cracking open one of those stupid 126 cartridges./quote]

There's a technique for doing that safely.

You grip the ends of the cartridge with both hands, with your stronger hand holding the take-up reel end so that you can feel the film drive lugs on the ends of the reel with your thumb and the inside of your first finger just below the knuckle joint, then twist the take-up end away from you. The cover of the take-up end will simply "peel" open without leaving any sharp edges, and you'll end up holding just the take-up reel.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on February 01, 2013, 03:14:41 PM
I see Patrick/fattydash/goodnightsnookums/alexsanchez has been banned (again) from cosmoquest for being a sock puppet.  He did leave with the hilarious accusation that apollo 14 was a fake because the astronauts couldn't have found their way back to the lm without knowing their position by the stars. I suppose following their footprints on a rock that had never been inhabited for 4 billion years could have led them anywhere!  Much better to bring a theodolite and a plumb line.  I think it is marvellous that he is bringing his 'expertise' to the problem of orbital rendezvous.
Wow, he really did not think that one through. :o
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on February 01, 2013, 03:31:35 PM

Wow, he really did not think that one through. :o

He ran out of his even slightly plausible claims a long ago and is now exclusively exercising his obsession with trolling.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: BazBear on February 02, 2013, 12:49:37 AM
I see Patrick/fattydash/goodnightsnookums/alexsanchez has been banned (again) from cosmoquest for being a sock puppet.
It looks like he's back at JREF with a sock named littleelvira.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: sts60 on February 02, 2013, 01:10:39 AM
And his latest coprophilic sock-puppet on JREF is suspended en route to a ban.

Patrick, why do you keep lying to sign up all these sock-puppets?   Isn't that awfully hypocritical of you, given how much you claim other people are lying?

And do you think you're actually fooling anybody?  At all?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Abaddon on February 02, 2013, 02:34:29 AM
And his latest coprophilic sock-puppet on JREF is suspended en route to a ban.

Patrick, why do you keep lying to sign up all these sock-puppets?   Isn't that awfully hypocritical of you, given how much you claim other people are lying?

And do you think you're actually fooling anybody?  At all?
Meh, JREF spotted it last time, CQ spotted it this time. Let's have a race for who will spot it next time.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: dwight on February 02, 2013, 12:02:15 PM
So what's the deal with all these pseudo-engineers huffing off?? I was under the impression their arguments were worth fighting for? Amateurs alright.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on February 02, 2013, 03:50:35 PM
Heh.  So they probably don't take sightings on Rigel Kent!
As a matter of fact, no they don't. It wasn't on the list of Apollo guide stars despite its brightness, and I haven't heard of star trackers using it either. The yearly parallax and the fact that it's a double (or maybe triple) star probably both contribute to that.

As I understand it (Jay, correct me if I'm wrong), the two stars traditionally used with star trackers were Canopus and Sirius. They're not as far apart as you'd like (90 degrees would be ideal) nor is Sirius all that far away but they're both bright and easy to spot.

Nowadays more stars are used, and in some cases entire star field images are looked up in a catalog, which is pretty neat.
I posted a question on a physics forum about IMU alignment and using a star finder. 
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=46824.new#new

The response was interesting:

"About that same time, I was trained to repair astrotrackers for USAF. Using a best known attitude from various other instruments, like magnetic compass and gyroscopic stable platform, the astrotracker would find a guide star in its telescope. A spinning radial raster would generate a signal indicating which direction the telescope needed to look to center on the guide star. Once it locked onto the guide star, it became the new best known attitude reference.

Back then, they still used mechanical gyroscopes. Nowadays, the gyros are electronic with no moving parts. The astrotrackers I worked on were heavy and bulky. NASA must have had a less massive version.

Also, I think NASA must have dropped some navigation aids on the lunar surface before they attempted any manned landings.
"

This person thinks they would have needed some additional equipment to have performed a liftoff and rendezvous.  Note that a magnetic compass on the moon would have been useless as the moon only has local magnetic fields.  Also, how do you use a star finder when you can't see stars with the naked eye?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_the_moon_have_a_magnetic_field

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on February 02, 2013, 04:02:32 PM
This person thinks they would have needed some additional equipment to have performed a liftoff and rendezvous.

So what...he is wrong...end of story.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on February 02, 2013, 04:08:34 PM
This person thinks they would have needed some additional equipment to have performed a liftoff and rendezvous.

So what?

Why don't you understand the staggeringly simple fact that the way the liftoff and rendezvous were accomplished is VERY well documented? Who cares what some other random person you asked about it on another messageboard thinks was done?

Quote
Also, how do you use a star finder when you can't see stars with the naked eye?

You CAN see stars with the naked eye on the moon, provided you allow your eyes to adapt to local conditions, as several astronauts attested. This means not having the brightly lit lunar surface or cabin interior in your field of view so your eyes can adapt to see the stars. In other words, exactly the kind of conditions the optics on the spacecraft allowed. Both the CSM and the LM had what was in efect a one-power telescope. It did not magnify the image but did allow the astronauts to sight stars and confirm the attitude of the spacecraft.

This is, again, a very well documented condition.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2013, 04:10:26 PM
I posted a question on a physics forum...

Physicists are not engineers.  You have three or more practicing engineers telling you multiple times how it's done.  This is not a technique that's a one-off mystery for Apollo.  This is what is practiced by commercial spacefarers daily.

Quote
This person thinks they would have needed some additional equipment to have performed a liftoff and rendezvous.

That person doesn't know what he's talking about.  The Apollo procedure was well documented in the professional literature.  This guy you've suddenly decided is some kind of authority apparently doesn't know about any of it.  You've been given the correct answers.  You can't seem to understand or address them.

Quote
Also, how do you use a star finder when you can't see stars with the naked eye?

You use the star finder, a.k.a. the Alignment Optical Telescope.

When you're finishing flinging straw men about, deal with the actual answers you've received.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on February 02, 2013, 04:17:56 PM
Alex, once again, do you understand that liftoff and rendezvous were separate elements with their own set of engineering solutions?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on February 02, 2013, 04:31:40 PM
"NASA must have had a less massive version.

Also, I think NASA must have dropped some navigation aids on the lunar surface before they attempted any manned landings."

Alex, what do you think of people who just parrot anonymous third party speculation?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on February 02, 2013, 04:35:23 PM
Alex,

Did you read the bio for your corespondent?

Quote
66 years old, living on So-shallow Security in western Washing, USA. Asperger syndrome, was not recognize in my day, so I lacked the special attention some of us get nowadays. Back then, we were just misfits. Despite a genius IQ, I did poorly in school, earning only half a pair of assoshit arse dungarees (AA degree). If my model ever becomes mainstream, they will have to award me a PhD, like they did for Einstein, so they can say only PhDs are smart enough to think outside the box. You can find the naked-scientist discussion of my Fractal Foam Model of Universes in the New Theories forum.

He is a guy with an imagination and a chip on his shoulder but states no experience relevant to the problem in question.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2013, 04:52:06 PM
...but states no experience relevant to the problem in question.

He doesn't even state any experience relevant to the problem he's describing, which is a vastly different problem than the Apollo lunar surface IMU alignment.  Fail upon fail.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Captain Swoop on February 02, 2013, 05:03:35 PM
But, importantly, Alexsanchez thinks what is stated supports his position.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: frenat on February 02, 2013, 05:24:50 PM
Heh.  So they probably don't take sightings on Rigel Kent!
As a matter of fact, no they don't. It wasn't on the list of Apollo guide stars despite its brightness, and I haven't heard of star trackers using it either. The yearly parallax and the fact that it's a double (or maybe triple) star probably both contribute to that.

As I understand it (Jay, correct me if I'm wrong), the two stars traditionally used with star trackers were Canopus and Sirius. They're not as far apart as you'd like (90 degrees would be ideal) nor is Sirius all that far away but they're both bright and easy to spot.

Nowadays more stars are used, and in some cases entire star field images are looked up in a catalog, which is pretty neat.
I posted a question on a physics forum about IMU alignment and using a star finder. 
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=46824.new#new

The response was interesting:

"About that same time, I was trained to repair astrotrackers for USAF. Using a best known attitude from various other instruments, like magnetic compass and gyroscopic stable platform, the astrotracker would find a guide star in its telescope. A spinning radial raster would generate a signal indicating which direction the telescope needed to look to center on the guide star. Once it locked onto the guide star, it became the new best known attitude reference.

Back then, they still used mechanical gyroscopes. Nowadays, the gyros are electronic with no moving parts. The astrotrackers I worked on were heavy and bulky. NASA must have had a less massive version.

Also, I think NASA must have dropped some navigation aids on the lunar surface before they attempted any manned landings.
"

This person thinks they would have needed some additional equipment to have performed a liftoff and rendezvous.  Note that a magnetic compass on the moon would have been useless as the moon only has local magnetic fields.  Also, how do you use a star finder when you can't see stars with the naked eye?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_the_moon_have_a_magnetic_field

So somebody on a random forum doesn't know and speculates and that prove what?  You still have no idea what you're talking about. 
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2013, 05:25:22 PM
But, importantly, Alexsanchez thinks what is stated supports his position.

...upon fail.

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Mag40 on February 02, 2013, 06:57:33 PM
Heh.  So they probably don't take sightings on Rigel Kent!
As a matter of fact, no they don't. It wasn't on the list of Apollo guide stars despite its brightness, and I haven't heard of star trackers using it either. The yearly parallax and the fact that it's a double (or maybe triple) star probably both contribute to that.

As I understand it (Jay, correct me if I'm wrong), the two stars traditionally used with star trackers were Canopus and Sirius. They're not as far apart as you'd like (90 degrees would be ideal) nor is Sirius all that far away but they're both bright and easy to spot.

Nowadays more stars are used, and in some cases entire star field images are looked up in a catalog, which is pretty neat.
I posted a question on a physics forum about IMU alignment and using a star finder. 
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=46824.new#new

The response was interesting:

"About that same time, I was trained to repair astrotrackers for USAF. Using a best known attitude from various other instruments, like magnetic compass and gyroscopic stable platform, the astrotracker would find a guide star in its telescope. A spinning radial raster would generate a signal indicating which direction the telescope needed to look to center on the guide star. Once it locked onto the guide star, it became the new best known attitude reference.

Back then, they still used mechanical gyroscopes. Nowadays, the gyros are electronic with no moving parts. The astrotrackers I worked on were heavy and bulky. NASA must have had a less massive version.

Also, I think NASA must have dropped some navigation aids on the lunar surface before they attempted any manned landings.
"

This person thinks they would have needed some additional equipment to have performed a liftoff and rendezvous.  Note that a magnetic compass on the moon would have been useless as the moon only has local magnetic fields.  Also, how do you use a star finder when you can't see stars with the naked eye?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_the_moon_have_a_magnetic_field

Classic HB....find some random person who makes a comment that vaguely supports your ignorant claim....whilst studiously ignoring experts in the field who have already filled you in on your total lack of understanding.

Goodnightsnookiehokums1000dashtekelibonkers has been banned again here -
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php/141607-goodnights-Moon-Landing-Hoax-thread?p=2103888#post2103888

He makes the claim you make about the cameras, I think you have so much of this sockdoc puppet activity going on, that you probably forgot you made the claim here and not Baut/CQ!
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Noldi400 on February 02, 2013, 07:25:03 PM
I heard a guy named Jay on a radio show one time saying Apollo was real, but for some reason the video was fake.  Don't remember the last name.  Thought it might have been the same Jay by chance.  Guess not.

Guess not.  Now do you have anything material to say to the several posts here that effectively refute your claims and illustrate your deception and incompetence?

Weidner, I'd guess.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on February 02, 2013, 07:38:12 PM
I think you have so much of this sockdoc puppet activity going on, that you probably forgot you made the claim here and not Baut/CQ!

That's why lying is a fools game...you have to remember all those lies.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on February 02, 2013, 07:56:23 PM
Also, how do you use a star finder when you can't see stars with the naked eye?


Why would you want to?

"Hey, I see Canopus!"

"What's it's RA and dec?"

"I dunno.  Looks high, left of the LM..." (squints, holds out thumb).


The point being, you want to know where it is with precision, relative to the axes of the navigational platform.  Which means you sight it.  Through optics.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 02, 2013, 08:26:56 PM
Classic HB....find some random person who makes a comment that vaguely supports your ignorant claim....

And if you can't find someone who agrees with you, invent them. ;)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ka9q on February 02, 2013, 08:35:48 PM
medium format film (with the paper backing) is much, much harder to load on the reel for a first-timer with no instruction whatsoever.
Uh, you're supposed to remove the paper backing before you put the film on the developing reel.  :P

Seriously, I always found the paper roll the easiest to load. You just unroll it in the dark, feel for and unpeel the small piece of adhesive tape holding the leading end of the film to the paper, and work the detached film onto the reel. I always liked that dim flash of light when unpeeling the tape.

35mm has no paper backing, but you had to use a can opener to ease the cap off the flat end of the cassette without bending it too badly or damaging the film inside. Adhesive tape was again used to hold the end of the film to the spool.

126 was the trickiest because of that damn plastic. Once you got the reel out, it was just like 120 film with the paper backing and tape.

Most of the developing reels I used were the plastic type with the little spring-loaded balls that acted as one-way drive latches to walk the film into the reel. They were easy to use unless the roll was very long, and then friction could make it difficult to work the last of the film onto the roll. Years later I learned how to use the simple metal reels. They were much trickier as you had to flex the film properly as you wrapped it onto the reel. If the film jumped the groove, it could contact the adjacent wrap and keep out the developing chemicals. It definitely helped to practice in the light with some ruined rolls first.

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: cjameshuff on February 02, 2013, 09:31:45 PM
And his latest coprophilic sock-puppet on JREF is suspended en route to a ban.

I've previously suggested naming the Apollo 11 pile of lunar coprolites "Mount Sibrel", but perhaps our doctor friend is more deserving of the honor.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Tanalia on February 02, 2013, 09:39:32 PM
I posted a question on a physics forum about IMU alignment and using a star finder. 
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=46824.new#new

The response was interesting:

"About that same time, I was trained to repair astrotrackers for USAF.
...
The astrotrackers I worked on were heavy and bulky. NASA must have had a less massive version.
Irrelevant, Apollo did not use automatic astrotrackers due to size, weight, and power considerations, when the pilot(s) could do the necessary alignment checks and adjustments with far simpler equipment.

A typical system back then, such as used in the Hound Dog missile, would include a gyro about 2 feet across, and astrotracker optical assembly maybe 18" across, and a computer of similar size to handle it.

The Apollo IMU was basically a gyro one foot across.  A main part of the reduction was leaving out the fourth gimbal, and associated sensors and driver motors, used in most such system (including Gemini).  Although dropping the gimbal could lead to gimbal-lock (check out "a fourth gimbal for Christmas" (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/gimbals.html) at ALSJ), this could be avoided by some procedural changes, and the savings were considered well worth it.
Quote
"Also, I think NASA must have dropped some navigation aids on the lunar surface before they attempted any manned landings."
And he is as wrong as you, though it's possible he was simply [mis]led to that conclusion by all the blatant question begging in your query.  Elevation was completely irrelevant, and as long as they were within maybe 100 miles of the planned landing site and could tell their orientation (such as the sun being in the east), they could make a suitable orbit to begin rendezvous.  Any precision beyond that, in terms of location, alignment, or relative position of the CSM, merely allowed for a better rendezvous.  Of course they would want the best data they could get, to save time and fuel, and, yes, for pride in a job well done, but also for improved safety margins in case any problems occurred.

You still cling to this absurd notion that extreme precision was needed for the ascent module to make a single shot to "hit" the CSM in orbit or something.  The reality is that's more like something you've probably seen in movies dozens of times -- someone jumping from one vehicle to another on the highway.  In this case, all they had to do at the start was get onto a [very wide] highway going in the right direction; once that was done, either vehicle (or both) could adjust their speed or lane until they got together.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Chew on February 02, 2013, 10:37:13 PM
Quote
Also, I think NASA must have dropped some navigation aids on the lunar surface before they attempted any maned landings.

What's wrong with using naturally-occurring navigation aids, like a crater? Call some crater the prime meridian, determine where it is at in relation to the Earth at time x, and you can determine where any point on the Moon is at any other time. Just like we do on Earth. The selection of the Greenwich observatory for the prime meridian was completely arbitrary. A long time ago most countries had their own prime meridians and each published their own almanacs based on their prime meridian. Did all sailors except sailors that originated from England get lost and run aground because they didn't reckon longitude from Greenwich? No. All that is required is that some position be defined and your clock is set to that time.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ka9q on February 02, 2013, 10:58:37 PM
(check out "a fourth gimbal for Christmas" (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/gimbals.html) at ALSJ)
Last year I asked Owen Garriott if he remembered this exchange. He didn't, but I'm not surprised as it was a long time ago.

Just as many Trek fans remember the plots and dialogue far better than the actors, many Apollo fans seem to remember the details better than the astronauts who were involved!
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ka9q on February 02, 2013, 11:32:01 PM
as long as they were within maybe 100 miles of the planned landing site and could tell their orientation (such as the sun being in the east), they could make a suitable orbit to begin rendezvous.
Right, but it's even simpler than that.

Consider that the Apollo 11 LM and CSM were in a nearly equatorial orbit together before the landing, the surface stay was very brief, and the moon rotates very slowly. This meant the LM's landing site had to be very nearly in the CSM's orbital plane. So no matter where you actually land within this plane, you can get back to the CSM by simply continuing in the same direction you were going when you landed.

Nearly all of the error and uncertainty in the Apollo 11 landing site location was downrange along the track, and it was compensated for during rendezvous by simply adjusting the timing of the various burns, including liftoff. The information from the rendezvous radar that accurately measured the range and range-rate between the CSM and LM. The position of the moon underneath simply didn't matter.

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Glom on February 03, 2013, 12:33:54 AM
You're funny, Alex. You've got practitioners telling you how it is and you choose instead to believe an anonymous self-confessed crank.

Why is it so hard to accept?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 03, 2013, 04:38:55 AM
Heh.  So they probably don't take sightings on Rigel Kent!
As a matter of fact, no they don't. It wasn't on the list of Apollo guide stars despite its brightness, and I haven't heard of star trackers using it either. The yearly parallax and the fact that it's a double (or maybe triple) star probably both contribute to that.

As I understand it (Jay, correct me if I'm wrong), the two stars traditionally used with star trackers were Canopus and Sirius. They're not as far apart as you'd like (90 degrees would be ideal) nor is Sirius all that far away but they're both bright and easy to spot.

Nowadays more stars are used, and in some cases entire star field images are looked up in a catalog, which is pretty neat.
I posted a question on a physics forum about IMU alignment and using a star finder. 
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=46824.new#new

The response was interesting:

"About that same time, I was trained to repair astrotrackers for USAF. Using a best known attitude from various other instruments, like magnetic compass and gyroscopic stable platform, the astrotracker would find a guide star in its telescope. A spinning radial raster would generate a signal indicating which direction the telescope needed to look to center on the guide star. Once it locked onto the guide star, it became the new best known attitude reference.

Back then, they still used mechanical gyroscopes. Nowadays, the gyros are electronic with no moving parts. The astrotrackers I worked on were heavy and bulky. NASA must have had a less massive version.

Also, I think NASA must have dropped some navigation aids on the lunar surface before they attempted any manned landings.
"

This person thinks they would have needed some additional equipment to have performed a liftoff and rendezvous.  Note that a magnetic compass on the moon would have been useless as the moon only has local magnetic fields.  Also, how do you use a star finder when you can't see stars with the naked eye?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_the_moon_have_a_magnetic_field

Your question was also interesting, as it was loaded with everything you wanted to hear given straight back at you. You got an answer from someone who repaired things that they didn't have in Apollo and couldn't have used. You do know it's possible to repair cars without being able to drive right?

A substantial part of the post-landing period, as I'm sure you know from your extensive research on the subject, was devoted to a) finding out where they were and b) programming the computer with the information it needed to get them back into orbit again.

If you read the transcripts and/or listen to the audio carefully, you can see they are doing the latter without having precise information about the former, but they do have a good idea thanks to the planning and training they put in beforehand. The CSM was passing overhead on a specific orbital path. The LM was going to launch and occupy that same orbital path. They know roughly where both vehicles are at all times. All they needed to know was when they had to launch so that the two vehicles would be in roughly the same space at same time. Any errors could be compensated for with adjustments in orbit. A four mile error on the ground is nothing when you consider the speeds involved in orbit.

I am not an engineer. I know very little about rocketry and orbital mechanics, but I can still work this out, what's so difficult? The three people involved knew an awful lot about it, as did the people helping them back on Earth. Why is it so difficult to comprehend that they might have been able to work it out too?

Unless, of course, you don't want to comprehend it and are desperately trying to avoid doing so.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: smartcooky on February 03, 2013, 05:55:44 AM
Also, I think NASA must have dropped some navigation aids on the lunar surface before they attempted any manned landings.[/i]"

How many times do you need to be told that you do not need to accurately know where you are on the surface of the Moon (or any other planetary body for that matter) in order to make a rendezvous, when

a. both parts of a two part spacecraft start in an equatorial orbit
b. one part lands near the equator while the other part remains in an equatorial orbit.

It is a simple, fundamental fact regarding orbits that you fail to grasp.

A BODY IN AN EQUATORIAL ORBIT PASSES OVER THE SAME GROUND ON EVERY ORBIT. So if you are on the equator, a body on an equatorial orbit is going to pass right over top of you on EVERY orbit.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Captain Swoop on February 03, 2013, 06:58:12 AM

35mm has no paper backing, but you had to use a can opener to ease the cap off the flat end of the cassette without bending it too badly or damaging the film inside.

I found that giving the 'top hat' a hard slam onto a bench would pop the cassette open without needing a can opener.
I used to buy a bulk roll and use it to load up re-fillable casettes.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Zakalwe on February 03, 2013, 07:24:15 AM
You're funny, Alex. You've got practitioners telling you how it is and you choose instead to believe an anonymous self-confessed crank.

Why is it so hard to accept?


It's called confirmation bias, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias


"People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. For example, in reading about current political issues, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations)." (emphasis mine)
Alexsanchez is trashing about, clasping to ANY source that he believes supports his views, yet he ignores what people experienced in the field on here are telling him. He grasps the words of a clearly biased person because that person's views in more in line with his own deeply entrenched ideas.

And Alexsanchez....I'm STILL waiting for a response on your "bet" <taps fingers on desk, checks watch, crosses another day off calendar....)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on February 03, 2013, 12:02:22 PM
"NASA must have had a less massive version.

Also, I think NASA must have dropped some navigation aids on the lunar surface before they attempted any manned landings."

Alex, what do you think of people who just parrot anonymous third party speculation?
Buzz Armstrong said they "couldn't see stars on the moon."  Therefore, you can't get a bearing from a star for navigation.  Therefore, you are all stuck on the moon.  The optics were just a telescope.  If you can't see a star with your eyes, you can't see it with a telescope.  Nobody went anywhere.  End of story.  Sorry.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/aot.htm
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Andromeda on February 03, 2013, 12:14:43 PM
If you can't see a star with your eyes, you can't see it with a telescope. 

That is completely, utterly, demonstrably false.

Clearly you have never looked through a telescope.
Title: Re: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Glom on February 03, 2013, 12:15:32 PM
"NASA must have had a less massive version.

Also, I think NASA must have dropped some navigation aids on the lunar surface before they attempted any manned landings."

Alex, what do you think of people who just parrot anonymous third party speculation?
Buzz Armstrong said they "couldn't see stars on the moon."  Therefore, you can't get a bearing from a star for navigation.  Therefore, you are all stuck on the moon.  The optics were just a telescope.  If you can't see a star with your eyes, you can't see it with a telescope.  Nobody went anywhere.  End of story.  Sorry.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/aot.htm

Everything is wrong with that. First, telescopes are light collectors. Secondly, Aldrin was talking about with the glare of the surface getting in your eyes. Using the telescope shields the glare.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on February 03, 2013, 12:15:59 PM
Nobody went anywhere.  End of story.  Sorry.

What are you "sorry" about?...it's not like anyone here believes a word you say or takes you seriously, because you are a sock, and we all know it. You lost the right to post here when you were banned, yet you "game" this and other boards, because you simply can not accept what is obvious to EVERYONE ELSE...YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Why don't you spread your ignorance somewhere else...like godlikeproductions, where you will find people just as ignorant as you.


Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Bob B. on February 03, 2013, 12:16:41 PM
If you can't see a star with your eyes, you can't see it with a telescope.

That's one of the most ignorant things you've said, and that's saying something.  Without a telescope you are limited to the amount of light that passes through your pupil.  A telescope takes all the light that passes though the objective and a focuses it down to a narrow beam that that can pass through your pupil, allowing more light to enter your eye than could otherwise without the telescope.  For instance, the maximum fully dilated pupil in a young person is about 7 mm.  If you have a telescope with a 70 mm objective, you've multiplied the amount of light entering your eye by 100.  This allows you to see faint objects that are impossible to see with your naked eye.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on February 03, 2013, 12:20:46 PM
Buzz Armstrong

Now you are clearly trolling. What exactly are you trying to achieve here? Because whatever it is all you're doing is making yourself look even more ignorant than the average HB.

Quote
The optics were just a telescope.  If you can't see a star with your eyes, you can't see it with a telescope.

And now you look more ignorant than, well, just about anyone. This is undoubtedly the single most stupid thing you have said this entire time. Clearly you have never looked into a telescope, or taken the time to understand anything ahout the history of astronomy and how the invention of the telescope revealed many things previously unseen.

Once again: do you undertstand that liftoff and rendezvous were separate procedures, and hence meeting the CSM in orbit was not the one-shot deal you are making it out to be?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on February 03, 2013, 12:23:16 PM
If you can't see a star with your eyes, you can't see it with a telescope.

That's one of the most ignorant things you've said, and that's saying something.

I agree....not only does it demonstrate a COMPLETE IGNORANCE  regarding how telescopes work, it assumes that we are all as ignorant as he is.

Here's a "clue" Poncho...you're not going to fool anyone but yourself with this asinine display of stupidity.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on February 03, 2013, 12:25:53 PM
...whatever it is all you're doing is making yourself look even more ignorant than the average HB.

I call "shananigans"...no one could be this "dopey".

...but if he is, the very last place he should be posting is on a BB where scientifically minded people participate.

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on February 03, 2013, 12:45:17 PM
If you can't see a star with your eyes, you can't see it with a telescope. 

That is completely, utterly, demonstrably false.

Clearly you have never looked through a telescope.
Yes I have.  Next?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on February 03, 2013, 12:57:25 PM
Buzz Armstrong said they "couldn't see stars on the moon."  Therefore, you can't get a bearing from a star for navigation.  Therefore, you are all stuck on the moon.  The optics were just a telescope.  If you can't see a star with your eyes, you can't see it with a telescope.  Nobody went anywhere.  End of story.  Sorry.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/aot.htm
Who's "'Buzz' Armstrong"?
You can if looking the telescope blocks out the ambient light sources that would make it so that you could not see stars and allowing your eye to dark adapt, which is exactly what it was for. In fact, Neil Armstrong, in a much quote mined by conspiracy theorists interview  (http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/FirstLunarLanding/ch-7.html)during the Apollo 11 post-mission press conference says directly "We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics." [bolded for emphases]
As often pointed out ,the moon has no atmosphere. The only thing stopping you from seen stars on the surface are the amount of light from other sources making stars hard to see. Things like, the sunlit lunar surface and the lighting in the cabin,or the sun shining through the windows.
The optics allowed them to block out most of that light and take star sightings for making alignment checks.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Andromeda on February 03, 2013, 12:59:17 PM
If you can't see a star with your eyes, you can't see it with a telescope. 

That is completely, utterly, demonstrably false.

Clearly you have never looked through a telescope.
Yes I have.  Next question.

Then you are deliberately lying.

Next troll.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on February 03, 2013, 01:01:23 PM
Even if he's telling the truth as he saw it, the atmosphere itself acts as a source of light that screws up the night vision required to see stars. Something that does not apply to the moon.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 03, 2013, 01:04:19 PM
"NASA must have had a less massive version.

Also, I think NASA must have dropped some navigation aids on the lunar surface before they attempted any manned landings."

Alex, what do you think of people who just parrot anonymous third party speculation?
Buzz Armstrong said they "couldn't see stars on the moon."  Therefore, you can't get a bearing from a star for navigation.  Therefore, you are all stuck on the moon.  The optics were just a telescope.  If you can't see a star with your eyes, you can't see it with a telescope.  Nobody went anywhere.  End of story.  Sorry.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/aot.htm

You arrive at your destination by following a specific path. You depart by continuing on that path, which is the same path the CSM has been following while you have been on the ground.

When you get off the ground, look for the only other thing moving nearby, who is also looking for you.

Simple.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on February 03, 2013, 01:04:30 PM
Yes I have.

Was it a childs telescope?..because even someone as ignorant as you must realize that a telescope gathers light more efficiently than the human eye, meaning that yes...YOU CAN SEE MORE STARS WITH A TELESCOPE.

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Andromeda on February 03, 2013, 01:05:28 PM
Even if he's telling the truth as he saw it, the atmosphere itself acts as a source of light that screws up the night vision required to see stars. Something that does not apply to the moon.

True.  Maybe Alex looked through an unfocused, dusty piece of junk for 2 microseconds before giving up.  Or maybe his next claim is that he used a telescope as a gunsight while taking part in a super-secret mission to rescue Batman while working for BoeingDuPont.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on February 03, 2013, 01:08:31 PM
If you can't see a star with your eyes, you can't see it with a telescope. 

That is completely, utterly, demonstrably false.

Clearly you have never looked through a telescope.
Yes I have.  Next question.

Then you are deliberately lying.

Next troll.
Calling me a troll hurts my feelings.  But you're stuck on the moon without navigation.  I feel sorry for you.  I really do.  I wish there was some way I could help, but it's a navigation problem. 
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on February 03, 2013, 01:08:56 PM
Yes I have.  Next?

You are clearly lying or blind.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on February 03, 2013, 01:10:03 PM
But you're stuck on the moon without navigation.

No, we have navigation. It works. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it inoperable.

