Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

page: 6
54
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbonium1
NASA had very realistic-looking moon models. The model used in the video is not realistic at all, nor is it meant to be. It's described as a simulation of how the basic approach would appear. That's all. It's hardly meant to be an authentic, highly detailed replica of the moon. It's about on par with cheese-textured moon models used in 40's and 50's sci-fi flicks,

Maybe that's the reason NASA released this video - to imply their models looked so fake compared to the, ahem, 'real' moon in the Apollo clips and images. Indeed, those faulty comparisons have already started.


Or maybe this is how all of the the simulator videos really looked, and the videos were released for informational, historical and public relations purposes.

I grew up in the 1970s, and remember seeing what flight simulators looked like (the kinds for military planes, where the camera would fly over a model terrain), and it was clear they never looked like the good movie special effects from the time -- nor were they trying to look like movie special effects. They served a different purpose than movie special effects.

edit on 2/10/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Or maybe this is how all of the the simulator videos really looked, and the videos were released for informational, historical and public relations purposes.


Could be - this is a speculative point, just our personal opinions.

More important is that it (the article) shows NASA was technically capable of faking the Apollo moon landings. They had simulations for an LM landing. They had simulations for tracking a spacecraft all the way to the moon and back (ie: simulated data). They had simulations for astronauts in a 1/6 g.lunar environment. They had physical simulations of the lunar surface. And so on..

Apollo calls them "simulation models" and "simulated lunar surface", while 2001:A Space Odyssey calls them "special effects" and "stage sets".

A rose by any other name.....


Origin ally posted by Soylent Green Is People

I grew up in the 1970s, and remember seeing what flight simulators looked like (the kinds for military planes, where the camera would fly over a model terrain), and it was clear they never looked like the good movie special effects from the time -- nor were they trying to look like movie special effects. They served a different purpose than movie special effects.

edit on 2/10/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)


YES! We are talking about Apollo's "good movie special effects"!

It's just not called a movie.. .



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by turbonium1
 



More important is that it (the article) shows NASA was technically capable of faking the Apollo moon landings.


No, it shows NASA was able to practice the necessary routines on Earth in a piecemeal fashion.


They had simulations for an LM landing.


Note the use of the plural. They required different machines for different aspects of the task. None of them were visually convincing.


They had simulations for tracking a spacecraft all the way to the moon and back (ie: simulated data).


But real data was acquired in real time all the way to the Moon, not only by NASA and affiliated receivers, but by Soviet and even amateur observers.


They had simulations for astronauts in a 1/6 g.lunar environment.


These simulations either required bulky, awkward rigs or were done in a cramped airplane for brief periods of time.


They had physical simulations of the lunar surface.


None of which was large enough to accommodate the lengthy excursions of the later missions.


And so on..


So how did they create three billion year old rock samples, for example?



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbonium1

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Or maybe this is how all of the the simulator videos really looked, and the videos were released for informational, historical and public relations purposes.


Could be - this is a speculative point, just our personal opinions.

More important is that it (the article) shows NASA was technically capable of faking the Apollo moon landings. They had simulations for an LM landing. They had simulations for tracking a spacecraft all the way to the moon and back (ie: simulated data). They had simulations for astronauts in a 1/6 g.lunar environment. They had physical simulations of the lunar surface. And so on..

Apollo calls them "simulation models" and "simulated lunar surface", while 2001:A Space Odyssey calls them "special effects" and "stage sets".

A rose by any other name.....


Like I said, I remember seeing those flight simulators in the 1970s that used a camera flying over a model terrain, and while it gave the pilot in the simulator a sense of realism AND would react to his control inputs, they never looked quite as good as the better special effects in movies of the time.

I suspect the proven technology for simulators of the time was this "filming of the model terrain". It would NOT look anything like the special effects of films due to the fact that movie special effects could build any fictional scene they wanted, but a flight simulator needs to react instantaneously to the pilot's maneuvers, and give an instantaneous video feedback of the terrain to the pilot.

That's a lot different than building a special effects scene for a movie, with a single scene talking days or weeks to build and film.


By the way, Stanley Kubrick's Special Effects Moon in 2001: A Space Odyssey looked nothing like the Moon we saw during the Apollo missions. The terrain in some of the images is more craggy than what we saw from Apollo, and the Earth doesn't quite look right in either image.

www.flickr.com...
farm5.staticflickr.com...
www.ee.ryerson.ca...
farm5.staticflickr.com...

edit on 2/11/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001

Note the use of the plural. They required different machines for different aspects of the task. None of them were visually convincing.


By and large, the real, functional machines in the Apollo era ...were not visually convincing at all.

