|
Post by scooter on Sept 21, 2008 8:03:22 GMT -4
3rdrock www.geocities.com/bobandrepont/apollopdf.htmHere's a site with a large amount of Apollo documents. If you are interested in seeing documentation, this should keep you pretty busy. This is "evidence", it's real. You will find the folks here to be extremely knowledgable on Apollo and spaceflight in general. Many here do it for a living, it's what they do. They know it as well as you know your job, maybe even better. Kindly be careful in dismissing their expertise. The motivation behind the space race was unlike anything we have seen since...the Cold War, a challenge (not a promise) from the President, and a public fascination with manned spaceflight. The technology was developed, refined, tested and flown. Rudimentary by today's standard, perhaps, but it was absolutely cutting edge for it's day, and served as a base for future systems. We have seen hoax proponents come and go here, I hope you'll be good enough to at least listen to our side of the argument and perhaps study up on the subject you argue. We have, we know your arguments, inside and out. There be experts here...
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Sept 21, 2008 8:09:33 GMT -4
Actually no we don't need big huge rocket to get into space sorry but you are incorrect. So Wan Hu really flew in that chair with rockets to the moon?
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Sept 21, 2008 8:28:42 GMT -4
3rdrock, if you want to be treated with fairness, then quit with the hostilities.
Consider that what you're saying to us is like a person telling a mathmatician that 2+2=3, or a biologist that whales are fish. The statements are taken as being ridiculous.
Who is "everyone"? Just what is this evidence? No stars visible in video and photos? The issue with the appearent lack of a blast crater? Radiation issues? What?
So far, all I've seen is more and more nit picks about the footage of Apollo; the slight movement of the flag in Apollo 15, the "look" of the footage in 1/6 gravity, so called "wire glints", and the footage that Bart Sibrel loves to use, but had to edit.
The items from your lists are not new. They may be new to YOU, but not to us. People before you have claimed them before.
Also out are claims that scientific is govt controlled, and cannot be trusted. Problem with that is that this has greater implications beyond Apollo. It also calls unmanned probe missions into view. So far, I've only seen Ralph Rene and his fans take up this issue, but only with the Mars probes. I've yet to see anyone do an essay on if the Mercury flights were hoaxed, if Gemini was fake, if the Voyager missions, Mariner 10 mission, MESSENGER, Deep Impact, Deep Space 1, Cassini, Galileo, or New Horizons are all frauds.
No, all I see is tunnel vision, pointed at Apollo.
And your proof of this is...? If you treat this statement as fact, then you certainly ought to have facts to back it up then. Show us a paper trail that proves this.
A guy on YouTube, Cosmored, would disagree here.
Why is it funny? Do you know the full history of Project Apollo?
BTW, it was a challenge to send man to the moon and return him to Earth, not a promise.
So tell me, do you have a degree in aerospace engineering? Electronics? A working knowledge of the enviroment of space? Better research radiation data too.
BTW, NASA beat you to the punch on this one.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Sept 21, 2008 8:31:10 GMT -4
A couple of "private" rockets have made it to "space", on brief parabolic flights to around 65 miles altitude. To launch a usable payload into a functioning orbit requires much more power, thus much more propellant, ergo much more rocket to contain everything. The rocket size depends on design efficiency, payload and intended mission orbit. It will be large. To send the LM and CSM to the Moon required the very largest of rockets.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Sept 21, 2008 10:33:43 GMT -4
While that is certainly an extensive list of reasons, they are all served equally well by actually landing men on the Moon. Please provide reasons for faking it as opposed to doing it for real.
Gagarin was followed by Shepard only weeks later. Hardly a huge lead for the USSR. And the first woman in space is irrelevant, since she flew in a spacecraft identical to the ones flown by men.
First animal in orbit, not in space (yes, there is a difference), and the Russians were so eager to do it they sent Laika up with no means of getting her back.
By taking out the ejection seat of a one-man spacecraft and cramming three seats in, at the additional expense of spacesuits and virtually every other means of crew safety in the event of trouble. At least the US waited until they had a proper two-man spacecraft.
