A question of credibility

[Sticks]

THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE

Remember the X-Files

There was always the perception that the government was bing less than honest.

It does seem to me sometimes that there is a perception that the US government lies all the time, so how can anyone believe in the moon landings.

I do wonder how much this blind prejudice is responsible for the prevalance of the moon hoax

[LunarOrbit]

I think that is a big part of it. I know someone who says "I don't know if it was faked or not... but it's the US government so it probably was."

[smb]

Trust is a huge issue. If the bond is ever broken then uncritical types can start jumping to all kind of absurd conclusions. (Trust me, I know.)

I feel that the Bush administration has done tremendous damage in this respect. And I’m not alone. Iraq is the obvious example. Just look at the number of incompetents being rewarded and promoted. George Tenet managed one of the biggest intelligence "failures" ever, yet he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in Dec. 2004. Look at the known charlatan, Ahmad Chalabi (he was embraced by Bush until the extent of his many fabrications became widely known). John Bolton has no integrity, so naturally he’s up for promotion. All the while honest men and women are falling by the wayside (people like Scott Ritter).

I understand now more than ever that citizens have a duty to correct this situation.

If not then we are going to breed millions of Pod People (of the 9/11 variety).

[twinstead]

Even worse, it is assumed by most HBs that either you believe the moon landings were hoaxed or [insert conspiracy theory here], or you believe the government never lies.

There is often no middle ground. It seems inconceivable to them that one can not trust the government to always tell the truth, yet believe the moon landings happened as advertised.

It's almost as if once you've joined the conspiracy club, you are mandated to believing every government conspiracy that comes along.

[TaeKwonDan]

Of course I always try and turn that logic on them and see if they think the government NEVER tells the truth. If they say yes then you can easily catch them in the paradox of that belief.

[jaydeehess]

In many conspiray theories the proponents certainly do trundle out every lie or misstatement that politicians have commited as proof that the theory is correct.

I am now witness to a thread on another forum in which the Kent State killings in 1970 are being used to 'prove' that the gov't is willing, able and indeed actively killing it's own people. This is being done to steer the ( you have all heard this term before) 'sheeple' towards accepting the gov'ts agenda.

JFK, Pearl Harbor, UFO's are all used as proof of gov't lies and therefore proof that the gov't is lieing about the conspiracy du jour.

In the book , "Dark Moon" the authors devote an entire chapter of 39 pages to the (alledged) UFO cover ups. Dark Moon is devoted to demonstrating that Apollo was a hoax but they include an entire chapter concerning the 'cover up' of the existance of ET's. At best it is a peripheral subject yet comprises over 7% of the entire book.

[unknown]

Please go to: grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/SMALL/GPN-2000-001281.jpg
In 1969, without computers, nobody would have been able to keep in hovering that heavy piece of metal and to land it without crashing.
Also today no aerobatic pilot can keep in hovering (vertical position) his plane because he can't see vertical position and can't react in time to keep it.
Nasa built that big crane to film Lunar Module as it was on the moon.
Also all images and movies on Mars are faked: they have been made by 3D models or by 3D softwares as Softimage, Maya, 3D Studio Max and so on.

[LunarOrbit]

In 1969, without computers, nobody would have been able to keep in hovering that heavy piece of metal and to land it without crashing.

Explain why it was not possible. Helicopters were invented before the Apollo lunar module (and before computers) and yet they hovered just fine. The harrier jumpjet was also invented before the Apollo lunar module.

[Bob B.]

unknown said:

In 1969, without computers, nobody would have been able to keep in hovering that heavy piece of metal and to land it without crashing.

First, there WERE computers in 1969 and the Lunar Module had one. Second, please visit the following site and take a look at the videos:

www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/movie/LLRV/index.html

This is the Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (LLRV), which began making test flights in 1964. It had no computer, yet it had little problem taking off, hovering, and landing vertically. The LLRVs, and the later LLTVs (Lunar Landing Training Vehicles), made hundreds in successful flights during the 1960s. Let me also point out that controlling a VTOL (Vertical Takeoff and Landing) vehicle is more difficult on Earth than on the Moon because the Earth has higher gravity, which means greater thrusts are required, which means greater turning moments are produced.