Once again, do you understand that liftoff and rendezvous were separate phases with their own engineering issues and solutions?

What are your qualifications?

Where did Stanley Kubrick live and work during Apollo?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on February 03, 2013, 01:13:49 PM
Calling me a troll hurts my feelings.

Feelings?...no, you get some sick pleasure by "jerking our chains".

I don't think You even believe the things you say...you just "get off" on watching us react.

How sick is that?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on February 03, 2013, 01:17:07 PM
I feel sorry for you.  I really do.  I wish there was some way I could help, but it's a navigation problem. 

You could help by not returning to this board after you get banned.



Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on February 03, 2013, 01:20:26 PM
Even if he's telling the truth as he saw it, the atmosphere itself acts as a source of light that screws up the night vision required to see stars. Something that does not apply to the moon.

True.  Maybe Alex looked through an unfocused, dusty piece of junk for 2 microseconds before giving up.  Or maybe his next claim is that he used a telescope as a gunsight while taking part in a super-secret mission to rescue Batman while working for BoeingDuPont.
The former would not surprise me, and the latter would amuse me. I've looked at the moon through binoculars in the day time, but I don't remember seen stars, but, again, Earth has a quite significant atmosphere.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on February 03, 2013, 01:21:19 PM
But you're stuck on the moon without navigation.

No, we have navigation. It works. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it inoperable.

Once again, do you understand that liftoff and rendezvous were separate phases with their own engineering issues and solutions?

What are your qualifications?

Where did Stanley Kubrick live and work during Apollo?
Stanley Kubrick lived and worked on the moon during Apollo.

My qualifications are that I'm an expert.

I know all about liftoff and rendezvous.  I wrote the book on it.

"...the LM had an Alignment Optical Telescope, and could only determine the craft's orientation."
(Not without seeing stars.  And that still doesn't give you your position.  How do you calculate a trajectory???  You can't.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_PGNCS
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Andromeda on February 03, 2013, 01:22:25 PM
If you can't see a star with your eyes, you can't see it with a telescope. 

That is completely, utterly, demonstrably false.

Clearly you have never looked through a telescope.
Yes I have.  Next question.

Then you are deliberately lying.

Next troll.
Calling me a troll hurts my feelings.

But you are trolling.


Quote
But you're stuck on the moon without navigation.

Actually I am sitting in my living room with a cat on my lap while my lovely husband cooks dinner.

You have already had the solution to the "problem" (which only exists in your head) explained to you several times.


Quote
I feel sorry for you.  I really do.  I wish there was some way I could help, but it's a navigation problem.

Your faux pity is unwanted, unnecessary and insulting.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Andromeda on February 03, 2013, 01:25:00 PM

Stanley Kubrick lived and worked on the moon during Apollo.

Wrong.



Quote
My qualifications are that I'm an expert.

Also wrong, and repeatedly proven so by your own assertions.



Quote
I know all about liftoff and rendezvous.

Only if your definition of "all about" is "nothing".


Quote
I wrote the book on it.

A comic book?



Quote
"...the LM had an Alignment Optical Telescope, and could only determine the craft's orientation."
(Not without seeing stars.  And that still doesn't give you your position.  How do you calculate a trajectory???  You can't.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_PGNCS

Blah blah blah.  Proven wrong and dealt with already.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on February 03, 2013, 01:25:29 PM
Stanley Kubrick lived and worked on the moon during Apollo.

My qualifications are that I'm an expert.

Now you're just boring.

Quote
I know all about liftoff and rendezvous.  I wrote the book on it.

Bull.

Quote
(Not without seeing stars.  And that still doesn't give you your position.  How do you calculate a trajectory???  You can't.)

Bull. You've been told over and over again exactly how it was done. You sticking your fingers in your ears going 'lalalalalalalala' does not constitute an argument.

You have no qualifications relevant, despite your claims to expertise. You are just a pathetic sock puppet troll of someone who can't abide the idea that he actually knows sod all about the stuff he proclaims himself an expert on, and when faced with real experts has no recourse except to sarcasm and insults. Pathetic.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on February 03, 2013, 01:26:59 PM
I feel sorry for you.  I really do.  I wish there was some way I could help, but it's a navigation problem. 

Fortunately there are some actual experts around who can solve the problem, so your inability to help is really not an issue for anyone on the Moon.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on February 03, 2013, 01:30:40 PM
My qualifications are that I'm an expert.

Only an "expert" at different personas...not something to "brag" about.

Quote
I know all about liftoff and rendezvous.  I wrote the book on it.

Well, obviously you don't...as we've gone over again, and again, and again...

"Wrote a book"? Get something straight, Poncho...we simply are not as stupid as you presume us to be....therefore, please stop insulting us by making such statements as "I wrote the book"...we know you didn't.

Also, getting real tired of you lying in EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOUR POSTS.


Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on February 03, 2013, 01:31:00 PM
I feel sorry for you.  I really do.  I wish there was some way I could help, but it's a navigation problem. 

You could help by not returning to this board after you get banned.
My work here is done.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on February 03, 2013, 01:33:09 PM
A comic book?

I thought of saying the same, but considered it an insult to comic books. :)

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on February 03, 2013, 01:33:34 PM
I feel sorry for you.  I really do.  I wish there was some way I could help, but it's a navigation problem. 

You could help by not returning to this board after you get banned.
My work here is done.


Then leave...
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Andromeda on February 03, 2013, 01:33:44 PM
I feel sorry for you.  I really do.  I wish there was some way I could help, but it's a navigation problem. 

You could help by not returning to this board after you get banned.
My work here is done.

(http://i1336.photobucket.com/albums/o657/Andromeda_Apollo/AB5616EF-B500-4FC4-ADAD-6F44779BD24B-797-0000010287012211_zpse37d9722.jpg)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on February 03, 2013, 01:34:42 PM
Calling me a troll hurts my feelings.

Feelings?...no, you get some sick pleasure by "jerking our chains".

I don't think You even believe the things you say...you just "get off" on watching us react.

How sick is that?
This is the first comment that is right on the money. 
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Andromeda on February 03, 2013, 01:35:43 PM
Calling me a troll hurts my feelings.

Feelings?...no, you get some sick pleasure by "jerking our chains".

I don't think You even believe the things you say...you just "get off" on watching us react.

How sick is that?
This is the first comment that is right on the money.

And do you think we haven't also played the game?  We have known for a long time who and what you are.  See my previous post.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on February 03, 2013, 01:36:16 PM
I wrote the book on it.
A comic book?
Actually, a comic book would actually be a pretty good medium to teach the basics of rendezvous, as you can use lots of illustrations.
Though given Alex's level of understanding, I am starting to worry he isn't a troll so much as a pathological liar, as his lies are just ridiculous.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Mag40 on February 03, 2013, 01:36:34 PM
Stanley Kubrick lived and worked on the moon during Apollo.

http://www.musicanet.org/robokopp/usa/icomefro.htm

Quote
My qualifications are that I'm an expert.

By all accounts, you're not even a doctor anymore, did they strike you off?

Quote
I know all about liftoff and rendezvous.  I wrote the book on it.

(http://gingerrrama.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/screen-shot-2011-08-16-at-6-01-41-pm.png?w=830)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on February 03, 2013, 01:37:00 PM
My work here is done.

So, exactly as expected, your sole aim is to get banned so you can brag about it at some other forum, as if you were banned because we couldn't deal with your arguments. It is painfully obvious to all and sundry that your reason for being banned, should a ban in fact be given, is simply your resorting to insults and absurdities rather than actually answering any questions sensibly.

You know, just once it would be nice to meet an HB who was actually capable of a discussion that didn't degenerate rapidly into lies, insults and pathetic behaviour.

The most disheartening thing of all about dealing with people like you, alex, is that I always used to think people grew out of such immaturity once they left school. I've seen people aged between 12 and 16 doing this sort of trolling just to wind people up. I thought grown ups didn't behave so idiotically. It is sad to see some do. Sad as much for you that you have so little else to do in your life than stir up trouble on so many messageboards.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on February 03, 2013, 01:43:34 PM
Calling me a troll hurts my feelings.

Feelings?...no, you get some sick pleasure by "jerking our chains".

I don't think You even believe the things you say...you just "get off" on watching us react.

How sick is that?
This is the first comment that is right on the money. 

Troll admits being a troll...
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on February 03, 2013, 01:47:09 PM
Calling me a troll hurts my feelings.

Feelings?...no, you get some sick pleasure by "jerking our chains".

I don't think You even believe the things you say...you just "get off" on watching us react.

How sick is that?
This is the first comment that is right on the money.

Most helpful thing you've posted yet.

I think in future boards are simply going to ban you the moment you are detected.  Letting you stay around to see if you are actually going to say anything interesting...well, that played out a long time ago.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: alexsanchez on February 03, 2013, 01:49:04 PM
My work here is done.

So, exactly as expected, your sole aim is to get banned so you can brag about it at some other forum, as if you were banned because we couldn't deal with your arguments. It is painfully obvious to all and sundry that your reason for being banned, should a ban in fact be given, is simply your resorting to insults and absurdities rather than actually answering any questions sensibly.

You know, just once it would be nice to meet an HB who was actually capable of a discussion that didn't degenerate rapidly into lies, insults and pathetic behaviour.

The most disheartening thing of all about dealing with people like you, alex, is that I always used to think people grew out of such immaturity once they left school. I've seen people aged between 12 and 16 doing this sort of trolling just to wind people up. I thought grown ups didn't behave so idiotically. It is sad to see some do. Sad as much for you that you have so little else to do in your life than stir up trouble on so many messageboards.
Well, I can't brag about it on cluesforum.  I got banned for saying the ISS was real.  Where were you people then? 

THIS IS MY FINAL TRANSMISSION. 


Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on February 03, 2013, 01:49:22 PM
You know, just once it would be nice to meet an HB who was actually capable of a discussion that didn't degenerate rapidly into lies, insults and pathetic behaviour.

I'm beginning to wonder if such an HB even exists. All we ever seem to get are these, "poser" trolls.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on February 03, 2013, 01:50:45 PM
THIS IS MY FINAL TRANSMISSION. 

(Unless I change my mind.)


Translation...don't hold your breath thinking I'm leaving, because the only thing I know how to do is lie.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Andromeda on February 03, 2013, 01:51:14 PM
My work here is done.

So, exactly as expected, your sole aim is to get banned so you can brag about it at some other forum, as if you were banned because we couldn't deal with your arguments. It is painfully obvious to all and sundry that your reason for being banned, should a ban in fact be given, is simply your resorting to insults and absurdities rather than actually answering any questions sensibly.

You know, just once it would be nice to meet an HB who was actually capable of a discussion that didn't degenerate rapidly into lies, insults and pathetic behaviour.

The most disheartening thing of all about dealing with people like you, alex, is that I always used to think people grew out of such immaturity once they left school. I've seen people aged between 12 and 16 doing this sort of trolling just to wind people up. I thought grown ups didn't behave so idiotically. It is sad to see some do. Sad as much for you that you have so little else to do in your life than stir up trouble on so many messageboards.
Well, I can't brag about it on cluesforum.  I got banned for saying the ISS was real.  Where were you people then? 

We've already had this discussion.  You were banned from there for being abusive.  Try to keep up.  (And I wouldn't waste my time on a forum like that anyway).


Quote
THIS IS MY FINAL TRANSMISSION. 

Promise?


Quote
(Unless I change my mind.)

Like last time  ::)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gillianren on February 03, 2013, 02:11:08 PM
And anyway, I wasn't on the cluesforum because I would never waste my time there.  Leaving aside the misrepresentation of why Alex was banned, I happen to prefer fora that are on the side of the evidence.  I have other criteria as well, but we can start with that.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on February 03, 2013, 02:19:25 PM
I got banned for saying the ISS was real.

You got banned for being amazingly rude and obnoxious.

Quote
Where were you people then?

Watching and enjoying the fact that you couldn't even get a bunch of conspiracy theorists to agree with you.
 
Quote
THIS IS MY FINAL TRANSMISSION.

Again?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Noldi400 on February 03, 2013, 02:27:32 PM
as long as they were within maybe 100 miles of the planned landing site and could tell their orientation (such as the sun being in the east), they could make a suitable orbit to begin rendezvous.
Right, but it's even simpler than that.

Consider that the Apollo 11 LM and CSM were in a nearly equatorial orbit together before the landing, the surface stay was very brief, and the moon rotates very slowly. This meant the LM's landing site had to be very nearly in the CSM's orbital plane. So no matter where you actually land within this plane, you can get back to the CSM by simply continuing in the same direction you were going when you landed.

Nearly all of the error and uncertainty in the Apollo 11 landing site location was downrange along the track, and it was compensated for during rendezvous by simply adjusting the timing of the various burns, including liftoff. The information from the rendezvous radar that accurately measured the range and range-rate between the CSM and LM. The position of the moon underneath simply didn't matter.

This is similar to the question I was asking earlier about a manual lift-off. If you could gain some altitude and some tangential velocity while "keeping the sun at your back", you should be able to achieve an orbit fairly close to the CSMs.  I just wasn't sure what the minimum functionality of the the automatic systems would have to be to allow that.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Chew on February 03, 2013, 02:30:34 PM
Buzz Armstrong said they "couldn't see stars on the moon."

Ah yes. My favorite mined quote. If you ever bothered reading non-hoax believer web sites you can read the rest of the quote.


Quote
  Therefore, you can't get a bearing from a star for navigation. Therefore, you are all stuck on the moon.  The optics were just a telescope.  If you can't see a star with your eyes, you can't see it with a telescope.

Can you see stars during the day on Earth? Why or why not?

Can you see stars at night on Earth? Why or why not?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Zakalwe on February 03, 2013, 03:10:11 PM
If you can't see a star with your eyes, you can't see it with a telescope.  Nobody went anywhere.  End of story.  Sorry.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/aot.htm

If you can't see a star with your eyes, you can't see it with a telescope. 

That is completely, utterly, demonstrably false.

Clearly you have never looked through a telescope.
Yes I have.  Next?


(http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001807617/2130184193_polar_bear_face_palm_thumbnail1_xlarge.jpeg)



Next time, take the lens cap off. And remember to look into the little end.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: smartcooky on February 03, 2013, 03:12:33 PM
Buzz Armstrong said they "couldn't see stars on the moon."  Therefore, you can't get a bearing from a star for navigation.  Therefore, you are all stuck on the moon.  The optics were just a telescope.  If you can't see a star with your eyes, you can't see it with a telescope.  Nobody went anywhere.  End of story.  Sorry.

Even if you are right about the visibility of the stars (and you aren't) it wouldn't have mattered anyway. They didn't need to have bearings or navigation in order to order to lift off and rendezvous. All they needed was to know WHEN the CSM was passing overhead

And you claim to be an engineer? Anyone with a high school education could point out the schoolboy errors in your statements here.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Zakalwe on February 03, 2013, 03:14:11 PM
My work here is done.

THIS IS MY FINAL TRANSMISSION.

I'm losing count here...is this your third or fourth flounce?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: smartcooky on February 03, 2013, 03:23:53 PM

Can you see stars during the day on Earth? Why or why not?

Can you see stars at night on Earth? Why or why not?

Actually, you first statement illustrates just how wrong alexsanchez is, because while you cannot normally see stars during the day with the unaided eye, you can with a telescope....

http://sky.velp.info/daystars.php

NOTE:  I say normally because you can actually see Sirius in broad daylight with the unaided eye (I have done so myself) if you know exactly where to look.
Title: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2013, 03:34:56 PM
Obvious troll is obvious.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on February 03, 2013, 03:40:43 PM
There has to be another word than troll. It's been bandied around so much it's starting to lose all meaning!
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: frenat on February 03, 2013, 03:44:00 PM
"NASA must have had a less massive version.

Also, I think NASA must have dropped some navigation aids on the lunar surface before they attempted any manned landings."

Alex, what do you think of people who just parrot anonymous third party speculation?
Buzz Armstrong said they "couldn't see stars on the moon."  Therefore, you can't get a bearing from a star for navigation.  Therefore, you are all stuck on the moon.  The optics were just a telescope.  If you can't see a star with your eyes, you can't see it with a telescope.  Nobody went anywhere.  End of story.  Sorry.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/aot.htm

such a hilarious concept that I nominated it for a Stundie.

And "Buzz Armstrong" again?  Really? 
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Not Myself on February 03, 2013, 03:45:21 PM
NOTE:  I say normally because you can actually see Sirius in broad daylight with the unaided eye (I have done so myself) if you know exactly where to look.

I've noticed this with Mercury.  When the sun is not quite down, and it's still relatively bright, Mercury is obvious, if I look straight at it.  If I don't quite know where to look, it's bloody well impossible :(
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Not Myself on February 03, 2013, 03:46:05 PM
such a hilarious concept that I nominated it for a Stundie.

One does rather wonder what telescopes are for then.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: frenat on February 03, 2013, 03:47:33 PM
If you can't see a star with your eyes, you can't see it with a telescope. 

That is completely, utterly, demonstrably false.

Clearly you have never looked through a telescope.
Yes I have.  Next question.

Then you are deliberately lying.

Next troll.
Calling me a troll hurts my feelings.  But you're stuck on the moon without navigation.  I feel sorry for you.  I really do.  I wish there was some way I could help, but it's a navigation problem.
Only in your twisted mind.   Read the first line of the signature.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: frenat on February 03, 2013, 03:50:28 PM
I feel sorry for you.  I really do.  I wish there was some way I could help, but it's a navigation problem. 

You could help by not returning to this board after you get banned.
My work here is done.

Your work was to be an obvious (from the outset, you really think nobody here didn't know you were a troll?) sock puppet of a mentally imbalanced troll and to make a fool of yourself by proving you have no idea what you're talking about?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: dwight on February 03, 2013, 04:05:54 PM
Hey everybody. STOP PRESS! A few pages ago I announced that our resident quasi-engineer had scarped. Several pages later he actually did. Does that mean I posses super human abilities to predict the future???
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on February 03, 2013, 04:09:30 PM
Even a fool can see a storm on the horizon. ::)
EDIT: Sorry if that sounds meaner than intended. It sounded more clever in my head.
Title: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Sus_pilot on February 03, 2013, 07:02:35 PM
My work here is done.

So, exactly as expected, your sole aim is to get banned so you can brag about it at some other forum, as if you were banned because we couldn't deal with your arguments. It is painfully obvious to all and sundry that your reason for being banned, should a ban in fact be given, is simply your resorting to insults and absurdities rather than actually answering any questions sensibly.

You know, just once it would be nice to meet an HB who was actually capable of a discussion that didn't degenerate rapidly into lies, insults and pathetic behaviour.

The most disheartening thing of all about dealing with people like you, alex, is that I always used to think people grew out of such immaturity once they left school. I've seen people aged between 12 and 16 doing this sort of trolling just to wind people up. I thought grown ups didn't behave so idiotically. It is sad to see some do. Sad as much for you that you have so little else to do in your life than stir up trouble on so many messageboards.
Well, I can't brag about it on cluesforum.  I got banned for saying the ISS was real.  Where were you people then? 

THIS IS MY FINAL TRANSMISSION.

Buzzing sound.  Did anyone else hear a buzzing sound?
Title: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Sus_pilot on February 03, 2013, 07:06:55 PM

Can you see stars during the day on Earth? Why or why not?

Can you see stars at night on Earth? Why or why not?

Actually, you first statement illustrates just how wrong alexsanchez is, because while you cannot normally see stars during the day with the unaided eye, you can with a telescope....

http://sky.velp.info/daystars.php

NOTE:  I say normally because you can actually see Sirius in broad daylight with the unaided eye (I have done so myself) if you know exactly where to look.

When Northwestern University still had an observatory, I saw Venus through the telescope at about noon on a hazy day.  Admittedly that's a planet, but a -1 magnitude object is a -1 magnitude object...
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ka9q on February 03, 2013, 07:27:58 PM
Clearly you have never looked through a telescope.
Yes I have.  Next question.
Then you are deliberately lying.
He could well be telling the truth if he doesn't know he's supposed to take the lens cap off the telescope.

Or if he's blind.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on February 03, 2013, 07:44:04 PM
Or it was a really small telescope.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ka9q on February 03, 2013, 07:52:41 PM

"...the LM had an Alignment Optical Telescope, and could only determine the craft's orientation."
(Not without seeing stars.  And that still doesn't give you your position.  How do you calculate a trajectory???  You can't.)
The LM's AOT is only one part of its guidance and navigation system. Its primary purpose is to align with respect to the stars a gyroscopically stabilized platform able to read the Euler angles of the LM's orientation in inertial space. The system also includes three orthogonal accelerometers, a computer with a gravity model, and a ground radio tracking network.

The gyro platform allows the computer to resolve the accelerometer data into inertial coordinates. The computer then numerically integrates the accelerometer data to update the vehicle state vector, its estimate of its position and velocity. It did this every two seconds, regardless of whatever else it might also be doing.

That's how you calculate a trajectory, and this is how any inertial guidance system operates, including those on civil aircraft.

Every inertial guidance system requires initialization to a known state. The primary method of doing this on Apollo was radio tracking from earth, which could measure to extreme accuracy the range (straight line distance) and range-rate (rate of change in straight line distance) between ground and spacecraft antennas. The earth antenna positions were known very accurately, and so were the trajectories of the spacecraft. The ground periodically loaded the new state vectors directly into the onboard computers; you often hear the Capcoms ask the astronauts to give them "P00 and accept" to allow this to be done. (POO, pronounced "pooh", refers to executing program #0, the idle program. The block/accept switch allowed the computer to accept the uplink data.)

As a backup in case communications were lost, the command module astronauts could use their optical instruments to determine their absolute position in the earth-moon system. So the assertion that telescopes were good only for orientation is simply false. This was done by sighting stars against the limb of the earth or moon. Jim Lovell practiced this intensively during Apollo 8, and his results were just as good as those from ground radio tracking.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on February 03, 2013, 09:04:08 PM
"NASA must have had a less massive version.

Also, I think NASA must have dropped some navigation aids on the lunar surface before they attempted any manned landings."

Alex, what do you think of people who just parrot anonymous third party speculation?
Buzz Armstrong said they "couldn't see stars on the moon."  Therefore, you can't get a bearing from a star for navigation.  Therefore, you are all stuck on the moon.  The optics were just a telescope.  If you can't see a star with your eyes, you can't see it with a telescope.  Nobody went anywhere.  End of story.  Sorry.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/aot.htm

Yawn.  Do you really find trolling to be fun and a good use of your time?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on February 03, 2013, 09:06:23 PM
Or it was a really small telescope.
Perhaps he just looked into the big end.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: dwight on February 03, 2013, 09:13:21 PM
Or perhaps he just looked at the telescope.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Noldi400 on February 03, 2013, 09:35:48 PM
Yanno, it's probably just as well Conrad and Bean couldn't find their camera timer on AS-12. The HBs would have had no end of fun with that.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: smartcooky on February 03, 2013, 10:56:01 PM
The primary method of doing this on Apollo was radio tracking from earth, which could measure to extreme accuracy the range (straight line distance) and range-rate (rate of change in straight line distance) between ground and spacecraft antennas. The earth antenna positions were known very accurately, and so were the trajectories of the spacecraft.

And as I posted earlier, Jodrell Bank was so accurate that they were able to tell that Eagle had stopped descending when Armstrong took manual control prior to landing and started flying sideways to find a landing spot that wasn't strewn with big boulders.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gillianren on February 03, 2013, 10:57:55 PM
Or it was a really small telescope.

Ooo, I think I had a plastic one as a child that was literally just a toy--no magnification at all.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: smartcooky on February 04, 2013, 12:02:15 AM
I have a question about orbits that may have something to do with TLI and how it is accomplished.

I have difficulty in understanding how Apollo 11 could have made an near equatorial orbital insertion at the moon

Firstly, the moon's orbit is inclined to the earth's equator by about 5.1°, and the moon's equator is inclined to its own orbit by 1.5°. This means that, depending upon where the moon is in its orbit, the actual inclination of the moon's equator could be anywhere between 6.6° (5.1° + 1.5°) and 3.6° (5.1° - 1.5°). It is  beautifully illustrated in this gif.

(http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o35/smartcooky99/LibrationPhase.gif)

Secondly, AIUI, Apollo 11 launched from Cape Canaveral into an earth orbit of about 32° inclination. This seems high (was it due to the Cape's latitude of 28½° N?).

It remained in that orbit for only 1½ revolutions before TLI.

It seems to me that a TLI burn at an earth orbital inclination of 32° is not going to send the spacecraft anywhere near the moon . I know there are mid course corrections, but correcting a deviation of at least 26° seems a bit extreme. To insert the spacecraft into a near-Lunar equatorial orbit would mean that it would have to approach the moon near the plane of its equator, and I imagine that would need to be set up a considerable distance and time advance.

I feel I am missing something really simply, but what?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on February 04, 2013, 12:05:55 AM
I dunno...I have a 6" Newtonian that is just good enough to reveal a disk on Jupiter.  That is to say...its a Gakken Mook scale model of the telescope Newton presented to the Royal Society, and the total model is less than 6" long.  Means the objective is about 1 3/8"!
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on February 04, 2013, 12:27:48 AM
Or it was a really small telescope.

Ooo, I think I had a plastic one as a child that was literally just a toy--no magnification at all.
I hard one like that. Several in fact, only mine were completely biodegradable. ;D
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Chew on February 04, 2013, 12:40:01 AM
I have a question about orbits that may have something to do with TLI and how it is accomplished.

Check out Bob's page about the TLI: http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm

FYI, the Moon's orbit is inclined 5.1° to the Ecliptic, not the equator.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: smartcooky on February 04, 2013, 02:52:26 AM
I have a question about orbits that may have something to do with TLI and how it is accomplished.

Check out Bob's page about the TLI: http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm

FYI, the Moon's orbit is inclined 5.1° to the Ecliptic, not the equator.

Aha, that will probably answer my question. The angle of the ecliptic is 23.4°, so the moon could potentially be ± 5.1 degrees either side of that... 18.3° to 28.5° depending on time of month, so the insertion point for a lunar equatorial orbit could be another 1.5° on top of that... 16.8° to 30°. 
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ka9q on February 04, 2013, 04:38:23 AM
It seems to me that a TLI burn at an earth orbital inclination of 32° is not going to send the spacecraft anywhere near the moon .
The inclination isn't as important as the argument of perigee. When the argument of perigee is exactly 180 degrees, apogee occurs on a descending (N->S) equator crossing regardless of the orbital inclination. You vary the argument of perigee by varying the time (and hence the latitude) of TLI, and that moves apogee north or south of the earth's equatorial plane. (Apogee was actually somewhat past the moon, so you adjust to just cross the moon's orbital plane when you get out there.)

The inclination of the Apollo parking orbit was chosen for two reasons: first, to broaden the daily launch window; and second, to permit transit of the Van Allen belts at a relatively high geomagnetic latitude, well outside the dense part of the inner belt.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Andromeda on February 04, 2013, 04:40:45 AM
Even though Alex was trolling, this thread has been excellent for me to learn some new things.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: smartcooky on February 04, 2013, 05:27:23 AM
It seems to me that a TLI burn at an earth orbital inclination of 32° is not going to send the spacecraft anywhere near the moon .
The inclination isn't as important as the argument of perigee. When the argument of perigee is exactly 180 degrees, apogee occurs on a descending (N->S) equator crossing regardless of the orbital inclination. You vary the argument of perigee by varying the time (and hence the latitude) of TLI, and that moves apogee north or south of the earth's equatorial plane. (Apogee was actually somewhat past the moon, so you adjust to just cross the moon's orbital plane when you get out there.)

The inclination of the Apollo parking orbit was chosen for two reasons: first, to broaden the daily launch window; and second, to permit transit of the Van Allen belts at a relatively high geomagnetic latitude, well outside the dense part of the inner belt.

OK, so this is why you have "launch windows"; this argument of perigee is not going to be right every day for the whole month is it?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ka9q on February 04, 2013, 05:50:20 AM
Many factors go into setting launch windows. Unless all your conditions are met, the window is closed.

For Apollo, the main consideration was lighting at the landing site; it had to be early morning at the time of landing. This constrained launch to a few days every month.

Within each monthly period was a daily launch window set by the required right ascension of the ascending node. That's the only Keplerian orbital parameter that changes with launch time if you fly the same trajectory over the earth; it increases 360 degrees as the earth rotates once every sidereal day. You have to launch when the launch site rotates through the desired transfer orbit plane, which must also include the moon at arrival time.

To keep the daily launch windows from being too narrow, the launch azimuth (and the inclination of the transfer orbit) varied throughout the daily window. Since the minimum inclination without an expensive plane change maneuver is equal to the launch site latitude (28.5 deg), a larger inclination than this had to be used. A due east launch gives you a 28.5 deg inclination; larger inclinations can be reached by deflecting the launch azimuth either north or south, depending on where you want the ascending node to be.

If you really want the details there are some good NASA descriptions of Apollo lunar flight trajectory planning.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: armillary on February 04, 2013, 05:58:03 AM
Well, a couple of factors interact. Basically, the 180° is relative to the point of LOI, so that's less critical. You launch into an Earth orbit that's already in a plane where you want the transfer orbit by adjusting the time of launch and direction. After that, wait until the right time, then fire the third stage, and the resulting orbit will take you to the moon.

The real issue is that the orbit must also intersect the moon's orbital plane near apogee. Since the Earth orbit is inclined, you can adjust it north or south by timing the TLI burn, but there's definitely times that are more optimal. There's also room for course correction during the lunar transit.

Finally, the issue was combining it so that the landing will take place during lunar morning.

Most of you probably know this, but lunar morning was chosen for two reasons; one, the long shadows would enable the commander to avoid any large boulders or other hazards during landing, and two, the LM was designed to maintain a reasonable working temperature during lunar morning. This also meant that the rear of the spacecraft always faces the sun in the pictures.


(I'm probably repeating other posters, but sometimes it helps to formulate things in different words)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on February 04, 2013, 07:29:52 AM
Welcome to the board, armillary.  Thanks for the clear explanation. 
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Noldi400 on February 04, 2013, 10:04:42 AM
I have a question about orbits that may have something to do with TLI and how it is accomplished.