Absolute rubbish. You’ve never examined the photographic record, have you? A cursory examination of just the single roll of film exposed during the Apollo 11 lunar surface activity uncovers 32 poor pictures. The famous ‘man on the Moon’ shot is badly framed, and the very next picture on the roll is an accidental exposure: a blurred closeup of the side of a spacesuit as the two men passed the camera between them.
Oh, heaven forbid someone might have been making a joke! Jeez, come on!
The camera was remotely operated from Earth, a fact that has been public knowledge since before the first mission that took a rover mounted TV camera left Earth.
How do you identify it as Armstrong and not Aldrin, given that the two men are in identical spacesuits? More to the point, can you find a source that specifically identifies it as a picture of Armstrong?
Do you honestly think that spacesuit designers are too stupid to work out that the suit will be useless if the astronauts can’t bend their joints, or that they just made a big rubber bag and called it a spacesuit? The suits have joints and rods and pulleys, just like today’s suits. I don’t see ANY spacesuited astronaut looking puffed out like a Michelin Man, do you? Is ALL spaceflight faked?
Feel free to tell us how large a flare would be needed to produce a plume visible against the sunlit lunar surface from 250,000 miles.
It’s mounted on his suit, for heaven’s sake. Did you expect to see him holding it up to his faceplate? How little research have you done?
Find us ANY image of a sunlit object in space that shows stars. Anything. A planet, a shuttle, the ISS, anything. We’ll wait.
You’ve never actually watched any of it, have you? There IS a delay just as would be expected.
You do know that the noise of a rocket engine is caused by shockwaves through the air, right? How mush sound would a rocket plume make in a vacuum?
No they were not. End of story.
Go on then, show us the calculations if they’re so easy. I’ve done some myself and find nothing excessive about the volume of photography.
You also made a direct accusation that one poster here is a liar. You will back up that allegation or withdraw it.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 21, 2008 10:44:09 GMT -4
Ok first of all NO man never landed on the moon, if you think inaccurate videos and photo's are evidence then bleed your ignorance to someone who will believe it better yet someone who actually cares.
Actually I'm considered by many to be an expert on that information. It has been published in the peer-reviewed journal Science and was featured this month on the television program Mythbusters.
I don't accept bluster. If you want to call everyone else around you ignorant as a basis of making your claim, you'll have to demonstrate your comparatively greater expertise.
Where is the so called lander that they left on the moon?
On the Moon, although examples survive on Earth for inspection. How many of them have you inspected?
Don't even get me started on the lack of technology the lander had.
I explicitly get you started. Tell me all about the lunar module.
Why is it that we do not currently possess this technology? Is it because the technology never existed to start with, thank you for that one!
Non sequitur. The technology to visit the Challenger Deep once existed but does not exist now. Supersonic passenger airline service once existed but does not exist now.
Ok yes maybe some of the things I said were inaccurate but I was referring to the moon landing being in black and white I apologize for this.
Great. Now tone down the rest of your bluster, and you might actually survive.
Money has nothing to do with why we cannot do such things, stop fooling yourself. Does the hundreds of millions of dollars it costs to go to war ever stop USA from doing it?
And when the American public decides to spend that much money on space travel, space travel will be well funded. Until then, it is not. NASA's budget is a public document. Argue from that.
...when obviously our tech is far far more advanced.
What is "our tech?" You mention that as if it's one single dimension of study. What we have done since 1975 to improve our Moon landing technology? I'm sure you can name many ways in which some other forms of technology have improved, but then I'll ask what bearing those have on manned lunar exploration.
the Concorde "DID" exist and there are blueprints...
Ditto the LM.
and the craft actually was available for 20-30 years approx not sure exactly. Show me a craft or a blueprint of the lander or any of the so called technology used to land on the moon.
I've seen two LMs this year, and I've been studying the design since 1970. I have about three feet of shelf space filled with documents specifying the LM design.
