Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

Rob48
reply to post by cestrup

 

If you are interested in the topic then I strongly suggest you read onebigmonkey's website. It's extremely well written and packed with top-notch analysis. Don't let the fact that it's created by a non-hoax believer put you off.

Give it a look: onebigmonkey.comoj.com...

Thanks for the link. I'll give it a read. Are there famous NASA employees that post here other than Oberg? Some of the facts you guys state and techniques of debate lead me to believe this may be a profession of yours. I appreciate taking in info from each side and you're right, once you have a belief set in motion, it's rather hard to acheive a non-bias approach; but I'll try.

Rob48
reply to post by cestrup

 

If you are interested in the topic then I strongly suggest you read onebigmonkey's website. It's extremely well written and packed with top-notch analysis. Don't let the fact that it's created by a non-hoax believer put you off.

Give it a look: onebigmonkey.comoj.com...

Awww shucks you're too kind! (Thanks for the PM btw, I've been having trouble with the forum since changing my password or I would have replied).

I'd just like to respond to cestrup's post by saying that I am certainly not an employee of NASA, and I wish I could get some recompense from them for every hour I've spent researching their photos and videos - I wouldn't need to do my actual rather boring and underpaid job. Just because I can string a sentence together and am prepared to argue a point of view it doesn't automatically mean I am employed to do so. I paid attention in school is all.

I set up my site because I was fed up of the restrictions imposed by conspiracy forums where bias against NASA and anyone who is prepared to speak on their behalf makes debate impossible. I'm also free to express my opinions on there and I do.

As far as I'm concerned it doesn't matter what 'camp' I'm in or where the data come from. The science and the data resulting from it are either correct or they are not. They are, and not one single anti-Apollo website or video has produced anything that can't be rebutted and debunked with a minimum of effort.

reply to post by cestrup

I only joined here last month so I don't really know who's who, but speaking for myself, I just have an amateur interest in astronomy, and a scientific background (chemistry, nothing spacey), combined with a personality that gets frustrated when it sees people repeating ignorance. And that's not meant to be a dig: space travel is complicated, and I don't even pretend to understand the half of it, so ignorance is pretty much a default position.

But, the more you read and the more you learn, the more you come to realise that there is simply no way that it could have been a hoax. Everything just hangs together too well, and is perfectly self-consistent, whereas when you start with the premise of a hoax and apply logic, you quickly run up against contradictions. That's one of the most basic forms of proof that there is: if you start with a given premise, and take logical steps from there and wind up with a false or absurd statement, then the original premise must be false.

Seriously, have a read of OBM's website. I'm sure you won't agree with all of it, but it will get you thinking and analysing which bits of it you don't agree with, and why.

Edit: OBM, hi. About the only criticism I would have of your website is on the opening page where you say "There are people out there who don’t think we went. They’re stupid."

Stupid is an emotive word, and I'm not sure that it's helpful. Someone who believes in the hoax theory is going to read that and just think "Huh, he's calling me stupid - he's already insulting me. Why should I listen to him?" Ignorant is a better word, because ignorance can be cured (by learning), whereas stupid is permanent! We are all ignorant of lots of things, but the more we learn, the less ignorant we become. I know people who knew very little about the moon landings but sort-of thought they might be fake because of some video or article they had seen. They weren't "stupid", they just hadn't learned enough to figure it out.

Of course, there is a hard-core of people who casually dismiss any evidence that doesn't fit their agenda no matter what. They are indeed some way beyond mere ignorance.

reply to post by onebigmonkey


It wasn't meant to be an insult (by asking if there were employees of the space program) but rather a complement. As I stated, I respect both sides of the argument for their deligence. It was merely my curosity to wonder if there were some professionals in this argument. I'd have to think that there are because of the passion displayed on each side as well as the data.

FoosM

choos
e i am not 100% sure of when cernan began taking photos and when he stopped and neither are you..

Oh no of course not. When CERNA stated:

168:47:12 Cernan: I got three of them that time.

With a timestamp, he was saying he was ABOUT to take three photos.
Of course, thats what it means. Oh, no wait, he just
shot three aliens with his ray-gun!

You have lost all credibility Choos.
Anybody can see you are trying to hide, and not take a stand, so you can
deny and obfuscate the obvious when things get too hot.

I tell you what, since you don't know anything for sure, even in the face of facts,
then you can never say for sure that the moonlanding happened.
In other words, you lost the debate.

first up, that is upto interpretation.. you dont know when he stopped taking the photos, perhaps he waited perhaps he said it before he pressed it.. YOU DO NOT KNOW WHEN HE TOOK THE PHOTO and neither do I.. so once again YOU ARE GUESSING, do you really think someone credible should be passing guesses as 100% facts??

secondly you didnt answer the other part.. when did he begin??

thirdly the other question, with 100% certainty prove that Schmitt did not take an unannounced practice jump..

stop guessing/speculating and provide me the absolute proof that you have that made you 100% sure of what happened, happened as you imagined it.

