Moon hoax believers: Apollo 13?

reply to post by kiwasabi


You are quite welcome kiwasabi. Thanks again for your info on the Foy thing. That is as telling as anything.

Yes, the ships were said to have inertial guidance systems. They were said to have had these platforms(devices which read assess orientation in space) that were free to float in space with the ships floating about them. The LM had an additional so called "strapped on" platform which means a device which reads orientation but which is actually attached to the frame of the LM. This additional platform did not float free in space.

There were a collection of accelerometers and gyroscopes that measured(knew) how the ship moved "right-left", "back-forth", "up-down" such as these terms have meaning in space and how the ship spun. So theoretically, the ship needs no input from the outside. It can always orient itself, know how it is pointing and where it was, is, and where it is going all based on internally derived data. This is the reason they use such systems in missiles. They cannot be influenced from the outside and need no outside input.

The floating platform is what understands how the ship is pointed. Over time the platform "drifts" from its original orientation( in theory, because the ship floats about it, it would return to earth in the same orientation as at blast off) . The only way to correct for the drift is to sight stars. Then you are back where you started with a perfectly aligned platform, known orientation or attitude and these gyroscopes and accelerometers that sense the ship's every move so know where and how it is.

In the case of Apollo 13 they claimed they knew the orientation of the LM platform based on that of the command module platform. At the time of the explosion the LM is not turned on . Its platform's orientation is not determined and so the orientation of the LM in space is not known either. They say they relayed data from the command module to the LM and knowing the command module orientation they could translate that to the LM orientation. But that cannot be true as the explosion twisted the LM and command module. They say the stack was "tin canned" and they would not know the rotational orientation of the LM to the command module to begin with. Not with the great accuracy required to fly the ship.

Also you see above I turned up something even more compelling. The system's center of mass would have been altered by way of the alleged explosion. That is the center of the system that needs to be pushed so that it goes straight. Think of a rocket engine pushing at your head. That is going to spin you. If it pushes in the center of your body you'll go straight. With spaceships knowing the center of the ship's body is critical to make it go straight. They had no way to determine this from the computer data in the command module so we can tell right there the story about the ship flying back to the right trajectory around the moon was made up.

All I can add is an object in motion tends to stay in motion. Physics 101 Moving 25000 MPH towards earth . The explosition caused it to rotate not change direction. When venting was over orentation on CM and LEM were the same, direction to earth was the same, there orentation was changed and then corrected before the final burn.

But who cares it's easy stuff. The hard stuff was landing on the moon

reply to post by phishyblankwaters

i don't buy it myself, they went to the moon, Apollo 13 was hit by a micrometor and suffered damages as we have been told, it's a miracle they made it back because even just 1 astronaut lost in space would be enough to end the entire program.

So, the deaths of Grissom/White/Chaffee ended the Apollo program before it started? And the Challenger disaster ended the space shuttle program? Musta missed all that...

reply to post by mikell


Not correct by a long shot. The oxygen tank explodes and shoots off at 100 mph to the side of the ship from whence it came. The total momentum of the system is conserved. The balance of the rocket moves in the opposite direction such that mV=Mv where small m is the mass of the tank and capital V its velocity. Big M is the rest of the mass and small v its linear velocity in the opposite direction.

reply to post by mikell


Another point. they would have to know the angular momentum of the system in order to successfully burn back into the free return trajectory.

I'll call the angular momentum of the ship ZERO at T-1 second(one second before the explosion). At T=60 seconds the ship has been sent spinning by virtue of the explosion. Some rotational momentum "leaves" the ship(I arbitrarily use the term "leaves" as I am designating the angular momentum of the pieces that fly off the main body of the ship with a "minus", this is simply conventional, I could have said the blast pieces had positive angular momentum, the whole scenario and terminology is obviously simplified to emphasize the critical points). I call the momentum of the spinning fragments which have left the ship minus X momentum. The main body of the ship has the exact compliment, plus X spin of the now detached spinning exploded tanks, wall of the service module, released gases and so on. The total angular momentum must sum to zero with angular momentum always being conserved.