I have difficulty in understanding how Apollo 11 could have made an near equatorial orbital insertion at the moon

Firstly, the moon's orbit is inclined to the earth's equator by about 5.1°, and the moon's equator is inclined to its own orbit by 1.5°. This means that, depending upon where the moon is in its orbit, the actual inclination of the moon's equator could be anywhere between 6.6° (5.1° + 1.5°) and 3.6° (5.1° - 1.5°). It is  beautifully illustrated in this gif.

(http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o35/smartcooky99/LibrationPhase.gif)

Secondly, AIUI, Apollo 11 launched from Cape Canaveral into an earth orbit of about 32° inclination. This seems high (was it due to the Cape's latitude of 28½° N?).

It remained in that orbit for only 1½ revolutions before TLI.

It seems to me that a TLI burn at an earth orbital inclination of 32° is not going to send the spacecraft anywhere near the moon . I know there are mid course corrections, but correcting a deviation of at least 26° seems a bit extreme. To insert the spacecraft into a near-Lunar equatorial orbit would mean that it would have to approach the moon near the plane of its equator, and I imagine that would need to be set up a considerable distance and time advance.

I feel I am missing something really simply, but what?

I can't give you a precise answer, but I believe I can get you started.

First, the moon's orbit is inclined about 5.1o to the ecliptic, not to the equator, which puts it around a 23o inclination to the equator. That gets you a lot closer right off the bat.

As to the 32o, there may have been other reasons, but a primary one was to avoid the thickest part of the VAB, which lies mostly between 30o north and south of the equator.

================================================
ETA: Woops. Neglected to turn the page and didn't see those more detailed answers. Ah, well.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Bob B. on February 04, 2013, 10:06:19 AM
I have difficulty in understanding how Apollo 11 could have made an near equatorial orbital insertion at the moon.

To be honest, I’ve never been able to find the orbital elements of the lunar orbits.  I’ve only found the altitudes of the orbits, from which I can get semimajor axis and eccentricity.  However, none of the documents I’ve looked at has given me inclination, longitude of the ascending node, etc.  If anybody has this information or knows where I can find it, please let me know.


It seems to me that a TLI burn at an earth orbital inclination of 32° …

There was typically a small plane change performed during TLI (up to nearly 2° in a couple cases), so the inclinations of the translunar trajectories varied slightly from those of the Earth parking orbits.  You can see the differences in the following documents:

Earth Orbit Data:  http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-21_Earth_Orbit_Data.htm
Translunar Injection:  http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-24_Translunar_Injection.htm

A small one or two degree plane change can be performed for very little Δv when combined with an altitude change. 

Aha, that will probably answer my question. The angle of the ecliptic is 23.4°, so the moon could potentially be ± 5.1 degrees either side of that... 18.3° to 28.5° depending on time of month, so the insertion point for a lunar equatorial orbit could be another 1.5° on top of that... 16.8° to 30°.

It’s not a function of the time of month; it’s a function of where the Moon is in its 18.6-year nodal precession cycle.  In July 1969 it was at the maximum of 28.5°.  By December 1972 the angle had reduced to about 25.4°.


I’m going to refrain from repeating what others have already said, but I will add one thing.  As we see, the inclination of the Moon’s orbit varied between 25.4°-28.5°, and the inclinations of the translunar orbits varied between 28.5°-32.5°.  Clearly the two orbital planes are inclined to one another by a few degrees.  The line connecting the Earth with the Moon at the time of intercept is the line of intersection of the two planes.  I’m not sure this was perfectly clear in the previous explanations, so I thought it worth mentioning.

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 04, 2013, 10:34:37 AM
I have difficulty in understanding how Apollo 11 could have made an near equatorial orbital insertion at the moon.

To be honest, I’ve never been able to find the orbital elements of the lunar orbits.  I’ve only found the altitudes of the orbits, from which I can get semimajor axis and eccentricity.  However, none of the documents I’ve looked at has given me inclination, longitude of the ascending node, etc.  If anybody has this information or knows where I can find it, please let me know

Not sure if this helps, but the apollo image atlas has info here

www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/mapcatalog/apolloindex/

Mostly it's locations of photos, from which you can infer orbits, but some have the orbits drawn precisely.

My own site (see my sig) has google moon kmz files plotting image locations that show the orbital paths.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Bob B. on February 04, 2013, 10:44:24 AM
As to the 32o, there may have been other reasons, but a primary one was to avoid the thickest part of the VAB, which lies mostly between 30o north and south of the equator.

Avoiding the Van Allen Radiations Belts was certainly a major consideration.  But, as ka9q mentioned, a spacecraft can't be launched into an orbit with an inclination less than the latitude of the launch site.  You can insert into a high inclination but not a lower one.  (Well, technically you can insert into a slightly lower inclination by doglegging the launch path.)  Since the launch pads were located at about 28.6° N latitude, that's the lowest inclination orbit possible.

There were actually many things that came together very conveniently for Apollo.  In 1969, the latitude of the launch site (28.6°) almost exactly matched the inclination of the Moon's orbit (28.5°).  The high inclination was also just what was needed to mitigate the VARB hazard.  Also, the combination of the timing that was needed to arrive with the correct lighting conditions, and the location of Earth magnetic pole, meant that the spacecraft departed in a direction that maximized the angular separation between the spacecraft and the geomagnetic equator.  This further reduced any potential radiation hazard.

Chew kindly linked to it earlier, but the following page graphically shows Apollo 11's orbit and how it bypassed the VARB.

http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Bob B. on February 04, 2013, 11:14:15 AM
Not sure if this helps, but the apollo image atlas has info here

www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/mapcatalog/apolloindex/

Mostly it's locations of photos, from which you can infer orbits, but some have the orbits drawn precisely.

My own site (see my sig) has google moon kmz files plotting image locations that show the orbital paths.

Thanks, that helps some.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gwiz on February 04, 2013, 11:33:05 AM
To be honest, I’ve never been able to find the orbital elements of the lunar orbits.  I’ve only found the altitudes of the orbits, from which I can get semimajor axis and eccentricity.  However, none of the documents I’ve looked at has given me inclination, longitude of the ascending node, etc.  If anybody has this information or knows where I can find it, please let me know.
The DRA Table of Space Vehicles gives inclinations, period and eccentricity.  The inclinations for Apollo are:
8 - 168   10 - 174.4   11 - 178.75   12 - 164.7   14 - 165.6   15 - 151.28   16 - 169.3   17 - 159.9
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Bob B. on February 04, 2013, 12:03:44 PM
The DRA Table of Space Vehicles gives inclinations, period and eccentricity.  The inclinations for Apollo are:
8 - 168   10 - 174.4   11 - 178.75   12 - 164.7   14 - 165.6   15 - 151.28   16 - 169.3   17 - 159.9

Thanks to you too.

The reason I'm asking is because I'm thinking about doing a complete beginning to end simulation of the Apollo 11 mission, and the more information I have, the better I can confirm my results.  As many of you know, I've already done a series of simulations, but they don't really fit together nicely into a presentation.  I want to redo it into a complete presentation of a single mission that confirms every maneuver step by step.  I also want to strip away most of the math so its more easily understood.  I still want to make the math available, but you'll have to click some sort of "more information" button to see it.  I envision perhaps several tiers of details - (1) a general overview, (2) a more detailed description, and (3) all the underlying calculations.  It's likely to be months before I can get around to it, however.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Chew on February 04, 2013, 12:25:20 PM
smartcooky, here is an excellent essay on launch windows which covers most of your question: http://history.nasa.gov/afj/launchwindow/lw1.html

Concerning plane changing at LOI, the velocities for Apollo 11 before and after LOI are here: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_11g_Lunar_Orbit_Phase.htm

It lists the space fixed velocities as 8250 and 5479 ft/sec which is a difference of 2771 ft/sec. "velocity change" is listed as 2917.5 ft/sec. Is this discrepancy because the spacecraft continued to accelerate as it approached perilune? Or was was it used for a plane change? The LOI burn ground track shows Apollo 11 was at about a 4° inclination during LOI: (5.9 mb size png) http://history.nasa.gov/afj/launchwindow/figs/Fig%2020.png

The circularization orbit performed 4 hours after LOI also has a velocity discrepancy; the excess might have gone into a plane change.

Were any mid-course corrections used to adjust the inclination the spacecraft would have once it arrived at the Moon?

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Bob B. on February 04, 2013, 02:25:32 PM
It lists the space fixed velocities as 8250 and 5479 ft/sec which is a difference of 2771 ft/sec. "velocity change" is listed as 2917.5 ft/sec. Is this discrepancy because the spacecraft continued to accelerate as it approached perilune?

Yes, the spacecraft was still speeding up as it appraoched perilune.  You can see that the altitude at LOI ignition was 86.7 n.mi. and at cutoff was 60.1 n.mi.  The spacecraft was losing potential energy and gaining kinectic energy from its decreasing altitude at the same time the engine was slowing it down.  Therefore, the engine had to do more work than it appears when you just look at the initial and final velocities.  It's like putting on the brake while the accelerator is still on.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: smartcooky on February 04, 2013, 10:06:34 PM
Thank you to everyone for all your replies, especially these links from Chew....

http://history.nasa.gov/afj/launchwindow/lw1.html

http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm

I can see that these issues are going to be more difficult should the manned missions to Mars ever eventuate, with long intervals between launch windows.

How difficult must the calculations have been to launch Voyager 2 on the "Grand Tour" in 1977, in a window that was not going to open again for another 175 years; lining up all those apogees and orbital inclinations to execute three gravitational slingshots at intervals measured in years to hit targets measured in billions of kilometres?

It boggles the mind!


Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Bob B. on February 05, 2013, 09:41:54 AM
It lists the space fixed velocities as 8250 and 5479 ft/sec which is a difference of 2771 ft/sec. "velocity change" is listed as 2917.5 ft/sec. Is this discrepancy because the spacecraft continued to accelerate as it approached perilune? Or was was it used for a plane change? The LOI burn ground track shows Apollo 11 was at about a 4° inclination during LOI: (5.9 mb size png) http://history.nasa.gov/afj/launchwindow/figs/Fig%2020.png

I've been running some numbers on this and it looks like there's more to it then what I previously posted.  I figure that if the LOI burn were not performed and the spacecraft continued on its trajectory from 86.7 n.mi. altitude to 60.1 n.mi. altitude, it would have picked up only about 27.2 m/s.  This alone can't account for the apparent ΔV discrepancy.

According to the data posted by gwiz, Apollo 11's lunar orbit had an inclination of 178.75°.  You say that the ground track during LOI shows an inclination of 4°, but since the orbit was retrograde, this would actually be 176°.  If correct, this implies that Apollo 11 made a 2.75° plane change during LOI.  If we add the plane change and the extra 27.2 m/s into the maneuver, I calculate a total ΔV of 877.4 m/s, or 2,879 ft/s.  This is still less than the 2917.5 ft/s shown in the referenced document, but we're getting closer.

It looks like there is still something else going on here, but since I don't know all the parameters of the before and after orbits, it's impossible to determine.  Perhaps I'll figure it all out if I ever get around to doing a complete mission simulation.

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Noldi400 on February 05, 2013, 06:14:30 PM
It looks like there is still something else going on here, but since I don't know all the parameters of the before and after orbits, it's impossible to determine.  Perhaps I'll figure it all out if I ever get around to doing a complete mission simulation.

One thing that may be playing a little hell with the precise numbers are the lunar mascons.  The moon's gravity isn't evenly distributed, so orbits can be perturbed in strange ways.

AS-16 released a satellite (PFS-2) into a 55 x 76 mile orbit, where it was expected to stay indefinitely. Instead it crashed just over a month later after being pulled into a lower and lower orbit.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/06nov_loworbit/ (http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/06nov_loworbit/)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Chew on February 05, 2013, 07:22:28 PM
I've been running some numbers on this and it looks like there's more to it then what I previously posted.  I figure that if the LOI burn were not performed and the spacecraft continued on its trajectory from 86.7 n.mi. altitude to 60.1 n.mi. altitude, it would have picked up only about 27.2 m/s.

That's what I got, too. I suspect the extra velocity might come from adjusting the flight path angle (i.e. pointing up or down relative to the local vertical).
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ProfessorAlfB on February 06, 2013, 07:32:18 AM
im a firm believer that usa landed on the moon. but i wonder why no one has been there ?so there was a race to the moon with russia , but they never continued their program. and no one since

What makes you think there even was a race to the Moon with Russia? 
There is documented evidence to the contrary...On November 12th 1963 President Kennedy issued a Top Secret National Security Action Memorandum No. 271 with the subject header:"Cooperation with the USSR on Outer Space Matters:".  It was sent to the then NASA administator, James Webb, (as well as the US Secretary of State, the US Secretary of Defense, the Director of the CIA, the President’s Science Advisor, and three other agency directors) instructing Webb to develop a program with the Soviet Union in Joint space and lunar explorations...In other words, it is evidence that US and the Soviets could well have been working together on the Apollo project.
You may think that President Kennedy’s assassination, two days later, quickly led to the abandonment of his plan to cooperate with the USSR on Space exploration, but his death didn't stop the Apollo missions he santioned going ahead, so this is unlikely.
In fact there is actual photographic evidence that it went ahead...At least one of the official Apollo mission photos where a US Astronaut was supposed to be in Space, was clearly taken in a Russian Soyuz spacecraft!
In the likelyhood that it has now been deleted by NASA, for obvious reasons, the photo can still be found in the book: "Apollo, Dark Moon And The Whistle Blowers".
And before you ask, no, I am not the author or connected financially with the publication in any way.  I have read the latter book though and seen the photo for myself.  The book was freely available to borrow from my local public library.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Andromeda on February 06, 2013, 07:48:40 AM
I am confused, ProfessorAlfB.

One the one hand you seem to be saying that the Apollo missions "went ahead" with USSR cooperation, but you also believe that Apollo was faked and are a fan of Jarrah White (going by your posts elsewhere).

Which is it?

Or should I just say, "Hi, Patrick"?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gwiz on February 06, 2013, 08:15:57 AM
In fact there is actual photographic evidence that it went ahead...At least one of the official Apollo mission photos where a US Astronaut was supposed to be in Space, was clearly taken in a Russian Soyuz spacecraft!
In the likelyhood that it has now been deleted by NASA, for obvious reasons, the photo can still be found in the book: "Apollo, Dark Moon And The Whistle Blowers".
And before you ask, no, I am not the author or connected financially with the publication in any way.  I have read the latter book though and seen the photo for myself.  The book was freely available to borrow from my local public library.
To save us all a trip to your local library, perhaps you could scan the photo in question and post it here.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on February 06, 2013, 08:24:20 AM
What page is it on? I have a substantial access to this work.
Also, have you heard of the Apollo Soyuz Test Project?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Bob B. on February 06, 2013, 08:36:21 AM
On November 12th 1963 President Kennedy ... You may think that President Kennedy’s assassination, two days later

That's ten days later.  Kennedy was killed on November 22.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Bob B. on February 06, 2013, 08:48:12 AM
For the record, American leaders made several attempts to try to cooperate with the Soviet Union in space initiatives.  This started with a series of letters written by President Eisenhower to the Soviet leadership back in 1957-58.  As soon as Kennedy came to office he also tried to engage the Soviets and encourage cooperation.  In fact, in Kennedy's inaugural address he said, "Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars."  All these overtures were rejected by the Soviets, as they believed at the time that they were winning the space race.

Why do you think the outcome was any different in 1963 after all previous attempt failed?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Bob B. on February 06, 2013, 08:59:38 AM
...At least one of the official Apollo mission photos where a US Astronaut was supposed to be in Space, was clearly taken in a Russian Soyuz spacecraft!

In fact, there are several such photos.  After the moon missions, the US and USSR finally started to work together in space.  They flew a joint mission in 1975 in which an Apollo and a Soyuz spacecraft joined up in space.  Astronauts/cosmonauts transferred from one spacecraft to the other.  Look up Apollo-Soyuz Test Project.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ProfessorAlfB on February 06, 2013, 10:11:08 AM
I am confused, ProfessorAlfB.

One the one hand you seem to be saying that the Apollo missions "went ahead" with USSR cooperation, but you also believe that Apollo was faked and are a fan of Jarrah White (going by your posts elsewhere).

Which is it?

Neither, I try to keep an open mind on the matter.

Quote
Or should I just say, "Hi, Patrick"?

???
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ProfessorAlfB on February 06, 2013, 10:15:58 AM
In fact there is actual photographic evidence that it went ahead...At least one of the official Apollo mission photos where a US Astronaut was supposed to be in Space, was clearly taken in a Russian Soyuz spacecraft!
In the likelyhood that it has now been deleted by NASA, for obvious reasons, the photo can still be found in the book: "Apollo, Dark Moon And The Whistle Blowers".
And before you ask, no, I am not the author or connected financially with the publication in any way.  I have read the latter book though and seen the photo for myself.  The book was freely available to borrow from my local public library.
To save us all a trip to your local library, perhaps you could scan the photo in question and post it here.

Now thats an oxymoron if I've ever heard one...I don't have the book here because it is in my local library, and therefore I would still have to make a trip to my local library to get the book!
There are also copyright laws to consider.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ProfessorAlfB on February 06, 2013, 10:18:17 AM
What page is it on? I have a substantial access to this work.
Also, have you heard of the Apollo Soyuz Test Project?

I don't remember as I borrowed the book several years ago, but if you have "substantial access to this work" then it shoudn't take you long to find it.  ;)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on February 06, 2013, 10:20:26 AM
What makes you think there even was a race to the Moon with Russia?

All the public evidence.

Quote
There is documented evidence to the contrary...On November 12th 1963 President Kennedy issued a Top Secret National Security Action Memorandum No. 271...

No, this document is part of the discredited, inauthentic Majestic documents.  It is simply a typewritten document purporting to be from President Kennedy, but it does not bear his signature nor appear on White House stationery used for such purposes.  It is widely quoted by UFO fanatics seeking to show that the government had knowledge of the extraterrestrial nature of UFOs, and by JFK assassination conspiracy theorists attempting to provide a reason why Kennedy needed to be silenced.

There was a degree of cooperation proposed at the high level between the United States and the Soviet Union, but it was not (yet) for cooperation in space operations.  The question of sovereignty and applicable international law had not yet been settled for the purposes of space exploration.  The U.S. and the USSR, being at the time the only spacefaring nations, met and agreed that certain conventions would hold, such as respecting each nation's spacecraft as sovereign property and agreeing to repatriate any crew or equipment that found its way unexpectedly onto the other's soil.

Quote
In fact there is actual photographic evidence that it went ahead...At least one of the official Apollo mission photos where a US Astronaut was supposed to be in Space, was clearly taken in a Russian Soyuz spacecraft!

Yes, American astronauts were legitimately aboard Soviet Soyuz spacecraft and were copiously photographed there.  The existence of such a photograph does not immediately substantiate your claim.

Quote
In the likelyhood that it has now been deleted by NASA, for obvious reasons, the photo can still be found in the book: "Apollo, Dark Moon And The Whistle Blowers".

That's a 500-page book.  Care to be more specific?

Quote
And before you ask, no, I am not the author or connected financially with the publication in any way.

I know you're not the author because the author is terrified to speak to me about his work.  He refused two third-party invitations to debate his findings with me on mainstream television.  He declined both.  He has been avoiding me now for about ten years.  His blatant intellectual dishonesty should give you a clue about how reliable his evidence is.

Quote
I have read the latter book though and seen the photo for myself.  The book was freely available to borrow from my local public library.

Yes, most of us own the book.  No need to amp up the alleged secrecy.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on February 06, 2013, 10:21:42 AM
What page is it on? I have a substantial access to this work.
Also, have you heard of the Apollo Soyuz Test Project?

I don't remember as I borrowed the book several years ago, but if you have "substantial access to this work" then it shoudn't take you long to find it.  ;)
You made the claim, you find it in Google Books's scan (http://books.google.ca/books?id=uqi7qKZ5dIMC&lpg=PP1&dq=dark%20moon&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false).
Not that it means much considering the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project happened.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on February 06, 2013, 10:22:46 AM
I don't remember as I borrowed the book several years ago, but if you have "substantial access to this work" then it shoudn't take you long to find it.  ;)

No.  It's a 500-page disorganized mess, and I'm not about to spend the entire morning looking for what I think you might be talking about.  When you're ready to present evidence rather than just allude to it vaguely, then come back.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ProfessorAlfB on February 06, 2013, 10:24:04 AM
What makes you think there even was a race to the Moon with Russia?

All the public evidence.

Quote
There is documented evidence to the contrary...On November 12th 1963 President Kennedy issued a Top Secret National Security Action Memorandum No. 271...

No, this document is part of the discredited, inauthentic Majestic documents.  It is simply a typewritten document purporting to be from President Kennedy, but it does not bear his signature nor appear on White House stationery used for such purposes.  It is widely quoted by UFO fanatics seeking to show that the government had knowledge of the extraterrestrial nature of UFOs, and by JFK assassination conspiracy theorists attempting to provide a reason why Kennedy needed to be silenced.

There was a degree of cooperation proposed at the high level between the United States and the Soviet Union, but it was not (yet) for cooperation in space operations.  The question of sovereignty and applicable international law had not yet been settled for the purposes of space exploration.  The U.S. and the USSR, being at the time the only spacefaring nations, met and agreed that certain conventions would hold, such as respecting each nation's spacecraft as sovereign property and agreeing to repatriate any crew or equipment that found its way unexpectedly onto the other's soil.

Quote
In fact there is actual photographic evidence that it went ahead...At least one of the official Apollo mission photos where a US Astronaut was supposed to be in Space, was clearly taken in a Russian Soyuz spacecraft!

Yes, American astronauts were legitimately aboard Soviet Soyuz spacecraft and were copiously photographed there.  The existence of such a photograph does not immediately substantiate your claim.

Quote
In the likelyhood that it has now been deleted by NASA, for obvious reasons, the photo can still be found in the book: "Apollo, Dark Moon And The Whistle Blowers".

That's a 500-page book.  Care to be more specific?

Quote
And before you ask, no, I am not the author or connected financially with the publication in any way.

I know you're not the author because the author is terrified to speak to me about his work.  He refused two third-party invitations to debate his findings with me on mainstream television.  He declined both.  He has been avoiding me now for about ten years.  His blatant intellectual dishonesty should give you a clue about how reliable his evidence is.

Quote
I have read the latter book though and seen the photo for myself.  The book was freely available to borrow from my local public library.

Yes, most of us own the book.  No need to amp up the alleged secrecy.
...At least one of the official Apollo mission photos where a US Astronaut was supposed to be in Space, was clearly taken in a Russian Soyuz spacecraft!

In fact, there are several such photos.  After the moon missions, the US and USSR finally started to work together in space.  They flew a joint mission in 1975 in which an Apollo and a Soyuz spacecraft joined up in space.  Astronauts/cosmonauts transferred from one spacecraft to the other.  Look up Apollo-Soyuz Test Project.

I know that but the photo was apparently taken on an earlier Apollo mission.  At least that is what what is stated in the book in question.   
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on February 06, 2013, 10:24:34 AM
I would still have to make a trip to my local library to get the book!

Any reason why you think you shouldn't have to do that?  It's your claim, therefore your obligation to provide the evidence you say supports it.  If you're unwilling, then that's the end of your claim.

Quote
There are also copyright laws to consider.

No.  If it's a legitimate NASA photo then it's in the public domain.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gwiz on February 06, 2013, 10:24:40 AM
Now thats an oxymoron if I've ever heard one...I don't have the book here because it is in my local library, and therefore I would still have to make a trip to my local library to get the book!
There are also copyright laws to consider.
On the other hand, you were the one who brought up the book as evidence, you should make the effort.  Copyright law allows limited "fair use" copying,which should cover this.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on February 06, 2013, 10:26:19 AM
I know that but the photo was apparently taken on an earlier Apollo mission.  At least that is what what is stated in the book in question.

David Percy has been caught many times blatantly lying about the Apollo record.  Therefore his statements cannot be trusted.  If you'd be so kind as to provide an exact reference, your exact claim can be investigated.  Until then, so long as you make only vague references and recollections, you get only vague rebuttals.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gwiz on February 06, 2013, 10:27:41 AM
I know that but the photo was apparently taken on an earlier Apollo mission.  At least that is what what is stated in the book in question.   
So we have to take the word of an unseen book?  Unless you can show the photo in question was published before Apollo-Soyuz, you have no case.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on February 06, 2013, 10:28:50 AM
Do you have anything other than your memories of a picture in a book you borrowed several years ago to offer to the discussion? If we go through it and tell you we find no such picture, or a picture that is clearly from Apollo-Soyuz and is labelled as such, or a picture from Apollo-Soyuz that is mislabelled, are you going to accept our word or insist that your memory is accurate?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on February 06, 2013, 10:37:17 AM
David Percy has been caught many times blatantly lying about the Apollo record.  Therefore his statements cannot be trusted.  If you'd be so kind as to provide an exact reference, your exact claim can be investigated.  Until then, so long as you make only vague references and recollections, you get only vague rebuttals.
Oh, gods, yes.
ProfessorAlfB, David Percy is a liar. There is no way around this. I hate to say this about any human being, but look at this (http://books.google.ca/books?id=uqi7qKZ5dIMC&lpg=PP1&dq=dark%20moon&pg=PA68#v=onepage&q&f=false).
He claims the the centre cross hair is off-centre, but compare to this (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903.jpg) scan. Not only did he extend the top, but, despite claiming to be showing the 'full area', he deliberately cuts off at the bottom as well!
Another example. This video is about one of Bart Sibrel's videos, but the debunking equally applies to the transparency claim Percy makes.

This is video he would have had access too; this is video he would have known about if, as Percy claims, he made a thorough investigation of Apollo material or even a cursory one.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ProfessorAlfB on February 06, 2013, 10:43:58 AM
What makes you think there even was a race to the Moon with Russia?

All the public evidence.

What public evidence?  If it was so public it shouldn't be hard to find some to back that statement up.

Quote
There is documented evidence to the contrary...On November 12th 1963 President Kennedy issued a Top Secret National Security Action Memorandum No. 271...

Quote
No, this document is part of the discredited, inauthentic Majestic documents.

Do have any evidence to show it has been discredited?


Quote
  It is simply a typewritten document purporting to be from President Kennedy, but it does not bear his signature

Wrong, it does bear his signature!...See the second page of the memorandum here:

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/qVncp893wEmJFplIn1AlHA.aspx

Quote
There was a degree of cooperation proposed at the high level between the United States and the Soviet Union, but it was not (yet) for cooperation in space operations.

Quote
But there may have been a degree of cooperation between the US and Soviets on space exploration soon after the date of the momorandum.  This would have given the Soviets ample motive to try and hide the fact that the US may have been perpetrating a hoax...It cannot be ruled out.
Quote

 
Quote
The question of sovereignty and applicable international law had not yet been settled for the purposes of space exploration.
 

Yes it had, space has always been governed by the same rules as "international waters".


 
Quote
The U.S. and the USSR, being at the time the only spacefaring nations, met and agreed that certain conventions would hold, such as respecting each nation's spacecraft as sovereign property and agreeing to repatriate any crew or equipment that found its way unexpectedly onto the other's soil.

That had always been the case.

Quote
In fact there is actual photographic evidence that it went ahead...At least one of the official Apollo mission photos where a US Astronaut was supposed to be in Space, was clearly taken in a Russian Soyuz spacecraft!

Quote
Yes, American astronauts were legitimately aboard Soviet Soyuz spacecraft and were copiously photographed there.  The existence of such a photograph does not immediately substantiate your claim.

Yes, and this disproves your earlier claim that there was no US Soviet cooperation on space exploration during the time of the Apollo missions!

Quote
In the likelyhood that it has now been deleted by NASA, for obvious reasons, the photo can still be found in the book: "Apollo, Dark Moon And The Whistle Blowers".

Quote
That's a 500-page book.  Care to be more specific?

I don't have the book here so no, I can't.

Quote
And before you ask, no, I am not the author or connected financially with the publication in any way.

Quote
I know you're not the author because the author is terrified to speak to me about his work.  He refused two third-party invitations to debate his findings with me on mainstream television.  He declined both.  He has been avoiding me now for about ten years.  His blatant intellectual dishonesty should give you a clue about how reliable his evidence is.

What evidence have to to prove "His blatant intellectual dishonesty"?  Perhaps he just doesn't want to talk to you because you may have insulted him at some point during or after your invitations?

Quote
I have read the latter book though and seen the photo for myself.  The book was freely available to borrow from my local public library.

[quotye]Yes, most of us own the book.  No need to amp up the alleged secrecy.
Quote
...At least one of the official Apollo mission photos where a US Astronaut was supposed to be in Space, was clearly taken in a Russian Soyuz spacecraft!

Quote
In fact, there are several such photos.  After the moon missions, the US and USSR finally started to work together in space.  They flew a joint mission in 1975 in which an Apollo and a Soyuz spacecraft joined up in space.  Astronauts/cosmonauts transferred from one spacecraft to the other.  Look up Apollo-Soyuz Test Project.

Yes, I know, but doesn't the author of the book in question claim the photo was taken on a earlier Apollo mission?

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on February 06, 2013, 10:48:44 AM
Yes, I know, but doesn't the author of the book in question claim the photo was taken on a earlier Apollo mission?
You tell us. The book is available for your perusal on Google Books.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ProfessorAlfB on February 06, 2013, 10:50:55 AM
What makes you think there even was a race to the Moon with Russia?

All the public evidence.

What public evidence?  If it was so public it shouldn't be hard to find some to back that statement up.

Quote
There is documented evidence to the contrary...On November 12th 1963 President Kennedy issued a Top Secret National Security Action Memorandum No. 271...

Quote
No, this document is part of the discredited, inauthentic Majestic documents.

Do have any evidence to show it has been discredited?


Quote
  It is simply a typewritten document purporting to be from President Kennedy, but it does not bear his signature

Wrong, it does bear his signature!...See the second page of the memorandum here:

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/qVncp893wEmJFplIn1AlHA.aspx

Quote
There was a degree of cooperation proposed at the high level between the United States and the Soviet Union, but it was not (yet) for cooperation in space operations.

