Please Debunk The Moon Landing Hoax For Me..., page 31

reply to post by Nate8727

---

Why are there never any stars in the pictures or videos of the moon? All I see is black space. That is nonsense. Anyone with any trace of common sense would know...

That this related to the "exposure latitude" of film. If you take a picture in bright sunlight, there is always little or no detail in the shadows. Try this for yourself: On a bright sunny day locate a concrete culvert that is in bright sunlight. Meter the concrete and then take a picture. When you look at the print, you will see absolutely NO DETAIL in the pipe. In fact, the inside of the pipe will probably be totally black.

The moon is very bright when the sun shines on it. The stars in the background aren't much brighter than you see them on earth. It would be impossible to expose a picture to carry detail of the lunar surface in sunlight and show the stars. Do you see stars in the daytime here on earth? Same reason. (Also light scattering in the atmosphere.)

Go ahead, read about "exposure latitude of film". Try the experiment yourself. Shoot, I bet you already have pitcures with no or little shadow detail; and, your pictures have never been exposed to such a wide exposure range as found on the moon in direct sunlight. When you "stop down" for bright sunlight, you just don't have enough light from the starts to show up on the film.

Good Lord, man, if NASA knew they'd have to hoax stars in the background they'd been smart enough to add them to the diarama. It wasn't a hoax.

How about reading up on that before jumping to short-sighted conclusions.

reply to post by Tsurugi

---

I bought those DVDs of Apollo documentation. Holy Cow!! It includes electrical diagrams of the whole stack, piping schematics, test results for all of the engines including the attitude control PAMs and the whole shebang. There are thrust/mass/velocity charts for launch, parking orbit injection, translunar injection, lunar insertion, lunar decent, lunar landing, ascent, lunar docking, transearth injection, and deorbit burns.

Even the development milestones throughout the project's history are provided in detail, including what they learned at each step so as to enable the next. (From Mercury, through Gemini, and through Apollo.) There isn'r any room for speculation, really.

If these unrealistic and unknowledgable "doubters" would merely do their reading homework, it would be patently obvious that those flights occured ... and just like they planned them.

Of course, some would rather believe in the Tooth Fairy than read intricate technical documentation.

reply to post by Tsurugi

---

Hmmmm. It seems the Apollo flights brought back pieces of the previously crashed Surveyer 3:

Surveyor 3 was one of five automated spacecraft that successfully soft-landed
and operated on the lunar surface, acquired a vast amount of new scientific and
engineering data, and provided a firm foundation for subsequent manned
landings on the Moon.
When we designed and launched these Surveyors, there was no plan for
them to be visited by astronauts in subsequent manned missions. Some of us,
however, had the quiet hope that, at some later date, astronauts would walk
up to a landed Surveyor, examine and photograph it and the surrounding
terrain, and remove and return to Earth selected components for engineering
and scientific studies.
Such an opportunity was provided by the Apollo 12 mission. Thirty-one
months after Surveyor 3 landed, the crew of Apollo 12 photographed the
spacecraft and its landing site, and removed and brought back a number of
selected components. These parts, which included the television camera, were
analyzed to determine the effects on the hardware of the long exposure to the
lunar environment.
The returned material and photographs have been studied and evaluated
bv 40 teams of engineering and scientific investigators over a period of more than
1 year. A few tasks are still in process and several proposals for additional studies
have been received...

reply to post by hudsonhawk69

---

Perhaps the only moon landing that was faked was the first one...

Since you are well grounded with the spacecraft, lander, and ground support electronics engineering details as well as mission dynamics including trajectories, would you please identify the "SNAFU" that separated Apollo 11 from Apollo 12? I really would like to know what you have found that made the former fail and the latter succeed.

Why would NASA stage a fake landing when they were all prepared to perform a real one only 120 days later? How did they get the Soviet Union to think that a lunar landing occured? How did the technical difficulty that prevented mission success get fixed in only 120 days with none of the contractors who built the hardware knowing about it?

Why would Apollo have trouble landing when there were several "Surveyer" landers on the moon? How did those machines work while the Apollo didn't?

If you acutally want to know about those flights, just look at the reference material I linked in post By LifeIsPeculiar.

reply to post by LifeIsPeculiar

---

OK. There is some information I didn't know. Thank you. Finding good information is the hardest part of researching anything

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

---

Thirdly, there is the "What really happened?" crowd. That's me and others like me who have questions about Apollo and we are not satisfied until we hear all sides to the story

This crowd gets "blinded by science," and believes that everything is political propaganda. They use the issue to make anti-humanist and negative points, while refusing to do any original research of their own. They rely heavily on ad hominems and guilt by association. In fact, they are less concerned with finding out what "really happened" than they are about making people feel bad about humanity.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

---

The Apollo "Yes, We Did!" crowd just want to read the Apollo scriptures, watch the "digitally enhanced" DVD's and stroke their ego's by quoting obscure facts from NASA publications which hold, to them, all truths about Apollo.