ETA: also im not basing knowing they landed man on the moon with just one piece of evidence or speculation in your case.. thats the difference between you and me, yes there are things we dont know but there is mountains of evidence proving we landed man on the moon.. dust behaviour for one, earths weather phenomenon for another.. unlike yourself, i havent put all my eggs in one basket.

I've been lurking on this topic since about page 180 and I cannot believe that it has gone beyond that with absolutely no progress made at all, in my opinion. The hoaxers keep themselves turning in circles seemingly stemmed from an intense hatred and distrust of President Nixon, while blissfully ignoring and deflecting any austerely-presented evidence that contradicts their point of view; the hoax debunkers keep banging their head off of a brick wall that will never yield, attempting to convince a party that will never be convinced otherwise, regardless.

Which is why I gave up a long time ago. It no longer matters to me that moon landing hoaxers believe and extoll their point of view, because I believe they're wrong. And that belief is supported by my elementary understanding of physics, photography, and period-technology, providing sufficient evidence for me to feel comfortable with supporting the view that man has landed on the moon.

I apologize if this post will derail the flow of this thread, but I felt compelled to post this on the eve of this topic surpassing 200 pages; I will not be paying any more attention to it.

FoosM

DJW001

That honor belongs to you. It was proven pretty conclusively when you first brought this non-issue up three years ago, that the photo sequence was continuous, and captured an astronaut settling slowly into his seat in one sixth gravity. Please stop pretending to be ignorant. This non-issue was settled long ago.

So which Apollogists are going to challenge DJ's statement?
Because I know you all dont agree with it.

He states:
3 continuous photos (three seconds)
Astronaut settling slowly into his seat - which is to explain why there are two photos of the astronaut in mid air.

Do you all agree? Choos, what about you?
Are you ready to take a stand?

why would i need to?? he is entitled to his opinion.. unlike you he is not passing it off as if that is what happened without any doubt.. he is showing you one possible scenario that he believes could have unfolded, one possibility..

you see, you alone are claiming that what you believe is what happened as 100% fact, yet with no proof and based on guesses..

reply to post by ArchAngel_X


We may not convince the unconvince-able (the closed-minded people who have already made up their minds, so they bend and shoe-horn evidence to fit their pre-conceived notions)...

...but we may be able to prevent them from spreading their close-minded ignorance to the next guy by pointing out that ignorance.

FoosM
He obviously could not be taking photos after the timestamp.

there you go again passing off guesses as if they were facts..

how do you know Cernan was not overly excited and wanting to gloat early while sneaking in the last photo?? are you a mind reader also now?

reply to post by choos

I'd love to know what Gene and Jack's reaction to all this wild speculation would be. I imagine it would be bemusement or raucous laughter. A passing moment more than 40 years ago in the final stages of the EVA generating so much interest from one individual.

"Hey Gene - remember when you took that one photo a second too early just before we were about to leave Station 9? Or was it a second too late? I can't remember. Good job nobody on the internet spotted that or this whole hoax thing would have been blown out of the water! We were flawless up to that moment and then we screwed it up leaving the final station! Can you believe that?"

How did they practice getting the LEM to separate from the base to connecting to the orbiter here on Earth? I'm not saying they didn't but wondering what techniques they used here to replicate what was done in Lunar orbit.

reply to post by cestrup


Again I am no expert, but the LM couldn't be directly flown on Earth, for obvious reasons. So they used simulations, together with the LLRV, which was an actual craft that simulated flying in one-sixth gravity.

Then they tested the real LM in earth* orbit on Apollo 9, and again on Apollo 10 in lunar orbit, when they did a "dry run" of descending almost to the surface and then going back to rendezvous.

That's the basics, but I'm sure someone with more in depth knowledge will be along soon.

*corrected - I originally wrote "lunar orbit" here

Rob48
Then they tested the real LM in lunar orbit on Apollo 9, and again on Apollo 10, when they did a "dry run" of descending almost to the surface and then going back to rendezvous..

Correct. They also did an unmanned test of the first LM in space during the Apollo 5 mission. That test was done in Earth orbit.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Correcting myself, I should of course have said Apollo 9 was in earth orbit, not lunar orbit.