Quote
But there may have been a degree of cooperation between the US and Soviets on space exploration soon after the date of the momorandum.  This would have given the Soviets ample motive to try and hide the fact that the US may have been perpetrating a hoax...It cannot be ruled out.
Quote

 
Quote
The question of sovereignty and applicable international law had not yet been settled for the purposes of space exploration.
 

Yes it had, space has always been governed by the same rules as "international waters".  No one nation can claim space as it own...Or it would have belonged to the Russians!


 
Quote
The U.S. and the USSR, being at the time the only spacefaring nations, met and agreed that certain conventions would hold, such as respecting each nation's spacecraft as sovereign property and agreeing to repatriate any crew or equipment that found its way unexpectedly onto the other's soil.

That had always been the case.

Quote
In fact there is actual photographic evidence that it went ahead...At least one of the official Apollo mission photos where a US Astronaut was supposed to be in Space, was clearly taken in a Russian Soyuz spacecraft!

Quote
Yes, American astronauts were legitimately aboard Soviet Soyuz spacecraft and were copiously photographed there.  The existence of such a photograph does not immediately substantiate your claim.

Yes, and this disproves your earlier claim that there was no US Soviet cooperation on space exploration during the time of the Apollo missions!

Quote
In the likelyhood that it has now been deleted by NASA, for obvious reasons, the photo can still be found in the book: "Apollo, Dark Moon And The Whistle Blowers".

Quote
That's a 500-page book.  Care to be more specific?

I don't have the book here so no, I can't.

Quote
And before you ask, no, I am not the author or connected financially with the publication in any way.

Quote
I know you're not the author because the author is terrified to speak to me about his work.  He refused two third-party invitations to debate his findings with me on mainstream television.  He declined both.  He has been avoiding me now for about ten years.  His blatant intellectual dishonesty should give you a clue about how reliable his evidence is.

What evidence have to to prove "His blatant intellectual dishonesty"?  Perhaps he just doesn't want to talk to you because you may have insulted him at some point during or after your invitations?

Quote
I have read the latter book though and seen the photo for myself.  The book was freely available to borrow from my local public library.

Quote
Yes, most of us own the book.  No need to amp up the alleged secrecy.
Quote
...At least one of the official Apollo mission photos where a US Astronaut was supposed to be in Space, was clearly taken in a Russian Soyuz spacecraft!

Quote
In fact, there are several such photos.  After the moon missions, the US and USSR finally started to work together in space.  They flew a joint mission in 1975 in which an Apollo and a Soyuz spacecraft joined up in space.  Astronauts/cosmonauts transferred from one spacecraft to the other.  Look up Apollo-Soyuz Test Project.

Yes, I know, but doesn't the author of the book in question claim the photo was taken on a earlier Apollo mission?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ProfessorAlfB on February 06, 2013, 11:03:12 AM
David Percy has been caught many times blatantly lying about the Apollo record.  Therefore his statements cannot be trusted.  If you'd be so kind as to provide an exact reference, your exact claim can be investigated.  Until then, so long as you make only vague references and recollections, you get only vague rebuttals.
Oh, gods, yes.
ProfessorAlfB, David Percy is a liar. There is no way around this. I hate to say this about any human being, but look at this (http://books.google.ca/books?id=uqi7qKZ5dIMC&lpg=PP1&dq=dark%20moon&pg=PA68#v=onepage&q&f=false).
He claims the the centre cross hair is off-centre, but compare to this (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903.jpg) scan. Not only did he extend the top, but, despite claiming to be showing the 'full area', he deliberately cuts off at the bottom as well!

I have not heard that reason for claiming that that particular photo its a fake before...I have heard plenty of others though.

Quote
Another example. This video is about one of Bart Sibrel's videos, but the debunking equally applies to the transparency claim Percy makes.

This is video he would have had access too; this is video he would have known about if, as Percy claims, he made a thorough investigation of Apollo material or even a cursory one.

Good detective work but it doesn't prove that everything else in that documentary is lies.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Bob B. on February 06, 2013, 11:07:35 AM
...At least one of the official Apollo mission photos where a US Astronaut was supposed to be in Space, was clearly taken in a Russian Soyuz spacecraft!

In fact, there are several such photos.  After the moon missions, the US and USSR finally started to work together in space.  They flew a joint mission in 1975 in which an Apollo and a Soyuz spacecraft joined up in space.  Astronauts/cosmonauts transferred from one spacecraft to the other.  Look up Apollo-Soyuz Test Project.

Yes, I know, but doesn't the author of the book in question claim the photo was taken on a earlier Apollo mission?

I don't know what the author claims, though I suspect he's probably misattributing an ASTP photo to an earlier mission.  It might be deliberate or it might be a mistake, but either case is unforgivable given the severity of the accusation.  He's either a liar or a very sloppy researcher.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ProfessorAlfB on February 06, 2013, 11:09:01 AM
Yes, I know, but doesn't the author of the book in question claim the photo was taken on a earlier Apollo mission?
You tell us. The book is available for your perusal on Google Books.

Do you have the link?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Laurel on February 06, 2013, 11:14:04 AM
Seriously? Go to Google Books and search for "Dark Moon." ::)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: AtomicDog on February 06, 2013, 11:17:01 AM
You quoted Raven's link to it in post #840.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gillianren on February 06, 2013, 11:18:26 AM
Good detective work but it doesn't prove that everything else in that documentary is lies.

No, but one demonstrable lie of that sort ought to make you consider the rest of his evidence more closely.  Believe me, you will find plenty more.  He is on a list of names which citing will make you laughable.  It proves you didn't do your research if you believe him, Jarrah White, Jack White, Ralph Rene, Bill Kaysing, or Bart Sibrel.  You may note that those are pretty the the prominent names in hoax belief.  That all of them are at best wrong and at worst liars should tell you something about hoax belief.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on February 06, 2013, 11:19:50 AM
David Percy has been caught many times blatantly lying about the Apollo record.  Therefore his statements cannot be trusted.  If you'd be so kind as to provide an exact reference, your exact claim can be investigated.  Until then, so long as you make only vague references and recollections, you get only vague rebuttals.
Oh, gods, yes.
ProfessorAlfB, David Percy is a liar. There is no way around this. I hate to say this about any human being, but look at this (http://books.google.ca/books?id=uqi7qKZ5dIMC&lpg=PP1&dq=dark%20moon&pg=PA68#v=onepage&q&f=false).
He claims the the centre cross hair is off-centre, but compare to this (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903.jpg) scan. Not only did he extend the top, but, despite claiming to be showing the 'full area', he deliberately cuts off at the bottom as well!

I have not heard that reason for claiming that that particular photo its a fake before...I have heard plenty of others though which still haven't been explained.
Yeah, that's the trouble. There is nothing like a coherent story about how Apollo was faked. Some claim it was Kubrick, others say it was Disney. Some say it was filmed at Area 51, others say Hawaii. I even heard a claim it was filmed on the Canary Island of Lanzarote from a yotuber.
Also, present some of these alleged 'unexplained' photos. I am willing to bet they have actually been explained.
Quote
Quote
Another example. This video is about one of Bart Sibrel's videos, but the debunking equally applies to the transparency claim Percy makes.

This is video he would have had access too; this is video he would have known about if, as Percy claims, he made a thorough investigation of Apollo material or even a cursory one.

Good detective work but it doesn't prove that everything else in that documentary is lies.
It proves he is willing to lie to try and support his claims. Not just be wrong, he is that often enough, but out and out lie. Also, if two 'professional' conspiracy theorists felt forced to lie to try and explain how the Earth was filmed during Trans Lunar Coast if they were in orbit as claimed by Bart Sibrel, David Percy, and other conspiracy theorists, just how was it done? How was it faked?
Also, still waiting on the photo you claim Percy claims is of Apollo astronauts in a Soviet capsule in orbit before the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, ProfessorAlfB.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on February 06, 2013, 11:20:10 AM
I have not heard that reason for claiming that that particular photo its a fake before...I have heard plenty of others though.

Red herring.  You have been given examples of David Percy's blatant dishonesty regarding the Apollo record.  On what basis therefore do you trust it for the point you're trying to make?

Quote
Good detective work but it doesn't prove that everything else in that documentary is lies.

How many deliberate lies does it take before you stop trusting the people making them?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on February 06, 2013, 11:22:42 AM
Yes, I know, but doesn't the author of the book in question claim the photo was taken on a earlier Apollo mission?
You tell us. The book is available for your perusal on Google Books.

Do you have the link?
I linked to it earlier. In fact, it was in my quote. You had to have seen it since you explicitly refer to "that particular photo" in your reply about Percy's lies.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on February 06, 2013, 11:23:50 AM
Yes, and this disproves your earlier claim that there was no US Soviet cooperation on space exploration during the time of the Apollo missions!

No, it does not. Apollo-Soyuz was a very public, very well-documented case in 1975 of a joint US-Soviet space mission. During the time of the Apollo lunar landings there was no such co-operation. Both sides did their own thing. That's more than well documented.

Quote
What evidence have to to prove "His blatant intellectual dishonesty"?  Perhaps he just doesn't want to talk to you because you may have insulted him at some point during or after your invitations?

His blatant intellectual dishonesty is there for all to see. His website had a forum on it until people (not limited to Jay) started using it to question the conclusions drawn by the book and offer support for the reality of Apollo. It had a guestbook there until people started using it to do the same thing. Now the author will not engage in discussion or allow comments to be posted on his site.

Furthermore, a few years ago there was an incident where someone called into question their use of some footage of a Surveyor probe, which they said NASA had claimed was taken during the Apollo 12 descent and landing (Apollo 12 landed near the Surveyor 3 probe). Their argument was that it was impossible for that footage to have been taken by a descending LM, therefore it was evidence that Apollo 12 was faked. Indeed, the footage does appear to have been impossible to obtain from a LM. However. when someone pointed out that the footage was actually from an earlier report on the Surveyor probes and had never been claimed by NASA to have been actually taken by Apollo 12, the authors wrote a long, rambling reply that defended their use of it as proof of Apollo fakery, despite their whole argument being based on the now shown to be false idea that NASA had said the footage was taken from Apollo 12! What else would you classify an inability to admit to error when shown the flaw in the whole premise of an argument?

Quote
Yes, I know, but doesn't the author of the book in question claim the photo was taken on a earlier Apollo mission?

That's the basis of your claim. It is not our job to check that, it is yours to show it to be so or retract the claim.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on February 06, 2013, 11:52:53 AM
Alf,

Is your whole reason for coming here to half support some claim you read a while ago in a book from the library that had a photo with some caption on one page or another?  If that is really it, why do you expect to be taken seriously?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on February 06, 2013, 12:00:56 PM
What public evidence?  If it was so public it shouldn't be hard to find some to back that statement up.

You're seriously asking for evidence that the Apollo program was styled as a race to beat the Soviets to the Moon?  Are you blind?

Quote
Do have any evidence to show it has been discredited?

Actually yes, but it's not really a going concern.  See also below.  The only people who still consider the Majestic documents authentic anymore are a very few of the wackier UFO authors.  Even many of the authors who once considered them authentic have now changed their minds.  Among the factual evidence suggesting forgery are the many errors in the Truman document.

However I should back up and concede that the Majestic reference is something of an inadvertent red herring.  There is a version of the Kennedy memo "No. 271" that circulates with the Majestic documents.  It bears some resemblance to the actual memo and contains some of the same language, but has been doctored to include references to UFOs and has some mysterious handwritten annotations.  It is also heavily redacted, which is a technique used by many UFO enthusiasts to suggest that the redacted portions support their claims.

Quote
Wrong, it does bear his signature!...See the second page of the memorandum here:
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/qVncp893wEmJFplIn1AlHA.aspx

Well no, that's not Kennedy's signature.  That's a memo to the file, which is why it has the "S/" annotation rather than a signature.  However the memo itself is an authentic document, and the version you link here is not part of the Majestic documents.  Therefore if that's the version of the memo to which you refer, then my reference to the Majestic documents was a misdirected rebuttal and I withdraw it.

Quote
But there may have been a degree of cooperation between the US and Soviets on space exploration soon after the date of the memorandum.

No "may have been" about it.  The Apollo-Soyuz program was a direct result of it, as was the exchange of lunar samples between the Soviet and American scientists.  "A degree of cooperation" does not substantiate your claim that the Soviets flew missions to the Moon in secret cooperation with NASA.  If you argue that a different "degree of cooperation" existed beyond that which the record shows, you bear the burden to prove it.

Quote
This would have given the Soviets ample motive to try and hide the fact that the US may have been perpetrating a hoax

Nonsense.  The entire civilized world believed the U.S. had beaten the Soviets to the Moon and the Soviets graciously, but begrudgingly, acknowledged that.  You're telling me they put forth effort under a supposed secret agreement but got no public credit for it.

Quote
...It cannot be ruled out.

Shifting the burden of proof.  You have no credible evidence that the Soviets participated actively in Apollo operations.  You may not assert they did and then sit back lazily and expect everyone else to try to prove you wrong.

Quote
Yes it had, space has always been governed by the same rules as "international waters".

No, it had not.  It was so governed later as a result of those discussions, but there had been no prior agreement.

"Space," at least in terms of Earth orbit, includes a volume of space above rival nations.  A nation's airspace is considered part of its sovereign territory, as is its territorial waters.  The altitude at which a spacecraft could fly over another nation and not be considered to violate its airspace was a matter of some concern.  Similarly while international waters exist and while space could be considered equivalent to international waters, the law of conquest still applies.  If you, sailing in international waters, first reach unclaimed land, you may claim it as part of your sovereign territory.  Hence there was some question about whether the first person to reach the Moon would be able to claim it as the sovereign territory of his particular nation.

The overflights of Sputnik gave the U.S. some indication that the USSR did not consider Earth orbit to be any nation's sovereign territory and gave rise to orbital surveillance, which is lawful compared to surveillance by covert aircraft.  Only in subsequent negotiations did the U.S. and USSR agree to extend the legal principles of the "high seas" to space, and further to refrain from claiming sovereign territory over the Moon or any other celestial body.

Quote
Yes, and this disproves your earlier claim that there was no US Soviet cooperation on space exploration during the time of the Apollo missions!

Your claim is that the photo in question is not from Apollo-Soyuz but from an earlier Apollo mission, ostensibly one that went to the Moon.  Showing that an American astronaut was aboard a Soviet spacecraft at some point in history does not prove that American astronauts and Soviet cosmonauts collaborated on missions to the Moon.

Quote
I don't have the book here so no, I can't.

I skimmed the book and found no such photograph or reference.  That doesn't mean it's not there, but it does mean I'm not going to expend any more effort to provide the evidence for your claims.  The onus is on you.

Quote
What evidence have to to prove "His blatant intellectual dishonesty"?

My entire web site, which has been up for more than 10 years and is very well known and commonly cited by others to third parties whenever Percy's claims are mentioned.  Do you really know anything about this debate?

Quote
Perhaps he just doesn't want to talk to you because you may have insulted him at some point during or after your invitations?

Desperate speculation.

Quote
Yes, I know, but doesn't the author of the book in question claim the photo was taken on a earlier Apollo mission?

That's what he claims.  And since his claims regarding the Apollo record have proven so disastrously wrong and misrepresentative in the past, we cannot take his word for it.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: twik on February 06, 2013, 12:04:52 PM
I don't have the book here because it is in my local library, and therefore I would still have to make a trip to my local library to get the book!

The search for Truth is always long and arduous. Many are the fallen in the search for that source of knowledge, the local library.

Seriously, if you're going to argue about a book, you need to have it in front of you. One's memory of what one read can sometimes not be completely accurate.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on February 06, 2013, 12:35:51 PM

Do you have the link?


If your investigative "skill set" is so lame that you can't even do a simple google search, then why should anyone here even give you the time of day?

Do your own "homework".
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on February 06, 2013, 12:45:27 PM
...it doesn't prove that everything else in that documentary is lies.

So when you posted that you like to keep an "open mind", what you meant is that your default assumption is that Percy is not a liar.

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on February 06, 2013, 12:58:02 PM
Re., your claim that Percy won't debate Jay because he hurt his feelings (or whatever) makes ZERO sense.

What better way to show Jay wrong, and embarrass him than by agreeing to a debate and showing that Moon landings didn't happen.

No...the reason he won't debate Jay, is because Jay would "hand him his hat"...and make him look like the complete fool that he is.



Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on February 06, 2013, 01:46:17 PM
No...the reason he won't debate Jay, is because Jay would "hand him his hat"...and make him look like the complete fool that he is.

I tend to believe that's the reason, but I don't know for sure.  The invitations were made separately to me and to Percy by Zig Zag Productions and by Ten Worlds Productions, both verifiable independent filmmakers who have provided content for mainstream media outlets such as Discovery Networks and National Geographic.  I accepted both invitations.  Percy declined both.

And it's not just me.  David Percy will not respond to any of his critics.  I just happened to be the one who attracted the most mainstream attention and therefore the highest-stakes opportunities for him.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on February 06, 2013, 01:55:57 PM
Just remember folks, just because a snooty British sounding guy in a suit says something, that doesn't make it true.
I blame David Attenborough for this. ;D
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Bob B. on February 06, 2013, 02:08:10 PM
On November 12th 1963 President Kennedy issued a Top Secret National Security Action Memorandum No. 271 with the subject header:"Cooperation with the USSR on Outer Space Matters:".  It was sent to the then NASA administator, James Webb, (as well as the US Secretary of State, the US Secretary of Defense, the Director of the CIA, the President’s Science Advisor, and three other agency directors) instructing Webb to develop a program with the Soviet Union in Joint space and lunar explorations

(emphasis mine)

If we are to assume the memo is legitimate, it is clearly not ordering the development of a joint program with the Soviet Union.  It is simply asking for proposals on how the two countries might be able to collaborate.  This is evident by the second paragraph:

Quote
These proposals should be developed with a view to their possible discussion with the Soviet Union as a direct outcome of my September 20 proposal for broader cooperation between the United States and the USSR in outer space, including cooperation in lunar landing programs.  All proposals or suggestions originating within the Government relating to this general subject will be referred to you for your consideration and evaluation.

In other words, "Shoot me some ideas and, if I like them, I might discuss it with the Soviets."

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Noldi400 on February 06, 2013, 02:16:04 PM
Back in 1997 Sergei Khrushchev, eldest son of then-Premier Nikita Khrushchev, stated that in early November 1963 his father had decided to accept JFK's suggestion to make the lunar landing a joint USA-USSR project.

After Kennedy was assassinated, Khrushchev decided against a joint effort because he didn't trust Johnson and his Administration.

Link to the story in Space Daily:

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/russia-97h.html (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/russia-97h.html)

FWIW

Edit: JFK publicly proposed the joint project in his address to the United Nations on September 20, 1963.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on February 06, 2013, 02:28:25 PM
Man, there is an alternate history I wouldn't mind seen. :(
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ProfessorAlfB on February 06, 2013, 02:30:08 PM
What public evidence?  If it was so public it shouldn't be hard to find some to back that statement up.

Quote
You're seriously asking for evidence that the Apollo program was styled as a race to beat the Soviets to the Moon?  Are you blind?

That does not answer the question.

Quote
Do have any evidence to show it has been discredited?

Quote
Actually yes, but it's not really a going concern.  See also below.  The only people who still consider the Majestic documents authentic anymore are a very few of the wackier UFO authors.  Even many of the authors who once considered them authentic have now changed their minds.  Among the factual evidence suggesting forgery are the many errors in the Truman document.

However I should back up and concede that the Majestic reference is something of an inadvertent red herring.  There is a version of the Kennedy memo "No. 271" that circulates with the Majestic documents.  It bears some resemblance to the actual memo and contains some of the same language, but has been doctored to include references to UFOs and has some mysterious handwritten annotations.  It is also heavily redacted, which is a technique used by many UFO enthusiasts to suggest that the redacted portions support their claims.

Quote
Wrong, it does bear his signature!...See the second page of the memorandum here:
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/qVncp893wEmJFplIn1AlHA.aspx

Well no, that's not Kennedy's signature.  That's a memo to the file, which is why it has the "S/" annotation rather than a signature.  However the memo itself is an authentic document, and the version you link here is not part of the Majestic documents.  Therefore if that's the version of the memo to which you refer, then my reference to the Majestic documents was a misdirected rebuttal and I withdraw it.

Quote
But there may have been a degree of cooperation between the US and Soviets on space exploration soon after the date of the memorandum.

Quote
No "may have been" about it.  The Apollo-Soyuz program was a direct result of it, as was the exchange of lunar samples between the Soviet and American scientists.  "A degree of cooperation" does not substantiate your claim that the Soviets flew missions to the Moon in secret cooperation with NASA.  If you argue that a different "degree of cooperation" existed beyond that which the record shows, you bear the burden to prove it.

You misunderstood my reasoning...I never claimed that US-Soviet cooperation was to allow the Soviets to land on the Moon too, that would be very far fetched, but many Apollo believers find it impossible to believe that if NASA was pulling a fast one that the Soviets wouldn't immediately blow the whistle on them.
Ignoring the possiblity that their cooperation could suggest that the Soviets might have known full well that it was a hoax but that they were willing to go along with it.
The possibilty cannot simply be ruled out, tenuous evidence as it is.
But perhaps their some other far more important reason why they would stay silent?
Jarrah White seems to think the Russians depended on Wheat imports from the US to prevent the population from starving and if correct this would be a very good reason to go along with it.
A little research reveals that whilst the USSR did indeed import a great deal of Wheat from the US (400 Bushels or about 30% of the entire average annual US Wheat export total in 1971) this only occured from July-August 1972 onwards, too late to coincide with Apollo 11 in 1969 and only just a few months before the last Apollo mission, Apollo 17 in  December 1972.
Does this prove Jarrah is lying?  No, because this could have simply been a delayed payment for their long term silence, or it could indeed be because the Soviet population was literally starving.
However, what is more interesting is that the US Government also extended a credit of $750 million to the Soviets for "the purchase of grains over a three-year period", at the same time.
This could imply that that the Wheat imports were perhaps a cover story and that the real reason they kept silent was a purely financial one, or perhaps both might have been part of the same deal.
Whatever the truth of the matter, the Soviets did have at least two good motives for keeping quiet, even if it didn't coincide directly with the start of manned Apollo Moon Missions. 



Quote
This would have given the Soviets ample motive to try and hide the fact that the US may have been perpetrating a hoax

Quote
Nonsense.  The entire civilized world believed the U.S. had beaten the Soviets to the Moon and the Soviets graciously, but begrudgingly, acknowledged that.  You're telling me they put forth effort under a supposed secret agreement but got no public credit for it.

What they believed and what actually happened are not the same thing!

Quote
...It cannot be ruled out.

Quote
Shifting the burden of proof.  You have no credible evidence that the Soviets participated actively in Apollo operations.  You may not assert they did and then sit back lazily and expect everyone else to try to prove you wrong.

Yet those that believe in NASA's side of the story often do exacty that!

Quote
Yes it had, space has always been governed by the same rules as "international waters".

Quote
No, it had not.  It was so governed later as a result of those discussions, but there had been no prior agreement.

Actually there was!  It was called: "The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies", and it came into force in October 1967...It was a UN treaty that was signed by the US the UK and the USSR.  It is now referred to simply as "The Outer Space Treaty".  It proves that there was direct collaboration between the US and the USSR on space exploration before the Apollo missions.

Quote
Yes, and this disproves your earlier claim that there was no US Soviet cooperation on space exploration during the time of the Apollo missions!

Quote
Your claim is that the photo in question is not from Apollo-Soyuz but from an earlier Apollo mission, ostensibly one that went to the Moon.  Showing that an American astronaut was aboard a Soviet spacecraft at some point in history does not prove that American astronauts and Soviet cosmonauts collaborated on missions to the Moon.

Again I did not imply that Russians went to the Moon.

Quote
I don't have the book here so no, I can't.

Quote
I skimmed the book and found no such photograph or reference.  That doesn't mean it's not there, but it does mean I'm not going to expend any more effort to provide the evidence for your claims.  The onus is on you.

Quite right.

Quote
What evidence have to to prove "His blatant intellectual dishonesty"?

Quote
My entire web site, which has been up for more than 10 years and is very well known and commonly cited by others to third parties whenever Percy's claims are mentioned.  Do you really know anything about this debate?

Yes, but lets just say I haven't always been so middle of the road in my opinions regarding the validity of the Apollo story as told to us by NASA.  I try to keep an open mind so I can see it from both sides.

Quote
Perhaps he just doesn't want to talk to you because you may have insulted him at some point during or after your invitations?

Quote
Desperate speculation.

But your not denying it!

Quote
Yes, I know, but doesn't the author of the book in question claim the photo was taken on a earlier Apollo mission?

Quote
That's what he claims.  And since his claims regarding the Apollo record have proven so disastrously wrong and misrepresentative in the past, we cannot take his word for it.

Nobody can be right about everything, I will give him the benefit of the dought for now.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on February 06, 2013, 02:38:18 PM
You might want to edit that again so that your replies are outside the quote boxes, ProfessorAlfB
It will make your post a lot easier to read.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Andromeda on February 06, 2013, 02:42:07 PM
PLEASE learn to use the quotes properly.



Quote
Nonsense.  The entire civilized world believed the U.S. had beaten the Soviets to the Moon and the Soviets graciously, but begrudgingly, acknowledged that.  You're telling me they put forth effort under a supposed secret agreement but got no public credit for it.

What they believed and what actually happened are not the same thing!

No one said it was.  The point is the the USSR agreed.


Quote
Shifting the burden of proof.  You have no credible evidence that the Soviets participated actively in Apollo operations.  You may not assert they did and then sit back lazily and expect everyone else to try to prove you wrong.

Yet those that believe in NASA's side of the story often do exacty that![/quote]

Utter rubbish.  NASA's "side of the story" has produced an abundance of evidence.  No-one, anywhere, ever expects such a claim to be taken on faith with no credible evidence.  There is a huge amount of evidence supplied so don't sit there and make such patently false accusations.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on February 06, 2013, 02:42:18 PM
I can't find anything in Dark Moon that explicitly makes the Professor's claim.  But here's what I'm able to find.

The only photo I can find of an Apollo astronaut in a Soyuz spacecraft is on page 67, and it's labeled correctly.  That page discusses the Apollo-Soyuz project and does not attempt to connect it to lunar landing missions.  Instead Percy is trying to argue that the photo he reproduces should have been of higher quality because Hasselblad 70mm cameras had been sent aloft.  In other words, he cherry-picks a bad photo and tells the world it all should have been better.  But no reference to secret collaborations.

Not until page 343 does the Apollo-Soyuz mission recur again in any substantial detail.  Here is where Percy spins a wild tale.

First, earlier in the book and in his movie What Happened on the Moon? Percy shows us footage of swimming "down" the connecting tunnel from the CM to the docked LM.  Because he does not understand the geometry of the connecting tunnel and the LM, he believes the ascent engine cover is some sort of wall and that the astronaut has to turn at right angles (which, in a sense, he does) to enter the LM cabin.

Also by way of context, his eponymous theme is that Apollo 13 was designed as a fake mission and took place instead in Earth orbit.  The title of the book derives from his belief that Apollo 13's ad hoc post-accident timeline had them arriving at the Moon too soon, when their proposed landing site would have been in darkness.  He's unaware of the 20-hour "settling" time in lunar orbit, that didn't occur on the aborted Apollo 13.

So here Percy tries to argue that Apollo 13 shows a "special" tunnel unlike what he says was needed to connect to the command module.  He speculates that the "special" tunnel was for Apollo 13 The Fake Mission, in low Earth orbit, in case the LM with the actor-astronauts got into real trouble and had to bail out into -- get this! -- a Soviet Soyuz supposedly parked nearby to serve as just such a lifeboat.  Showing the "special" Soyuz tunnel (which was really just the ordinary tunnel, although Percy couldn't figure out how) was allegedly a slip-up.

In order to make this happen, Percy has to speculate that the Apollo-Soyuz docking adapter was actually developed many years previously, not for the 1975.  He gives no evidence that it was, only that in his mind it's plausible.  But then of course the A-S docking adapter bears no resemblance whatsoever to the CM/LM tunnel in Apollo lunar missions, but Percy is silent on that subject.  He doesn't even try to show they're the same thing, even though that's what he argued.  Further, the docking adapter had nothing to do with the lunar module and wouldn't have worked on it anyway.

He doesn't mention the memo specifically here, nor can I find any reference to it in Dark Moon.  But Percy says that "cooperation in space" had been discussed on an off throughout the space race.  That's true enough, but doesn't substantiate that ASTP per se occurred substantially sooner, nor that it had the sinister motives Percy ascribes to it.  We know cooperation was discussed and that it occurred.  To say that it occurred in some other form or at some other time than the documentary record witnesses is still an unsubstantiated claim.  Percy argues that the Soviets helped the U.S. fake their lunar landing missions, but provides only his typical speculation and innuendo as evidence for that.

In Kennedy's precise words on the subject, "an agreement to negotiate does not mean a negotiated agreement."  Initially the proposal was for mutual launch services, since each country's launch sites accessed different regions of space more easily; mutual tracking services, since each country faced deep space at different times of the day; and cooperation with the U.S. to establish international satellite communications.  Later those came to include the practical problems of manned space flight, such as repatriation of national flight crews and equipment, and "rules of the road" for space operations -- something you don't do and don't need if you cooperate, as those apply only to competitors pursuing independent programs.

The proposal for a joint manned lunar mission came from the Soviets, but was not seriously considered by the United States.  Kennedy gave it lip service, but the tenor at NASA was that under no circumstances would there be a joint mission to the Moon.  In fact, the prevailing paranoia was that "joint" missions would just be an excuse to get free access to NASA materials to help the Soviets solve problems they admitted were hampering their own lunar landing program.  In case there was any question about it, Congress' subsequent appropriation bills explicitly prohibited funding for a Moon landing mission involving any other country.

That's the behind-the-scenes story of the real collaboration between the U.S. and the Soviets, and why it had to wait until after Apollo lunar landing missions.  I'm at a loss as to why this is at all relevant to the entirely speculative claim that NASA faked the lunar landing missions with Soviet help.  The technology for one isn't directly applicable to the other and the timelines don't match up, so it's just meaningless allusion to give the impression of credibility without any reason for it.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ProfessorAlfB on February 06, 2013, 02:44:18 PM
You might want to edit that again so that your replies are outside the quote boxes, ProfessorAlfB
It will make your post a lot easier to read.

