An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

Dear B-B S-P,

Why was NASA smart enough to fool everyone in the known world at the time, but too stupid to actually get to the moon or make a functioning lander (in your opinion)? And then to top it all off, they are too stupid to cover their tracks and leave evidence for someone as smart as you to discover; I know you've got a B-B and S-P, but I'm trying to figure out why the rest of the world has never tumbled to the trick after all these years...

Originally posted by brotherjohnf
No replies? Not surprising.

Bigbrain has posted irrefutable evidence about the paid liars at NASA. BTW, I reviewed those 2 flight videos and they are also hoaxes. One is clearly suspended from cables, and the other omits the landing entirely. Laughable!

Isn't sock-puppeting against the T&C? In case you didn't notice mr. puppet, I hadn't logged on to even see a response since it was posted until now. Some of us have lives outside the interwebs, you know. Care to prove that cables were used? Please do, because I sure as **** don't see any in that video. And the other one shows the landing from an on-board perspective after showing it flying in high res, clearly without cables. Care to explain how it landed safely if it flew without cables?

Why is it so painful to examine this and why do people get so angry about it? Because they've been DUPED their whole lives. They are suckers, fools, exposed as psuedo scientific nitwits who can't even make a rational argument without exploding in anger.

If by "exploding in anger" you mean showing irrefutable evidence that's damning as all get-out to the hoax theory, then yes, you're absolutely right.

NASA is nothing but a bunch of liars. I know it hurts your ego to examine this but it's true. Maybe now you will bother to examine the gigantic hoax of evolution so that you can begin thinking for yourself and stop swallowing all the mind control that "science" foists off on you. Maybe one day you'll stop loving lies and be able to avoid the horrendous fate of all who do:

Try proving your accusations sometime, the videos are clearly not fake.

Originally posted by Big-Brain
Interesting story but were 8, 9 or 24 astronauts training at Langley facility?

Irrelevant.

Strange, it didn't seem irrelevant to you a minute ago, particularly your concerns about Collins' training. Are you now acknowledging that I was right about that?

Well, now we will discuss about this incredible system invented by NASA swindlers to learn how to land LEM on the moon safely:

ntrs.nasa.gov...

www.dhr.virginia.gov...

You'll note the very name of the pdf refers to the LLRF, not the LLRV.

The full scale LEM used at Langley facility weighed 12,000 lb.
The counterweight weighed 10,000 lb (5/6 of 12,000 lb)

To keep all but 1/6 of earth's gravitational force, cables were always in traction to provide a vertical lifting force equal to 5/6 of the vehicle weight.

Therefore LEM kept its balance by means of cables.
That full scale LEM (or that somewhat smaller one) could not have freedom of motion in pitch, roll, and yaw.

NASA swindlers said: “The cable are attached to the vehicle through a gimbal system which provides freedom of motion in pitch, roll, and yaw”.

This is a physical ludicrous statement.
NASA swindlers should be ashamed of themselves because they said an incredible nonsense.

If you look at how the cable harness is actually attached it makes sense, it's attached to the LLRF on the sides, allowing freedom of pitch, the cables are attached at a rotating joing, allowing it to roll in the z axis, and the cables overhead were designed to be able to move in 2 dimensions as well:
history.nasa.gov...
lisar.larc.nasa.gov...
larc-exchange.larc.nasa.gov...

Things have gone this way: at the first flight LEM rotated round its pitch axis and pilots could not stop that troublesome movement.

NASA began to understand that it was impossible to land that damned LEM going backwards like helicopters.

Then why do videos exist clearly showing the LLRV landing safely?
www.dfrc.nasa.gov...
flying at a good speed before landing, No harness, no giant crane structure, no cables. Face it, you're just unwilling to accept any evidence that destroys your theory, even if it's far more solid and supported than your own blind speculation, which you claim is somehow proof.

NASA swindlers had reasoned badly when they thought to build a rocket similar to a helicopter to land on the moon. They built LEM with the H-34 helicopter cabin.

It's called a simulator, and in fact it was only the earliest version that had that, my pictures above prove this.

No video exists of 100 or 150 flights at Langley crane because NASA swindlers are still ashamed of themselves because all the damned LEMs they built didn't want to have anything to do with landing going backwards.

