The astronauts wives perspective.

If you were the Wife of an Astronaut, and you knew the one and only time the LEM had been tested, it blew up. Would you let your husband try it next time on the Moon ? Well maybe if you and your kids were guaranteed some big dollars. But I doubt it.
So this amazing creation the LEM, should have its blueprints in every school, well it seems their are no technical drawings of it left anywhere, which isn't surprising as an Astronaut with his full spacesuit on couldn't even get out the hatch. Two men in Spacesuits in an area the size of a telephone booth?
Running with the theory no one got to the moon, because the period of the Moon landings was a period of intense solar radiation which would have required a lot of lead shielding, that no spacesuit was going to match. What was the point of it all? if getting out of low Earth orbit was about as far as any human at that time was going to get, could they all have been military missions to place orbiting nukes, and surveillance cameras, because Gary powers in his U2 wasn't going to cut it any more?

Oh, God. Now it's the wives. This is why I have little faith in ATS. "Deny Ignorance"???? I see no evidence.

a reply to: anonentity

The LEM was tested multiple times both in earth orbit and near the moon and functioned fine in the tests. There were no tests that I know of, off the top of my head, where it exploded.

You don't shield with lead in space. Not only is it too heavy to get into orbit, the ionizing radiation from it would potentially be fatal. Radiation in space is not the same as radiation on earth.

a reply to: schuyler


Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.

My goodness that narrator is a boob.
Another Arm chair "expert" whom has more than likely zero knowledge on the subject of space, let alone know what the chemical reactions in and how they would look in a zero g environment.

To quote NDT:

"The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you"

a reply to: Macenroe82


"The shills are multiplying" Wow here we have valid points to be addressed, and we go into a feeding frenzy

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: schuyler


Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.

quote from your original post

"If you were the Wife of an Astronaut, and you knew the one and only time the LEM had been tested, it blew up."

so you believe the LEM was tested only once and that it blew up? if you hold to your original post its gonna be hard to convince you that you have been fooled.

a reply to: choos

It's all a bit shakey, even the astronauts are saying they are still working on getting out into deeper orbits, one questioned didn't realize he had been through the Van Allan belts on the way to the moon. Here's an astronaut who had never heard of them.

a reply to: anonentity

you err.. going to ignore the part where you believed the LEM was only tested once and blew up??

not going to acknowledge you been fooled?

Are we talking about "The Lem?"

I guess it must be Monday.

Wait... I bet the OP believes the Earth is flat, too.

a reply to: MteWamp


So any one who asks valid questions about the accepted official narrative is now a "flat earthier" me thinks we are a bit further along the path to 1984 than I first thought.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: choos

It's all a bit shakey, even the astronauts are saying they are still working on getting out into deeper orbits, one questioned didn't realize he had been through the Van Allan belts on the way to the moon. Here's an astronaut who had never heard of them.

Alan Bean was well aware of the VAB and had discussed them in relation to Gemini flights. Dishonest video editing talking about his Skylab experience so it makes him sound like he is talking about Apollo is not a reliable form of proof.

Astronauts are not saying they are still working on getting into deeper orbits, they are working out how well a new electronics rich spacecraft performs in those orbits.

As for your OP, no LEM blew up, ever, and wives (thanks to the ethos at the time) had no role whatsoever in their husbands' decisions. Blueprints exist, but apparently it doesn't count if Google can't find them. The LEM is not the same size as a telephone booth, and difficult is not the same as impossible. The military had their own programme for getting satellites into space, they didn't need NASA.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Macenroe82


"The shills are multiplying" Wow here we have valid points to be addressed, and we go into a feeding frenzy

This is a pretty interesting video. I studied a bit of electrical engineering, but certainly not enough to be able to say whether it is accurate or not. The video makes some good points, at least as far as the broadcasting capabilities at the time.

Testing of the LM aside, is there a refutation of the points raised in this video?

a reply to: anonentity


But you are not asking valid questions, you are just spouting nonsense that has been done to death on here and basically because you can't understand something because you either can't be arsed to do some basic research or are too dim to understand it you shout "fake" at one of mankind's greatest achievements.

Neil Armstrong was a test pilot, a dangerous occupation. Did his wife try to stop him doing that? Absolutely not. The guy had balls.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Macenroe82


"The shills are multiplying" Wow here we have valid points to be addressed, and we go into a feeding frenzy

So you also don't believe in the Russian Lunokhod Moon rovers, which were controlled in (almost) real-time by drivers here on earth who viewed the Moon through a TV signal feed from the Moon?


And your title seems to be a straw man argument considering that the tests of the LM went fine and none of them ever blew up. You might be thinking of the LM training vehicle, two of which blew up.

However, as I indicated, they were not test versions of the LM itself but rather LM simulators used for training. They worked by using a jet engine for the main thrust, so they were obviously by no means meant to be a test the actual LM itself, which used a rocket engine. The actual LM was designed for space, and could only be tested in space -- which was done during Apollo 5, Apollo 9, and Apollo 10.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People


What I believe or do not believe is of little importance. Their are a few anomalies that need to be addressed. Take the VA belts, they protect the Earth from radiation, so just saying you get through the belts and land on the moon, you are now getting lethal doses of radiation, your camera is just composed of ordinary film which has to operate out of its heat range. Your batteries on the LEM have to operate outside of their heat range. Their were supposedly two separate lunar excursions to different locations, but the locations turned out to be the same place. The type of fuel used should have produced hydrocarbons, (black smoke) the landing should have produced a blast crater. The samples brought back , have totally different element readings than the latest Chinese mission.
They may have gone to the moon, but the stuff we saw looks like it was a mocked upped in a studio.