I already have been editing, but it takes time with such lengthy posts.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 06, 2013, 02:49:31 PM
Quote
Actually there was!  It was called: "The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies", and it came into force in October 1967...It was a UN treaty that was signed by the US the UK and the USSR.  It is now referred to simply as "The Outer Space Treaty".  It proves that there was direct collaboration between the US and the USSR on space exploration before the Apollo missions.

CBA to edit ProfAifB's quotes for him, so I'll just cite that bit.

The fact that there was a treaty on how to behave in outer space is no proof of co-operation on any space related activity during the Apollo missions.

In a nutshell, the treaty simply agrees that no-one owns space, it would be a bad thing to put weapons there, and people should generally be nice to each other.

If you have a specific reference that clearly states that there was co-operation during Apollo, please find it for us.

http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/tos/tos.html (http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/tos/tos.html)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Andromeda on February 06, 2013, 02:57:51 PM
You might want to edit that again so that your replies are outside the quote boxes, ProfessorAlfB
It will make your post a lot easier to read.

I already have been editing, but it takes time with such lengthy posts.

They are still incorrect...
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on February 06, 2013, 03:06:41 PM
Quote
Shifting the burden of proof.  You have no credible evidence that the Soviets participated actively in Apollo operations.  You may not assert they did and then sit back lazily and expect everyone else to try to prove you wrong.

Yet those that believe in NASA's side of the story often do exacty that!

This is utter nonsense. NASA's version of the story has never been 'we went to the Moon, now prove we didn't'. It is 'we went to the Moon,  and here is the evidence for it'. The evidence is there and freely available. If you wish to clain that they did not go to the Moon you have to challenge that evidence, and in that case a challenge of 'prove the evidence wrong' is appropriate.

What you are doing is making wild assertions and speculating without evidence, then challenging people to find the evidence your speculation is wrong. That is not appropriate.

Quote
Actually there was!  It was called: "The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies", and it came into force in October 1967...It was a UN treaty that was signed by the US the UK and the USSR.  It is now referred to simply as "The Outer Space Treaty".  It proves that there was direct collaboration between the US and the USSR on space exploration before the Apollo missions.

No, it proves there was agreement on how space may be used by anyone planning to send probes or people there, what may or may not be done in terms of claiming discoveries and terrtiory, and what was to be done with the results of the study of space in terms of distribution of the information. It does not in any way suggest any kind of collaboration on what those missions would be or how they would be accomplished.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on February 06, 2013, 03:16:00 PM
That does not answer the question.

That's correct, it does not.  It mocks the question, and with good reason.

Quote
You misunderstood my reasoning...I never claimed that US-Soviet cooperation was to allow the Soviets to land on the Moon too

You never supplied any reasoning or a conclusion.  You cited the Kennedy memo and the photo from Dark Moon as evidence that the Soviets were cooperating with the U.S. on the Apollo missions.  What you meant to say, but didn't, was that you believed the Soviets were helping the U.S. fake the Apollo missions.  You're citing irrelevant evidence for legitimate cooperation as if it somehow argued in favor of a hoax.

Quote
...many Apollo believers find it impossible to believe that if NASA was pulling a fast one that the Soviets wouldn't immediately blow the whistle on them.

True.  How does involving them in the hoax solve that problem?

Quote
Ignoring the possiblity that their cooperation could suggest that the Soviets might have known full well that it was a hoax but that they were willing to go along with it.

Why ignore it?  I don't see how you can avoid it.  The scenario proposed by David Percy not only requires the Soviets to know they are helping perpetrate a hoax, but requires them to have undertaken significant engineering and planning to accomplish it.

Quote
The possibilty cannot simply be ruled out, tenuous evidence as it is.

I can get coffeehouse smoke-blowing for free.  I'm not interested in what tenuous proposals you think merely can't be ruled out.  That's just idle speculation.  I'm interested in whether you think you have a viable alternative history or scenario for the Apollo missions that answers all the evidence and yet also proves it was hoaxed.

You haven't said whether you believe they were hoaxed, but if you force us to judge your arguments by the company you keep and the source you cite, I'd say you do believe in a hoax.  If so, say so and defend your claim.  Quit with this passive-aggressive, "I just want to keep an open mind" approach.

Quote
Jarrah White seems to think the Russians depended...

Jarrah White cribbed that argument from one of his mentors, and it has no more historical validity when he says it as it did when his mentors first proposed it.  Citing Jarrah White as any sort of expert or authority gets you nowhere fast with me.  Trying to patch up the obvious holes in the Wheat Theory with unsubstantiated speculation only makes things worse.

Quote
What they believed and what actually happened are not the same thing!

No, you evaded my question.  You say the Soviets had enough motive to collaborate secretly with the United States, at the height of the Cold War, to fool the world into thinking the U.S. had succeeded in a major world endeavor, humiliating the Soviets.  You say this while the two powers were fighting a war by proxy.  You've abandoned all semblance of an argument according to evidence and are engaged simply in second-guessing motives.  So answer my question about motives.

Quote
Yet those that believe in NASA's side of the story often do exacty that!

More evasion.  Satisfy your burden of proof or admit you cannot.

Quote
Actually there was!  It was called: "The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies", and it came into force in October 1967...

Long after both nations started manned space flight.  It wasn't "always" the case as you claim.

Quote
Again I did not imply that Russians went to the Moon.

Again, you said the Soviets collaborated on the Apollo project, which was ostensibly aimed at landing a man on the Moon.  You further cited a Kennedy document purporting exactly that sort of proposal.  If you want to change the goalposts, do so -- but don't imply they were never set.

Quote
Yes, but lets just say I haven't always been so middle of the road in my opinions regarding the validity of the Apollo story as told to us by NASA.

What does that have to do with my web site?  It's from my personal experience, research, and expertise.

Quote
I try to keep an open mind so I can see it from both sides.

I haven't seen any evidence that you do this.  You seem to be defending the hoax authors at all costs while ignoring much of what is being said to you by way of objection.  I don't see evidence that you're an uncommitted third party.

Quote
But your not denying it!

Am I speaking to a child?  You're making up fanciful reasons why Percy won't engage in open debate.  You've been called on your wishful thinking.  Deal with it.

Quote
Nobody can be right about everything...

This isn't about innocent error.  This is about deliberate misrepresentation and fabrication, for which Percy has had to issue retractions and apologies.  He's lying and he knows it; he's been caught lying, and he knows it.

Quote
I will give him the benefit of the dought for now.

We don't.  Any argument that requires us to take the word of hoax authors at face value, or for the sake of argument, is summarily rejected.  Put your faith in these charlatans if you must, but don't ask us to.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on February 06, 2013, 03:18:12 PM
Later those came to include the practical problems of manned space flight, such as repatriation of national flight crews and equipment, and "rules of the road" for space operations -- something you don't do and don't need if you cooperate, as those apply only to competitors pursuing independent programs.

Indeed. Suggesting that the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 is evidence of collaboration is akin to suggesting that when a competetive sporting event is played both teams are collaborating on the game rather than each trying to knock the other's collective socks off and claim the glory of victory, just because each side has agreed to play by the same set of rules.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on February 06, 2013, 03:20:57 PM
I already have been editing, but it takes time with such lengthy posts.

Then stop cluttering every single one of your posts with unrelated quotes.

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on February 06, 2013, 03:30:13 PM
lets just say I haven't always been so middle of the road in my opinions regarding the validity of the Apollo story as told to us by NASA.  I try to keep an open mind so I can see it from both sides.

There are no "both sides" about it...there is established historical FACT, and there are a few ignorant people who simple refuse to rationally accept that the landings happened.

...and "as told by NASA" is irrelevant...scientists all over the world know that Apollo happened, and that you would "give" Percy equal standing with actual scientists is about as "closed minded" as you can get.

So go ahead, and tell us all how "open minded" you are, but don't expect anyone here to believe such garbage.

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Andromeda on February 06, 2013, 03:32:44 PM
Don't be so open-minded your brains fall out...

Look, ProfessorAlfB, we KNOW you are a hoaxist.  Some cursory Googling shows that easily.  Please stop with the "I'm just asking questions" and present your "evidence".
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on February 06, 2013, 03:35:11 PM
Jarrah White seems to think...

I've heard that claim, before. But evidence indicates that JW doesn't think at all.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: twik on February 06, 2013, 04:23:01 PM
Quote
Actually there was!  It was called: "The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies", and it came into force in October 1967...It was a UN treaty that was signed by the US the UK and the USSR.  It is now referred to simply as "The Outer Space Treaty".  It proves that there was direct collaboration between the US and the USSR on space exploration before the Apollo missions.

CBA to edit ProfAifB's quotes for him, so I'll just cite that bit.

The fact that there was a treaty on how to behave in outer space is no proof of co-operation on any space related activity during the Apollo missions.

In a nutshell, the treaty simply agrees that no-one owns space, it would be a bad thing to put weapons there, and people should generally be nice to each other.

If you have a specific reference that clearly states that there was co-operation during Apollo, please find it for us.

http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/tos/tos.html (http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/tos/tos.html)

A treaty of this nature does not imply collaboration. Most commonly it means "We have decided to set out guidelines on what we can and cannot do, because without this understanding, we are likely to come to blows at some point."
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: twik on February 06, 2013, 04:27:11 PM
Just remember folks, just because a snooty British sounding guy in a suit says something, that doesn't make it true.
I blame David Attenborough for this. ;D

David Attenborough doesn't sound snooty. He has a very gentle ... soothing ... voi.... ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Mag40 on February 06, 2013, 04:32:44 PM
Look, ProfessorAlfB, we KNOW you are a hoaxist.  Some cursory Googling shows that easily.  Please stop with the "I'm just asking questions" and present your "evidence".

ATS....ProfessorAlfB: "No, the Apollo footage is already slowed down...You need to speed it up to about twice the speed to see how it would have actually looked. We also know that the Astronauts were suspended from overhead cables to simulate being 1/6th as heavy as on Earth, and there is certainly firm video evidence for this.
Therefore you can easily fake 1/6th gravity, right here on Earth!"

Do you care to defend this? Surely you aren't relying on David Percy again......he is a bit of a liar to say the least!


"Here is 100% proof that Hoax film makers manipulate the footage to give a false impression. A small cherry picked jump from a corrupt businessman trying to make his film sell."
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: twik on February 06, 2013, 05:15:19 PM
Great clip, mag40. Even at double speed, the astronaut is still "floating" while moving across the surface, and the gait is nothing near normal gravity movement.

BTW, ProfAlfB, is it your position that they sped up the film OR they used wired? Or both? Because both seems rather redundant.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on February 06, 2013, 05:26:33 PM
You might want to edit that again so that your replies are outside the quote boxes, ProfessorAlfB
It will make your post a lot easier to read.

I already have been editing, but it takes time with such lengthy posts.
If you really want anyone to read your posts, use the right formatting.  Take a few minutes to figure it out, it is not to hard.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 06, 2013, 05:39:34 PM
I've never understood people suggesting the astronauts are moving in slow motion. They clearly aren't.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on February 06, 2013, 05:44:49 PM
I've never understood people suggesting the astronauts are moving in slow motion. They clearly aren't.

That's basically because most HB's know that the ordinary reader has not actually studied the Apollo record. Those who have, instantly understand that this slow motion business is ridiculous, as evidenced by the continuous coverage (hours) of video from Apollo's 15, 16, and 17.

No, hoax believers are looking for the most uninformed person in the room, hoping to sway their opinion. Something that just doesn't "work" here.



Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Abaddon on February 06, 2013, 05:50:59 PM

http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/tos/tos.html (http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/tos/tos.html)
Flippant, I know, but what is an un-treaty? It's like the disastrous domain name choice of www.expertsexchange.com. Perfectly innocent, but poorly thought out. LOL
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on February 06, 2013, 05:51:58 PM
I realize I'm a broken record on this, but every time the hoaxies say, "They use wires" it bugs me.  Because they might as well be saying, "They used magic."

"Wire" is not this all-purpose tool that supports an actor in any position you want and makes every kind of motion you can dream up just happen.  If you are going to accept it as a generic term at all, it still has to refer to a suite of techniques, each of which has very different results and all of which have very distinct restrictions.

The "yanked to his feet" wire claim the hoaxies make about one moment (Young, is it?) is a particular sore point.  The only thing that comes close to the kind of situation where one person is holding on directly to a support cable (must be one STRONG person, I'd think!) is the wire PULL from the movies; when a bunch of burly stunt people yank on a single cable usually to throw a stuntperson horizontally as well as vertically -- to simulate getting blasted with a shotgun or blown up into the air by a mine or so forth.  And this is a single, ballistic act; the stuntman is not under wire control after his flight.  You can't just run down the catwalk and haul him up again from where he landed.

If you ignore the specifics of the hoaxie phrasing, it does sound more like theatrical flying, especially the school that uses a direct cable with no mechanical advantage (like VFX prefers).  A typical flight gag has the fly man standing on top of a short stepladder, holding on to a thick padded rope.  He takes up slack and softly drops off the ladder, a bit like the technique called in rock climbing the "dynamic belay."  Again, though, this is essentially a single motion.  There is a some control over the speed of descent (often done by running back up the ladder!) but it isn't a continuous effort by the muscles of one person to take the weight of another.  It is instead human counterweight and ballistic movements.

The closest analog to always-on, always-taking-the-weight is bungie flying. We've been doing that a lot at the house I work at now -- our usual flight choreographer also works with a group in San Francisco that does elaborate bungie dance shows often in outdoor spaces.  The trick for this is you take up slack, then lock in.  After that, the actor is in control of their motions; they can make short hops and flights (but they have to be careful to bend their knees on the down!)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ProfessorAlfB on February 06, 2013, 05:53:09 PM
I already have been editing, but it takes time with such lengthy posts.

Then stop cluttering every single one of your posts with unrelated quotes.

Quote
Anyone seen Life On Earth?

Just kidding!  ;D
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ProfessorAlfB on February 06, 2013, 05:54:43 PM
Look, ProfessorAlfB, we KNOW you are a hoaxist.  Some cursory Googling shows that easily.  Please stop with the "I'm just asking questions" and present your "evidence".

ATS....ProfessorAlfB: "No, the Apollo footage is already slowed down...You need to speed it up to about twice the speed to see how it would have actually looked. We also know that the Astronauts were suspended from overhead cables to simulate being 1/6th as heavy as on Earth, and there is certainly firm video evidence for this.
Therefore you can easily fake 1/6th gravity, right here on Earth!"

Do you care to defend this? Surely you aren't relying on David Percy again......he is a bit of a liar to say the least!


"Here is 100% proof that Hoax film makers manipulate the footage to give a false impression. A small cherry picked jump from a corrupt businessman trying to make his film sell."

Actually, according to Jarrah White the the Apollo footage has been slowed by 33%, NOT by 50%...He makes a compelling case:

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Abaddon on February 06, 2013, 05:56:58 PM
I already have been editing, but it takes time with such lengthy posts.

Then stop cluttering every single one of your posts with unrelated quotes.


Or alternatively, learn to use the quote function correctly. It's not hard. All of us gullible Apollo faithful manage it. Why can't you?

ETA: By "you" I meant prof Alf, not RAF.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Inanimate Carbon Rod on February 06, 2013, 05:58:37 PM
Actually, according to Jarrah White the the Apollo footage has been slowed by 33%, NOT by 50%...He makes a compelling case:


White doesn't know what he's talking about, and is a proven liar.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on February 06, 2013, 05:58:55 PM
"Wire" is not this all-purpose tool that supports an actor in any position you want and makes every kind of motion you can dream up just happen.  If you are going to accept it as a generic term at all, it still has to refer to a suite of techniques, each of which has very different results and all of which have very distinct restrictions.

Indeed, many years ago Foy helped us fly the actors on stage for Peter Pan, and there was a whole long laundry list of things we had to do to the set and stage to accommodate the limits of the "flying" technology in order to keep it believable.  One of those limitations is that natural movement of the actors before and after the fly consists of getting those wires on and off of them.  You have to block the actors prior to flight such that a hidden stage hand can attach the wire from behind.  Ditto after the flight; someone has to unhook them.  Otherwise the natural blocking for the rest of the activity renders the flight wires a tangled mess.

Several years after that my theater (linked in a separate thread) designed its own fly system and I participated.  It's limited in speed, travel, and and the extent of the stage over which it can be used.  I'm very proud of it.

Lately I've had the opportunity to look at Cirque du Soleil's standard flyrigs, which are engineered by their automation department and identical units used in many of their stage and traveling shows.  These are million-dollar state of the art for 2012, and still cannot do what Apollo video implies.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ProfessorAlfB on February 06, 2013, 06:00:30 PM
I realize I'm a broken record on this, but every time the hoaxies say, "They use wires" it bugs me.  Because they might as well be saying, "They used magic."

"Wire" is not this all-purpose tool that supports an actor in any position you want and makes every kind of motion you can dream up just happen.  If you are going to accept it as a generic term at all, it still has to refer to a suite of techniques, each of which has very different results and all of which have very distinct restrictions.

The "yanked to his feet" wire claim the hoaxies make about one moment (Young, is it?) is a particular sore point.  The only thing that comes close to the kind of situation where one person is holding on directly to a support cable (must be one STRONG person, I'd think!) is the wire PULL from the movies; when a bunch of burly stunt people yank on a single cable usually to throw a stuntperson horizontally as well as vertically -- to simulate getting blasted with a shotgun or blown up into the air by a mine or so forth.  And this is a single, ballistic act; the stuntman is not under wire control after his flight.  You can't just run down the catwalk and haul him up again from where he landed.

If you ignore the specifics of the hoaxie phrasing, it does sound more like theatrical flying, especially the school that uses a direct cable with no mechanical advantage (like VFX prefers).  A typical flight gag has the fly man standing on top of a short stepladder, holding on to a thick padded rope.  He takes up slack and softly drops off the ladder, a bit like the technique called in rock climbing the "dynamic belay."  Again, though, this is essentially a single motion.  There is a some control over the speed of descent (often done by running back up the ladder!) but it isn't a continuous effort by the muscles of one person to take the weight of another.  It is instead human counterweight and ballistic movements.

The closest analog to always-on, always-taking-the-weight is bungie flying. We've been doing that a lot at the house I work at now -- our usual flight choreographer also works with a group in San Francisco that does elaborate bungie dance shows often in outdoor spaces.  The trick for this is you take up slack, then lock in.  After that, the actor is in control of their motions; they can make short hops and flights (but they have to be careful to bend their knees on the down!)

At the risk of bugging you even more, watch this series of 9 videos and then see if the term "using a wire" makes more sense  ;):
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7A98D401BB7B21A4
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on February 06, 2013, 06:00:41 PM
I already have been editing, but it takes time with such lengthy posts.

Then stop cluttering every single one of your posts with unrelated quotes.

Quote
Anyone seen Life On Earth?

Just kidding!  ;D

Interestingly enough, I fail to find anything "funny" about hoax believers "kidding around".
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on February 06, 2013, 06:01:14 PM
Actually, according to Jarrah White...

No, a Jarrah White video is not evidence.  What convinces you that he knows what he's talking about?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on February 06, 2013, 06:02:40 PM
At the risk of bugging you even more, watch this series of 9 videos...

No.  If we wanted to watch YouTube videos we'd be at YouTube.  Explain in your own words.  We don't care about your expressions of belief in other people.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ProfessorAlfB on February 06, 2013, 06:07:40 PM
Actually, according to Jarrah White the the Apollo footage has been slowed by 33%, NOT by 50%...He makes a compelling case:


White doesn't know what he's talking about, and is a proven liar.

Simply dismissing him as a liar isn't helping your case...Unless you know what the "opposition" is saying you are not empowered to comment on what they are saying...Watch his vids with an open mind and you should be able to easily pick out the truth from the lies.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Abaddon on February 06, 2013, 06:08:15 PM
Look, ProfessorAlfB, we KNOW you are a hoaxist.  Some cursory Googling shows that easily.  Please stop with the "I'm just asking questions" and present your "evidence".

ATS....ProfessorAlfB: "No, the Apollo footage is already slowed down...You need to speed it up to about twice the speed to see how it would have actually looked. We also know that the Astronauts were suspended from overhead cables to simulate being 1/6th as heavy as on Earth, and there is certainly firm video evidence for this.
Therefore you can easily fake 1/6th gravity, right here on Earth!"

Do you care to defend this? Surely you aren't relying on David Percy again......he is a bit of a liar to say the least!


"Here is 100% proof that Hoax film makers manipulate the footage to give a false impression. A small cherry picked jump from a corrupt businessman trying to make his film sell."

Actually, according to Jarrah White the the Apollo footage has been slowed by 33%, NOT by 50%...He makes a compelling case:


Good old Jarrah got that totally faffed up. He couldn't pick between 50% faster, 33% slower, 33% faster or 50% slower. Indeed he came up with some rather unique maths which publicly proved rather embarrassing for him. The backpedaling was so furious, we could all here banjo music. In reverse.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on February 06, 2013, 06:08:45 PM
Actually, according to Jarrah White

You will get nowhere here using Jarrah White as a source. He knows nothing relevant and is even more intellectually dishonest than most HBs.

Quote
He makes a compelling case:

No, he doesn't. He does not know what he is talking about.

We do.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Inanimate Carbon Rod on February 06, 2013, 06:10:27 PM
Simply dismissing him as a liar isn't helping your case...

What case? White is a liar and has been shown as such by his fraudulent claims, dishonest editing of his videos, misrepresentation of the facts etc. Search around this forums and you will see such claims debunked by proven experts.

Quote
Unless you know what the "opposition" is saying you are not empowered to comment on what they are saying...Watch his vids with an open mind and you should be able to easily pick out the truth from the lies.

I have seen them, and am familiar enough with the Apollo program to know the claims made are not true or not accurate.

Since you admit that he lies, what method do you use to determine when he is telling the truth?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on February 06, 2013, 06:10:52 PM
Look, ProfessorAlfB, we KNOW you are a hoaxist.  Some cursory Googling shows that easily.  Please stop with the "I'm just asking questions" and present your "evidence".

ATS....ProfessorAlfB: "No, the Apollo footage is already slowed down...You need to speed it up to about twice the speed to see how it would have actually looked. We also know that the Astronauts were suspended from overhead cables to simulate being 1/6th as heavy as on Earth, and there is certainly firm video evidence for this.
Therefore you can easily fake 1/6th gravity, right here on Earth!"

Do you care to defend this? Surely you aren't relying on David Percy again......he is a bit of a liar to say the least!


"Here is 100% proof that Hoax film makers manipulate the footage to give a false impression. A small cherry picked jump from a corrupt businessman trying to make his film sell."

Actually, according to Jarrah White the the Apollo footage has been slowed by 33%, NOT by 50%...He makes a compelling case:


Good old Jarrah got that totally faffed up. He couldn't pick between 50% faster, 33% slower, 33% faster or 50% slower. Indeed he came up with some rather unique maths which publicly proved rather embarrassing for him. The backpedaling was so furious, we could all here banjo music. In reverse.

I thought it was Yakkity Sax.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ProfessorAlfB on February 06, 2013, 06:11:05 PM
At the risk of bugging you even more, watch this series of 9 videos...

No.  If we wanted to watch YouTube videos we'd be at YouTube.  Explain in your own words.  We don't care about your expressions of belief in other people.

I haven't said I believe him, but unless you know what his videos show, you cannot have an informed comment and you cannot argue against their content...It can pay to keep an open mind.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on February 06, 2013, 06:11:21 PM
Simply dismissing him as a liar isn't helping your case...Unless you know what the "opposition" is saying you are not empowered to comment on what they are saying...Watch his vids with an open mind and you should be able to easily pick out the truth from the lies.

Here's a novel idea: just maybe we have seen Jarrah before. Just maybe we DO know what he is saying without looking at those vids this time around. Just maybe we have had personal experience 'debating' him before. Jarrah IS a liar. He never EVER admits to making mistakes, even to the point of furiously complaining that considering January 1st the zeroth day of the year is a valid way of counting up just to explain why he got one of his claims one day out.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Abaddon on February 06, 2013, 06:11:37 PM
Actually, according to Jarrah White the the Apollo footage has been slowed by 33%, NOT by 50%...He makes a compelling case:


White doesn't know what he's talking about, and is a proven liar.

Simply dismissing him as a liar isn't helping your case...Unless you know what the "opposition" is saying you are not empowered to comment on what they are saying...Watch his vids with an open mind and you should be able to easily pick out the truth from the lies.
Hold on a second. He is not merely being dismissed as a liar, he has proven himself to be an actual liar. There's a difference.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Mag40 on February 06, 2013, 06:11:52 PM
Quote from: Mag40
ATS....ProfessorAlfB: "No, the Apollo footage is already slowed down...You need to speed it up to about twice the speed to see how it would have actually looked. We also know that the Astronauts were suspended from overhead cables to simulate being 1/6th as heavy as on Earth, and there is certainly firm video evidence for this.
Therefore you can easily fake 1/6th gravity, right here on Earth!"

Do you care to defend this? Surely you aren't relying on David Percy again......he is a bit of a liar to say the least!


"Here is 100% proof that Hoax film makers manipulate the footage to give a false impression. A small cherry picked jump from a corrupt businessman trying to make his film sell."

ATS....ProfessorAlfB:
Actually, according to Jarrah White the the Apollo footage has been slowed by 33%, NOT by 50%...He makes a compelling case:


What is it with HBs.....you completely sidestepped my post....in favour of some duff argument by the infamous Jarrah White! Now be a good fellow and respond properly.....as your case is untenable.

Jarrah White postulates that the speed is 66% of Earth....whilst isolating a 3 second clip to reinforce his claim....and you just contradicted your previous claim when it is shown to be rubbish.

Okay, let's try another piece of film. I came across this one....and it is something that single handedly buries your whole argument. Get ready to sidestep another post.

Here is a 10 minute segment from Apollo 15....where they dig a small trench in the lunar regolith -


Here is the same segment adjusted by 2.45 times to show the regolith falling with 9.8m s²
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on February 06, 2013, 06:12:48 PM
I haven't said I believe him, but unless you know what his videos show, you cannot have an informed comment and you cannot argue against their content...It can pay to keep an open mind.

Cut the crap. If you want to make points about Jarrah's videos make them here. I will not sit through his junk unless I have a specific point to be looking at that you want to discuss.

And what makes you think we don't already know what his videos say? Just because we haven't followed your links doesn't mean we haven't seen them before. You're not exactly original in your suggestion we take note of him.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on February 06, 2013, 06:13:18 PM
... watch this series of 9 videos and then see if the term "using a wire" makes more sense  ;):

Nope...just more ignorant Jarrah "speak"....not worth watching.

If this "Jarrah crap" is the only evidence you have to present, then you should quit right now. No one here gives a damn what he has to say, and I certainly won't waste my time watching any more of his videos.

He's quite simply an ignorant kid with too much time and money on his hands. He could actually "do" something with that...something worthwhile, but for whatever reason, he has chosen to be an ignorant hoax believer.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on February 06, 2013, 06:15:02 PM
Actually, according to Jarrah White the the Apollo footage has been slowed by 33%, NOT by 50%...He makes a compelling case:

Do you ever intend to speak for yourself?  Or is your plan to repeat something provocative then back away from it?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on February 06, 2013, 06:15:31 PM
... unless you know what his videos show...

Unless it is substantually different than his previous "works", he deserves to be ignored.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Abaddon on February 06, 2013, 06:16:43 PM
At the risk of bugging you even more, watch this series of 9 videos...

No.  If we wanted to watch YouTube videos we'd be at YouTube.  Explain in your own words.  We don't care about your expressions of belief in other people.

I haven't said I believe him, but unless you know what his videos show, you cannot have an informed comment and you cannot argue against their content...It can pay to keep an open mind.
Don't you think we would find it just a little tiresome to watch that dreck all over again just to satisfy your ego? I have seen them. They are utter crap. I would not wish to inflict them on an amoeba. I do not want to watch that crap again no matter how big your ego is. Is that plain enough?

Do you really think JW videos are new to us?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on February 06, 2013, 06:16:55 PM
Actually, according to Jarrah White the the Apollo footage has been slowed by 33%, NOT by 50%...He makes a compelling case:


White doesn't know what he's talking about, and is a proven liar.

Simply dismissing him as a liar isn't helping your case...Unless you know what the "opposition" is saying you are not empowered to comment on what they are saying...Watch his vids with an open mind and you should be able to easily pick out the truth from the lies.

Haven't gotten to Composition 101 yet, I take it?

There is nothing wrong with summarizing an argument.  In fact, it is necessary.  The statements make about Jarrah may not have been presented each and every time with complete background detail and supporting arguments, but they are made within a framework where that detail and those arguments is being presented, over and over again.

The rest of your post is nonsense.  How exactly are you going to sort the truth from a known liar simply by viewing his output?  Because you have the psychic power to know when someone is lying?

Or perhaps you find that some parts of what he says must be true because they are independently verified?  Then why not use that other, more trustworthy source in the first place?  What's the point of Jarah?

The best you can say is that parts of his argument aren't obvious lies -- at least to you. 
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ProfessorAlfB on February 06, 2013, 06:18:16 PM
Actually, according to Jarrah White the the Apollo footage has been slowed by 33%, NOT by 50%...He makes a compelling case:


White doesn't know what he's talking about, and is a proven liar.

Simply dismissing him as a liar isn't helping your case...Unless you know what the "opposition" is saying you are not empowered to comment on what they are saying...Watch his vids with an open mind and you should be able to easily pick out the truth from the lies.

So you admit that he lies? How do determine when he is telling the truth?

No, I'm not admitting he lies.  You have already stated that that you think he a liar, so as you seem to know how to tell the difference between lies and truth, it should be easy for you to seperate one from the other when watching his videos.
Surely your not afraid to watch them in case you realise he might be actually be talking more truth than you can handle?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on February 06, 2013, 06:18:30 PM
....and enough of you being "open minded" garbage. You've shown us all your bias, so that "argument" is summarily rejected.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on February 06, 2013, 06:19:40 PM
That's basically because most HB's know that the ordinary reader has not actually studied the Apollo record.