Here we go again with the "if it isn't on youtube it doesn't exist" nonsense, combined with the moving goalpost of "just one video" to "100-150 videos." Your agrument is ridiculous BB, you're falling apart more every time you open your mouth so now you have to resort to chest-beating sock puppet tactics.

Originally posted by ngchunter
...
Try proving your accusations sometime, the videos are clearly not fake.
...

www.dhr.virginia.gov...

The Lunar Landing Research Facility was designed to solve one part of this problem, that is, how to land men on the surface of the Moon. The need for such a facility arose from the fact that there was no direct parallel between the unique piloting problems of the LEM and normal aircraft operating in Earth's atmosphere.
Conditions encountered by the LEM were different due to the Moon's lack of an atmosphere and low gravitational force.
A vehicle operating in the vicinity of the Moon requires the use of control rockets which are operated in an on-off manner, thereby producing abrupt changes in control torques rather than the smoothly modulated controlled torques of a helicopter.

The videos are in plain evidence fake. Have you understood? Control rockets operated in an on-off manner produce abrupt changes in control torques.

In those videos, when control rockets are operated in an on-off manner – look at the puffs of smoke - you can’t see any abrupt changes in the LEM’s attitude but the smoothly modulated controlled torques of a helicopter.

This is obviously fake. If you look at the video carefully, you can observe that LLRV is a little model that moves in a studio with a background of cloudy sky.

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by Big-Brain

NASA swindlers said: “The cable are attached to the vehicle through a gimbal system which provides freedom of motion in pitch, roll, and yaw”.

This is a physical ludicrous statement.
NASA swindlers should be ashamed of themselves because they said an incredible nonsense.

If you look at how the cable harness is actually attached it makes sense, it's attached to the LLRF on the sides, allowing freedom of pitch, the cables are attached at a rotating joing, allowing it to roll in the z axis, and the cables overhead were designed to be able to move in 2 dimensions as well.
...

If you hold the LEM with cables always in traction, balance of the LEM suspended from the crane is due to the cables, not to its capacity to hover like helicopters.

Also children can understand this simple truth. Only you want to refute this evidence.




[edit on 3-5-2008 by Big-Brain]

reply to post by Big-Brain


BB, your claims abut 'abrupt changes in torque" are just plain wrong, since you seem to be under the misimpression that you'd be able to see the vehicle react violently. The RCS are to STABILIZE!!! You don't want them firing in such a way as to provide an over-control.

Have you ever flown an airplane?? Probably not, or else you'd have an understanding of the subtlety, both from the physical cues, and the inner ear sense.

How about this? Are you old enough to drive a car yet?? I hope so, so that you will understand this. When you very, very gently apply the brakes (hey! Just realized this equates to bicycles too!!) you are applying a force, a torque. Same thing when you steer. When you see another car on the highway, and it's slowing down, how do you know? First, of course, the brakelights....but say they aren't working. Do you see the front of the car dip down suddenly...no, not unless it's a panic stop. You judge the car's deceleration visually, based on your own perception.

Watch most airplanes on final approach, just prior to landing. I can assure you we pilots are making constant, minor adjustments all the time, as we (feel) the airplane, and use our vision and judgement to stay on course and speed...but, you certainly don't see the jet gyrating all over the sky!!

To again, summarize.....you fundamentally do not understand the purpose of the RCS thrusters. In the environment near the surface, for landings, they were mostly used for STABILITY adjusting. IN a Zero-G environment, they were also used for attitude control, to orient the spacecraft as needed for main engine burns, and docking maneuvers.

Heck, you don't have to take my word for it, look it up some more.

Finally, the LLRV was a proof-of-concept vehicle, if you will. In that sense, it was a simulator.....but not the only simulation device. The data collected was used to write the program for the more realistic computer simulator.

WW


[edit on 5/3/0808 by weedwhacker]

A few days ago, I visited the Landing Impact Dynamics Simulator (a.k.a. LEM Simulator, Lunar Landing Training Facility, etc.) at NASA Langley Research Center. This fascinating device that so eminently supported the Apollo astronaut training is still in use today. It is currently being used to test landing bags for the Orion reentry capsule. According to project personnel, there has been a proposal to use the site to train astronaut crews for the new lunar landers that are currently under development.

