An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by Big-Brain
...
IT'S NOT LOGICAL, IT'S ABSURD AND ARE THESE ABSURD THINGS THAT SAY YOU NEVER WENT TO THE MOON.

What's absurd is the assertion that they should have assigned the same 3 astronauts to every mission.

I haven't said that "they should have assigned the same 3 astronauts to every mission".

I have said: "NASA's swaggerers should have assigned the same 3 astronauts to that first mission" since they had all the suitable experience.

Besides it is illogical that NASA's swaggerers have changed all the pilots for 6 times.

When you learn to fly a plane there is an instructor close to you. The same thing should have happened in those - fake - moon landings.

Two old pilots, already gone to the moon, should have supported a new one.

This is a perfectly logical thing. If you don't like it, I'm very sorry.



[edit on 9-4-2008 by Big-Brain]

Originally posted by Big-Brain

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by Big-Brain
...
IT'S NOT LOGICAL, IT'S ABSURD AND ARE THESE ABSURD THINGS THAT SAY YOU NEVER WENT TO THE MOON.

What's absurd is the assertion that they should have assigned the same 3 astronauts to every mission.

I haven't said that "they should have assigned the same 3 astronauts to every mission".

I have said: "NASA's swaggerers should have assigned the same 3 astronauts to that first mission" since they had all the suitable experience.

Perhaps you should read my entire post instead of quote mining. It really doesn't matter whether you meant all the missions or just two of them. In NO time in NASA history have astronauts been assigned back to back missions. By your logic, the space shuttle is a hoax. By your logic, Nellville should have flown the final Spaceship One flight. Armstrong and the others were just as qualified to fly the Apollo spacecraft.

Besides it is illogical that NASA's swaggerers have changed all the pilots for 6 times.

No, it's not. It's certainly no less logical than NASA changing every crew member for every space shuttle flight!

When you learn to fly a plane there is an instructor close to you. The same thing should have happened in those - fake - moon landings.

HAHA, very funny, hillarious. You're comparing Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin to student pilots?! Do you have any clue how insane that sounds given my previous post about their experience? This was not their first time in space, they had plenty of training on the ground, they did not need someone to hold their hand!

Two old pilots, already gone to the moon, should have supported a new one.

In what kind of crazy world does one spaceflight make you old compared to someone else who's also flown in space previously???

This is a perfectly logical thing. If you don't like it, I'm very sorry.

No, it's not, for the reasons I listed above that you constantly ignore. If you don't like the facts, then I'm very sorry too. Your logic (if it were at all consistent) should say that the space shuttle is a hoax. The fact is that you do not apply your crazed speculation consistently across the board. If you did you would either have to conclude that the shuttle's a hoax or you would have to retract your speculation. The fact is that every other space program has operated the exact same way, with astronauts routinely taking turns on consecutive missions.

Originally posted by ngchunter
...
It's certainly no less logical than NASA changing every crew member for every space shuttle flight!
...

You can't compare space shuttle's poor enterprises with moon landing.

Space shuttle is an airplane that orbits round the earth, it's insignificant, its enterprises pass unobserved since people wonder what it is doing in the sky.

Every time it lands, it lose some tiles as if it was an old bathroom. It has really the shape of an old bath-tub.

What should an old bath-tub share with moon landing?

Also my grandmother could pilot that space bath-tub.

Instead, if it was true that you went to the moon, you should have sent Stafford, Cernan and Young in the first moon landing.

These 3 poor depressed, frightened persons are not men to be trusted:

it.youtube.com...

Have you ever seen the most funny video about landing going backwards?

www.youtube.com...

THE FLYING BEDSTEAD? NO, THE FLYING COW.

Hey, like this:



This is another interesting video:

it.youtube.com...





[edit on 10-4-2008 by Big-Brain]

reply to post by Big-Brain


BB, just how old are you? I think it may be time for someone to ask this question.

Before a Mod jumps in and warns me, let me tell you why I ask...

Certainly, the 'interwebs' is a multi-national phenomenon, and ATS is certainly an international site. AND there is such an element of anonymitity that the 'interwebs' has the potential to invite pranksters, hoaxers, or just plain nutters...but it also invites a good many, no, a GREAT many well-informed, well-educated contributers who bring much to the 'table', so to speak.

I think it is safe to say that BB has used many IP addresses to continually log in, spout nonsense, get banned, etc. He has been asked to 'play nicely' in order to continue to contribute, I think we all understand the situation here.

What bothers me is, BB has nothing of importance to contribute, just 'jokes' or inane comments that have no merit.

Sure, everyone has a right to free 'speech', and everyone has right to an opinion....but, if I have an opinion and am presented overwhelming evidence to the contrary, then I can 'learn' and begin to realize that my original opinion could have been wrong. That is called 'growing'......