That's certainly true of Percy, who takes blatant liberties with the record.  And also of Bart Sibrel, but we aren't talking about him at this point.  This is how they take a doctored frame here and there, or a 2-second clip from a 30-minute continuous telecast, and try to convince you that's all anyone ever saw of Apollo visual information.  I can remember watching live Apollo video practically nonstop.  And contrary to Percy's claims, the uncut video has been available ever since the missions were flown.

Percy claimed to have a fairly encyclopedic knowledge of the Apollo record and claimed to have studied the original material in the form of contact transparencies and high-quality professional film or video dupes.  In his video he makes a big show of having one of his guests unroll a contact dupe master.  And in another scene he holds a large U-Matic cassette, implying that it's a high-quality Apollo video dupe.  But then as we studied his work for a couple of years, we realized that he had merely downloaded much of it from early NASA web sites or other convenience sources.  He was using badly digitized copies of photographs and trying to attribute errors in the duplication to original NASA errors.  And we discovered him making false assumptions that would not have arisen had he actually seen the original or early-generation source material.  The most egregious of this was the alleged off-center center fiducial in the -5903 image, which Percy had downloaded in cropped from from some web site.

There were the obvious errors of attribution too.  We already discussed the "original" Apollo 12 landing footage that Percy insisted had come from NASA.  He tap danced for a number of months over that.  But in the end he could not explain why the Apollo 12 landing footage that actually came from NASA bore no resemblance to what he depicted.  Finally he had to admit he'd cribbed it from a documentary, and that he knew all along that had been the source of it.  He tried to rehabilitate his authority by saying he had no reason to suspect his third-party source had misled him, but it pretty much put a huge nail in his coffin as a serious Apollo "researcher."  If you can't be bothered to authenticate your material, and the authentic material has been staring everyone in the face for decades, you really can't pass yourself off as a serious scholar.

Quote
No, hoax believers are looking for the most uninformed person in the room, hoping to sway their opinion.

Indeed, by presenting them with the illusion of knowledge in connection with the neurological payoff of being let in on a secret.  Hoax believers generally just express blind faith in hoax authors (e.g., "Nobody gets everything right, I'll just give him the benefit of the doubt") and expect that their critics or converses do likewise.  In their minds they acknowledge that they're just taking a hoax author on faith, and project that their critics are just taking someone else on faith.  They don't immediately realize that their critics have expertise of their own and dispute the hoax claims on a rational basis, not a faith basis.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on February 06, 2013, 06:20:06 PM
Surely your not afraid to watch them in case you realise he might be actually be talking more truth than you can handle?

Oh give it up. How many times do you need telling we have SEEN Jarrah's stuff before? I will not go wading through it again just to pull out some trivial point to prove it to you.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on February 06, 2013, 06:22:33 PM
No, I'm not admitting he lies.

Then you only confirm your bias for everyone to see...still claim to be "open minded"?

 
Quote
You have already stated that that you think he a liar, so as you seem to know how to tell the difference between lies and truth, it should be easy for you to seperate one from the other when watching his videos.

We already have...when Jarrah moves his lips, he is lying. I certainly need no further "torture", ie. watching move of his videos to know what a liar he is.


Quote
Surely your not afraid to watch them in case you realise he might be actually be talking more truth than you can handle?

Yeah....right...we're all "afraid" that Jarrah is right...

It would give me great pleasure to "handle" Jarrah, Buzz style...but I'm afraid I'd have to wait in line. :D

Why is it that HB's assume that everyone else is as ignorant as they are?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Inanimate Carbon Rod on February 06, 2013, 06:23:20 PM
Surely your not afraid to watch them in case you realise he might be actually be talking more truth than you can handle?

I don't want to watch them again, because it's tiresome and disingenuous crap. There is already a 100% factual source (with much better presentation) as to what happened in the Apollo program. Can you guess who they might be?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on February 06, 2013, 06:23:32 PM
Surely your not afraid to watch them in case you realise he might be actually be talking more truth than you can handle?
I guess that answers my question.  Your approach is to ask others to jump through your hoops to discredit soem YouTube videos.  Do you actually have something to say?  Do you have a theory for how the missions were faked?  I'll bet not!
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on February 06, 2013, 06:24:21 PM
At the risk of bugging you even more, watch this series of 9 videos...

No.  If we wanted to watch YouTube videos we'd be at YouTube.  Explain in your own words.  We don't care about your expressions of belief in other people.

I haven't said I believe him, but unless you know what his videos show, you cannot have an informed comment and you cannot argue against their content...It can pay to keep an open mind.

Who claims we didn't?

I've seen Jarah videos.  I've spent time examining them.  I've read long posts by him, also; I've seen him given a chance to develop his arguments at length.

He has shown himself repeatedly to be willing to lie.  This doesn't mean every statement from him must be a lie; even the stopped clock is right twice.  It mostly means that there is a recognized diminished point of returns; every new statement he makes has the most chance of turning out to be similar to a mistake, omission, or obfuscation he has made in the past, and very little chance of being something actually worthwhile.


And a subtler point.

Jarah is not here.  He is not here to explain his reasoning. 

YOU are here.  This is a discussion board.  A science-oriented discussion board.  The only useful thing you have to bring to the table is your own thoughts...not hearsay on what you believe Jarah was up to, or some indirect, "why don't all of you go over there and have some other discussion with someone else?"
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on February 06, 2013, 06:24:47 PM
I haven't said I believe him...

But you clearly do.

Quote
...but unless you know what his videos show, you cannot have an informed comment and you cannot argue against their content...It can pay to keep an open mind.

Who says I don't know what his videos show?  I'm not going to debate them with you, here.  If you have no original thought, and must simply regurgitate what others have told you, then why do you deserve attention for your ability to copypaste a link?  Jarrah White had the opportunity to debate me in person, tried for a while, then retreated in shame to his little walled garden at YouTube.  He was invited to present his findings to qualified professionals, and didn't even acknowlege the request.  I debated David Percy until he similarly retreated.

If your sources won't submit to civil debate, why do you think I'm going to pay attention to you when you cite them.  You're an irrelevant third party.  An you don't have an open mind.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Mag40 on February 06, 2013, 06:29:51 PM
At the risk of bugging you even more, watch this series of 9 videos and then see if the term "using a wire" makes more sense  ;):
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7A98D401BB7B21A4

It is a selection of ad-hominem attacks on his opponents....and very much concentrating on John Young's Navy Salute jump. One of the really mad claims.....regarding how high he jumps as being insufficient....whilst being on wires. Go figure that one out. When you are done with the other videos taking apart your claim....I can put up at least half a dozen more...equally dismissive of your claims.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Abaddon on February 06, 2013, 06:32:39 PM
No, I'm not admitting he lies. 
You don't have to admit he lies. Regardless of your opinion, he is a proven liar. It matters not a whit what you think.

You have already stated that that you think he a liar, so as you seem to know how to tell the difference between lies and truth, it should be easy for you to seperate one from the other when watching his videos.
It is. And?
Surely your not afraid to watch them in case you realise he might be actually be talking more truth than you can handle?
Again, I have watched them. Lies, Damned lies and a complete lack of understanding of statistics. I could watch them yet again, but you would have to pay me.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Inanimate Carbon Rod on February 06, 2013, 06:33:34 PM
Can anyone smell something?

(http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/images/4/2011/07/smellysocksgrey.jpg)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on February 06, 2013, 06:34:16 PM
Ya know...if Jarrah is so sure he is correct, then why can't he come here and debate it?

Sounds like he's the one that's "afraid" of rational discussion on a level "playing field".
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Inanimate Carbon Rod on February 06, 2013, 06:35:58 PM
Ya know...if Jarrah is so sure he is correct, then why can't he come here and debate it?

Sounds like he's the one that's "afraid" of rational discussion on a level "playing field".

I'd pay to see that. I really would.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on February 06, 2013, 06:36:18 PM
Surely your not afraid to watch them in case you realise he might be actually be talking more truth than you can handle?

Oh, please.  Jarrah White has repeatedly demonstrated he can't handle himself in a debate that he can't control.  Plus he demonstrates an almost sick fixation on certain of his critics.  He is not "feared" because he's just that "good."  He's ignored because he's just that much of a crackpot.

You don't get to simply regurgitate his nonsense here because it's a fundamentally dishonest way to try to prove a point.  You won't take a stand on whether he's trustworthy, whether he's an expert, or whether you believe in him.  That's so you can disavow any obligation to defend him or his claims.  Yet you seem to think we're on the hook to refute him simply because you lazily copypaste a link to his tired, long-debunked videos.  If you won't take the obligation to advocate for him, you don't get to impose an obligation on others to refute him simply because you mention him.

If you think he dishes out "more truth than [we] can handle," then man up and defend him at your expense.  Your passive-aggressive nonsense doesn't hold water around here.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Abaddon on February 06, 2013, 06:36:37 PM
Why is it that HB's assume that everyone else is as ignorant as they are?
Because that's the only way they can justify their own ignorance.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ProfessorAlfB on February 06, 2013, 06:37:17 PM
Quote from: Mag40
ATS....ProfessorAlfB: "No, the Apollo footage is already slowed down...You need to speed it up to about twice the speed to see how it would have actually looked. We also know that the Astronauts were suspended from overhead cables to simulate being 1/6th as heavy as on Earth, and there is certainly firm video evidence for this.
Therefore you can easily fake 1/6th gravity, right here on Earth!"

Do you care to defend this? Surely you aren't relying on David Percy again......he is a bit of a liar to say the least!


"Here is 100% proof that Hoax film makers manipulate the footage to give a false impression. A small cherry picked jump from a corrupt businessman trying to make his film sell."

ATS....ProfessorAlfB:
Actually, according to Jarrah White the the Apollo footage has been slowed by 33%, NOT by 50%...He makes a compelling case:


What is it with HBs.....you completely sidestepped my post....in favour of some duff argument by the infamous Jarrah White! Now be a good fellow and respond properly.....as your case is untenable.

Jarrah White postulates that the speed is 66% of Earth....whilst isolating a 3 second clip to reinforce his claim....and you just contradicted your previous claim when it is shown to be rubbish.

Did you even watch his video?...Because that is not what it states!  He clearly states the original Apollo footage was slowed down by 33%, which is 66% of its ORIGINAL SPEED.

Quote
Okay, let's try another piece of film. I came across this one....and it is something that single handedly buries your whole argument. Get ready to sidestep another post.

Here is a 10 minute segment from Apollo 15....where they dig a small trench in the lunar regolith -


Here is the same segment adjusted by 2.45 times to show the regolith falling with 9.8m s²


2.45x???  That is way faster than Jarrah shows in his video and therefore its obviously based on fraudulent information.  It is clearly a pathetically clumsy attempt to try and prove that Hoax believers are all mistaken fools, yet you post a link to it here as though it were factual?  And you have the cheek to call Jarrah a liar!
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on February 06, 2013, 06:39:06 PM
Can anyone smell something?

(http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/images/4/2011/07/smellysocksgrey.jpg)

My Wife has started calling them sock puppies....I don't know why. :)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Chew on February 06, 2013, 06:40:36 PM
2.45x???  That is way faster than Jarrah shows in his video and therefore its obviously based on fraudulent information.

That is the proper ratio for mimicking Moon gravity on Earth. It is the square root of the ratios of the surface gravity of two bodies.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Inanimate Carbon Rod on February 06, 2013, 06:41:51 PM
And you have the cheek to call Jarrah a liar!

He is and it's easily provable.

Also, please learn how to use the quotation marks.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Abaddon on February 06, 2013, 06:42:22 PM
Quote from: Mag40
ATS....ProfessorAlfB: "No, the Apollo footage is already slowed down...You need to speed it up to about twice the speed to see how it would have actually looked. We also know that the Astronauts were suspended from overhead cables to simulate being 1/6th as heavy as on Earth, and there is certainly firm video evidence for this.
Therefore you can easily fake 1/6th gravity, right here on Earth!"

Do you care to defend this? Surely you aren't relying on David Percy again......he is a bit of a liar to say the least!


"Here is 100% proof that Hoax film makers manipulate the footage to give a false impression. A small cherry picked jump from a corrupt businessman trying to make his film sell."

ATS....ProfessorAlfB:
Actually, according to Jarrah White the the Apollo footage has been slowed by 33%, NOT by 50%...He makes a compelling case:


What is it with HBs.....you completely sidestepped my post....in favour of some duff argument by the infamous Jarrah White! Now be a good fellow and respond properly.....as your case is untenable.

Jarrah White postulates that the speed is 66% of Earth....whilst isolating a 3 second clip to reinforce his claim....and you just contradicted your previous claim when it is shown to be rubbish.

Did you even watch his video?...Because that is not what it states!  He clearly states the original Apollo footage was slowed down by 33%, which is 66% of its ORIGINAL SPEED.

Quote
Okay, let's try another piece of film. I came across this one....and it is something that single handedly buries your whole argument. Get ready to sidestep another post.

Here is a 10 minute segment from Apollo 15....where they dig a small trench in the lunar regolith -


Here is the same segment adjusted by 2.45 times to show the regolith falling with 9.8m s²


2.45x???  That is way faster than Jarrah shows in his video and therefore its obviously based on fraudulent information.  It is clearly a pathetically clumsy attempt to try and prove that Hoax believers are all mistaken fools, yet you post a link to it here as though it were factual?  And you have the cheek to call Jarrah a liar!
Are you seriously claiming that while use of the quote function is beyond your grasp, you simultaneously can grasp the science of Apollo? Really?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Jason Thompson on February 06, 2013, 06:42:47 PM
2.45x???  That is way faster than Jarrah shows in his video and therefore its obviously based on fraudulent information.

No, that's how much you have to speed the video up to make the stuff appear to fall at the correct rate for something filmed on Earth. What Jarrah says is beside the point.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on February 06, 2013, 06:43:43 PM
Jarrah White postulates...

Ok, here's the thing....no one here cares a damn about Jarrah, and what he has to say. If he would like to come here and discuss this, that would be fine....but otherwise, no more Jarrah garbage, ok?

If you have something original that YOU want to say, then say it.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Chew on February 06, 2013, 06:44:13 PM
Copy and paste this where you want to break up a quote:

[/quote]




[quote]
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Abaddon on February 06, 2013, 06:46:52 PM
Jarrah White postulates...

Ok, here's the thing....no one here cares a damn about Jarrah, and what he has to say. If he would like to come here and discuss this, that would be fine....but otherwise, no more Jarrah garbage, ok?

If you have something original that YOU want to say, then say it.
Seconded.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Mag40 on February 06, 2013, 06:48:38 PM
2.45x???  That is way faster than Jarrah shows in his video and therefore its obviously based on fraudulent information.  It is clearly a pathetically clumsy attempt to try and prove that Hoax believers are all mistaken fools, yet you post a link to it here as though it were factual?  And you have the cheek to call Jarrah a liar!

Learn how to use the quote function...your replies are jumbled!

I seem to have confused you with physics. The second of those videos.... shows the lunar regolith falling with correct gravity for Earth. This is produced by a direct correlation between the two gravity freefall speeds equating to the  √(9.8/1.62). That is 2.45. It doesn't matter what the silly Jarrah White claims....it is untenable and hopelessly wrong....whether you have the mind power to understand the example or not.

You sidestepped the first video again.....showing both your ATS claim, and the very fraudulent David Percy being wrong and deliberately so.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Zakalwe on February 06, 2013, 06:49:07 PM
When are we going to return to the LM can't make rendezvous without a super-accurate position? Or, indeed, Bormans poop???
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on February 06, 2013, 06:49:57 PM
It is a selection of ad-hominem attacks on his opponents...

...which is typical of him.  While I'm aware of the content of his videos, I generally ignore them as I would any other childish drivel.  He has attempted since 2004 to engage me, and until recently (where he seems to have moved on to other interests) was almost fanatical in his attempts to get my attention.

He contacted me by email a few years ago demanding answers to some questions he had come up with.  I told him I would not debate him in private, since that would give him an opportunity to misrepresent what might have been said in private.  I told him I would debate him only in public, only in a moderated forum.  His vulgar meltdown at Yahoo! in 2004 is still available to be seen, and led to his banning from there -- this is why I insisted on third-party moderation:  Jarrah must be babysat in order to keep his debates civil.

Several weeks passed.  One day he showed up unannounced at the IMDb forum for Bart Sibrel's film and asked if I considered that an appropriate forum.  I agreed, and a debate lasting several weeks ensued.  It is still available for anyone to read.  He became stumped on the subject of space radiation, and couldn't answer any of my questions.  I tend to ask questions that cannot be answered simply by Googling for relevant facts; the answers require a deep understanding of the relevant fields, which Jarrah could not display.  One day he wrote a post liberally peppered with the verbal abuse for which he had become so justly infamous.  I saw it.  I did not report it, but evidently someone did because it was removed a short time later.  Jarrah knows exactly why it was removed, because later that day he posted the same post with the offending abuse removed.

This didn't stop him, however, from abandoning the debate and claiming dishonestly that the moderators were censoring him.  He used that lie as an excuse not to have to continue the debate.  It's too bad that many other readers of the debate saw his vulgar, abusive post and perhaps maybe even saved it.  (I didn't have the foresight to do so.)  But that is how Jarrah approaches the process.  He uses one excuse after another not to be accountable to his critics, while at the same time submitting them to the most vile commentary.  Many of his videos make no hoax-related point; they're just "Get Jay at all costs" rants.

I have no use for him.  He debates like a child and he is largely under my radar.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on February 06, 2013, 06:53:10 PM
Jarrah White postulates...

Do you have any claims that are not simply regurgitating someone else in whom you've put faith?

Unless you're willing to stand in his place here and present his findings as if they were your own and defend them as if your own credibility is at stake, then I have no interest in your expressions of belief in others.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Mag40 on February 06, 2013, 06:54:38 PM
Quote from: Mag40
Jarrah White postulates that the speed is 66% of Earth....whilst isolating a 3 second clip to reinforce his claim....and you just contradicted your previous claim when it is shown to be rubbish.

Quote from: ProfessorAlfB
Did you even watch his video?...Because that is not what it states!  He clearly states the original Apollo footage was slowed down by 33%, which is 66% of its ORIGINAL SPEED.

Yes....I watched his video. Exactly what I said...he postulates that the Apollo footage is 66% of Earth. Your head scratching responses hardly help your credibility. Is this a sock identity hiding exercise ;D
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: smartcooky on February 06, 2013, 07:01:19 PM
We're up to nearly 20 posts. I reckon we're due for a wee bout of "flouncy flouncy" any time now.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Inanimate Carbon Rod on February 06, 2013, 07:04:19 PM
We're up to nearly 20 posts. I reckon we're due for a wee bout of "flouncy flouncy" any time now.

The Professor (ha!) stopped showing up on the Who's Online page about 10 minutes ago. Stealth flounce anyone?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: smartcooky on February 06, 2013, 07:45:10 PM
We're up to nearly 20 posts. I reckon we're due for a wee bout of "flouncy flouncy" any time now.

The Professor (ha!) stopped showing up on the Who's Online page about 10 minutes ago. Stealth flounce anyone?

Well, I reckon we have been quite privileged here for the last few days.

First we had an engineer who was probably a truck driver, who wasn't really an engineer

Now we have a Professor who is probably a truck driver, who..........




Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on February 06, 2013, 08:40:07 PM
Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. ;D
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gillianren on February 06, 2013, 11:08:41 PM
Let me be perfectly honest.  I haven't ever seen a Jarrah White video.  Nor do I intend to.

Why not?  Well, first of all, I hardly ever visit YouTube for any reason.  I spend my days watching full-length movies, not hanging about watching shorts.  That's a personal thing, but I don't think it's unreasonable.

Second, I think videos are a bad way of having a scientific discussion.  In fact, I think they're a worse way of presenting information than in writing.  This is not to say that I don't watch documentaries.  I think there are some very good ones.  However, i think what the most powerful documentaries do best is influence your emotions, not stir your intellect.  Yes, all right.  Some of Jarrah's points would benefit from brief video clips, if he were right--the notorious "wires" garbage, for example.  However, if you want to have an actual conversation, YouTube is the worst place to have it.  If Jarrah really felt capable of convincing us, he would do it here or on a similar forum--in text.  His videos don't impress me as an intellectual exercise.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ka9q on February 06, 2013, 11:57:40 PM
Yes, Youtube has a lot of garbage. But don't toss out the baby with the bathwater; there are some real gems if you look long enough.

There are several excellent science-oriented channels, particularly those by Brady Haran at the University of Nottingham in the UK. He has periodicvideos on chemistry, sixtysymbols on physics and astronomy, numberphile on mathematics, and several others. Each clip is anywhere from 5 to 10 minutes long and includes an interview or lab visit with one or a few members of the faculty on some particular topic of interest. They're really quite good.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ka9q on February 07, 2013, 12:14:52 AM
For the record, here's why 246% is the correct ratio for speeding up video shot on the moon to make free-falling objects appear as if they were on earth.

The acceleration of earth gravity is about 9.81 m/s2. For the moon, it's about 1.62 m/s2; the ratio is very close to 6:1. If you drop an object from height s in a gravity field with acceleration a the time until it hits the ground is

t = sqrt(2s/a)

So if you drop something from a height of 1m on the moon, it will hit the ground in

t = sqrt(2/1.62) = 1.11 s.

If you drop something from 1m on the earth, it will hit the ground in

t = sqrt(2/9.8) = 0.452 s

The ratio of these two times is 2.46:1, or 246%. The reciprocal is 0.41:1 or 41%. This is the only ratio that properly depicts lunar free-fall in a video or film actually shot in earth gravity. Problem is, this changes the speed of every movement, including limb movements not affected by gravity. Those movements would have to be conducted at 246% of normal speed to appear correctly when slowed down to simulate lunar free fall. Good luck finding normal-looking actors who can move like that for hours at a time.
 
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Chew on February 07, 2013, 12:18:24 AM
My new favorite YouTube channel is The Brain Scoop. (http://www.youtube.com/user/thebrainscoop/videos?view=0)

Other great ones are:
Veritasium (http://www.youtube.com/user/1veritasium/videos?view=0)
C. G. P. Grey (http://www.youtube.com/user/CGPGrey/videos?view=0)
MinutePhysics (http://www.youtube.com/user/minutephysics/videos?view=0)
Vi Hart (http://www.youtube.com/user/Vihart/videos?view=0)

As long as we're jacking the thread I would like to recommend the Caustic Soda podcast. (http://www.causticsodapodcast.com/episode-list/) I recommend starting at episode 1 and working your way through in order. Skip around to ones you think might look more interesting but even the ones you think will not be interesting are interesting. Seriously. They're that good. Fraser Cain was on the Near Earth Objects episode.

numberphile on mathematics, and several others.

The ebay result video was incredible!
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on February 07, 2013, 12:29:11 AM
Though it is drawing to a close and has basically changed focus recently, NurdRage (http://www.youtube.com/user/NurdRage)'s videos on chemistry are really fascinating.
VintageCG  (https://www.youtube.com/user/VintageCG/)has some really fascinating videos showing early CGI, as well as videos from the time of the experiments on various work in human computer interaction. Some really neat stuff if that is soemthign that interests you. And, of course, all the fellow Apollo Nutters channels.
Sure, most of it's preaching to the choir, but you never know when you might learn something.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Chew on February 07, 2013, 12:39:01 AM
As for astronauts on a wire the TV show Fact or Faked Paranormal Files tried it. They said their attempt looked so similar. Yeah, sure. If you ignore his legs kicking out, him going up and forward and then down and back, and not rotating about his center of mass.

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Noldi400 on February 07, 2013, 01:47:58 AM
As for astronauts on a wire the TV show Fact or Faked Paranormal Files tried it. They said their attempt looked so similar. Yeah, sure. If you ignore his legs kicking out, him going up and forward and then down and back, and not rotating about his center of mass.



The "clip mining" all the HBs seem to love to do always seems to me to be very similar to their "quotemining" habits.

They all seem to refuse to take into consideration that commercial films - from Destination Moon to 2001 to Apollo 13 achieve the illusion of low or zero gravity by the skillful use of angles and careful editing. Anyone who has been even peripherally involved with film making knows that it's not unusual to take an entire day to shoot a five-minute sequence.

But the Apollo videos, especially 15-17, were literally hours and hours of continuous shots. Even if a few seconds of action can be simulated - as in the Paranormal Files video - I think any Special Effects person would quickly agree that the continuous action moving over the distances they traveled is flatly impossible to achieve with FX.



Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on February 07, 2013, 02:01:28 AM
Even now, the only way to do it would be practically all CGI from start to finish, something absolutely definitely not possible back then, and even now I would not trust it for photographs, just video.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Glom on February 07, 2013, 02:50:08 AM
As you all know, I'm normally the last one to scream troll, but I'm screaming it here. The chronic messing up of quote tags is an obvious attempt to annoy.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ka9q on February 07, 2013, 04:52:05 AM
Even now, the only way to do it would be practically all CGI from start to finish, something absolutely definitely not possible back then, and even now I would not trust it for photographs, just video
Yeah. Even the simplest properties of the lunar landscape are still impossible to convincingly fake today. The lighting alone is a show-stopper (literally). Given the large, scenic areas roamed by the J-mission astronauts, you'd have no choice but to do it outdoors. Do it in the day, and you have to make the sky black. Even if you could key it out without any artifacts, its scattered light would give the trick away. At night, you'd have to artificially light a huge area just as the sun does: with a single source at infinite distance casting single shadows with just the right amount of fuzziness for the sun's 1/2 degree diameter, uniformly illuminating tens of square km, and steadily moving across the sky at 1/2 deg per hour so all the shadows behave properly.

And that's just the lighting.
 
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Tedward on February 07, 2013, 05:32:26 AM
If it was to have been attempted, the only way would have been from start to finish. This raises many issues and I am sure that Area [edited out by secret shills...] is subject to the issues the rest of the planet has with night time only being a certain number of hours with the obvious regularity of sunsets and sunrise. That pushes it indoors and with all the other attendant requirements, a vacuum set.

And so on.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ka9q on February 07, 2013, 07:44:36 AM
Good point. If you're slowing everything down to 41% to simulate 1/6 g free fall, you'd also slow the sun's apparent speed from 15 deg/hr to 6.1 deg/hr. That's still nowhere near the 0.5 deg/hr you need to simulate the sun in the lunar sky.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gwiz on February 07, 2013, 07:51:26 AM
The dust is a real problem, too.  I've never seen a film that had a convincing way of simulating Apollo's obvious combination of vacuum and low gravity for dust kicked up by the astronauts.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Bob B. on February 07, 2013, 09:10:48 AM
Considering how difficult it would have been to fake the TV sequences, then, had Apollo been a hoax, I believe there wouldn't have been any TV.  It would have been easy just to say that transmitting TV from the moon was beyond our capability at that time, and no one would have questioned it.  The whole problem goes away.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Tedward on February 07, 2013, 09:17:47 AM
Thing is, if they want faked then they think it through. Time it for a night time only then you have a few hours either side of a glow on the horizon. That will need to be timed for on air and time on the moon will only be a few hours, no long stays. Different rotation rates etc, people spot it and jobs a bad un.

Or film it before hand? Same problem. Either way there are issues and some are compounded like continuity, few hours each night, edit together and so on. Pre filmed does not allow for events that happened such as news being read and the other finer points. Filming on the trot clashes with daylight. And dust etc. That leads inexorably to the need for  chamber. That film set needs other requirements. The job just got a whole lot impossible.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Bob B. on February 07, 2013, 09:34:05 AM
The job just got a whole lot impossible.

I didn't realize there were varying degrees of "impossible".  Is there such a thing as a little impossible? ;)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Tedward on February 07, 2013, 09:41:22 AM
OK, I should not have used that little word or two before.

Probably should have said "a lot harder" anyway rather than impossible. :)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Abaddon on February 07, 2013, 09:53:39 AM
Huh? The Prof bailed already? Wuss.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Bob B. on February 07, 2013, 10:14:35 AM
Huh? The Prof bailed already? Wuss.

If we're dealing with yet another sock puppet, he'll be back.  That's what trolls do.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: cos on February 07, 2013, 10:49:53 AM
A question for the prof;
Have you watched an entire eva, from any mission? If not, why not?
You expect us to wade through jarrah's garbage and you are, I'd suspect, completely ignorant of the source material.
I recommend you sit through an eva from one of the J missions. No sane person could sit through 5 or 6 hours of exploring the lunar surface and think it was done in a studio or anywhere but the moon. Not one hb can say how to shoot multi hour continuous footage with a demonstratable vacuuum and 1/6th earth g.
Throw in 360degree pans, reflective visors without a sign of a film crew or light source other than the sun. And if you care to frame grab, all earth images match the weather satellite data at the time that is was broadcast live.
So go and do YOUR homework before making ridiculous claims.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: RAF on February 07, 2013, 11:07:40 AM
If we're dealing with yet another sock puppet, he'll be back.  That's what trolls do.

Perhaps he is establishing a half dozen different personas, so that they might agree with each other...giving the illusion that his ideas are valid.

Perhaps I shouldn't be giving him any ideas. :)

Of course it wouldn't fool anyone, but neither has anything he has posted so far.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Noldi400 on February 07, 2013, 11:48:06 AM
Considering how difficult it would have been to fake the TV sequences, then, had Apollo been a hoax, I believe there wouldn't have been any TV.  It would have been easy just to say that transmitting TV from the moon was beyond our capability at that time, and no one would have questioned it.  The whole problem goes away.

That's (part of) a point I've tried to make to HBs before: IF TPTB had set out to fake a lunar mission, I think they would have taken every opportunity to 'simplify the lie'.  No TV - technical issues with trying to broadcast a TV signal from deep space; no photographs - the heat and radiation on the moon prevent it (well, maybe a few fogged, poorly focused shots); certainly not seven missions - maybe two or three; voice communication would be intermittent and of poor quality; and so on. Other possibilities are left as an exercise for the student.  (Someone more devious than me will have to address the issue of sample collection.