If anyone wishes to examine one of the LEM Simulator test articles, it is on public display at the Virginia Air & Space Center museum in downtown Hampton. The names of the astronauts and research pilots who flew it are painted on its side. They include the following:

Edwin E. "Buzz" Aldrin
William A. Anders
Neil A. Armstrong
Alan L. Bean
Roger Chaffee
Charles P. "Pete" Conrad
Gordon L. Cooper Jr.
Frank Borman
Eugene A. Cernan
Fred Haise
James A. Lovell Jr.
James McDivitt
Edgar D. Mitchell
Russell L. Schweikart
Thomas P. Stafford
C. C. Williams

Joe Algranti
Robert A. Champine
Perry L. Deal
Donald L. Mallick
Lee H. Person Jr.
H.E. "Bud" Ream
Kenneth R. Yenni

A lot of these guys are still alive and happy to talk about their experience with the LEMS (and, in many cases, the LLRV/LLTV).

[edit on 4-5-2008 by Shadowhawk]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Big-Brain

 

BB, your claims abut 'abrupt changes in torque" are just plain wrong, since you seem to be under the misimpression that you'd be able to see the vehicle react violently. The RCS are to STABILIZE!!! You don't want them firing in such a way as to provide an over-control.
,,,
Watch most airplanes on final approach, just prior to landing. I can assure you we pilots are making constant, minor adjustments all the time, as we (feel) the airplane, and use our vision and judgement to stay on course and speed...but, you certainly don't see the jet gyrating all over the sky!!
...

Since a piece of metal thrusted from the bottom - the LEM - falls in all directions at 360 degrees, if you try to stop its falls by means of rockets operating in an on-off manner, that piece of metal will jerk along above all in take off and landing.
This is simple phisics.
In the 2 videos of LLRV this doesn't happen because those videos are fake

You can't compare an airplane with a piece of metal thrusted from the bottom by means of a gimbal rocket.
Airplanes flies in the air with wings and are stable. You can change their attitude operating slowly on their mobile surfaces that can move gently.

www.dhr.virginia.gov...

The need for such a facility arose from the fact that there was no direct parallel between the unique piloting problems of the LEM and normal aircraft operating in Earth's atmosphere.

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
...
The names of the astronauts and research pilots who flew it are painted on its side. They include the following:

Edwin E. "Buzz" Aldrin
William A. Anders
Neil A. Armstrong
Alan L. Bean
Roger Chaffee
Charles P. "Pete" Conrad
Gordon L. Cooper Jr.
Frank Borman
Eugene A. Cernan
James McDivitt
Edgar D. Mitchell
Russell L. Schweikart
Thomas P. Stafford
C. C. Williams
Joe Algranti
Robert A. Champine
Perry L. Deal
Donald L. Mallick
Lee H. Person Jr.
H.E. "Bud" Ream
Kenneth R. Yenni

www.nps.gov...

Armstrong, Neil A.
Aldrin, Edwin E., Jr.
Anders, William A.
Bean, Alan L.
Borman, Frank
Carr, Gerald P.
Cernan, Eugene A.
Chaffee Roger
Cooper, L. Gordon, Jr.
Conrad, Charles
Duke, Charles M.
Engle, Joe N.
Haise, Fred W., Jr.
Irwin, James R.
Lovell, James A., Jr.
McDivitt, James A.
Mitchell, Edgar D.
Schmitt, Harrison H.
Schweickart, Russell L.
Scott, David R.
Shepard, Allen B., Jr.
Stafford, Thomas P.
Williams, C. C.
Young, John W.


Well, in Shadowhawk's list astronauts are 21.

Only 14 astronauts appear in all the two lists.

NASA swindlers have said too many lies.

I edited my post to add two more astronaut names. That makes 16 astronauts and 7 research pilots. None of the lists are lies. You need to do more research, BB. You also need to learn basic physics and other elementary science.

reply to post by Big-Brain


Once again, BB....airplanes ARE different than a LEM, since they have flying surfaces and are DESIGNED to work in an atmosphere!!!!....unless, of course, you're going to wish to discus the B-2 bomber, or the many modern fighters, and the experimental fighter concepts with a FORWARD wing sweep, as opposed to an aft sweep....all of those jets need constant computer monitoring because they are inherently UNSTABLE!!!

Once again, try to stay with me here....the rocket engines can gimbal...that provides major 'balance', and is augmented by the RCS....which is, of course, computer enhanced/modified/monitored.

Sheesh!!! If your 'theory' were correct, not one rocket would ever work!!!