That's where the fake machines come in. Design a visually convinciing machine, not a functional one.

For example, the LLTV / LLRV were real, functional machines., while the LM was the visually convincing fake machine . It's very obvious (to the impartial observer, at least) that the LLTV / LLRV iwas the real lunar lander - a very crude machine. The LM iis the futuristic looking, fake machine ,- with a few 'functional' knobs as a convincing special effect.


Originally posted by DJW001

But real data was acquired in real time all the way to the Moon, not only by NASA and affiliated receivers, but by Soviet and even amateur observers.


It was simply assumed to be real data, acquired in real time. They don't know if it IS real data, or simulated data. Only NASA knows the real source of the data.

I've heard about Soviets and amateurs tracking Apollo, but I've never seen any proof for these claims


[

Originally posted by DJW001

So how did they create three billion year old rock samples, for example?


Collect them in Antarctica, for starters.

A robotic probe will do the trick, also.

Or if you're sure that it won't be subjected to scientific analysis, just use a chunk if petrified wood. It's quite convincing as a 'moon rock'!!



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by turbonium1
 




Note the use of the plural. They required different machines for different aspects of the task. None of them were visually convincing.


By and large, the real, functional machines in the Apollo era ...were not visually convincing at all.


That is an entirely subjective judgement. If you do not believe that any given machine is functional, please provide an analysis using engineering principles.


That's where the fake machines come in. Design a visually convinciing machine, not a functional one.


Are you saying that all of the engineers on Earth failed to notice that the Apollo vehicles could not function as they were supposedly designed to?


For example, the LLTV / LLRV were real, functional machines., while the LM was the visually convincing fake machine . It's very obvious (to the impartial observer, at least) that the LLTV / LLRV iwas the real lunar lander - a very crude machine. The LM iis the futuristic looking, fake machine ,- with a few 'functional' knobs as a convincing special effect.


Please back up your opinion with some actual analysis.



Originally posted by DJW001

But real data was acquired in real time all the way to the Moon, not only by NASA and affiliated receivers, but by Soviet and even amateur observers.



It was simply assumed to be real data, acquired in real time. They don't know if it IS real data, or simulated data. Only NASA knows the real source of the data.


But the data was received from on object on the way to the Moon. Why fake data when you have real data?


I've heard about Soviets and amateurs tracking Apollo, but I've never seen any proof for these claims


What, in your world, qualifies as "proof?" I can link to any number of Russians who describe how they monitored American missions, but you would discard them simply as "claims." Tell me what you would consider to be proof and I'll see what I can do.



Originally posted by DJW001

So how did they create three billion year old rock samples, for example?


Collect them in Antarctica, for starters.


If you are referring to meteorites, they all have tell-tale signs of heating on entry into the Earth's atmosphere. If you remove the fusion crust from the surface, you would also remove the "zap pits" and leave tell tale signs of machining.


A robotic probe will do the trick, also.


A robotic lunar sample return mission would be as great an achievement as a manned landing. Even more so given the primitive nature of robotics at the time!


Or if you're sure that it won't be subjected to scientific analysis, just use a chunk if petrified wood. It's quite convincing as a 'moon rock'!!


Ha ha! You crack me up, Patrick!



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
[Are you saying that all of the engineers on Earth failed to notice that the Apollo vehicles could not function as they were supposedly designed to?



No, I'm saying that all the engineers were ileft n the dark. The LM was impossible to assess - no tests on Earth, but have perfected it for moon landings, and for thr ascent, and for precision coupling to CM while in lunar orbit.

What's so difficult to believe about all that, right? .



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by turbonium1
 



No, I'm saying that all the engineers were ileft n the dark. The LM was impossible to assess - no tests on Earth, but have perfected it for moon landings, and for thr ascent, and for precision coupling to CM while in lunar orbit.

What's so difficult to believe about all that, right? .


All of the LM's specifications were publicly available. Airframe design, propulsion elements, everything. You are welcome to examine them using your engineering knowledge, as no doubt Soviet and Chinese engineers did. As for the impossibility of assessing it, what were all those tests for? Not just the ones on Earth in vacuum chambers and firing stands, but the ones in orbit and in cislunar space.

Please stop arguing from ignorance and incredulity. Even your sock puppets are getting embarrassed for you.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbonium1

For example, the LLTV / LLRV were real, functional machines., while the LM was the visually convincing fake machine . It's very obvious (to the impartial observer, at least) that the LLTV / LLRV iwas the real lunar lander - a very crude machine. The LM iis the futuristic looking, fake machine ,- with a few 'functional' knobs as a convincing special effect.