BTW, I have a question ("Just Asking Questions"TM) that someone here should be able to answer:

We've often heard that the skin of the LM was very thin in spots; the usual description is 'a couple of layers of aluminum foil', which would be .05 mm or so.  I understand that that was enough to hold pressure, and that structural strength came from ribs, and that weight was a huge consideration, but was there any kind of a safety concern with a hull this thin?  It seems that it wouldn't have taken much of a bump to poke a hole. Did the skin have some other cover or protection on the inside? (I know the outside had thermal protection covering it.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Bob B. on February 07, 2013, 12:00:20 PM
That's (part of) a point I've tried to make to HBs before: IF TPTB had set out to fake a lunar mission, I think they would have taken every opportunity to 'simplify the lie'.  No TV - technical issues with trying to broadcast a TV signal from deep space; no photographs - the heat and radiation on the moon prevent it (well, maybe a few fogged, poorly focused shots); certainly not seven missions - maybe two or three; voice communication would be intermittent and of poor quality; and so on. Other possibilities are left as an exercise for the student.  (Someone more devious than me will have to address the issue of sample collection.

I agree completely.  I've said in the past that it might have been possible to fake a moon landing(s) but not the moon landing(s).  In other words, a fake would have looked much different than the landings we know from history.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Tedward on February 07, 2013, 12:06:21 PM
Someone else on here posted this up some time ago.

http://www.ehartwell.com/LM/SCATPictures.htm

Edit. too slow, this was for Noldi400 question above. Not a complete answer but very interesting.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on February 07, 2013, 12:17:33 PM
Someone else on here posted this up some time ago.

http://www.ehartwell.com/LM/SCATPictures.htm

Edit. too slow, this was for Noldi400 question above. Not a complete answer but very interesting.
I didn't know Grumman did contract work for the Empire.  ;D
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Noldi400 on February 07, 2013, 12:17:43 PM
Someone else on here posted this up some time ago.

http://www.ehartwell.com/LM/SCATPictures.htm

Edit. too slow, this was for Noldi400 question above. Not a complete answer but very interesting.

Thanks, interesting site. Maybe I need to dig up that Moon Machines episode and watch it again.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Noldi400 on February 07, 2013, 12:22:50 PM
That's (part of) a point I've tried to make to HBs before: IF TPTB had set out to fake a lunar mission, I think they would have taken every opportunity to 'simplify the lie'.  No TV - technical issues with trying to broadcast a TV signal from deep space; no photographs - the heat and radiation on the moon prevent it (well, maybe a few fogged, poorly focused shots); certainly not seven missions - maybe two or three; voice communication would be intermittent and of poor quality; and so on. Other possibilities are left as an exercise for the student.  (Someone more devious than me will have to address the issue of sample collection.

I agree completely.  I've said in the past that it might have been possible to fake a moon landing(s) but not the moon landing(s).  In other words, a fake would have looked much different than the landings we know from history.

Yep. I've also said that if they had just done the one mission (AS11) and stopped, then maybe - MAYBE - I could be induced to have some doubts.  But as the missions got more ambitious and the coverage got better, well, such a mountain of evidence piled up that it seems impossible to me to harbor any doubts at all.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gillianren on February 07, 2013, 12:52:30 PM
And thanks to Ron Howard and Tom Hanks, HBs no longer have the option of thinking Apollo 11 was the only mission.  Yeah, we know that Apollo 13 didn't land, but do they just ignore that it means there must have been an Apollo 12 that did?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on February 07, 2013, 01:01:25 PM
And thanks to Ron Howard and Tom Hanks, HBs no longer have the option of thinking Apollo 11 was the only mission.  Yeah, we know that Apollo 13 didn't land, but do they just ignore that it means there must have been an Apollo 12 that did?
Even better, Apollo 12 also would have fulfilled Kennedy promise. If something wasn't ready for Apollo 11, after the manned Earth orbit tests of Apollo 7 and 9, or the lunar  tests of Apollo 8 and 10, why not delay the landing until Apollo 12? Why even try faking things?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on February 07, 2013, 01:12:02 PM
Arguments that they slowed down the film/video to simulate diminished gravity simply don't hold up in any way.  It doesn't hold up when David Percy makes it.  It doesn't hold up when Bart Sibrel makes it.  It doesn't hold up when Jarrah White makes it.  Just because someone else copies an old claim and presents it again doesn't mean it suddenly becomes undebunked.  Yes, Jarrah is the latest to make the same claim, but it doesn't change the absurdity of the argument itself.  If you want to argue that he somehow got it right where everyone else failed, then I'll point to Jarrah's manifest ignorance of most of the sciences and mathematics pertaining to space and engineering -- he even has problems with simple arithmetic.  So no, it's not likely that he somehow got it right.

As has been pointed out, only one precise ratio yields a frame rate in which gravity is seen to behave correctly for the lunar environment.  Very few of the hoax proposals (and none of them mentioned here lately) name that frame rate.  That means Jarrah is wrong -- a 33% reduction in earthbound frame rate cannot produce authentic gravity falls for the lunar environment.  It means Percy is also wrong -- 50% is the wrong ratio too.

But the argument is even more wrong-headed than that.  "Speed the lunar footage up by ____% and it looks normal," is a begged question for all values you put in that blank.  The claimant is asking you simply to agree with his core proposition.  The application of some digital or video tool to alter the frame rate gives the illusion of rigor, but the only determination that matters depends entirely on a subjective impression.  And we've see how that impression is manipulated to seem convincing:  omitting rigorous measurements, shortening and cherry-picking the clips.  "Looks normal" simply begs the question, and it doesn't matter how you arrived at your "magic" frame rate ratio.

But wait, before you answer, you also get a hefty dose of affirmed consequent.  If you have some observation A, and you apply some transformation T(A) on it to produce A', and you argue that A' is equivalent to B, then this does not prove that all observations of B must be transformed As.  That's the dry logical formulation of it.  Concretely expressed, if you say you can take Earth footage and apply some sort of transformation to it and make it indistinguishable from authentic Moon footage, that doesn't prove there can't be any authentic Moon footage, nor that any example of purported Moon footage must necessarily be transformed Earth footage.  That's the essence of the affirmed consequent and why it can't be used to prove anything.

Now granted hoax believers use this to rebut the claim that the Moon footage cannot have been faked on Earth, which is a claim debunkers often make.  It is likely a true claim, but it doesn't have to be true.  The hoax claimants say the Moon footage was faked.  The converse of that is that it was not faked, and an easy way to argue that is to show that it cannot have been faked.  "Cannot" is the ultimately strong form of "was not," but the null hypothesis is merely "was not faked," which is why the burden of proof must be on "was faked."  When we strengthen the null hypothesis, we lower the bar for the hoax believers -- they think all they have to do is prove it wasn't impossible, and they've proven that it happened that way.

So to sum up we have one deductive failure (the habitually wrong ratio), and two inferential errors (begging the question and affirming the consequent).  Those individually and collectively doom the argument, no matter whose YouTube video they appear in.
Title: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Sus_pilot on February 07, 2013, 01:43:21 PM
The job just got a whole lot impossible.

I didn't realize there were varying degrees of "impossible".  Is there such a thing as a little impossible? ;)

Kinda like being kinda pregnant...
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on February 07, 2013, 02:27:37 PM
OK, I should not have used that little word or two before.

Probably should have said "a lot harder" anyway rather than impossible. :)
No way!  "A whole lot impossible" is more better. Perfectly cromulent. 
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on February 07, 2013, 02:49:33 PM
My way is impossibler than yours.  And cromulenter.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Tedward on February 07, 2013, 03:03:25 PM
That'll learn me....
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: BazBear on February 07, 2013, 03:11:35 PM
Someone else on here posted this up some time ago.

http://www.ehartwell.com/LM/SCATPictures.htm

Edit. too slow, this was for Noldi400 question above. Not a complete answer but very interesting.

Thanks, interesting site. Maybe I need to dig up that Moon Machines episode and watch it again.
Here's a YouTube playlist (http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA76C6FA3333BE1D8) with the full series
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Valis on February 07, 2013, 03:27:25 PM
I didn't realize there were varying degrees of "impossible".  Is there such a thing as a little impossible? ;)
Actually, there are, though I wouldn't use the term "little impossible". I'll give an example: Direct sensing of atoms. The building of the first scanning tunneling microscope overcame two seeming "impossibles". First, it was thought that making an atomically sharp tip was impossible. It turned out that you don't need that sharp of a tip, as the tunneling current you want to observe is so tightly dependent on the distance between the tip's atoms and the atom's you are imaging, so in practice, one slightly "protruding" atom on the tip is good enough. The second problem was to eliminate vibrations, which was also thought to be impossible. However, the physicists solved this by using strings, dampers, and heavy masses. The result was awarded the Nobel prize in 1986.

This is an example of what was thought to be impossible. In fact, it would have been impossible before you could have built the electronics to drive the system. It would have also been impossible without the new engineering solutions in the vibration dampening. Nowadays, it's a standard technique for surface studies, along with several others derived from it (atomic force microscopy, magnetic force microscopy, and so on).

In short, there really are degrees in impossible.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Noldi400 on February 07, 2013, 03:33:33 PM
Well, lots of things were impossible until somebody figured out a way to do them.

Would "impossibiloid" mean something that resembles the impossible but turns out to be not really?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on February 07, 2013, 03:38:24 PM
Well, lots of things were impossible until somebody figured out a way to do them.

Would "impossibiloid" mean something that resembles the impossible but turns out to be not really?
Sounds like a term for a vastly improbable alien species. Impossiblish, mayhap?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Al Johnston on February 07, 2013, 03:59:54 PM
Well, lots of things were impossible until somebody figured out a way to do them.

Would "impossibiloid" mean something that resembles the impossible but turns out to be not really?

According to Deep Thought (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Thought_%28The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy%29#Deep_Thought) the word for that is "Tricky" ;D
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: cjameshuff on February 07, 2013, 04:11:29 PM
Would "impossibiloid" mean something that resembles the impossible but turns out to be not really?

impossibiloid: a mathematical surface representing the varying degrees of impossibility of a task over a given parameter space?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on February 07, 2013, 05:13:34 PM
Before I became a skeptic, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Tedward on February 07, 2013, 05:29:46 PM
Ah! Douglas Adams, I am in good company then..... (clings to any slim hope of rescue from the faux pax of getting worms wrong)

On day u wil all tork proper like what I do.

Shameless youtube link to the late great Ronnie Barker (if this is not the done thing then let me know)


fork handles is all I have to say.....  ;) edit I know its another sketch.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: cjameshuff on February 07, 2013, 05:34:28 PM
Ah! Douglas Adams, I am in good company then..... (clings to any slim hope of rescue from the faux pax of getting worms wrong)

Dodgson, actually (http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Quotations/Dodgson.html).
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Tedward on February 08, 2013, 02:50:04 AM
Oh eck.

Never read that.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on February 08, 2013, 03:29:19 AM
It's worth it.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Tedward on February 08, 2013, 04:39:06 AM
Might give it a go. I was more Three Musketeers, Treasure Island etc and H G Wells (for some reason no others until a teen) when I was a nipper.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: dwight on February 08, 2013, 09:35:50 AM
Sorry to weigh in late here - an addendum to the slowed down footage garbage:

One thing each and every lying HB never ever addresses, nor even has the skills to comprehend is this - the TV camera on all post A11 missions operated at the rate of 30 frames per second or 60 fields per second, which correlates to the NTSC standard (actually 29.97 frames but for ease of discussion its 30 here). In front of the pickup tube was a spinning red-blue-green color filter which which embedded sequential RGB information into each field.

This was then matrixed via a disc recorder on earth into a full-color NTSC signal made by delaying each color by 2 fields and then  combining that into the TV signal. This then created artifacts in scenes with fast movement which appear as the "confetti" style red blue or green outline of whichever image is moving. For each frame of the NTSC signal there will always be these artifacts for preciely two fields for each color.

The HB crowd claims slow-mo, but then we still have the 2 field delay on each color. If it was slowed down this would no longer be the case. The Sternwarte Bochum in Germany idependantly intercepted the sequential color TV signal and converted it on site to black and white. thereby proving it was indeed 30fps. On all of the mission footage, you have always got 2 fields of delayed colors. No more and no less. Therefore no speed up/slow down of footage. HOWEVER in order to properly verify this you need raw videotape, as MPEG 2 encoding can introduce its own set of artifacts.

QED
Dwight Steven-Boniecki
author of "Live TV From the Moon" - which basically means I have researched the topic and definitely know what I'm talking about.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gillianren on February 08, 2013, 12:57:26 PM
Might give it a go. I was more Three Musketeers, Treasure Island etc and H G Wells (for some reason no others until a teen) when I was a nipper.

My mom had two beautifully illustrated editions of Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass.  They're among the books I rather wish I'd stolen when I went to college.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Donnie B. on February 08, 2013, 09:08:51 PM
For an adult reading Carroll for the first time, I'd recommend Martin Gardner's Annotated Alice.  It includes the full text of both Alice books and the original illustrations, along with copious footnotes that give a lot of insight into the 19th century English society that Dodgson was often satirizing.  Dodgson himself was a very unusual character (in any time period).
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Noldi400 on February 09, 2013, 03:02:58 PM
It is a selection of ad-hominem attacks on his opponents...

...which is typical of him.  While I'm aware of the content of his videos, I generally ignore them as I would any other childish drivel.  He has attempted since 2004 to engage me, and until recently (where he seems to have moved on to other interests) was almost fanatical in his attempts to get my attention.

He contacted me by email a few years ago demanding answers to some questions he had come up with.  I told him I would not debate him in private, since that would give him an opportunity to misrepresent what might have been said in private.  I told him I would debate him only in public, only in a moderated forum.  His vulgar meltdown at Yahoo! in 2004 is still available to be seen, and led to his banning from there -- this is why I insisted on third-party moderation:  Jarrah must be babysat in order to keep his debates civil.

Several weeks passed.  One day he showed up unannounced at the IMDb forum for Bart Sibrel's film and asked if I considered that an appropriate forum.  I agreed, and a debate lasting several weeks ensued.  It is still available for anyone to read.  He became stumped on the subject of space radiation, and couldn't answer any of my questions.  I tend to ask questions that cannot be answered simply by Googling for relevant facts; the answers require a deep understanding of the relevant fields, which Jarrah could not display.  One day he wrote a post liberally peppered with the verbal abuse for which he had become so justly infamous.  I saw it.  I did not report it, but evidently someone did because it was removed a short time later.  Jarrah knows exactly why it was removed, because later that day he posted the same post with the offending abuse removed.

This didn't stop him, however, from abandoning the debate and claiming dishonestly that the moderators were censoring him.  He used that lie as an excuse not to have to continue the debate.  It's too bad that many other readers of the debate saw his vulgar, abusive post and perhaps maybe even saved it.  (I didn't have the foresight to do so.)  But that is how Jarrah approaches the process.  He uses one excuse after another not to be accountable to his critics, while at the same time submitting them to the most vile commentary.  Many of his videos make no hoax-related point; they're just "Get Jay at all costs" rants.

I have no use for him.  He debates like a child and he is largely under my radar.

Out of curiosity, I just spent some time perusing your exchanges with him at IMDb and Yahoo.

To quote an old movie the title of which I can't remember just now: "That man* doesn't like you." It really seems personal with him. You must have disparaged his late man-crush at some point.

*The management does not endorse this term with respect to the referenced individual.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Abaddon on February 09, 2013, 05:57:04 PM

Out of curiosity, I just spent some time perusing your exchanges with him at IMDb and Yahoo.

To quote an old movie the title of which I can't remember just now: "That man* doesn't like you." It really seems personal with him. You must have disparaged his late man-crush at some point.

*The management does not endorse this term with respect to the referenced individual.
You didn't see what was removed. Jay is a high profile target. He operates in the aerospace industry among others. He has both TV appearances and consultancy. What hoaxer would not drool at the chance to take him down, show him up. In their tiny craniums, if they can demonstrate one mistep, then the whole house of cards collapses.

It's nutso. I am an engineer. Anyone who can do some basic research can know who I am. I have posted it here and elsewhere. I am not afraid of anything. One of the things that was important to me was, you sign up to a code of ethics, and admit to being beholden to it, and possibly prosecuted if you breach it.

The Hoaxers? not so much. All anonymous, no ethics.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: dwight on February 09, 2013, 08:04:26 PM
Just as disturbing is the quest to go after Mark Gray. Here is a fellow whose biggest crime was to compile footage from NASA (and in some cases from CBS) into DVD format for the public to enjoy.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Noldi400 on February 10, 2013, 12:42:48 AM

Out of curiosity, I just spent some time perusing your exchanges with him at IMDb and Yahoo.

To quote an old movie the title of which I can't remember just now: "That man* doesn't like you." It really seems personal with him. You must have disparaged his late man-crush at some point.

*The management does not endorse this term with respect to the referenced individual.
You didn't see what was removed. Jay is a high profile target. He operates in the aerospace industry among others. He has both TV appearances and consultancy. What hoaxer would not drool at the chance to take him down, show him up. In their tiny craniums, if they can demonstrate one mistep, then the whole house of cards collapses.

It's nutso. I am an engineer. Anyone who can do some basic research can know who I am. I have posted it here and elsewhere. I am not afraid of anything. One of the things that was important to me was, you sign up to a code of ethics, and admit to being beholden to it, and possibly prosecuted if you breach it.

The Hoaxers? not so much. All anonymous, no ethics.

They are a very strange breed.  Rampant Dunning-Kruger is a common trait, of course, and a lot of topsy-turvy thought processes, along with an inability to see the obvious.

I've had occasion over the years to have some, well, let's call them spirited debates with individuals in my profession who have higher credentials than I do. I have, in fact, a reputation in my own field as a bit of a contrarian when it comes to traditional approaches to some things.  However, I do have a degree of my own and years of hands-on experience in my field  (Emergency Services), so I feel entitled to an opinion in that area. 

But.  That doesn't mean that I deny numbers in front of my face, or presume to think that just because I don't understand something it can't be understood.  You have to possess a special brand of combined arrogance and stupidity to debate an expert on his home ground, especially when you're not a expert in that field.

On top of everything else, it seems to me that if you follow their reasoning(?) to its logical(?) conclusion, it always leads - whether they acknowledge it or not - to some ultimate fantasy like aliens, illuminati, some other sort of shadow world government, etc, because in the end there's no other way to explain the level of complicity that would be required... pretty much every geologist in the world, as one example.  Not that the HBs use any recognizable form of reason or logic - their arguments are usually somewhere between PeeWee Herman and a late night political debate down the pub on Saturday night.

And of course, the Government-Controlled-Media are in on it.  It may be that people who haven't spent much time in the US don't understand and/or believe it, but do any of us here have trouble picturing the feeding frenzy that would happen if even one piece of credible evidence of a Moon Hoax came to light?  Man, Sam Donaldson would be out of retirement before you could say "Green Cheese" and I wouldn't be surprised if Uncle Walter came out of his grave to lead the charge.

It's not been my habit to quote the Bible in recent years, but the phrase that come to mind is that "They are liars, and the truth is not in them".

Sorry for spilling rant everywhere; it's late and my mind is tired.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 10, 2013, 02:56:03 AM
I've said this on DIF to people who hold entrenched conspiracy theory views on pretty much every subject, that the logical endpoint of their irrational and deluded world view is this man:

(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02313/Anders-Behring-Bre_2313494b.jpg)

There are plenty of them out there (the ones who believe he exists and it wasn't all hoaxed  ::) ) whose views are so poisoned and whose existence is so isolated from reality that they are only the possession of a gun away from the gentleman pictured above's actions - all justifiable for the cause. Regrettable loss of life of course etc etc but it's for a greater good you understand...

It's not that big a step from hounding people on-line to doorstepping industry professionals, then on to more serious stuff in their pursuit of their aims. Buzz knows how to deal with them.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Tedward on February 10, 2013, 07:59:12 AM
Might give it a go. I was more Three Musketeers, Treasure Island etc and H G Wells (for some reason no others until a teen) when I was a nipper.

My mom had two beautifully illustrated editions of Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass.  They're among the books I rather wish I'd stolen when I went to college.


Added to my reading list now, perhaps with Donnie B recommendation.

Next time I am at Hay on Wye, might keep an eye out for something along these lines as well. Any UK members familiar with Hay on Wye will know its full of second hand book shops. Chances of a good find are rare though.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gwiz on February 10, 2013, 10:30:00 AM
That's because it's also full of second-hand-book dealers, at least some of whom know their stuff.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Tedward on February 10, 2013, 10:46:12 AM
Aye. Fun looking though.

I also keep an eye out for old science books, pre internet, to see if they have any Apollo and associated stuff in them out of interest. Last purchases were some OS maps from the 60's and some books on Lancaster's and a guide book for US Army first visit to the UK during WWII.

Anyway. I am off topic now. Sorry.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Andromeda on February 10, 2013, 10:50:47 AM
Aye. Fun looking though.

I also keep an eye out for old science books, pre internet, to see if they have any Apollo and associated stuff in them out of interest. Last purchases were some OS maps from the 60's and some books on Lancaster's and a guide book for US Army first visit to the UK during WWII.

Anyway. I am off topic now. Sorry.

I have this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Horizon-Edge-Universe-Ariel-Books/dp/0563179546  which is amusingly out of date.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gillianren on February 10, 2013, 12:59:30 PM
My mom's atlas from when I was a kid was out-of-date, but we kept it in part because it was really good for stuff in the US, even if it did have two Vietnams in it.  It also had this foreword that said, in flowery language, that there were people alive today who could remember when the Wright Brothers first flew at Kitty Hawk, and maybe some day, they would live to see Man land on the Moon!

I know that HBs are one and all ignorant of science, but they're also ignorant of quite a lot of history, too, not least the history of science.  They should all be required to sit and watch Connections.  Every little step leads to who knows how many other little steps, some that you wouldn't even begin to predict.  Just because someone once said something was impossible doesn't mean someone won't figure out how to do it anyway.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: frenat on February 10, 2013, 02:30:42 PM
I know that HBs are one and all ignorant of science, but they're also ignorant of quite a lot of history, too, not least the history of science.  They should all be required to sit and watch Connections.  Every little step leads to who knows how many other little steps, some that you wouldn't even begin to predict.  Just because someone once said something was impossible doesn't mean someone won't figure out how to do it anyway.

I've argued with that point against those that claim a secret space program with advanced tech or anything similar.  If somebody came up with it somewhere, somebody else, often in only a slightly related field will come up with it again or something that leads to it.  They like to claim existence of antigravity or unlimited energy but can never explain why no other scientists can come up with it.  They seem to think new advances happen in a vacuum and are unrelated to anything else.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on February 10, 2013, 03:08:27 PM
I find a similar culture around marijuana proponents.  Seriously, if it cured cancer, don't you think the big pharmaceutical companies wouldn't find a way to package the component chemicals responsible into a pill/injection/what have you and sell it?
 It's what they did with foxglove, which is the source of digoxin that has been used to treat heart conditions.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: smartcooky on February 10, 2013, 03:52:24 PM
I find a similar culture around marijuana proponents.  Seriously, if it cured cancer, don't you think the big pharmaceutical companies wouldn't find a way to package the component chemicals responsible into a pill/injection/what have you and sell it?
 It's what they did with foxglove, which is the source of digoxin that has been used to treat heart conditions.

I doubt most of those people claim it cures cancer. What it does do well is alleviate much of the suffering from pain and the side-effects of chemotherapy 
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: smartcooky on February 10, 2013, 04:06:35 PM
Aye. Fun looking though.

I also keep an eye out for old science books, pre internet, to see if they have any Apollo and associated stuff in them out of interest. Last purchases were some OS maps from the 60's and some books on Lancaster's and a guide book for US Army first visit to the UK during WWII.

Anyway. I am off topic now. Sorry.

I have this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Horizon-Edge-Universe-Ariel-Books/dp/0563179546  which is amusingly out of date.

I have a number of original books on astronomy that date back up to 140 years, and they have some wonderful titles

"The Orbs Around Us" by Richard Proctor, 1872
"In Starry Realms" by Robert Ball, 1892

Prized possession in that regard is a 1930 first edition copy of "The Mysterious Universe" by Sir James Jeans
Title: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on February 10, 2013, 04:55:10 PM
No, some hemp advocates argue hemp oil has a curative effect on cancer, not just alleviating the side effects of chemo.

And going further off topic, there are a few copies of Alice in Wonderland illustrated by Salvador Dalí. Sells for something like $12,000.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Donnie B. on February 10, 2013, 06:37:48 PM
And going further off topic, there are a few copies of Alice in Wonderland illustrated by Salvador Dalí.

That sounds like a good match, actually.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: JayUtah on February 10, 2013, 07:34:56 PM
http://www.williambennettgallery.com/artists/dali/portfolios/alice.php

Somewhere someone has scanned the entire set, with the publisher's blessing.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: smartcooky on February 10, 2013, 08:17:41 PM
No, some hemp advocates argue hemp oil has a curative effect on cancer, not just alleviating the side effects of chemo.

And going further off topic, there are a few copies of Alice in Wonderland illustrated by Salvador Dalí. Sells for something like $12,000.

I'll bet very few fans of Salvador Dali realise that he had a cat...

(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/98915197/Dalicat.jpg)

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ka9q on February 10, 2013, 11:15:08 PM
I find a similar culture around marijuana proponents.  Seriously, if it cured cancer, don't you think the big pharmaceutical companies wouldn't find a way to package the component chemicals responsible into a pill/injection/what have you and sell it?
I don't see very many people claiming that marijuana cures cancer. What I do see are a lot of people claiming it alleviates anorexia, nausea and vomiting, and various forms of chronic pain. And pharmaceutical companies have in fact identified, packaged and sold at least some of the active ingredients. Marinol (generic: dronabinol) is a pure isomer of the THC found in cannibis. Cesamet (generic: nabilone) is an analog of dronabinol.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gillianren on February 10, 2013, 11:26:24 PM
"Not very many" does not equal "none."  The majority of medical marijuana advocates are aware of its limited capabilities.  However, in any large crowd, you get one or two of the loonies.  Talk to Tommy Chong, for example.  And, yes, he's always been odd, but you don't know the people I know personally who believe that garbage.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: twik on February 11, 2013, 09:20:36 AM
I doubt most of those people claim it cures cancer. What it does do well is alleviate much of the suffering from pain and the side-effects of chemotherapy

Well, there are rational proponents, and not so rational ones.

Even in the media - I remember an article on a study that showed that people who were high had a lesser rate of car accidents than people who were drunk, although both were well above the rate for sober drivers. The reporter and the people quoted in it, seemed to think that this was reason to declare driving while high virtually harmless, even though the data showed it wasn't.

The argument was, "Yeah, well, it's less bad than driving while drunk, so it's OK." It's like arguing that a strep throat should not be considered an illness at all, because it's less serious than tuberculosis.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Noldi400 on February 11, 2013, 12:07:33 PM
I doubt most of those people claim it cures cancer. What it does do well is alleviate much of the suffering from pain and the side-effects of chemotherapy

Well, there are rational proponents, and not so rational ones.

There's rational and then there's rational, I guess. There have been some legitimate, peer-reviewed studies showing that some of the compounds in marijuana reduce tumor growth and drastically inhibit metastasis in breast cancer:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3410650/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3410650/)

and can actually cause cell death in glioma (a cancer of the glial cells - the cells in the Central Nervous System that support and maintain the neurons) by induced autophagy, i.e., causing the cancer cells to eat themselves:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2673842/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2673842/) 

There have also been some promising early results in slowing the progress of Alzheimer's, along with quite a few studies demonstrating symptomatic relief in neurological diseases such as ALS (Lou Gehrig's) and multiple sclerosis.

Note, though, that we're not just talking about having patients toke up three times a day (sorry, Tommy); some of the ingredients of cannabis are psychotropic and some aren't. There's just some interesting research going on.

Quote
Even in the media - I remember an article on a study that showed that people who were high had a lesser rate of car accidents than people who were drunk, although both were well above the rate for sober drivers. The reporter and the people quoted in it, seemed to think that this was reason to declare driving while high virtually harmless, even though the data showed it wasn't.

The argument was, "Yeah, well, it's less bad than driving while drunk, so it's OK." It's like arguing that a strep throat should not be considered an illness at all, because it's less serious than tuberculosis.

On the social/recreational front, IMO, people shouldn't be driving while under the influence of either cannabis OR alcohol. Medically, though, every study done so far seems to indicate that smoking pot is at least as bad for you as tobacco smoking, but otherwise has relatively low health risks - certainly nothing in the league of alcohol use.

I'm not what you would call a marijuana activist as far as legalizing recreational use, but from a practical POV I surely see a lot of money and law enforcement man-hours put into marijuana enforcement that could be better used elsewhere.

---- BREAK ----

On a totally unrelated question, has anyone here ever asked an HB, "What evidence would it take to convince you of the reality of Apollo?" and gotten a reasonable answer?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Andromeda on February 11, 2013, 12:38:06 PM

On a totally unrelated question, has anyone here ever asked an HB, "What evidence would it take to convince you of the reality of Apollo?" and gotten a reasonable answer?

Yes, but then when I present the evidence they asked for the HB has moved the goalposts and made unreasonable demands.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on February 11, 2013, 02:22:07 PM
---- BREAK ----

Good idea

Quote
On a totally unrelated question, has anyone here ever asked an HB, "What evidence would it take to convince you of the reality of Apollo?" and gotten a reasonable answer?

The typical hoax believer who is searching for a smoking gun will never give a reasonable (non-goalpost-shifting) answer because there is always a potentially new and exciting smoking gun to be found around the next corner.

Nor would they ever accept a reasonable response from us as to when we would believe it was a hoax.  An reasonable answer such as "when a more consistent theory is put forward that encompasses what is known about Apollo and the relevant sciences that documents why the missions were not possible, how the hoax was accomplished and how the artifacts have fooled experts in the relevant fields of study."
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on February 11, 2013, 04:24:58 PM
Worse -- it's a cross-purposes question.  Almost a non-translatable one.

From our point of view, the reality of Apollo is accepted as being the most probable and logical extrapolation of known facts.  This leaves our areas of interest roughly two; in the technical details that we believe are consistent with that understood reality, and that are interesting in and of themselves; and in the meta-conversation about how belief structures (particularly those that confront ground reality) arise.