The ship stack(LM-CM-remainder of the service module) has plus X of angular momentum owing to the fact this all must sum to zero. Small jets then go off from the stabilization system/reaction control system(en.wikipedia.org...) but as all acknowledged the ship continued to spin to some not insignificant degree. The change in angular momentum was never corrected by the reaction control system. If the rockets could have perfectly added back the minus X of momentum, the ship would have been back to its original state angular momentum wise. This was not the case. Read any account about what happened with the reaction control stabilizing system. It failed to correct for the spinning.

At the time the burn was carried out then the LM-CM-service module remnant has some degree of angular momentum different from the zero momentum at T-1 seconds. This is due to the blast and then the effect of the reaction control system. They would not be able to program the stack to return to a free return trajectory without having this spin or momentum data in the LM computer. As the relation between the LM platform and the CM platform could not in principle be known with the needed high degree of accuracy they would not be able to determine with the requisite accuracy how the stack was spinning about the LM platform , the latter's orientation being not satisfactorily determined. And because of this any attempt at a burn into a free return trajectory would fail for it would not be known how the stack was spinning during the burn push. It would take a curved course from any predetermined desired trajectory that was based only on position and did not take into consideration the new and as far as the LM computer goes, unknown angular momentum of the ship stack.

Now I can easily see why the data(tapes) for the missions was conveniently lost. I never understood why hoax people were so activated by this transgression. Now one can see the tapes were lost so somebody couldn't go back to the Apollo 13 data and subject it to the type of analysis as above and show the thing was fake.

As I said before this stuff stands up to all scrutiny. Take a look at any account of Apollo 13 and the burn into the free return trajectory. Totally fake.

reply to post by mikell


My posts deal with the burn from cislunar space after the explosion back into a free return trajectory. My emphasis is on those parameters as above which would be required to make such a burn successful but would not be available to rocketeers were the scenario real. These parameters include but are not limited to the orientation of the LM platform or IMU if you prefer. The new rotational momentum of the ship stack with respect to that IMU or platform if you prefer. The center of mass of the stack.

Originally posted by kiwasabi

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by kiwasabi

 

You make the claim, are you going to provide the evidence?

How about you provide the evidence that he wasn't murdered? I don't have time to convince "skeptics".

Really?

The onus is on the person making the claim to provide evidence.

Argument From Ignorance

Prove to me the Queen of England is not a shape shifting reptilian.

When delusion is the sickness, skepticism is the antidote, and you sir are looking a bit poorly.

meh

reply to post by seabhac-rua


I'm not aware of any evidence unless the autopsy report and police report are to be found online. It is conjecture based on the fact that his report later went missing. It is a belief, one that I have strong convictions in. You always have to look at who stands to benefit from these types of events. And clearly it was NASA in this case as they were able to proceed with their hoax unabated. Sorry for my initial reaction. Frankly with the moon landing hoaxes I don't really care to prove that they are hoaxes because ultimately it achieves nothing. It's not like 9/11 or the Federal Reserve where it could actually improve the world if the truth was proven to the world.

theflatearthsociety.org...

"Then, ironically, Baron himself was stopped in his tracks. Exactly one week after he testified before Congress and only days before his report was set to be released Baron's car was stocked by a train. Baron, his wife and his step daughter were killed instantly. The incident was deemed by the police to be an accident. Baron's unpublished 500 page Congressional Report detailing the specific deficiencies of the Apollo program was never found".

reply to post by kiwasabi


Cheers kiwasabi. I agree at least on the face of it. 911, banking scams are a bigger deal than fake lunar landings. But's that's on the face of it. Not that the very same people are involved in these activities, but it is the same interests. NASA at root is an arm of the US military and it was strategic interests that motivated the fake landings. At least that is the way I am putting it together early on in my career as a CT. 911 was strategic. Always seemed that way to me. The fake landings and 911 are about advancing US strategic interests one way or the other.