So, in the LLRV video we see one man flying a contraption with no computer and in a strong gravity field, yet he hovers with little problem. Why then would two men flying a craft in a weak gravity field and aided by a computer not be able to do so?

[DaveC]

Modern fighter jets cannot be flown without a computer because the designs are inherently unstable - this is the tradeoff made to have them fast and manouverable. A human simply cannot make corrections fast enough to keep the airplane from rolling. The HB logic seems to be to conclude from this fact that the Wright brothers' (or indeed any other single pilot aircraft) was a hoax because "everyone knows" a plane can't be flown without a computer.

[unknown]

Hey, what is that ridiculous rockety vehicle, that ugly old crock, dinosaur skeleton shaped? When it is starting a lot of smoke, fire, flames, when it flyes only a few farts.
In your opinion: you must land lunar module on the moon and therefore you train with that orrible vehicle so unlike the one you will have to fly and to keep in hovering. Do you feel well?
Really?
"Helicopters were invented before the Apollo lunar module (and before computers) and yet they hovered just fine".
Helicopters on the moon can't fly because there is no air.
"The harrier jumpjet was also invented before the Apollo lunar module". Show me a movie of a harrier jumpjet before 1969, please.
"Explain why it was not possible".
Invite three friends of yours at home. You and your friends must balance a chair holding it lifted from the ground with your forefingers under its legs.
A little of practice and you will be able.
But try to do this: once each put your forefinger under a glass coke bottle and try to balance it. Difficult? Impossible?
Put a rocket engine under that ugly old crock (lunar module) and try to keep it in hovering seated inside.
Perhaps not even today we could do that.

[papageno]

unknown said:

Hey, what is that ridiculous rockety vehicle, that ugly old crock, dinosaur skeleton shaped? When it is starting a lot of smoke, fire, flames, when it flyes only a few farts.
In your opinion: you must land lunar module on the moon and therefore you train with that orrible vehicle so unlike the one you will have to fly and to keep in hovering. Do you feel well?

The purpose was to train the astronauts to control a vehicle like the lunar lander.
It did not have to be pretty or fly high.
And it shows that a computer was not necessary to control it.

unknown said:

Really?
"Helicopters were invented before the Apollo lunar module (and before computers) and yet they hovered just fine".
Helicopters on the moon can't fly because there is no air.

But they do not need computers to hover.

unknown said:

"The harrier jumpjet was also invented before the Apollo lunar module". Show me a movie of a harrier jumpjet before 1969, please.

Why do you need a movie?
A library would do.

unknown said:

"Explain why it was not possible".
Invite three friends of yours at home. You and your friends must balance a chair holding it lifted from the ground with your forefingers under its legs.
A little of practice and you will be able.
But try to do this: once each put your forefinger under a glass coke bottle and try to balance it. Difficult? Impossible?
Put a rocket engine under that ugly old crock (lunar module) and try to keep it in hovering seated inside.
Perhaps not even today we could do that.

So, all the rockets and missiles launched since WW2 would not work?
How could all those ICBMs have been a threat during the Cold War?
How do we get commercial satellites in orbit?

[JayUtah]

In 1969, without computers...

Hogwash. I'm an engineer, and have been for several years. There are a lot of things we do today with computers (i.e., run clothes washers) that don't require a computer to do it. Before there were computers there were analog electrical control systems (ca. 1950). Before there were analog systems there were mechanical control systems (ca. 1920).

Now maybe you can't remember a time before computers, but I can -- and we were building guided missiles etc. long before putting digital computers on them. Contrary to the belief of some youngsters, before computers we didn't all sit around and knit by candlelight.

Also today no aerobatic pilot can keep in hovering (vertical position) his plane...

Uh, I've seen them do it. It's a standard stunt. It started with the hammerhead turn.

My company's CEO can do it in his Stearman with no computer, and he's not even really an aerobatic pilot.

Nasa built that big crane to film Lunar Module as it was on the moon.

The Langley crane was well known. Notice how you can't take a picture anywhere near that thing without getting a part of the crane in the shot. Yet none of the Apollo film allegedly faked with the crane show parts of the crane. What would be the point of using the crane if you have to painstakingly erase every part of it from the finished product? Wouldn't you find another way?