Ever seen the early trials in rocketry? You can see plenty of video of rocket launches gone bad, as the missile cannot keep its center of thrust aligned properly with the center of mass, hence it tumbles like a leaf.

here's a little experiment for you, a project. Find one of those scienific supply-house catalogs and buy a little gyroscope and mount it in a Coke can. Get the sucker spinning, and you too will be able to balance it on your finger!!!

Or, go learn to ride a uni-cycle.......! Or, are they impossible too??

WW

ps....your skills at snipping and quoting out-of-context are certainly improving....why not try to address ALL of a person't post, eh??

Originally posted by Big-Brain

The videos are in plain evidence fake. Have you understood? Control rockets operated in an on-off manner produce abrupt changes in control torques.

In those videos, when control rockets are operated in an on-off manner – look at the puffs of smoke - you can’t see any abrupt changes in the LEM’s attitude but the smoothly modulated controlled torques of a helicopter.

Might want to look at that again BB. Are the thrusters are firing in on-off bursts? Yes.
Now as for the "jerky" motion you talk about, I think you need to try orbiter out to understand how on-off thrusters actually change the angular momentum of a craft.
orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk...
What you'll find is that such a thruster applies a constant "acceleration" of a certain number of meters/second2 to the angular momentum. This manifests in appearance not as a "jerky" motion per se, but as a constant change in the rotational velocity once the thrusters are applied. By firing the thrusters in shorter or longer bursts you can control the amount of angular momentum and therefore, the rotational velocity, that you want to have, but each burst will accelerate or deccelerate the rotational velocity at the same rate (but not necessarily the same amount: that depends on the length of the burst). What this means is that in order to prove the video a fake, you must show that the bursts of the thrusters do not apply a constant amount of acceleration throughout the demonstration. What you seem to have expected is that the thrusters should induce a constant velocity (therefore looking "jerky"), but simple newtonian physics shows that this is not what you should expect. This is very advanced video analysis and not something you can prove just by screaming "it's in plain evidence." If you're really the fantastic apollo researcher you claim to be with your "big brain," even this kind of advanced analysis won't be a problem for you.

This is obviously fake. If you look at the video carefully, you can observe that LLRV is a little model that moves in a studio with a background of cloudy sky.

The lighting is clearly not studio lighting, it's clearly full sunshine, and furthermore in the scene where the LLRV is moving against the background clouds, the puffs of the hydrogen peroxide thrusters matches the albedo and illumination of the background clouds far too perfectly for 1960's technology.

Sorry, accidental double click/double post. Stupid touchpad.

[edit on 4-5-2008 by ngchunter]

reply to post by Big-Brain


Comparing your list of astronauts who flew all versions of the LLRF to the list of all pilots (astronaut or not) who flew one version of the LLRF is, well, folly made worse by the fact that you're using a secondary source of information, not NASA.

[edit on 4-5-2008 by ngchunter]

Well, this source of information is by NASA's swindlers:

ntrs.nasa.gov...

It's very interesting that in the same NASA's document the number of astronauts and flight tests is wrong.

But these are only details.

I have unmasked science fiction physics of NASA's swindlers: they could not test that full scale LEM suspended from Langley crane by means of cables always in traction in order to cancel all but 1/6 of the gravitation force.

To test really that full scale LEM the cables had to be used only for safety not in traction.

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
...
You also need to learn basic physics and other elementary science.
...

You also need my big brain.

reply to post by Big-Brain


Respectfully, BB,

Why do you wish to ignore those who have very large brains who are trying to help you?

This thread has devolved away from the original point.

In order for the entire Apollo program to be the result of 'swindlers', then everything that came afterwards is also a swindle. This will require a person to accept that for 39 years after Apollo 11 it has all been faked by the 'swindlers'.

So, there are no Spirit and Opportunity roving on Mars. There is no Hubble telescope. There are no communications satellites allowing instant TV coverage, there is no GPS, there are no 'Spy' satellites, there is not a Japanese (and now Chinese ) vessel orbiting and mapping the Moon.

Voyager I and II, fake? Galileo?

The Space Shuttle???

You see, the original 'conspiracy theory' is flawed because, without all of the work of the Moon Program, none of what we take for granted today would have been possible.

BB, it's funny, because----even the NASA documents you post belie your claims!! (Thanks for finding them, they are indeed interesting reading, I'm printing them up to keep reading...)