Exposing one thing will help to expose the others. The fake moon landings are easy to expose. I have never studied 911, but it seems a much much tougher nut to crack. Apollo is easy to show fake. To reiterate, the IMU was said to have been comprised of a stable member or platform with 3 gyros and 3 accelerometers aligned to some inertial orientation and corrected by the three gimbals in which that stable member was nested when that platform was sensed to have deviated from its inertial alignment. The whole Apollo 13 scenario is dependent on the outright implausible contention that with the information stored in the command module computer, the LM inertial orientation could be confidently established and the IMU could be aligned with it.

Sure 911 is a bigger deal kiwasbi, but as I wrote above, this is low lying fruit here. And once people get it. Realize this moon landing thing was fake it opens up the minds of thousands, millions, billions to the possibility that there is much more to other CT charges. The fake moon landings are the gateway.

reply to post by kiwasabi


One more interesting thing kiwasabi, anecdotal, but extremely telling. I watched a tape of the the Apollo 11 television coverage last evening. Not once during that 2 hour and change moon walk did Aldrin or Armstrong comment on seeing the planet earth and describing it for us while they were walking around there pretending to be on the moon. The planet would have been bright and easily seen from the moon's surface. So of course if they were really there they would have said, "Oh look, we see the earth, hello everybody" and that kind of thing. They also would have independently or would have been asked to turn the television camera on the earth. Pretty obvious thing to do. Even if it was little more than a lonely bright partial disc in the pitch black sky. It would have been dramatic and would have made complete sense under the circumstances.

Now I am beginning to see the light. Obvious things like this. And of course pro landing people will say there was no "scientific reason" to look up at the earth and comment upon it. Pretty lame this Apollo stuff. I can't believe it took me so long kiwasabi.

Originally posted by hugediscovery
Sure 911 is a bigger deal kiwasbi, but as I wrote above, this is low lying fruit here. And once people get it. Realize this moon landing thing was fake it opens up the minds of thousands, millions, billions to the possibility that there is much more to other CT charges. The fake moon landings are the gateway.

It seems even conspirators are less likely to believe the moon landing hoax. I know people who fully accept 9/11 as a government false flag but refuse to believe the moon landings were faked. I'm not so sure people are willing to listen. Clearly not many people here on ATS are that interested in discussing this conspiracy.

Originally posted by hugediscovery
One more interesting thing kiwasabi, anecdotal, but extremely telling. I watched a tape of the the Apollo 11 television coverage last evening. Not once during that 2 hour and change moon walk did Aldrin or Armstrong comment on seeing the planet earth and describing it for us while they were walking around there pretending to be on the moon. The planet would have been bright and easily seen from the moon's surface.

That's a good observation. They did show the earth from Apollo 11 while it was in space. They pointed out in that FOX special that something passed in front of the camera, making it clear that the camera was positioned farther back to make the earth appear smaller and farther away.


This is an interesting PBS video about how scant the records are on Apollo. Basically NASA doesn't know how it even got to the moon.

The Technical Record of the Apollo Program? A Space Junkyard
www.youtube.com...

Clavius webmaster is a low life fake

reply to





post by kiwasabi


Not a "huge discovery, but caught a big fish lying about this nonsenses,So I wrote the Flying Foy folks kiwasabi; "How does one go about becoming a "certified flying Foy technician"?",

and the associate officer administrator wrote back : "Only Foy employees are Foy certified. Foy works with the local crew to train them on the specific show. But that only makes them operators for that show. If you are interested in working for Foy, please forward a resume. Otherwise, the best way to work with Foy equipment is to be involved with a show that is using flying."

So remember back here kiwasabi when I brought up the there other thread dealing with Foy; you had pointed out

www.abovetopsecret.com...?


I responded; www.abovetopsecret.com...

And now we know for darn sure these people e ask and answer softball questions.

The guy who claims he is a certified Foy tech is the same guy that runs Clavius the anti-Apollo site. How can he run the site and be a foy tech if in order to be a certified tech one needs to be actively teching on a show. Involved in a show today. Maybe he himself has got tights on and is doing Peter Pan dancing around "Clavius" suspended by a leotard .