You're trying to shoehorn the Langley crane into your theory; it doesn't fit.

Also all images and movies on Mars are faked...

Proof?

[JayUtah]

Modern fighter jets cannot be flown without a computer because the designs are inherently unstable - this is the tradeoff made to have them fast and manouverable.

It's not the tradeoff; it's the mechanism by which they are made manueverable. An airplane whose aerodynamics favor straight and level flight achieves that stability by resisting roll and pitch rates. You can release the controls and the plane -- properly trimmed -- will gradually find its way back to straight and level flight. That natural tendency acts against the needs of high-rate manueverability.

Today's high-performance jets are naturally unstable, and intentionally designed that way, precisely so that there is little resistance to roll and pitch. That lack of resistance means the pilot has to take more responsibility for straight and level flight. An F-16 is not a Cessna. But you can trim up a Cessna to the point where you don't have to touch the controls at all. No computer or any type of autopilot is needed.

[JayUtah]

Hey, what is that ridiculous rockety vehicle, that ugly old crock, dinosaur skeleton shaped?

Insult it all you want, but it was a real vehicle and it really flew. As I said, I'm an engineer and I don't judge equipment by its appearance but rather by its performance.

...you train with that orrible vehicle so unlike the one you will have to fly and to keep in hovering.

Utterly false. The LLxV vehicles were built precisely to duplicate on Earth the handling characteristics of the LM in the lunar environment. It doesn't look much like the LM because the environments are different. In order to achieve the control response on Earth it has to look that way. Specifically, it has a large gimballed jet engine (not appropriate for the LM but required on Earth) to handle most of Earth's gravity.

There was no requirement that the LLxV look pretty or resemble anything else.

Helicopters on the moon can't fly because there is no air.

Irrelevant. Helicopters have to "balance" just like the LM was allegedly unable to do, under pilot control. And hovering on Earth is considerably more difficult because of wind gusts. With no air, the only thing affecting the LM was gravity (and, of course, its own flight dynamics). In fact, the LM flight dynamics -- absent air -- are so simple that they can be analytically studied and thus accurately simulated.

The rocket balance and guidance problem was solved in the late 1930s through purely mechanical means. It was refined in the 1940s by adding analog electrical components. These were thoroughly useful systems. The only thing that the LM added to the equation was a throttlable rocket engine.

Show me a movie of a harrier jumpjet before 1969, please.

www.faqs.org/docs/air/avav81.html

But try to do this: once each put your forefinger under a glass coke bottle and try to balance it. Difficult? Impossible?

Sorry, proof by irrelevant analogy doesn't work.

Find a yard stick (or a meter stick, if you prefer). Balance it on your forefinger on the end. You will have some difficulty doing it, of course. However, there are people who learn to do it so well they can balance other things on top of it. We pay money to see them do it on stage.

What's the moral? Just because you can't do it (or I) doesn't mean it can't be done. Most people can't fly a high-performance aircraft or land it on an aircraft carrier. Does that mean the task is inherently impossible? Or does it mean it requires skill and training and practice?

Now take your stick and balance it on your finger horizontally. You can use the graduations on the stick to find its midpoint: 18 inches or 50 centimeters, as appropriate. You'll be able to balance it quite easily and hold it there for as long as you want.

What's the moral? Not all objects are equally balanced, and not all orientations are equally stable. When you're the engineer you can arrange for the center of gravity to be low, or masses placed outboard so as to increase the moment of inertia.

The astronauts practiced for years to fly the LM. And the LM was designed to be stable -- its center of gravity was much lower than a Coke bottle or a vertical yardstick, and the fuel was placed as outboard as possible to reduce the tendency to roll or pitch.

Put a rocket engine under that ugly old crock (lunar module) and try to keep it in hovering seated inside.

That was done several times. Qualified engineers from all countries don't seem to have a problem believing it was done, so what makes you special?

Perhaps not even today we could do that.

There's no perhaps about it. You may be uncertain and confused, but many of the people here are qualified scientists, engineers, and other technical people who understand the principles of physics and rocketry thoroughly and don't have to guess. We know it was possible, so there's no point in you trying to vaguely allude to it.

Do you in fact have any proof (other than irrelevant analogies) for your claim that the LM could not fly?