If you are referring to the DVDs I mentioned, then it is painfully obvious that you aren't "doing your own research". Those DVDs contain PDFs of technical documenation. Now, as for "stroking their egos by quoting obscure facts from NASA publications", you need to come to grips with the idea that those "obscure facts" are what landed men on the moon. Just because you are hideously technically challenged doesn't mean that everybody is. I happen to understand that material. I worked for Sperry Astrionics. Another thing, NASA didn't write the bulk of that material. The contractors and subcontractors wrote them.

They normally can't think out of the box. They are often guilty of exaggerating claims and blinding people with science.

Oh, here's a good one! It was "thinking outside the box" that landed men on the moon. That had not been done prior to that project. You are merely incapable of thinking inside the "old box". Just because you don't understand technical issues doesn't mean that those who went before were in the same boat. I guess if you were'nt holding a cell phone you wouldn't believe they worked.

we are not satisfied until we hear all sides to the story

How about giving some evidence that you have heard "the yes we did" side of the story. You can prove that by actually reading the technical documentation and then by telling the rest of us about the fatal flaw that would prevent the landings from occuring. Surely you are not so intellectually dishonest to dismiss this challenge. If there was a hoax, it was simply because the science and the engineering didn't work. The documentation shows the intent of the equipment and the technique for those missions. All you have to do is prove that you have found the technical reason for failure. Think outside of the box: prove the documentation to be erroneous.

Rejoice, one and all! Most of the documentation on the DVDs I purchased can be viewed and downloaded for free at:

Apollo Documentation

Just use the links on the left to go to the technical documentation. Most of you will be stunned at what is available at that site.

Originally posted by LifeIsPeculiarRejoice, one and all! Most of the documentation on the DVDs I purchased can be viewed and downloaded for free at:

Apollo Documentation

Just use the links on the left to go to the technical documentation. Most of you will be stunned at what is available at that site.

You referred me to NASA Apollo scriptures and proved my theory was correct. Thank You

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

---

If you don't have the technical savey to debunk that material at least to identify the part that couldn't have been accomplished, you have merely proven that you are waging a religeous war of sorts. If you can't relate to anything besides superstition, you are of very little consequence in this conversation.

It is your task to take that documentation and prove that a hoax was needed to replace actual landings. You haven't presented one speck of evidence that the landings were not feasible.

Look again! That material was largely produced by contractors such as Lockheed, Rockedyne, Martin-Marietta, North American Rockwell, MIT, and so on. Do you actually believe that among 400,000 people and 86 prime contractors that NASA could even pull off a hoax? How come the Russians didn't notice? That probably had a lot to do with tracking data, wouldn't you expect?

You can't just dismiss that material out of hand, as that is just plain intellectually dishonest. To salvage any credibility, it is up to you to debunk that information with specific rebuttal.

reply to post by LifeIsPeculiar

---

Do you actually believe that among 400,000 people and 86 prime contractors that NASA could even pull off a hoax?

Only 12 astronauts can attest to walking on the moon. The 400,000 you talk about didn't walk on the moon. The 86 prime contractors didn't walk on the moon.

How come the Russians didn't notice?

Russian was busy doing their own space science at the time of Apollo.

That probably had a lot to do with tracking data, wouldn't you expect?

Tracking data can be simulated and the telemetry tapes were destroyed by NASA so they can never be examined.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

---

Only 12 astronauts can attest to walking on the moon. The 400,000 you talk about didn't walk on the moon. The 86 prime contractors didn't walk on the moon.

Only a handful of men can testify to what happened at the Gulf of Tonkin. How do you decide who to believe?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

---

Only 12 astronauts can attest to walking on the moon. The 400,000 you talk about didn't walk on the moon. The 86 prime contractors didn't walk on the moon.

Only a handful of men can testify to what happened at the Gulf of Tonkin. How do you decide who to believe?

The ultimate answer to that is ^^ like I said above ^^ The best advice I can give is to always do your own research and come to your own conclusions. And it's wrong to call me anti-American because I ask questions about history and came to different conclusions than you did.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

---

The 400,000 you talk about didn't walk on the moon. The 86 prime contractors didn't walk on the moon.

Explain how those 400,000 people, who were brilliant scientists and engineers, formulated the plans and built the machines for space flight without knowing it wouldn't work. This was a ten year program that included prototyping, testing and verification, and cooperation. Some of the stuff came from the ICBM programs and the X-plane projects. How could so many people be confused by so few? (They greatly outnumbered the NASA personnel.) Those contractors are the very same who designed and built all of the warbirds, ships, and equipment of WWII, and developed ICBMs. NASA didn't exist when they accomplished all of that. NASA surely didn't impede Von Braun's team. How could all of those guys be so easily fooled by project administrators?