What a joke theses guys are. Pathetic really.

reply to post by seabhac-rua


Whenit comes to understanding the events of the late 1960s and in particular the moon landings real or pretended, I'm beginning to believe intuition is undervalued and rhetoric overvalued.

I'll throw in with Mr. kiwasabi now knowing what I know. That guy, Brown, his wife kid, wiped out by a train. He was murdered. Ain't no ranaway trains 'except those being used as weapons.

reply to post by hugediscovery

One more interesting thing kiwasabi, anecdotal, but extremely telling. I watched a tape of the the Apollo 11 television coverage last evening. Not once during that 2 hour and change moon walk did Aldrin or Armstrong comment on seeing the planet earth and describing it for us while they were walking around there pretending to be on the moon. The planet would have been bright and easily seen from the moon's surface. So of course if they were really there they would have said, "Oh look, we see the earth, hello everybody" and that kind of thing. They also would have independently or would have been asked to turn the television camera on the earth. Pretty obvious thing to do. Even if it was little more than a lonely bright partial disc in the pitch black sky. It would have been dramatic and would have made complete sense under the circumstances.

Except, of course, that the Earth would have been almost directly overhead and not visible from inside the space helmets. As for your usual "navigation problem" claims, are you implying that they could not have taken the readings from CM inertial guidance system and used them in the LM? When docked, they were aligned perfectly, and even if the LM were to rotate slightly, couldn't they just have subtracted the angle it rotated from the CM's reading? There might have been a very tiny error introduced by a change in the system's center of mass, but that could be corrected at the mid-course correction burn. And stop using sock puppets, Patrick!

reply to post by hugediscovery


I'm quite honestly a little lost here hugediscovery. But hoping to catch on. How is it exactly that the LM platform could not in principle be aligned? Isn't there some conversion that was fairly straightforward one system for the other? Please help me understand the details of your argument.

Originally posted by TheDaytonaFlinstones
reply to post by seabhac-rua

 

Whenit comes to understanding the events of the late 1960s and in particular the moon landings real or pretended, I'm beginning to believe intuition is undervalued and rhetoric overvalued.

I'll throw in with Mr. kiwasabi now knowing what I know. That guy, Brown, his wife kid, wiped out by a train. He was murdered. Ain't no ranaway trains 'except those being used as weapons.

Well, cars do get stuck on train track at inopportune moments, and people do die this way. But I feel with the timing of this happening to Mr. Baron after having gotten threatening phone calls, and with people saying his safety report would keep NASA from going to the moon for 100 years, and the subsequent disappearance of said report, I think it's a reasonable progression in logic to deduce that he was murdered to cover up his findings. The hoax needed to proceed as planned. The compartmentalization of the entire process kept 99% of those involved in the dark. But Mr. Baron was one person who saw what was really going on.

wow, now that you mention it, all that fakery around the mercury and gemini programs seem kinds silly as well

and apollo 10, what a waste !

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
wow, now that you mention it, all that fakery around the mercury and gemini programs seem kinds silly as well

and apollo 10, what a waste !

Could you elaborate on what fakery you're referring to? I would imagine Apollo 10 at least orbited the earth, but I doubt it orbited the moon. The theory is that for the fake moon landings the astronauts went up into earth's orbit instead of landing on the moon.

By the way, one of the most conclusive pieces of evidence that the moon landings were faked is the Van Allen Radiation Belt. It would've been impossible for the astronauts (and even the ship itself) to have survived such intense radiation with the amount of shielding that they were outfitted with.


Moon hoax - RADIATION IN OUTER SPACE (biggest proof man never went to moon)
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by kiwasabi


Phil Plait the "Bad Astronomer" argued in his debate with comedian Rogan that the Gemini ships were in the Van Allen belts. Obviously they were not. Did not go that high. So much for Plait. He is an embarassment for the other side really.