WW

Originally posted by weedwhacker
...

Sure, everyone has a right to free 'speech', and everyone has right to an opinion....but, if I have an opinion and am presented overwhelming evidence to the contrary, then I can 'learn' and begin to realize that my original opinion could have been wrong. That is called 'growing'......

WW

Answer please this question: do you think this video is real?

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Big-Brain

Originally posted by weedwhacker
...

Sure, everyone has a right to free 'speech', and everyone has right to an opinion....but, if I have an opinion and am presented overwhelming evidence to the contrary, then I can 'learn' and begin to realize that my original opinion could have been wrong. That is called 'growing'......

WW

Answer please this question: do you think this video is real?

www.youtube.com...

Thanks, BB

Did you notice that it is from 1954? AND, it was invented by the British?

Thre was also a mention of Rolls-Royce, a company that not only builds cars, but builds jet engines as well.

What's more, in the case of VTOL, the British succesfully built and sold, and as far as I know, still operate the Harrier, a fighter capable of VTOL, and can transition into 'convential' flight as well.

So...1954, and the ability to 'land backwards' was well demonstrated....this, in the Earth's atmosphere, in Earth's gravity...gee (pun intended) what a concept!!!

WW

And Jesus said: it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than that space-cow can fly".

Originally posted by Big-Brain

Originally posted by ngchunter
...
It's certainly no less logical than NASA changing every crew member for every space shuttle flight!
...

You can't compare space shuttle's poor enterprises with moon landing.

Space shuttle is an airplane that orbits round the earth, it's insignificant, its enterprises pass unobserved since people wonder what it is doing in the sky.

Its aerodynamic capabilities are irrelevant to its ability to orbit and manuever in space. You've failed to grasp that concept since the discussion with you began. "...unobserved since people wonder what it is doing in the sky" is a contradiction if I'm not mistaken. It's also wrong. I and others observe it all the time during its missions.

In any case, what the heck does this have to do with the fact that they don't reuse crew members on consecutive missions?

Every time it lands, it lose some tiles as if it was an old bathroom. It has really the shape of an old bath-tub.

What should an old bath-tub share with moon landing?

Some of the worst logic I've ever seen. So because it has its tiles replaced between missions it must have its astronauts replaced between missions, while the apollo missions shouldn't? That's what you're saying, but do you see how silly and weak your analogy is?

Also my grandmother could pilot that space bath-tub.

Oh really??? Let me see....

No, I don't think so... Your grandmother must be a heck of a pilot if what you say is true.

Instead, if it was true that you went to the moon, you should have sent Stafford, Cernan and Young in the first moon landing.

Because you, a genius whose grandmother can pilot the freaking shuttle, says so? Then the shuttle is a fake, Gemini was a fake, Soyuz if fake, and Mercury was fake. You refuse to even apply your own poor logic consistently. Double standards do not speak well of one's "amazing" intellect.

These 3 poor depressed, frightened persons are not men to be trusted:

You handwave to trainers after I've already shown you new proof from japan that we landed on the moon. Really, I would have expected better from such a die-hard hoax believer. You refuse to stay on point, you refuse to acknowledge your own double standards, you refuse to admit you're ever wrong. Then you insult and besmerch the name of history's greatest explorers. How very nice... They weren't depressed at the beginning of their long isolation and quarantine, btw. You refuse to acknowledge how that variable affects your flawed thinking and speculation. To say it's dubious speculation is being too generous.

Originally posted by Big-Brain
Instead, if it was true that you went to the moon, you should have sent Stafford, Cernan and Young in the first moon landing.

Using your "logic". The astronauts from Apollo 8 should have been on Apollo 10. Since the astronauts from Apollo 8 were the first to orbit the Moon. So they were more experienced. Oh, but then again, the astronauts from Apollo 7 were the first to actually fly the CSM in space, so maybe they should be the first to land too. But then again they didn't have a LM. Apollo 9 was the first manned flight of the LM so maybe it should have been them...

Do you see how ridiculous this line of thinking is? I sure hope you do. All the astronauts were very well trained and were all very capable pilots (they wouldn't be there if they weren't). They are not going to use the same astronauts twice in a row.

reply to post by jra


Here, Here! jra!!

I'd invite our Big-Brain friend to watch more documentaries...one I highly recommend is 'From the Earth to the Moon'....while not really a documentary, it is twelve-part series from HBO, now available on DVD.

Also, 'Apollo 13', a motion picture that captures, very accurately (mostly) the details of that mission.

I suggested entertainment, rather than pure documentary, because maybe that will hold the attention better....

WW

Originally posted by ngchunter
...

You handwave to trainers after I've already shown you new proof from japan that we landed on the moon.

...

Originally posted by ngchunter
...