I hope you are aware that there are multiple other weather effects in space we are still attempting to understand.
Name two of them that would preclude manned flight to the Moon.
Also before I get more comments like Jay Utah's let me start by saying I might not know what I'm talking about at least I'm not a liar.
Prove I'm a liar.
Don't you have better things to do than post 3,928 posts?
How I choose to spend my time is my business. I do, however, have other things to do besides listen to you try to beat your chest and intimidate all who are prepared to disagree with you. So kindly lose the attitude.
Actually I'm studying at university...
I used to teach engineering and computer science at universities. What are you studying?
...and let me add the part where you are not only gullible but obviously very stupid.
You may attempt to prove my stupidity at your leisure. I am a published expert on this matter.
We will begin, as you suggest, with the LM. Please provide a detailed list of the technology purported by the LM which you say will not work, along with your detailed engineering analysis proving it will not work. Put up or shut up.
I used wiki as a link to a source of information for less educated people like yourself...
Then please list the real sources of information. You may not simply assume I'm a moron. You are the one writing the book, so let's see if you use anything other than Google and Wikipedia.
|
|
Ian Pearse
Mars
Apollo (and space) enthusiast
Posts: 308
|
Post by Ian Pearse on Sept 21, 2008 12:56:49 GMT -4
Give me a few hundred billion dollars and I'll find a way to get back to the moon. Technology has changed over 35 years. But we still need big, exspensive rockets to get us to the moon. Actually no we don't need big huge rocket to get into space sorry but you are incorrect. The comment was "But we still need big, exspensive rockets to get us to the moon." Not "..to get into space" as you seem to think. No, we don't need big expensive rockets to get into space (i.e. LEO) but to get to the Moon is a very different problem. I strongly recommend a book called "To Rise from Earth" by Wayne Lee which will teach you a lot about space flight without all the mind-numbing mathematics.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 21, 2008 12:57:34 GMT -4
wow, rude, arrogant, willfully ignorant, and all he has is handwaving and long debunked webpages which copy the works of idiots like Sibrel, White, and Aulis crew.
I can't see the point in wasting my time, the lurkers will be dropping their heads in their hands with "oh no not again" and 3rdrock is a waste of time and space.
|
|
|
Post by scubadude402 on Sept 21, 2008 13:17:02 GMT -4
I have to wonder how many posts 3rdrock will make before he throws in the towel and leaves the fourm after all his arguments,like john lears and all the rest that have come and gone, collaspe under there on weight of ignorance and stupidity. I think that they come here looking for a fight and they cant stand up to someone like Jay's and others civil, intelligent, and expert level ability to refute their baseless assertions. Or maybe they simply grow weary of making fools of themselves--who knows. Jay--was the ascent engine on the LM throttleable (SP?) like the descent stage. I beleve helium was injected into the descent stage thrust ( as a inert gas) to the vary the thrust, but was there a need to have that capability with the ascent stage as they simply had to rise up to meet and dock with the CM?
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Sept 21, 2008 13:20:11 GMT -4
Drunken....
British....
This is the truck driver again. Same as the "scuba instructor", and several others. Recurring player. Long drunken posts, followed by angry, insulting gibberish. He comes home from long over-the-road international hauls, and does this to have something to do for a few days. I've correlated his posts here with posts on other sites in the past, lining up the timing.
edit to correct punctuation
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Sept 21, 2008 13:32:21 GMT -4
3rdrock, since you claim to be writing a book about Apollo, it seems that you really need to do research.