First of all, the LLTV and LLRV would not function in space, considering the had an air-breathing jet engine.


Secondly, what is so much more "furtuistic" about the look of the LM compared to the LLRV?
The LM was actually a a simple basic design in two parts:

1. A pressurized crew cab with an ascent engine:





2. And a section with landing struts and a descent engine:




It's a generally simple conceptual design.


I think the LLTV and LLRV were MUCH more complicated -- at least propulsion-wise. As I said, those training vehicles hand a gimbaled jet engine that had to continually thrust at a very high level to simulate the 1/6 gravity of the moon. Plus it had the reaction control system (RCS) thrusters for detailed maneuvering.

In the lower gravity of space, the main rocket engine of the Lunar Module did not need to work as hard as the jet engine on the LLTV/LLRV -- which made it easier to control.

This system of a high-powered jet engine and small RCS thrusters proved way too complicated and dangerous, and that's why they stopped training on those vehicles.




edit on 2/16/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
All of the LM's specifications were publicly available. Airframe design, propulsion elements, everything. You are welcome to examine them using your engineering knowledge, as no doubt Soviet and Chinese engineers did. As for the impossibility of assessing it, what were all those tests for? Not just the ones on Earth in vacuum chambers and firing stands, but the ones in orbit and in cislunar space.

Please stop arguing from ignorance and incredulity. Even your sock puppets are getting embarrassed for you.


No, it's your Ignorance of basic scientific method.

Suppose I build a 'time machine'..I give you the specs for it. I give you the test results of its sub-components.
However, you can't see a demonstration of the finished product, to verify that it actually does work. But you'll see a film of it in action!

I mean, if you think that's good enough for an LM, then it's good enough for my time machine, right?.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by turbonium1
 



No, it's your Ignorance of basic scientific method.

Suppose I build a 'time machine'..I give you the specs for it. I give you the test results of its sub-components.
However, you can't see a demonstration of the finished product, to verify that it actually does work. But you'll see a film of it in action!

I mean, if you think that's good enough for an LM, then it's good enough for my time machine, right?.


I'm pretty sure that if you gave me the specs on a "time machine" I could figure out pretty quickly why it wouldn't work. On the other hand, thousands of trained professionals have reviewed the design and testing of all the hardware components for Apollo, and millions more actually witnessed them in action. Your analogy was childish, and you know it.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbonium1

...Suppose I build a 'time machine'..I give you the specs for it. I give you the test results of its sub-components.
However, you can't see a demonstration of the finished product, to verify that it actually does work. But you'll see a film of it in action!...


Well, first, the basic method by which the machine travels through time would need to be well understood. Then someone could possible know if the specs you showed them would actually be able to achieve that method of travel.


The basic thing that makes them LM work -- the basic method of propulsion -- is well understood by many, many people. It's not some esoteric cutting-edge advanced physics theoretical mumbo-jumbo (which I suspect would be the case in your time-travel analogy)...

...Instead, the workings of the LM is just rocket thrusters and Newton's Laws of Motion. Very simple in concept and able to be understood by a large number of engineers -- or simply people who understand engineering concepts and Newton's Laws. If you give any propulsion engineer the spec of the LM, he'll say "yep -- I see how it worked". However, I suppose it might take a trained time-travel engineer to approve your specs for your time machine.

So your analogy is really quite different, seeing that methods of travel by rocket propulsion is very well understood by many, but methods of time travel are not.


You seem to feel the LM is more "mysteriously magical" than it really was. Sure -- it was a great engineering achievement to make all of the systems work together nine times without a major failure, but it wasn't magic. It was just good engineering.



edit on 2/17/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 09:41 AM
link   
you know what would be intereresting ? if there was third party independent evidence of the apollo landings

if there was only one link that you could go to and see all the independent third party corroboration of the apollo landings

oh wait, there is !

third party evidence

baysinger and kaminsky should be "househould words" around here. very cool what they did

lunar eavesdropping

you can actually listen to baysingers recordings on that page

I know none of the hoaxers will even click it, but hey, I can dream






edit on 17-2-2013 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
The basic thing that makes them LM work -- the basic method of propulsion -- is well understood by many, many people. It's not some esoteric cutting-edge advanced physics theoretical mumbo-jumbo (which I suspect would be the case in your time-travel analogy)...

...Instead, the workings of the LM is just rocket thrusters and Newton's Laws of Motion. Very simple in concept and able to be understood by a large number of engineers -- or simply people who understand engineering concepts and Newton's Laws. If you give any propulsion engineer the spec of the LM, he'll say "yep -- I see how it worked". .