Well, I would like to add one more new piece of evidence to the heap that says we went to the moon; here's a new photo from Japan's lunar orbiter. It shows a white area of disturbance at the exact spot Apollo 11 landed.

A white area of disturbance.
I have enlarged that image and calculated the number of pixel. Diameter of the part more white of disturbance area measures 50 pixel.

50 x 10 meter = 500 meter

Why there would have been 500 meter of disturbance?

Look at this image:



What should have caused a disturbance area of 500 meter diameter?

reply to post by jra


Indeed, and by the same reasoning, all shuttle crews should be the same - why send out a new crew when a previous on is more experienced?

A question for Big Brain (and my apologies if you've already tried to answer it, but this is a very long thread) - how do you explain lunar rocks brought back to earth?

Bearing in mind that these rocks have been used to date the formation of lunar craters and found to contradict existing theories about them, leading to a recent paradigm shift on the whole theory of solar system formation.

Bad fakes or what?

(and, of course, they those studying them are 100% certain they are nothing like anything found on Earth)

Originally posted by Big-Brain
What should have caused a disturbance area of 500 meter diameter?

I would assume a lot of the disturbance would have been caused by the decent engine blowing dust out from under it as it landed.

Here's a video showing the Apollo 11 LM decent (starting from 40,000ft), and you can see the dust blowing out.
www.youtube.com...

The astronauts themselves probably cause some of the disturbance, but to a lesser degree obviously. A map showing the area traversed by the astronauts here

reply to post by Big-Brain



A white area of disturbance.
I have enlarged that image and calculated the number of pixel. Diameter of the part more white of disturbance area measures 50 pixel.

50 x 10 meter = 500 meter

Why there would have been 500 meter of disturbance?

Look at this image:



What should have caused a disturbance area of 500 meter diameter?
The ascent module, for one thing. Why would you expect to see the effect of the liftoff blast in a picture taken before liftoff, from a perspective that can't even get a bird's eye view of the area? The descent stage contributed as well, no doubt, but once again you're looking at picture taken from the ground and asking me to point out a feature that's half a kilometer in diameter (at a minimum, assuming the source image was a full resolution copy and taken at the lowest point in the orbit). It's like standing in a crop circle and asking me what the shape is without being able to see it from above. By the way, your picture, contrary to its name, is not from Apollo 11. Nice lie, but I can clearly see a lunar rover. There was no lunar rover on Apollo 11 so it must be from a different mission with different terrain that may or may not have been vulnerable to the same change in albedo from the engine blast.

[edit on 11-4-2008 by ngchunter]


ngchunter- Please trim your quotes.

[edit on 12-4-2008 by Jbird]

Originally posted by ngchunter
...
By the way, your picture, contrary to its name, is not from Apollo 11. Nice lie, but I can clearly see a lunar rover. There was no lunar rover on Apollo 11 so it must be from a different mission with different terrain that may or may not have been vulnerable to the same change in albedo from the engine blast.

Hey, this is Apollo 11 lunar module Eagle



I don't see any dust.

Originally posted by Big-Brain
Hey, this is Apollo 11 lunar module Eagle



I don't see any dust.

Umm... What about all that grey stuff all over the Lunar surface?

It should also be noted that the image from Kaguya, showing the Apollo site was taken with a 750nm filter. Meaning that the image is a near infra red. So more things like disturbances in the top soil will appear more noticeably.

Here is the full image in 750nm
wms.selene.jaxa.jp...

Here it is again, but with the RGB channels being:
R: 750nm/415nm G: 750nm/950nm B: 415nm/750nm
wms.selene.jaxa.jp...

From the Kaguya image gallery on the coloured image

From wms.selene.jaxa.jp...]Kayguya gallery

For instance, the red colored area covering the most part of the right image are thought to be old soil that exposed in space for long time and suffered space weathering heavily. In contrast, the blue to yellow green colored areas in spots indicate the flesh soil that were excavated by impacts of meteorites and suffered little space weathering effect. We have to study further to know which minerals distributed around this area.
Many Apollo samples from this area will help us to analyze the KAGUYA image data in the future study.

And if you take note of where Apollo 11 was in the colour image. You'll see that there is a slight blue spot there. And this is not something that's visible to the naked eye, so looking at photos taken by the astronauts on the surface arn't going to show anything.



EDIT to add more.

[edit on 11-4-2008 by jra]

Originally posted by _bigbrain_

Why did NASA build Langley crane?
To test lunar landers, but no lander was able to land going backwards.

Originally posted by jra

No it wasn't. It was a simulator built to train the astronauts. It was not made to test the LM itself. The vehicle they used in the Lunar Landing Research Facility was just a mock LM. As in, not real. Again, to emphasize, it was just a simulator for the astronauts themselves. It was the only way they could train in a simulated 1/6th gravity on Earth.