Your calling my grandfather a liar. I've heard it all before and it's humorous and mildly annoying but I have given up on handing out the facts because I don't really care. We went and you have no proof otherwise. Have a crappy day you've earned it..

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

What I believe or do not believe is of little importance. Their are a few anomalies that need to be addressed.

Take the VA belts, they protect the Earth from radiation, so just saying you get through the belts and land on the moon, you are now getting lethal doses of radiation

The Apollo missions took a circuitous trajectory upon leaving orbit in order to fly thought the thinnest (least dense) part of the VAB that they possibly could, which was above the northern latitudes. They also went through very quickly. They intentionally chose this path -- even though it was out of the way and required more of a fuel drain -- expressly because it was the trajectory that would give them a dose of radiation that was within allowable risk limits.

your camera is just composed of ordinary film which has to operate out of its heat range.

The film magazines were painted a white-silver color in order to reflect sunlight. On earth, heat is transferred through the air by conduction and some convection. On the Moon, there is virtually no atmosphere, so the heat from the sun does not conduct through the air (because there is no air through which heat could conduct). Therefore, shielding the film from the Sun is enough to keep it from heating up. Convection though the film magazine parts was also limited by thermal stops.

In addition, the Apollo missions took place in locations of lunar morning, which would be slightly cooler that the maximum temps on the Moon, which are during Lunar Noon.

Your batteries on the LEM have to operate outside of their heat range.

Similar answer as above. The batteries were never exposed to direct sunlight; they wad a cover that would reflect away the sunlight, and thus the heat. Some heat conduction through the physical parts did occur but not enough to overheat the battery.

However, heat on the moon (or in space) is no the same as heat hear on Earth. There is not enough atmospheric molecules on the moon to conduct the heat pf the sun through the atmosphere. So even though the sun can heat a object up when the sunlight falls upon it, the space around those objects would not heat up.

Their were supposedly two separate lunar excursions to different locations, but the locations turned out to be the same place.

You're going to have to give me more detail about this one; I'm not sure what you mean.

If you mean the Apollo 15 LRV traverse in which Mount Hadley could be seen twice in two different traverses, then that is an easy one to explain. One way we discern that things are in the far off distance here on Earth is by noticing that far off objects are a bit hazier and undefined. That's because we are looking at far-away object (such as a mountain) though more atmosphere than closer objects, and our brains automatically perceive that haze as meaning an object is fart away.

However, there is virtually no atmosphere on the Moon, so mountains that are several miles away look just as sharp, clear, and bright as mountains that are closer...

...So during Apollo 15 there were at least two traverses in which Mount Hadley could be seen off to the right side of the LRV. In one traverse, it was a couple more miles away than in the other traverse (because the two traverses were a distance away from each other)but because there is no atmosphere, both views of mount Hadley were sharp and not hazy -- fooling the brain into thinking Mount Hadley was close in both instances, but it was really a few miles away in both instances.

The type of fuel used should have produced hydrocarbons, (black smoke)

If you mean for the LM, it used hypergolic hydrazine -- and hydrazine burns relatively clean in space. Not all hydrocarbon fuels produce a visible black soot upon combustion. For example natural gas (LP gas) ins a hydrocarbon that burns relatively cleanly and smokelessly.

the landing should have produced a blast crater.

The LM's main descent engine was fully throttleable; it could be throttled back to 10 % thrust. Upon landing, they of course had it throttled back (or else they would be going up instead of down).

The LM also had 4-foot long contact probes sticking out the bottom of the foot pads. These contact probes told the astronauts when they were 4 feet from the surface, at which point they shut down that engines. They did this to prevent the risk of the engine bell being blocked by the surface while it was still thrusting.

So the last few feet of descent was with no power at all (engines off)

In addition, the surface of the moon at the landing sites had only an inch or two (maybe a bit more in some places) of loose dust on the top, but under that was hard-packed surface. The thrust might push dust away (and in some Apollo photos you can see the radial lines left by the dust being pushed away) , but the surface under that would be too hard for the engines to blast a crater, especially considering the throttled-down thrust used at landing.

The samples brought back , have totally different element readings than the latest Chinese mission.

All that means is that the moon is made out of more than just one kind of rock.

That's not surprising at all. Rocks I find in one place on Earth may not match rocks found in another place -- even places that are very close to each other. However, me finding different kinds of rocks on Earth with differing mineral make-ups does not mean I've never been to Earth.

They may have gone to the moon, but the stuff we saw looks like it was a mocked upped in a studio.

You say that, but you haven't provided any evidence to support it. All you have done here is repeat what other hoax believers have said -- but you obviously have not tried to understand the science or logic behind what the people are calling a hoax.

You simply blindly believe what you read or hear, probably because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions. Instead of blindly believing, try to do some real research into the real science behind these issues. And when I say research, I don't mean watching a YouTube video made by a hoax pusher.

I don't even want you to believe me blindly; I'm just some guy on the internet. However, you could read what I wrote then do some investigation of the science behind what I wrote in an attempt to confirm it for yourself....

...And that's something you should always do with any information someone gives you. There's nothing wrong with accepting the information with an open mind, but take the time to confirm that information. It seems to me that you did not do that with all of your hoax questions above.