BTW, you didn't answer my question --- know how to ride a unicycle? Ever seen one? Your brain (big as it is) is like a computer, your inner ear, like a gyroscope (physically, very different of course....but the analogy is apt). Orientation inputs, from your gyroscope (inner ear), computed by your brain, and sent to provide torque (muscles) to maintain balance.

ps....try that tiny gyroscope in a Coke can sometime...you'll see how it is possible.

WW

Originally posted by Big-Brain
Well, this source of information is by NASA's swindlers:

ntrs.nasa.gov...

It's very interesting that in the same NASA's document the number of astronauts and flight tests is wrong.

How many times do I have to expose your lies? The number of tests and astronauts TRAINED SO FAR is not wrong. See at the top where it says 1967? What year was Apollo finished? I'll give you a hint, it comes after 1969.

But these are only details.

I have unmasked science fiction physics of NASA's swindlers: they could not test that full scale LEM suspended from Langley crane by means of cables always in traction in order to cancel all but 1/6 of the gravitation force.

To test really that full scale LEM the cables had to be used only for safety not in traction.

Oh, so cables can't be used to simulate 1/6th gravity? The gravity chair I hopped around in during elementary school says otherwise.
graphicslib.viator.com...

You also need my big brain.

Your "big brain" overlooked the date of the NASA document which was clearly written before Apollo was completed. Was that an unintentional mistake from your "big brain" or a lie?

Simulation of the gravity field is achieved by employing an overhead suspension system, which provides a vertical lifting force equal to 5/6 of the vehicle weight by means of cables acting through the center of gravity of the vehicle so as to cancel effectively all but 1/6 of the gravitation force of the earth.

Now I have understood why there is no video showing the full scale LEM at Langley crane during its flights.



Cables acted through the center of gravity of the vehicle.

Therefore LEM was incredibly unstable as it was without cables, since it could rotate round its infinite pitch, roll and yaw axes.

No pilot could fly it manually. For this reason no video of LEM flying exist.

Contrarily to what I have thought till now, balance of LEM was more difficult because of the pendulous action of cables.

Originally posted by -bigbrain

Now I have understood why there is no video showing the full scale LEM at Langley crane during its flights.

Therefore LEM was incredibly unstable as it was without cables, since it could rotate round its infinite pitch, roll and yaw axes.

No pilot could fly it manually. For this reason no video of LEM flying exist.

Infinite pitch, roll, and yaw axes huh? No such thing exists BB. Do you realize how hypocritical it is of you to state that, on the one hand, the videos of the LLRV were faked with secret hidden cables (that they somehow hid in broad daylight with 1960s film technology), but on the other hand, a simulator using cables could not have worked. Video exists by the way, you just refuse to go to langley yourself and view the 16mm film. Remember folks, to a HB, if it isn't on youtube, it doesn't exist.

[edit on 5-5-2008 by ngchunter]

reply to post by -bigbrain


This has been some fun, trying to teach someone who is, essentially, unable to learn....maybe not unable -- UNWILLING -- to learn.

But, even when I was a Flight Instructor, I knew when I could tell a propective student that learnbing to fly was not for him/her. I did that only twice in three and a half years of teaching. One guy was just too arrogant, and I thought he was dangerous. One woman simply could NOT understand the simple basics.

NOW....I see another who just is unable to learn, or is too arrogant, I don't know which is the case.

BTW, far be it for me to point out that this ATS member has, yet again, created a NEW screenname, I guess in an attempt to use his 'big brain' to start over....no one is being fooled.

To coin an old cereal commercial, from my childhood...." Silly Rabbit, Trix Are for Kids".

Done here....

NGC, et al....it's been fun!! Thanks!!! I've learned a lot. I am especially grateful to the 'Big-Brain' moniker....the one who posted all of those great old NASA documents!!...Why in the heck he decided to create a new moniker, who knows?

best to all....WW

Please, moderators, listen to me.

I did not want to log in with another name.
I was requested to redo login as Big-Brain but I forgot the password.
Therefore I was forced to reenter as "-bigbrain"

If you send me the password by means of u2u, I will reenter as Big-Brain

Thank you

[edit on 8-5-2008 by big..brain]


Check your U2Us

[edit on 8-5-2008 by 12m8keall2c]