A couple of contemporary newspaper articles you might find interesting, from The Times, May 17 1969:





(larger pic of second one here)

Rob48
reply to post by cestrup

 

Again I am no expert, but the LM couldn't be directly flown on Earth, for obvious reasons. So they used simulations, together with the LLRV, which was an actual craft that simulated flying in one-sixth gravity.

Then they tested the real LM in earth* orbit on Apollo 9, and again on Apollo 10 in lunar orbit, when they did a "dry run" of descending almost to the surface and then going back to rendezvous.

That's the basics, but I'm sure someone with more in depth knowledge will be along soon.

*corrected - I originally wrote "lunar orbit" here

edit on 27-3-2014 by Rob48 because: correction

Ah, I was wondering about that. Nice correction because I really began to wonder how something performed these tests in lunar orbit when they never left LEO.

Why, IYO, has no man been into the Van Allen since Apollo? Hasn't there only been unmanned machinery in these regions surrounding our planet? Also, since it traps radiation from the sun - how can we be sure that the radiation contained in VA is merely harmless (unless long exposure)?

cestrup

Why, IYO, has no man been into the Van Allen since Apollo? Hasn't there only been unmanned machinery in these regions surrounding our planet?

Lack of funding; lack of political motivation. There's no technical reason.

Also, since it traps radiation from the sun - how can we be sure that the radiation contained in VA is merely harmless (unless long exposure)?

The radiation in the Van Allen belts is pretty well known. Obviously it's wise to try and minimise exposure by passing through as quickly as you can, and choosing your path carefully (and also crossing your fingers that there isn't a solar flare just at the wrong moment!)

The Van Allen belts often crop up in hoax discussions, often with the assertion that they are lethal barriers to progress. They're not. Who better to correct that assertion than Dr Van Allen himself?



In case you can't read it, the handwritten response from Van Allen states "This is a completely correct quotation from my letter" (i.e., that the claim that radiation exposure would have been fatal to the Apollo astronauts is "nonsense".)

Rob48
reply to post by FoosM

 

That's not what SJ's theory states. His big conceit is that it was all Nixon's doing, that the "fake" manned missions were all conducted in Nixon's presidency because he was the criminal mastermind behind it.

SJ can speak for himself.
It would be great if he would put up a website with all the info he has found about Nixon and others.

cestrup

Rob48
reply to post by cestrup

 

Again I am no expert, but the LM couldn't be directly flown on Earth, for obvious reasons. So they used simulations, together with the LLRV, which was an actual craft that simulated flying in one-sixth gravity.

Then they tested the real LM in earth* orbit on Apollo 9, and again on Apollo 10 in lunar orbit, when they did a "dry run" of descending almost to the surface and then going back to rendezvous.

That's the basics, but I'm sure someone with more in depth knowledge will be along soon.

*corrected - I originally wrote "lunar orbit" here

edit on 27-3-2014 by Rob48 because: correction

Ah, I was wondering about that. Nice correction because I really began to wonder how something performed these tests in lunar orbit when they never left LEO.

Why, IYO, has no man been into the Van Allen since Apollo? Hasn't there only been unmanned machinery in these regions surrounding our planet? Also, since it traps radiation from the sun - how can we be sure that the radiation contained in VA is merely harmless (unless long exposure)?

Keep digging and you will find enough info pointing to the fact that it was impossible for any human to go through the belts with Apollo space craft. They weren't designed for radiation. No protection on the windows, thin walls, etc.
Im sure many will say that Apollo skipped the "bad" part of the rings. So there you have people admitting there are "bad" parts.
But NASA stated at least on Apollo craft went through the "bad" part with no ill effects, lol. And when I investigated it, I found that the trip took longer than people say.

FoosM


Keep digging and you will find enough info pointing to the fact that it was impossible for any human to go through the belts with Apollo space craft. They weren't designed for radiation. No protection on the windows, thin walls, etc.
Im sure many will say that Apollo skipped the "bad" part of the rings. So there you have people admitting there are "bad" parts.
But NASA stated at least on Apollo craft went through the "bad" part with no ill effects, lol. And when I investigated it, I found that the trip took longer than people say.

Say what? The trip took longer than people say? How is that possible when the time of launch, time of landing, time of leaving the moon and time of splashdown are all matters of public record and easily verified?

You can't just throw out a claim like that without backing it up.

As for the Van Allen belts, I'll take Dr Van Allen's word on those. You, however, are welcome to lecture me about the FoosM belts, as and when you discover them.

reply to post by Rob48


Rob, did Dr. Van Allen ever officially recant his findings in the 1950s that had him believing astronauts would have to have plenty of protection against the radiation encountered in the belts? I mean, like scientific papers and not just a signiture on a paper. Thanks!