From the hoax believer point of view, the conversation is adversarial.  They are on a quest for truth, they have hold of several threads they hope if pulled will unravel the fabric of deception, and they are being contested -- attacked, even -- along the path of their quest.

From their point of view, any questions designed to understand the nature of belief can only be perceived as weapons; as tools used to attack their ideas or them personally.  They literally can not fit into the structure of their views the context in which the topic of why they believe what they believe is a legitimate question.

Nor is it easy for them to entertain even as a mental exercise the necessary a priori assumption that there might be no hoax.  Without that, the question, "What would it take to convince you?" is semantically meaningless.

So when the question is asked, and if responses are made, they simply fly past each other.  They might as well be in different (and mutually incomprehensible) languages.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Noldi400 on February 11, 2013, 07:22:53 PM
I think there's another factor, too, but I'm not sure just how it fits into the picture.

I was following a thread the other day - trying to put a name to a particular logical fallacy that I don't now remember - when I ran up on this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/arts/people-argue-just-to-win-scholars-assert.html?_r=5& (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/arts/people-argue-just-to-win-scholars-assert.html?_r=5&)

It's about something called the Argumentative Theory of Reasoning, and it postulates that human beings are hard-coded to win arguments rather than to seek the truth. I find this extremely easy to believe.

The converse of that seems to me to be critical thinking, and that is a learned skill. I would be inclined to  bet that most of us here have backgrounds in which we were either taught critical thinking skills formally or had to learn them as an inherent part of our professions.

And HBs notably lack those skills, which is why I agree with the assessment that they probably can't even conceive of the possibility that they might be wrong, which in turn means that convincing evidence just doesn't exist and anything that appears convincing is in itself faked in some way. So I think you're probably right that the question itself is so much gibberish, because it's just a matter of time before the "smoking gun" comes to light.

What would it take to convince me that it was a hoax? Well... a lot.  I wouldn't be too curious about the "why" as much as the "how"; I think I'd like to start with that giant bunker where they've kept the hundreds or thousands of people penned up turning out all the documentation that exists about Apollo - including all the books supposedly written by astronauts - along with an equal or greater number of engineers, fact checkers, and continuity people making sure every document is consistent (but not too consistent - must allow for human error to make it believable, yanno) with every other document. Yeah. That'd be a good start.

---- BREAK ----

Good idea


Sarcasm? Or approval?  Tone-of-voice circuit stopped working.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: smartcooky on February 11, 2013, 07:34:21 PM
What would it take to convince me that it was a hoax? Well... a lot.  I wouldn't be too curious about the "why" as much as the "how"; I think I'd like to start with that giant bunker where they've kept the hundreds or thousands of people penned up turning out all the documentation that exists about Apollo - including all the books supposedly written by astronauts - along with an equal or greater number of engineers, fact checkers, and continuity people making sure every document is consistent (but not too consistent - must allow for human error to make it believable, yanno) with every other document. Yeah. That'd be a good start.

Well they weren't even even able to achieve that with Watergate, or Iran-Contra.

What on Earth would make anyone believe that something hundreds, perhaps thousands of times more complex (faking the Apollo programme), could be covered up successfully for 44 years.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gillianren on February 11, 2013, 07:35:56 PM
Yeah, personally, I don't think a demonstration of "why" the landings were hoaxed would prove a thing.  Questions of motive only mean so much.  Questions of motive can never really be proven.  The landings are a question of fact, and the only rebuttal is to show that the facts are wrong and to show facts that replace them.  That's what it would take to show me that the landings were hoaxed.  A complete demonstration of all the facts of how the hoax was accomplished.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: nomuse on February 11, 2013, 08:26:29 PM
What would convince me is a Ken Burns documentary.

Not the documentary per se, but the environment in which such a documentary would be made; in which all sorts of material becomes available about the hoax, the process of the hoax, the people who made it possible. 

The documentary would be lots and lots of talking heads of people describing the struggles and travails and improvisations and doubts and small victories.  And all the moments where it looked like the (hoax) project was going to fail, but due to luck or some stroke of genius or a whole bunch of grueling long just-plain-work, the thing got back on track again.

And there would be technical studies and pictures of the equipment and behind-the-scenes of the filming.  And all sorts of surprising esoteric stuff most people would have never thought needed to be part of the hoax, and that took all sorts of clever work to pull off.

And they would be proud, too.  A little sad -- especially sad that it hadn't been possible to go to the Moon -- but aware of their place in history and of what they accomplished in fooling the world.  And they'd want to talk about it.  They wouldn't be frightened, they wouldn't avoid interviews; they'd be pleased to have a chance to finally talk about it, and to get back together again with the men and women who had been involved in that escapade with them.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Count Zero on February 11, 2013, 08:44:50 PM
This discussion since the last two lines of response #1012 is both fascinating and insightful.

L.O. - Could we split this into a separate thread, and perhaps even "sticky" it near the top of the page?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Not Myself on February 11, 2013, 09:42:12 PM
And HBs notably lack those skills, which is why I agree with the assessment that they probably can't even conceive of the possibility that they might be wrong

I don't know whether HBs lack those skills, or simply fail to use them in particular circumstances.  I have on many occasions witnessed individuals who clearly possess critical reasoning skills, and sometimes (or even often) demonstrate an ability to use them, but act like they're trying out for the Olympic Blowhard team the moment they step out of their areas of expertise.  CosmoQuest is overrun with this sort.

It's probably just to amuse myself, but I sometimes conjecture that some of the HBs might actually be highly intelligent and articulate individuals in some spheres, who, knowingly or not, act like buffoons in others.  I wonder this because I've seen people on the other side do it, and not a small number of times.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: smartcooky on February 11, 2013, 10:26:37 PM
Any of you ever seen the documentary "Alternative Three"?

It was an episode of the Anglia Television's weekly "Science Report" broadcast in the 1970's, that claimed to be an investigation into the Britain's "brain drain", and it supposedly uncovered a plan to make the Moon and Mars habitable in the event of predicted global warming.

It was of course, a hoax, but it was quite well done for the time, especially the sequence with the Mars landing and discovery of "life".



Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Obviousman on February 12, 2013, 01:11:17 AM
I not only saw the doco, I used to have the book!
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 12, 2013, 01:46:21 AM
I have actually seen that program quoted as serious evidence of a hoax, and when it was pointed out that it was a fake documentary, it was then twisted to "a-ha, cointelpro psyop.."  ::)

To be fair, I was fooled by it myself, especially the mars footage, although I was about 10 at the time.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Andromeda on February 12, 2013, 04:12:12 AM
What on Earth would make anyone believe that something hundreds, perhaps thousands of times more complex (faking the Apollo programme), could be covered up successfully for 44 years.

But that's just it - the HBs don't think it has been covered up successfully because of all the no stars/waving flag/wires/slowmo/"confession" by some guy who worked at NASA bullcrap they keep dragging up.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ka9q on February 12, 2013, 04:20:40 AM
We've all been assuming that the hoax 'believers' actually believe what they're saying. Suppose at least some of them are just trolling us?

We're here because we tend to know a lot about Apollo and space exploration. We think it's important and worthwhile, and we're outspoken about it and the role it played in inspiring many of us older kids to become engineers and scientists. Some of us work in aerospace and related technical fields, and we're fond of telling everyone how satisfying it can be.

Some so-called HBs may well have no serious doubts that Apollo actually happened. But, having not had much inspiration or opportunity in their own lives,  they developed a very real resentment of NASA, the US government, and the scientists and engineers who worked on Apollo -- still one of the biggest symbols of American (and human) technological achievement. In fact, they resent pretty much everyone they perceive as more successful than themselves, and that's a big crowd.

A few of these people (Bart Sibrel comes to mind) have had opportunities to confront those who actually worked on the program, with various results. Most haven't. So maybe they see us as their best available targets of opportunity. And pretending to believe that the program we all regard so highly was actually a criminal hoax is just their way of getting to us.


Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Noldi400 on February 12, 2013, 07:07:04 AM
We've all been assuming that the hoax 'believers' actually believe what they're saying. Suppose at least some of them are just trolling us?

I think that's absolutely true. I'm one of those who believes that Kaysing started out knowing it was all BS and either got caught up in the story and couldn't admit he just did it to poke at a government he hated or (I don't think he was entirely mentally stable) said it so often he started believing it.

I also think it's likely that at least some of the more outspoken ones are just entertaining themselves - the folks who always wanted the contrarian side on the debate team. They know there's no hoax, they just enjoy the argument.

Yeah, personally, I don't think a demonstration of "why" the landings were hoaxed would prove a thing.  Questions of motive only mean so much.  Questions of motive can never really be proven.  The landings are a question of fact, and the only rebuttal is to show that the facts are wrong and to show facts that replace them.  That's what it would take to show me that the landings were hoaxed.  A complete demonstration of all the facts of how the hoax was accomplished.

Agreed about motive. I've heard more than one DA say that it's a common fallacy (mostly an artifact of TV) that the prosecution needs to show motive in proving a criminal case. While it can be helpful, it's not necessary at all - sometimes it's never really known why an individual does something. All that's required, just as you said, is to prove the facts of the case.

Wouldn't you hate to be a DA with an HB or two on a jury? Any physical evidence is faked, and all prosecution witnesses are lying, either because they've been paid off, or are under a death threat, or some such. Hell, the whole thing was probably a guvmint op, and the defendant is a fall guy.

What would convince me is a Ken Burns documentary.

Not the documentary per se, but the environment in which such a documentary would be made; in which all sorts of material becomes available about the hoax, the process of the hoax, the people who made it possible. 

The documentary would be lots and lots of talking heads of people describing the struggles and travails and improvisations and doubts and small victories.  And all the moments where it looked like the (hoax) project was going to fail, but due to luck or some stroke of genius or a whole bunch of grueling long just-plain-work, the thing got back on track again.

And there would be technical studies and pictures of the equipment and behind-the-scenes of the filming.  And all sorts of surprising esoteric stuff most people would have never thought needed to be part of the hoax, and that took all sorts of clever work to pull off.

And they would be proud, too.  A little sad -- especially sad that it hadn't been possible to go to the Moon -- but aware of their place in history and of what they accomplished in fooling the world.  And they'd want to talk about it.  They wouldn't be frightened, they wouldn't avoid interviews; they'd be pleased to have a chance to finally talk about it, and to get back together again with the men and women who had been involved in that escapade with them.

Wouldn't a well made mockumentary like that be  hoot? Sort of like Dark Side of The Moon but focused more on the technical side? Of course, the HBs would quickly adopt it as their own.
Title: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Sus_pilot on February 12, 2013, 07:14:09 AM
We've all been assuming that the hoax 'believers' actually believe what they're saying. Suppose at least some of them are just trolling us?

We're here because we tend to know a lot about Apollo and space exploration. We think it's important and worthwhile, and we're outspoken about it and the role it played in inspiring many of us older kids to become engineers and scientists. Some of us work in aerospace and related technical fields, and we're fond of telling everyone how satisfying it can be.

Some so-called HBs may well have no serious doubts that Apollo actually happened. But, having not had much inspiration or opportunity in their own lives,  they developed a very real resentment of NASA, the US government, and the scientists and engineers who worked on Apollo -- still one of the biggest symbols of American (and human) technological achievement. In fact, they resent pretty much everyone they perceive as more successful than themselves, and that's a big crowd.

A few of these people (Bart Sibrel comes to mind) have had opportunities to confront those who actually worked on the program, with various results. Most haven't. So maybe they see us as their best available targets of opportunity. And pretending to believe that the program we all regard so highly was actually a criminal hoax is just their way of getting to us.



I think you're on to something there. 

Slightly off-topic, but related in behavior, that resonates with why I believe someone at JREF is claiming, in spite of all contrary evidence, that no planes were involved in 9-11. 

LO, before you chastise me for being off-topic, I'm talking about behavior, not events.  Compare and contrast this to our favorite sock-meister, JW, Sibrel, et al, and read KA9AQ's post.  I think he's got it.

edit: fixed typo.  Added quote for context.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: wazman_nz on February 12, 2013, 07:52:31 AM
The really sad thing is that the HB's can't believe that they USA who developed the first atomic bomb, developed nuclear powered ships as well as submarines, supersonic jet fighters, put men into orbit etc couldn't come up with a way to put a man on the moon and bring him back. The only way they could do it was to cheat...............yeah right!!!

Its a sad sad day!!!
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on February 12, 2013, 07:53:20 AM
It's about something called the Argumentative Theory of Reasoning, and it postulates that human beings are hard-coded to win arguments rather than to seek the truth. I find this extremely easy to believe.

Winning arguments whether through words or force it seems to me is a way of establishing status within a hierarchy. 


Quote
I would be inclined to  bet that most of us here have backgrounds in which we were either taught critical thinking skills formally or had to learn them as an inherent part of our professions.
In my case, I was poor at winning arguments through either of the above means.  I decided that I had to learn how pick  discussions I could contribute to and fights I could win, in order to gain some status.  That meant concepts and words.  Nothing beats facts and clear thinking processes for that so I chose a profession that required them and thankfully had the underlying abilities that were needed. 

Quote
Sarcasm? Or approval?  Tone-of-voice circuit stopped working.

Approval.  Marijuana is an emotional and heated subject that has a large social component.  It tends to be divisive.  It needs to be in its own thread in the proper section of the forum not as a tag on to a hoax thread.  Now what were we talking about? 8)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on February 12, 2013, 08:03:50 AM
I apologize for bringing it up.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Tedward on February 12, 2013, 08:46:57 AM
The really sad thing is that the HB's can't believe that they USA who developed the first atomic bomb, developed nuclear powered ships as well as submarines, supersonic jet fighters, put men into orbit etc couldn't come up with a way to put a man on the moon and bring him back. The only way they could do it was to cheat...............yeah right!!!

Its a sad sad day!!!

I think it was more of an international effort across a few (if not most?) of those, that is a problem as they cannot claim the US kept it under wraps. Even supersonic fighters had a multi national bent in a way. Other nations and engineers working on similar problems, no secrets as to how it eventually all worked.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on February 12, 2013, 10:12:34 AM
I apologize for bringing it up.

No one was offended. It is an interesting subject because of the volatile mix of science, social behaviors, preferences and prejudices.  The location in a separate thread just seems preferable for a political topic that we appear to have some sharp disagreement on.

And I hope LO doesn't tag me for in thread moderation. 8)
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Noldi400 on February 12, 2013, 11:28:54 AM
Quote
Sarcasm? Or approval?  Tone-of-voice circuit stopped working.

Approval.  Marijuana is an emotional and heated subject that has a large social component.  It tends to be divisive.  It needs to be in its own thread in the proper section of the forum not as a tag on to a hoax thread.  Now what were we talking about? 8)

Good enough. I really wasn't trying to extend the debate, which is one reason I put in the caveat about not being an activist myself. Like some of the other non-engineers here, it's hard to resist commenting when something comes along that is actually in my field.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Chew on February 12, 2013, 12:06:46 PM
The really sad thing is that the HB's can't believe that they USA who developed the first atomic bomb, developed nuclear powered ships as well as submarines, supersonic jet fighters, put men into orbit etc couldn't come up with a way to put a man on the moon and bring him back. The only way they could do it was to cheat...............yeah right!!!

Right. Or to paraphrase someone who once said, "Cover-ups, murder, mind control, brainwashing an entire population, advanced technology capable of creating earthquakes and hurricanes, you name it. Conspiracy theorists believe the government is capable of anything... except actually landing a man on the Moon."
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gillianren on February 12, 2013, 12:58:57 PM
We've all been assuming that the hoax 'believers' actually believe what they're saying. Suppose at least some of them are just trolling us?

Quote
Some so-called HBs may well have no serious doubts that Apollo actually happened. But, having not had much inspiration or opportunity in their own lives,  they developed a very real resentment of NASA, the US government, and the scientists and engineers who worked on Apollo -- still one of the biggest symbols of American (and human) technological achievement. In fact, they resent pretty much everyone they perceive as more successful than themselves, and that's a big crowd.

First off, I don't consider the latter "trolls."  Their behaviour is not intended to provoke an emotional response per se.  They are trying to make themselves feel better, and the reactions of others only matter when those reactions boost their self esteem.  In fact, when we disagree with them, it means that we don't appreciate their genius.  Yes, they then call us sheeple or what have you, but that is still about being better than they feel they are.  They aren't brainwashed.  They've seen through the lies, even if they don't quite know how the lies work.

Second, I prefer to meet each new person on the terms in which they present themselves.  I don't want to speculate about which of them is the newest sock.  I don't want to try to determine if they're sincere about their beliefs or not.  I choose to believe that each new person is a new person until they prove otherwise, and I choose to believe that they aren't a troll until they prove otherwise.  I really do believe that it's more useful to behave that way.  I think we further the cause of education more that way.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Noldi400 on February 12, 2013, 02:50:35 PM
There are also some people among the HBs that I consider to be, well... dangerously twisted or something - I'm at a bit of a loss to come up with an appropriate phrase.

Once, a few comments into an exchange on YT, a (presumably) female poster accused me (that was the tone of it) of being Jewish.  Whether I am or not is irrelevant - once she veered off in that direction, that was basically the only answer she would give to any comment I made.  I suppose it had the desired effect; I shut up and went away.

Let me be absolutely clear: I did not consider it an insult in the slightest way, but she was obviously using it in that context, and (I think) somehow equated it with automatically being a disinformation agent. If she was serious, she's one creepy individual.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 12, 2013, 03:21:01 PM
There are also some people among the HBs that I consider to be, well... dangerously twisted or something - I'm at a bit of a loss to come up with an appropriate phrase.

Once, a few comments into an exchange on YT, a (presumably) female poster accused me (that was the tone of it) of being Jewish.  Whether I am or not is irrelevant - once she veered off in that direction, that was basically the only answer she would give to any comment I made.  I suppose it had the desired effect; I shut up and went away.

Let me be absolutely clear: I did not consider it an insult in the slightest way, but she was obviously using it in that context, and (I think) somehow equated it with automatically being a disinformation agent. If she was serious, she's one creepy individual.

There are plenty of people out there for whom religious persuasion is all the proof they need that someone is not worthy of their time, to say the least.

In a similar vein, there was a poster on DIF, now banned, who used von Braun's Nazi party membership as an argument in favour of the hoax. Despite numerous attempts to point out to him that his German passport did not somehow invalidate science, and that von Braun did have quite a good record for making accurate rocket launches (at London!), he refused to accept it.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on February 12, 2013, 05:08:32 PM
In a similar vein, there was a poster on DIF, now banned, who used von Braun's Nazi party membership as an argument in favour of the hoax. Despite numerous attempts to point out to him that his German passport did not somehow invalidate science, and that von Braun did have quite a good record for making accurate rocket launches (at London!), he refused to accept it.

That was an early charge in Joe Rogan's gish gallop at Phil Plait during their infamous "debate" on the short lived Penn Jillette radio show. 
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: cjameshuff on February 12, 2013, 05:37:22 PM
In a similar vein, there was a poster on DIF, now banned, who used von Braun's Nazi party membership as an argument in favour of the hoax. Despite numerous attempts to point out to him that his German passport did not somehow invalidate science, and that von Braun did have quite a good record for making accurate rocket launches (at London!), he refused to accept it.

There was someone at BAUT/Cosmoquest that was similarly hung up on von Braun, went by "HighGain". Eventually got banned as a sockpuppet.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Bob B. on February 12, 2013, 06:07:30 PM
Second, I prefer to meet each new person on the terms in which they present themselves.  I don't want to speculate about which of them is the newest sock.  I don't want to try to determine if they're sincere about their beliefs or not.  I choose to believe that each new person is a new person until they prove otherwise, and I choose to believe that they aren't a troll until they prove otherwise.  I really do believe that it's more useful to behave that way.  I think we further the cause of education more that way.

How I go about dealing with HBs has changed over the years as I've gotten more accustom to their behaviors.  My approach of late is to be as impersonal and unemotional as possible.  Address the argument, not the person.  I don't care about the person, what his/her motives are, or whether he/she is a sockpuppet.  They can ramble on and insult me and I really don't care because they mean nothing to me.  However, if they make factually incorrect statements, or argue that Apollo was a hoax, I'll go on record with the appropriate corrections and counterarguments.  When I can, I'll address my posts to the wider audience rather than making it look like I'm engaging the HB one-on-one.  The down side to this approach is that I'm often ignored because the HB would rather go after people they can wind up.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gillianren on February 13, 2013, 12:20:18 AM
How I go about dealing with HBs has changed over the years as I've gotten more accustom to their behaviors.  My approach of late is to be as impersonal and unemotional as possible.  Address the argument, not the person.  I don't care about the person, what his/her motives are, or whether he/she is a sockpuppet.  They can ramble on and insult me and I really don't care because they mean nothing to me.  However, if they make factually incorrect statements, or argue that Apollo was a hoax, I'll go on record with the appropriate corrections and counterarguments.  When I can, I'll address my posts to the wider audience rather than making it look like I'm engaging the HB one-on-one.  The down side to this approach is that I'm often ignored because the HB would rather go after people they can wind up.

True enough.  I know that "appeal to the lurkers" is often silly, but I do think that this is one of those places where the lurkers really can see what's really going on.  I think when they see that you aren't letting the HBs get to you, and that this makes the HB ignore you, they start to see the validity of the argument--or at least the invalidity of the hoax argument, such as it is.  Oh, I'm sure there are also some lurkers who want to believe in the hoax and aren't interested in the facts, but I think more lurkers are fence-sitters.

Noldi, that's why Charlie Chaplin wouldn't respond after people who had seen The Great Dictator asked if he was himself Jewish.  He said it wasn't the point, and if he denied it (because he wasn't), he made it look like he was accepting that calling someone Jewish was insulting them.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ka9q on February 13, 2013, 12:29:38 AM
First off, I don't consider the latter "trolls."  Their behaviour is not intended to provoke an emotional response per se.
My point is simply that it's worth considering the hypothesis that at least some of them may not actually doubt the reality of the Apollo program. And when someone states something they don't actually believe in a deliberate attempt to stir up others, that's trolling -- by definition.

Why they troll can have any number of explanations, ranging from simple amusement to an attempt to make themselves feel better by attacking another's sacred cow. None of this is in conflict with what you said, nor did I intend to imply that every hoaxer is a troll as I've described. I'm sure at least some really do believe what they say, and they would not necessarily be trolls.
 
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gillianren on February 13, 2013, 01:34:44 AM
I'm perfectly aware that some don't doubt it, but I don't think "sure, the science is fine but the politics are off" is necessarily "I don't believe in a real hoax."  And even if it is, who cares?  Their motive is no more of interest to me than the possible motive of faking Apollo.  It's the arguments that matter.  If they're trolls, they're trolls.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: ka9q on February 13, 2013, 05:36:20 AM
Well...okay, but since we spend a lot of time discussing reasons why these people believe as they do, and why they don't respond to facts and reason, I thought it only reasonable to suggest that maybe they aren't being truthful about their beliefs.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: twik on February 13, 2013, 09:47:25 AM
In a similar vein, there was a poster on DIF, now banned, who used von Braun's Nazi party membership as an argument in favour of the hoax. Despite numerous attempts to point out to him that his German passport did not somehow invalidate science, and that von Braun did have quite a good record for making accurate rocket launches (at London!), he refused to accept it.

I think that in the politically-motivated HBers, there is a subtype who really doesn't care about the science or history, they merely are trying to prove that The US Government Is Evil. Proving a hoax, helps prove the evil, and, conversely, proving the evil supports a hoax. So, von Braun's Nazi associations are considered to be proof of a hoax, because Nazis are evil, and evil governments do evil things, like hoaxing moon landings.

I think you can see it in Patrick's postings where he starts nattering about "militarizing" the Moon. He doesn't really care that this would invalidate many of his points that you can't get to the Moon at all - he's simply trying to make some point that the US government did not take part in something complex and inspiring.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gillianren on February 13, 2013, 12:36:51 PM
Well...okay, but since we spend a lot of time discussing reasons why these people believe as they do, and why they don't respond to facts and reason, I thought it only reasonable to suggest that maybe they aren't being truthful about their beliefs.


I also think we spend too much time discussing why they believe the way they do.  I really don't believe it matters.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on February 13, 2013, 12:55:03 PM
Gillian, don't you enjoy a little meaningless chatter now and then?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gillianren on February 13, 2013, 02:46:34 PM
Sure.  I just don't think unproductive chatter is worth it.  What's more, "why they believe the way they do" always involves someone making claims about mental health that shows that the person doesn't know anything about psychology.  This, for what I think are obvious reasons, really bothers me.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Noldi400 on February 13, 2013, 02:52:51 PM
Noldi, that's why Charlie Chaplin wouldn't respond after people who had seen The Great Dictator asked if he was himself Jewish.  He said it wasn't the point, and if he denied it (because he wasn't), he made it look like he was accepting that calling someone Jewish was insulting them.

That was my reaction - it was so irrelevant I was at a loss as to how to respond.

It reminded me of the time when I was having a conversation with one of the Paramedics who worked for me about his (lack of) ability to work and play well with others.  He was listing his virtues and at one point said "I've always tried to give all my patients the same level of care, no matter if they were Democrats or Republicans."

He actually said that. And he was serious. And I looked at him, I suspect, as if he had suddenly turned green and sprouted tentacles from his ears. The thought processes of some people are just beyond me.

Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Mag40 on February 13, 2013, 02:54:24 PM
Gillian, don't you enjoy a little meaningless chatter now and then?

Has anybody reached Saturn yet?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on February 13, 2013, 03:37:12 PM
Sure.  I just don't think unproductive chatter is worth it.  What's more, "why they believe the way they do" always involves someone making claims about mental health that shows that the person doesn't know anything about psychology.  This, for what I think are obvious reasons, really bothers me.
I just find it interesting because it gives an incite into the poster, not because of incites into the topic.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gillianren on February 13, 2013, 03:51:41 PM
There are some assumptions that are hurtful to me that get made a lot when discussing mental illness.  The only insight they've ever provided to me is that the stigma lives, and I don't need it discussed here to know that.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Andromeda on February 13, 2013, 04:44:45 PM
Sure.  I just don't think unproductive chatter is worth it.  What's more, "why they believe the way they do" always involves someone making claims about mental health that shows that the person doesn't know anything about psychology.  This, for what I think are obvious reasons, really bothers me.
I just find it interesting because it gives an incite into the poster, not because of incites into the topic.

Please remember that some of us do know something about psychology, even if we don't discuss it much here.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Noldi400 on February 13, 2013, 04:45:52 PM
There are some assumptions that are hurtful to me that get made a lot when discussing mental illness.  The only insight they've ever provided to me is that the stigma lives, and I don't need it discussed here to know that.

You're quite right, and we here should probably avoid making assumptions about any poster, especially when it approaches anything resembling a  medical diagnosis.

I think it's just difficult for many of us to comprehend how someone with normal mentation can put out some of the things HBs come up with.  My own personal experience is that is is entirely possible for "mentally healthy" (for lack of a better term) people to hold very strange views (see my previous post).
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gillianren on February 13, 2013, 07:07:35 PM
I'm assuredly not a medical professional, but I am a well-read amateur and an actually mentally ill person.  Some of the statements I read in "why do they believe that way?" threads are ridiculously ill-informed and paint me with a brush they certainly never intended to.  I get furious when I read people talking about being afraid of the mentally ill; we're more likely to be victims of violent crime than perpetrators of it, and when we are perpetrators, our victims are usually other mentally ill people.  But I have yet to read a thread discussing mental illness that doesn't caution people to be careful around "those people."
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Laurel on February 13, 2013, 07:50:59 PM
But I have yet to read a thread discussing mental illness that doesn't caution people to be careful around "those people."
And people who say that are assuming that everyone's mental illness is visible and that "those people" are easy to recognize. That's just not true. Lots of people with mental health issues are high-functioning and/or getting effective treatment and one can easily interact with them and not realize they have a problem.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gillianren on February 13, 2013, 10:59:14 PM
I was in a discussion once where someone both maintained that you can always detect someone's illness from their posts on a board and that he hadn't known I was mentally ill until I said something.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Al Johnston on February 14, 2013, 03:33:03 PM
"Insights" shurely? Incites is something else... ;D
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Echnaton on February 14, 2013, 08:14:33 PM
"Insights" shurely? Incites is something else... ;D

Ah well.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Donnie B. on February 14, 2013, 09:10:24 PM
"Surely", surely?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Chew on February 14, 2013, 09:15:46 PM
"Surely", surely?

Shirley you can't be serious?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Al Johnston on February 15, 2013, 02:13:36 AM
Don't keep calling me 'Shirley'! ;D
Title: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: PetersCreek on February 15, 2013, 01:19:35 PM
Roger, Over.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: raven on February 15, 2013, 01:22:28 PM
Roger, Over.
Who's Roger?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Abaddon on February 15, 2013, 03:28:19 PM
The co-pilot, Roger Over.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gillianren on February 15, 2013, 05:12:07 PM
Roger Murdock, actually.  (Played by the always entertaining Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.)  Peter Graves was Clarence Oveur.
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: Noldi400 on February 15, 2013, 06:28:26 PM
So... how long do you think before the CT folk come out with claims of a test of an orbital superweapon directed on a Russian village?  Or have they already started?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: smartcooky on February 15, 2013, 06:30:58 PM
What made eve funnier is the engineer's name was Victor.

It had to be one of the funniest three-way (four way if you count the control tower) conversations ever in any movie

Flight 2-0-9'er, you are cleared for take-off.
Roger!
Huh?
L.A. departure frequency, 123 point 9'er.
Roger!
Huh?
Request vector, over.
What?
Flight 2-0-9'er cleared for vector 324.
We have clearance, Clarence.
Roger, Roger. What's our vector, Victor?
Tower's radio clearance, over!
That's Clarence Oveur. Over.
Over.
Roger.
Huh?
Roger, over!
What?
Huh?
Who?
Title: Re: why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?
Post by: gillianren on February 15, 2013, 07:22:32 PM
So... how long do you think before the CT folk come out with claims of a test of an orbital superweapon directed on a Russian village?  Or have they already started?

So far, all I'm seeing is one girl I knew in junior high persistently posting on Facebook about how the Mayans were ahead of the game after all.  Sigh.