But then again, you may find that many of your assumptions are in error if you do that.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Sept 21, 2008 13:36:30 GMT -4
By contrast, the still photos were stunning. Yet that's just the problem. The astronauts took thousands of pictures, each one perfectly exposed and sharply focused. Not one was badly composed or even blurred. Several years after NASA claimed its first Moon landing, Buzz Aldrin "the second man on the Moon; was asked at a banquet what it felt like to step on to the lunar surface. Aldrin staggered to his feet and left the room crying uncontrollably. It would not be the last time he did this. It strikes me he's suffering from trying to live out a very big lie; Aldrin may also fear for his life. Scientists couldn't believe NASA's carelessness - even a chemistry students in high school know high pressure oxygen is extremely explosive. In fact, before the first manned Apollo fight even cleared the launch pad, a total of 11 would be astronauts were dead. Apart from the three who were incinerated, seven died in plane crashes and one in a car smash. Now this is a spectacular accident rate. NASA is planning another giant step - Project Outreach, a 1 trillion dollar manned mission to Mars. Think what they'll be able to mock up with today's computer graphics, special effects was in its infancy in the 60s. This time round will have no way of determining the truth. Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air. Funny how today we know such things but in 1969 they never actually thought of that. A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Lander lifting off the Moon. Who did the filming? One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot? The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints. The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares. Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot? The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon? How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And where, in all of these shots, are the stars? Not one single photo shows any stars at all, haha that's a dead give away, only a child would believe these photo's are real. The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired. These statements are plagiarized from David Milne's article, which has already been debunked more than once. You could at least cite your sources. www.clavius.org/bibmilne.htmlpirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/moon.htm
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 21, 2008 13:56:34 GMT -4
These statements are plagiarized from David Milne's article...
...which even Milne himself does not believe. He wrote it as filler material for a free publication.
I echo the characterization so far applied to our poster: he has simply regurgitated the long-debunked classic arguments. And now armed (or so he supposes) with "superior" information, he is adopting the typical brow-beating conspiracy theorist approach.
I am not impressed with lengthy, content-free recitations of how stupid I and others must be in order not to believe in the conspiracy theories. I require actual arguments with actual facts, presented by the people who are claiming to know so much.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 21, 2008 14:12:25 GMT -4
Jay--was the ascent engine on the LM throttleable (SP?) like the descent stage.
No. In fact, successful operation depended on reasonably constant thrust.
I beleve helium was injected into the descent stage thrust ( as a inert gas) to the vary the thrust...
Helium injected, yes. To vary the thrust, no.
The LM ascent propulsion system used pressure-fed propellants. Helium is injected into the ullage (or empty space) of the tank to pressurize it, forcing the fuel out of the tank and into the chamber against the chamber pressure. For small engines, this is simpler and more reliable than pump-feeding the propellant: the energy to provide propellant pressure is already packaged in the cold helium and relies only upon valves to operate correctly, not valves and pumps. In fact the APS had only two moving parts -- the double-redundant propellant feed valves.
The LM ascent was an open-loop system, again for simplicity and reliability. The craft was to fly one attitude under constant thrust for a certain period, then steer to another attitude and fly it for a certain period, and so forth. Those simple attitudes fed into the DAP were precomputed to produce a nominal orbit.
As with most Apollo operations, great care was taken to decouple the steps as much as possible in order to reduce the effects of criticality. During the powered ascent, the APS, DAP, and RCS are the only critical systems, and their programs are reduced for this step to the bare minimum complexity. The goal was first just to get the LM into any orbit.
Yes, a certain orbit was always intended, but the success of rendezvoud did not depend on hitting that orbit right the first time. It was meant to put the LM in some kind of orbit, which would then be adjusted to create the rendezvous. The CSM could also swoop down according to some of the 18 different rendezvous contingencies and find the LM. That decouples the steps. First step: expend a lot of energy and get to an orbit. Second step: adjust that orbit by fine-grained methods to make it suitable for rendezvous. That means you don't require the energy expenditure and the fine-grained maneuvering at the same time.
LOR was, let's recall, a somewhat risky choice of mission profile. The astrodynamicists therefore designed the procedure this way to afford many opportunities to adjust, to sit and think if necessary, and to try again. The LM ascent was years in the making.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 21, 2008 14:13:20 GMT -4
This is a good lesson to other hoax believers to read the threads a bit first. If you just come in spouting the same old stuff that every other past believer did you will be eaten alive by this forum. Unfortunately, hoax believers appear to be the sort who don't research before diving in.
|
|