Originally posted by jra
...
no LM was test at the Lunar Landing Research Facility. Got that? I'll repeat it again. No LM was ever tested at the Lunar Landing Research Facility. It's a simulator for the astronauts to get an idea of what 1/6th gravity is like.
...

You wanted to muddle, to confuse, to cheat me, to refute my logical reasonings.

But I have found the proof I am right. This document proves that NASA's swaggerers would have tested LM at Langley crane but they could not do it.

www.dhr.virginia.gov...

The Lunar Landing Research Facility is an A-frame steel structure 400 feet long and 230 feet high. Associated with this facility is a full-scale Apollo Lunar Excursion Module or LEM. Simulation of lunar gravity is achieved by employing an overhead partial-suspension system which provides a lifting force by means of cables acting through the vehicle's center of gravity so as to effectively cancel all but one sixth of earth's gravitational force...

The LEM was constructed using many pieces of off the shelf equipment such as the H-34 helicopter cabin and landing gear shock struts. Nitrogen gas was used to pressurize the fuel system which provided 90 percent hydrogen peroxide to the main lifting body rocket assembly and to the 20 attitude rocket motors located around the periphery of the vehicle frame. The cab of the LEM can accomodate two persons at the same time. A common instrument panel is mounted between the two pilots. Attitude controls at the right hand seat consist of a set of standard foot pedals for yaw control and a two-axis side-arm controller used for pitch and roll control. The left hand seat is provided with a three-axis side arm controller. Thrust of the main engine is controlled by either pilot with his left hand using the collective pitch levers.
Weight of the vehicle is 12,000 pounds, of which 3300 pounds was hydrogen peroxide fuel, giving a flight duration of slightly less than three minutes.
The Lunar Landing Research Facility permitted NASA to train the Apollo astronauts to fly in a simulated lunar environment that produced LEM vehicle dynamics.

Then I am right.
NASA's swaggerers wanted to test LEM at Langley crane but no video shows LEM flying at that place because they were not able to build a rocket that could land going backwards.

[edit on 12-4-2008 by Big-Brain]

reply to post by Big-Brain


BB, it is more and more confusing to me, how you continue to read what others post, and YOU even post sources and links to things that refute you claims, yet you still persist!

AND, you continue, outrageously, to claim this 'landing backwards' nonsense ad nauseum.

I see that, it seems, one of your translation programs found a word, in English, that you seem to be fond of....'swagger'.

Might I politely suggest a better word? 'braggart'....since it seems to be the context you meant to convey.

I actually had wiped my hands of this thread, since it was being very capably managed by jra and others, and appeared to be mired in circular nonsense, provided mostly by BB... but to paraphrase the line in a famous movie, 'I tried to get out, but they kept dragging me back in!'

ATS is much, much better than YouTube, for instance, and doesn't need to be sullied by nonsense, unless we just consider it entertainment at this point? I long ago despaired at seeing the junk on YT, especially as regards Apollo....it is like a virus, and every antibody we send just gets knocked down because of the viral nature of ignorance on the Internet.

Breaks my heart, sometimes....

WW

Originally posted by Big-Brain
You wanted to muddle, to confuse, to cheat me, to refute my logical reasonings.

I did no such thing. I was very clear and consistent with what I said. I never attempted to muddle or confuse you or anyone at any such time.

But I have found the proof I am right. This document proves that NASA's swaggerers would have tested LM at Langley crane but they could not do it.

The Lunar Landing Research Facility permitted NASA to train the Apollo astronauts to fly in a simulated lunar environment that produced LEM vehicle dynamics.

Then I am right. NASA's swaggerers wanted to test LEM at Langley crane but no video shows LEM flying at that place because they were not able to build a rocket that could land going backwards.

The part you highlighted helps to prove what I've been saying. It says it "simulated the lunar evironment that produced LEM vehicle dynamics", which helps to "train the Apollo astronauts". That does not help in testing of the actual LM at all.

There is video of the mock-up LM being used at the crane. I just saw some earlier today on the discovery channel on a program about Apollo 11. They said it had no engine, it was not a functioning vehicle. It was just a simulator for the astronauts (and considered not to be a very good one either). And just because you can't find the video on youtube doesn't mean there isn't any.

reply to post by Big-Brain


BB, I suggested this before, I really really recommend a DVD series called 'From the Earth to the Moon'. It's twelve parts, so as a whole set is fairly expensive....and, [salute to Tom Hanks] I really didn't care much for the last episode [sorry Tom].

Not sure where you live, but we have a company here called 'netflix', you can rent online, for just pennies a day. Possibly available, similar companies (if not, there's a business potential idea.....D'Oh! I just blew it!)

Your local video rental store may have these DVDs as well, check 'em out!!

WW