You seem to feel the LM is more "mysteriously magical" than it really was. Sure -- it was a great engineering achievement to make all of the systems work together nine times without a major failure, but it wasn't magic. It was just good engineering.

edit on 2/17/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)


This is just a variation on the Apollo-ite classic.... 'Apollo is understood by all the scientists/engineers''.,

Which means .....squat. . ,


Engineers/scientists understood the scientific principles/, laws, etc. which were behind the LM's creation..

Just like my time machine - based on well-known scientific principles and laws.

.
ISo appearances alone don't cut it.

Same as the LM - just a convincing fake. .


Your side tries to portray the LM as trivial, not the milestone achievement it would really be...

So what's up with that, anyway? Hmmm ,
edit on 23-2-2013 by turbonium1 because: add point



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by turbonium1
 



Engineers/scientists understood the scientific principles/, laws, etc. which were behind the LM's creation..


I can explain all of the details of the LM's systems in terms even you can understand.


Just like my time machine - based on well-known scientific principles and laws.


Okay, explain how your hypothetical time machine works. I'm waiting....



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
I can explain all of the details of the LM's systems in terms even you can understand.


I understand there's no proof the LM even worked. I understand how 40 years of backwards progress in lunar lander development cannot be dismissed by a laundry list of silly excuses
't

Originally posted by DJW001

Okay, explain how your hypothetical time machine works. I'm waiting....


Sorry, but it's protected technology .

I'm waiting for proof on the LM.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by turbonium1
 



I'm waiting for proof on the LM.


What would constitute proof? Be specific.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by turbonium1
 


One good source of evidence that the LM was a functioning piece of hardware is the wealth of documentation available , photographic and written, detailing Northrop Grumman's intensive and obviosly expensive efforts in designing and constructing it.

So hundreds of Northrop Grumman workers were in on the conspiracy? And the company was prepared to spend all that time, effort and more to the point, money in making a fake lunar lander? That's a bit silly really. They were (and are) at the forefront of aerospace technology. More likely that the lander they built wasn't fake.
edit on 24-2-2013 by mrwiffler because: speling



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrwiffler
reply to post by turbonium1
 


One good source of evidence that the LM was a functioning piece of hardware is the wealth of documentation available , photographic and written, detailing Northrop Grumman's intensive and obviosly expensive efforts in designing and constructing it.

So hundreds of Northrop Grumman workers were in on the conspiracy? And the company was prepared to spend all that time, effort and more to the point, money in making a fake lunar lander? That's a bit silly really. They were (and are) at the forefront of aerospace technology. More likely that the lander they built wasn't fake.
edit on 24-2-2013 by mrwiffler because: speling


Who would be in any sort of position at Grumman to know if it's a fake or genuine? A few at the top, that's it.

Everyone else would have a specific job, with no clue.

Nobody at Grumman would really know if it worked, for that matter.It was built to NASA's specs, then shipped off. It was never tested on Earth, so nobody could see if it worked at all.

It is odd that current lunar lander designs are designed as 'Earth' landers first, while the Apollo LM was not. Think about that..

They didn't need to build an Earth version of the LM first, to see that it worked. They went directly into building the lunar lander.- the LM. And the closest to an Earth version was the clunky LLRV/LLTV.

I guess they were much smarter in the 60's, being able to pull off such miracles of design!



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by turbonium1
 



Who would be in any sort of position at Grumman to know if it's a fake or genuine? A few at the top, that's it.


Let's see... the engineers who actually designed it, for starters. Then the machinists who read the blueprints and fabricated the parts to a demanding tolerance. The people who assembled the parts based the blueprints. the quality assurance people who made sure that the parts met the specifications, the people who tested all the sub-systems, the people who tested the assembled lander... pretty much everybody, actually.


Everyone else would have a specific job, with no clue.


How would anyone know what their job is if they don't have access to the plans?


Nobody at Grumman would really know if it worked, for that matter.It was built to NASA's specs, then shipped off. It was never tested on Earth, so nobody could see if it worked at all.


Every component was tested and tested again. They would know everything worked. NASA did not design the lander, Grumman did. Everyone who participated in that design, construction and testing process would know that it worked.


It is odd that current lunar lander designs are designed as 'Earth' landers first, while the Apollo LM was not. Think about that..


Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that they are currently developing reusable landers.


They didn't need to build an Earth version of the LM first, to see that it worked. They went directly into building the lunar lander.- the LM. And the closest to an Earth version was the clunky LLRV/LLTV.


What are you even talking about? Of course they experimented with scale models.


I guess they were much smarter in the 60's, being able to pull off such miracles of design!


No, people nowadays are just more strident in their ignorance. (And stop giving yourself stars.)





top topics
 
54
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join