You don't seem to be willing to come outside of your box, even though that is your advise to others. Your box does not include engineering documentation. I suppose you are reluctant to take a look at that material out of fear that you'd have to abandon your supersitions. Don't you understand the rare opportunity I have provided to you? You can stand before the entire world and prove once and for all that those 400,000 people were actually quite stupid and that NASA is the font of untruth. You can do that with their own meticulous documentation! Just go through that material and identify the lies that were perpetuated by NASA. Come on, man, you have a chance to slam-dunk them using their own words! You'll be famous! You will be in great demand!

You do understand that this hoax issue can be settled once and for all merely by identifying the flaw in the program that prevented the flight from occuring, don't you? I will help you to "think outside of your box" so that you can brilliantly identify the flaw that escaped the best scientists and engineers that ever live on the face of the earth. Are you willing to come out to play?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

---

it's wrong to call me anti-American because I ask questions about history and came to different conclusions than you did.

Specifically, what did you ask and what did you find that convinced you that the moon landing was technically unfeasable? Show us evidence of your painful research. Help us out with the information you have digested that leads you to your conclusions. There has to be some aspect of the equipment/trajectory/guidance/navigation/life support/etc that seems phony to you. We want to know! I want to know!

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

---

Russian was busy doing their own space science at the time of Apollo.

All of them? Are you prepared to prove that nobody in Russia was tasked to keep a very close watch on the American space program? Was the KGB helping with their spaceflight preparations? How did the Russians know what they had to do in order to compete against the American space program? Did the Russians stop their manned landing efforts because they didn't have decent movie-making studios?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

---

The 400,000 you talk about didn't walk on the moon. The 86 prime contractors didn't walk on the moon.

That is true. However, they are the ones who packed those 12 guys into the equipment they designed and built to carry them to the moon. It sure was their intentions to send them to the moon. The astronauts were committed to whatever folly that befell them once the hatch was sealed. They are the same men who performed the preflight checks, and the countdown to igniting those big rockets they had designed. They are the same guys who read the telemetry to be sure that those 12 men were safe ... for they had also designed the escape system that would carry the twelve from a stricken booster. Those 86 companies and 400,000 top-notch individuals are the same ones who processed the spacecraft telemetry in order to compute the final translunar injection burn and the same guys who sent the commands to vector the thrust. They did this all the while talking to the 12 men they packed into the space capsule. Those 86 companies and 400,000 men are the same ones who read out the ranging and positioning information while the twelve they packed into the capsule headed toward the moon. The 400,000 watched the telemetry to determine if it was safe to fire the retros in order to get a lunar orbit. They are the same men who computed a free return trajectory so that all they had to do was nothing in order to retrieve those twelve men from the moon.

I can, of course, go on and on. The ground crew packed the astronauts into the capsule and set fire to the whole thing. Yet, the lives of those those twelve men weighed very heavily upon the entire ground crew. I really think they would have noticed the anomolies had the flight been faked. Do you remember hearing things like "fuel pressure, nominal; flight angle, nominal; azmuth, nominal" during the launch? Those were indications that the craft and equipment was performing according to the design criteria and that tracking data was close to the computed trajectory. Those checklist items were all verified strictly to assess the go/no go decision of the next phase. If any critical reading did not match the design intentions, they ground crew would abort the mission. The entire stack and trajectory was designed so that the mission could be aborted at any time, and bring the astronauts home.

Ground operations were "there" the entire trip. They had to be. Perhaps you just don't appreciate the notion that the 86 companies and 400,000 scientists and engineers all felt personnally responsible for the safety of those twelve astronauts who were riding in the equipment they designed.

reply to post by GrassyKnoll

---

First of all you need to pay attention. Last week or so they even published the FOOTPRINTS of the 1,2 moonlanding. It is pure logic,science and realism. Read on nasa.com ,they publish pictures and explain in a "basic" way that everyone can understand.

Havent you even seen the satelite videos`? How about discovery channel?

I seriously refuse to belive that you are serious about this topic,we live in 2011, try go visit some science center,it is great fun,you learn something and have fun at the same time.

Use google or something, the moon is Soo ice-age. Ever been to the army? You would be surpriced what tech we have, would make the moon landing look like a stroll in the park.

Dumbing down reality
  Posted 5 days ago with 103 member flags

The 800 Pound Gorilla Everyone Ignores
  Posted 16 days ago with 67 member flags

Organic food hit piece to coincide with California proposition 37.
  Posted 2 days ago with 67 member flags

The Illusion of Choice and Truth
  Posted 10 days ago with 52 member flags

The catch all mental health disorder... Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD)
  Posted 15 days ago with 42 member flags

A chronical of the BANKSTER WARS
  Posted 7 days ago with 42 member flags

Conspiracy Theory:The Lost Episode
  Posted 4 days ago with 39 member flags

666, NWO, Aliens and You!
  Posted 13 days ago with 36 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: