Take Your Best Shot: The Moon Landings Were A HOAX!

reply to post by kaptabs

Thanks for being open minded and willing to do research. I will attempt to clarify a few things that you mention in the above post and your reply to my post without going into great detail.

The Dutch Moon Rock. Below is an excellent explanation of what really occurred.

Originally posted by kaptabs
reply to post by DJW001

 

Seriously, read the article, the whole conspiracy is over, and it’s so simple. We concentrate on any number of wacky theories to prove or disprove everything and yet, the moon landing needs none of it. It is blatant. There is no chance it happened because during the late 60's, the technology was simply unable to manage the job. In fact, as of today, now, it still cannot be done or we have been shown no evidence of the required technology anyhow

The TV analogy was to show the absurd rational you used in the above statement. Just because something is primitive to today's standards, does not mean it was faked. My father used to tell me stories of watching football games on their first television set back in the '30s. They aren't at all like what we have today, but they still worked. Link to a good TV history site

The odds of getting EVERYTHING RIGHT AT THE VERY FIRST TIME OF ASKING

Once you have done a bit of study on the preparations and training that went into the space program, you will realize that it really wasn't the first time they did any of it. All the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo flights previous to Apollo 11 were practice runs. They did everything except actually land a man on the Moon prior to Armstrong's and Aldrin's landing including landing other probes on the Moon. Apollo 10 did everything except land. They even descended to a predetermined height and then rendezvoused back with the Command Module.

The camera being attached to the astronauts presented real limitations . . .

By far the most famous of all Apollo cameras, and perhaps the most important as well, was the Hasselblad EDC, which was adapted from a camera of the same company, designated the Hasselblad 500 EL. Nicknamed "Hassies", these 70mm cameras were used by the astronauts on the lunar surface for still photography, and, as such, took almost all of the photographic images brought back from the lunar surface. Because these camera systems had no viewfinder, and were worn on the chest during lunar EVAs, a lot of practice was needed to master their use. To that end, the astronauts were issued cameras to take home and practice with.

SOURCE

The cameras were modified to be used by the astronauts in their space suits. They practiced with similar cameras on Earth to learn how the cameras worked and to get the feel of taking pictures without a view finder. Yes, it can be done, I have several antique cameras that really didn't have a view finder. You looked down the top of the box to get your field of view. Link to Wiki of Camera History

I hope you enjoy the Aussie thread as much as I did (except for the monotonous repetition of the hoaxers). And, most Moon landing supporters at ATS are willing to take the time to answer questions to help anyone who is genuinely wanting to learn the truth about man landing on the Moon.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

I'm looking for 4 sources ( 3 external, 1 internal) that can support DJW001's claim that "The Apollo program is one of the best documented series of events in human history ".

If you can't provide the sources then you should probably refrain from posting about the sources that you don't have. It just makes you look ridiculous.

lmgtfy.com...

Ha ha. Very funny. Is this supposed to be comedy thread? Did I miss the memo?

What it really means is that you don't have any credible sources to back up your utterly preposterous claim about Apollo.

I'm sure that someone will come right along now and accuse you of being intellectually dishonest or intellectual laziness. Those are the things that I have to put up with here on ATS when I post about Apollo.

Have a good day.

reply to post by DJW001


Coincidentally I started thinking about about a drifting theory yesterday and if I were to replace the word drift with your word coast then my theory parallels what you say about being hurled towards XYZ when in the vacuum of space. Interesting.

As for the craft vs shuttle, for the sake of my trying to learn a little more I think that is more relevant to you than me as we both know what I meant. If we need to be that pwdantic however I will keep it in mind, thank you for helping me grow! ;-)

And forget about the calculator. It was a relevant point in that the commercial side of the US was inventing the first pocket calculator while NASA was planning and implementing the most important event, an array if unique mechanical crafts that would outperorm anything seen before or for at least fourty plus years after, and put simpky the most wondrous feat of modern times.

My point was always to emphasise the absolutely insane accomplishment that NASA managed if it is accepted that it wasnt hoax. And, while NASA went about performing these miracles in the late 1960s and early 1970s, miracles that even today in 2012 have not been recreated by anyone, ever, worldwide, NASA included. And on the other side, the commercial and non government side of things the equivalent advancement was a small box that added numbers together.

I find this hard to get my head round that is all. On reflection I would have left that alone as it serves nothing really and is my own hang up. But here we are.

At no point was it an attempt to suggest that NASA couldn't handle the math without a calculator. I'm not pinning my hopes of a conspiracy on the fact that calculators were not in circulation at the time of designing the "Craft". Dear me that would be absurd. I just find the parallel to be a mindmuck.

Besides I too am a "sliderule" guy. Wouldn't go to the park without a copy, imagine the anarchy.

Peace.

reply to post by Gibborium


All I can really say to your good self is that I am working through that thread. The Aussie guy stuff is interesting but people seem a little to exited to be honest. He has presents interesting stuff but I am still waiting for the genuis to show himself rather than just the self righteous arrogance that i get from him currently. maybe i expected too much?

Anyway. As for the TV and calculator thing I'm wishing I hadn't bothered with that to be honest. My point was simply that if NASA did pull it off at a time when the first calculators were being invented and TV's were in their utero stage in comparison to where they were heading then not only had NASA performed miracles but they had done so at a time when technology in general was underwhelming. Even with today's technology actually putting man on the moon appears too hard or completely cost ineffective of you would imagine everyone with a space program would be dancing on the moon?

So, of it is that they did indeed do it as far as I am concerned the achievement is somewhat played down as nothing in any walk of life has come close to rivalling what NASA did given the times, given the pressure, and given the significance of the whole thing before, during, and after.

I am always surprised by Armstrongs reaction to go into hiding straight after after returning for example. You would have thought he was in prime position to start influencing things. Who knows.

Anyway, I have decided to look at it from the point of believing they did do it and working out exactly how they did it, what lead up to it, testing, the mechanics of the flight and so on.

If nothing else I am enjoying exercising the brain. I have noticed that it is a lot easier to hypothesise the reasons why and how something wasn't done as explained than it is to work out how these things were archived. Maybe there is something in that? If we cannot understand at first we seem to find it easier to cry conspiracy than educating ourselves. Obviously it's hard when something seems nonsensical but still how much is nonsensical purely because the person who labelled it that way just couldn't be bothered to try to understand. Does that make any sense?

Actually, I wonder how accurate that statement is to the way of things today.

Anyway, just thinking out loud now.

Thanks.

Originally posted by kaptabs
I am always surprised by Armstrongs reaction to go into hiding straight after after returning for example. You would have thought he was in prime position to start influencing things.

Why do people tell made up stories, when if they just did a bit of checking they would have found:

After being released from an 18-day quarantine to ensure that they had not picked up any infections or diseases from the Moon, the crew were feted across the United States and around the world as part of a 45-day "Giant Leap" tour. Armstrong then took part in Bob Hope's 1969 USO show, primarily to Vietnam.[95]

In May 1970, Armstrong traveled to the Soviet Union to present a talk at the 13th annual conference of the International Committee on Space Research;

He was appointed Deputy Associate Administrator for aeronautics for the Office of Advanced Research and Technology...

He accepted a teaching position in the Department of Aerospace Engineering at the University of Cincinnati,[NASA accident investigations

He taught for 8 years, so how was that hiding?

Armstrong served on two spaceflight accident investigations. The first was in 1970, after Apollo 13, where as part of Edgar Cortwright's panel, he produced a detailed chronology of the flight. ......... In 1986, President Ronald Reagan appointed him to the Rogers Commission which investigated the Space-shuttle Challenger disaster of that year. As vice-chairman, Armstrong was in charge of the operational side of the commission

So as you can see he was not hiding, so I wonder why people make up silly stories claiming he was?

reply to post by hellobruce


I think when people say he was hiding it is not necessarily like he literally couldn't be found but rather that he had just walked on the moon, this was a huge thing and you get the feeling that he could have easily run for office and done some really good things for his constituency.

The one thing I never did understand was why he walked away from the program so quickly, as you would imagine it to be a pretty exciting place at the time although in all honesty I am not sure that I even know how that played out. The one thing you seemed to get from him consistently is that he wasn't the type to do things he didn't want to, I guess that says a lot for the man against any conspiracy.

The press conference was a very odd performance although that could be in reference to anyone in the room that night or so it seems. As serious as it all was though I have alway been conflicted as people say he was shy although yo be running on happy adrenaline after such a feat and so on, but what I actually find the most weird is the reporters in actual fact. When I have watched the press conference back even the reporters seem subdued or almost as if there is tension in the air. In situations like that I often feel that to ale extent the reporter are in charge and are therefor responsible for the atmosphere and they weren't giving much joy away that day. I guess if Armstrong was socially awkward anyway, a seemingly unimpressed media wasn't going to help. It was a worrying time too wasn't it with the Cold War so, I don't know.

If our definition of hiding differs from each others then I am more than happy to change mine. It seemed to me that he was in a prime position to do some real good, but it wasn't to be. Odd really that he should go on to be a teacher as most so it because they enjoy helping and assisting others. I think he could have done that on a ledger scale, but if he had tasted the intrusive life style of being famous for a while and hated it that much, done the most he ever could in his career you would think, family time and a cozy school was obviously just the to ticket.

He said some interesting things at a certain speech also a few years back if I remember but for any of it to mean anything codes within codes within codes needed be analysed, didn't hear anything other than his wishing a new
generation well to be honest and it was the conspiracist in me watching that too so...I was never sold on Armstrong.

So, he was definitely a shy one, but he was a very principled man too it seems. If he was being lobbied for more than he wanted and in a political scene that was already showing its world wide interests, it was probably easy for the man to slip out of the headlights quietly. And with that said the thing I would want to do most is sown time with my family and ensure heir happiness and I guess he capable of thy ten times over at that time so, I would have done the exact same thing. seems to have just gotten on with himself and family. On all honesty if I could that is exactly what I would do to.

reply to post by kaptabs

If nothing else I am enjoying exercising the brain. I have noticed that it is a lot easier to hypothesise the reasons why and how something wasn't done as explained than it is to work out how these things were archived. Maybe there is something in that? If we cannot understand at first we seem to find it easier to cry conspiracy than educating ourselves. Obviously it's hard when something seems nonsensical but still how much is nonsensical purely because the person who labelled it that way just couldn't be bothered to try to understand. Does that make any sense?

You make perfect sense and this is the crux of most hoaxers. It seems many will latch onto some minor detail that has been presented by one of the Apollo hoax gurus and then impose their own interpretation upon it. Case in point: one of the most used arguments for the Moon landings being a hoax is, "there is something wrong with/in this picture."

Some people just don't understand even the basics of photography, and yet will argue until the cows come home that there is more than one source of lighting in all the Moon landing pictures. This could not be further from the truth. ALL anomalies, such as shadows going the wrong way, can be explained if one would take a little time to understand how lighting works in photography. And it seems, some are very willing to believe a stranger, who has a web site spouting off and ranting about their own pet peeves, than to listen to highly educated and very knowledgeable people in the field in question.

I again challenge you continue going through the Aussie thread with an open mind and if you have any questions, or find something that seems out of place, present it and allow one of us to explain.

The Moon landings did happen. It was a monumental accomplishment. I would even say it has yet to be equaled, but, that does not diminish the accomplishment. Look at what we are doing on Mars even now. Mars is much harder to reach than the moon and we have more equipment orbiting and on the surface Mars than the Moon. Space exploration has not really diminished, we have just changed our focus.

Originally posted by DJW001
Once the spacecraft (it was not a "shuttle") was hurled away from the Earth towards the Moon, it coasted all the way. In the vacuum of space, its motion was governed entirely by Newton's laws of motion. Please read up on them.

The Apollo missions were not exactly "hurled away from the Earth towards the Moon"... you forgot a major detail in the Apollo journey. Apollo missions established Earth orbit prior to the trans-lunar insertion burn.

According to the Wiki

Once in Earth orbit, both the Apollo 8 crew and Mission Control spent the next 2 hours and 38 minutes checking that the spacecraft was in proper working order and ready for TLI. Source en.wikipedia.org...

Please read up on that.

Originally posted by ayonaraSJupiter

Originally posted by DJW001
Once the spacecraft (it was not a "shuttle") was hurled away from the Earth towards the Moon, it coasted all the way. In the vacuum of space, its motion was governed entirely by Newton's laws of motion. Please read up on them.

The Apollo missions were not exactly "hurled away from the Earth towards the Moon"... you forgot a major detail in the Apollo journey. Apollo missions established Earth orbit prior to the trans-lunar insertion burn.

According to the Wiki

Once in Earth orbit, both the Apollo 8 crew and Mission Control spent the next 2 hours and 38 minutes checking that the spacecraft was in proper working order and ready for TLI. Source en.wikipedia.org...

Please read up on that.

OK, well I was real nice about it as I didn't want to ruffle any feathers or make mine any wetter, but he has got a cheek if he can be that bars and be with himself sexually straight away,

I am sure you SayonaraSJupiter are a good freind of his and are just having a joke but that doesnt exuse what he did.

DJW001

If you are going to take someone who has been nothing but forthcoming, who is actually looking to expand their relevant knowledge, and who has openly admitted a lack of good understanding from the get go, and decimate them wholly and completely with what can only amount to feelings of distain and disgust for me, a feeling of being intellectually and generally better, to the point of feeling you could even tell me what to do and to fob ule emotive me by adding please at the start you cannot be this disappointing surely? Where do you get off . Hi to Mommy

I didn’t react to you because I look weaker if I do but what you did was uncalled for and out of line from anyone in any walk of life and in this set of cist, menaces it somehow hurt more as I had inositol asked for help not abuse.
Go live with that you #ing jack off, decimate me and then cannot even hold your own # together despite having all the relevant knowledge , all the tie ins, and all the theory to apply all of it to every square inch.

Oh, and subtlety, it’s not your strong point., Please read up on it.

Bullies, you are one, please read up on them.

Self-grandeur, you have it and it can very very dangerous , Okewase see doctor before I call one for you.

Sat Hi to Mommy for me.

reply to post by kaptabs

If you are going to take someone who has been nothing but forthcoming, who is actually looking to expand their relevant knowledge, and who has openly admitted a lack of good understanding from the get go, and decimate them wholly and completely with what can only amount to feelings of distain and disgust for me, a feeling of being intellectually and generally better, to the point of feeling you could even tell me what to do and to fob ule emotive me by adding please at the start you cannot be this disappointing surely? Where do you get off .

Please do not misinterpret my response; it was not intended to be disdainful. It is clear that you have many misconceptions about the nature of space travel, but I do not know what your general level of knowledge is. I replied as simply as possible to the points you raised. I applaud your desire to expand your knowledge and understanding, and would be willing to recommend books appropriate to your level of schooling and comfort with mathematics. (Also whether you prefer Imperial or Metric units.) Ironically, some of the best not-too-technical introductions to rocketry and orbital mechanics were written in the early 1960s, when the whole field was new and exciting. Most of the books since the 1970s take general knowledge of the subject for granted and go straight into intimidating mathematical treatments. A trip to a good library might unearth some older books that would help form a solid base for understanding at least the basic principles.

Originally posted by ayonaraSJupite

The Apollo missions were not exactly "hurled away from the Earth towards the Moon"... you forgot a major detail in the Apollo journey. Apollo missions established Earth orbit prior to the trans-lunar insertion burn.

According to the Wiki

Once in Earth orbit, both the Apollo 8 crew and Mission Control spent the next 2 hours and 38 minutes checking that the spacecraft was in proper working order and ready for TLI. Source en.wikipedia.org...

Please read up on that.

Originally posted by kaptabs

DJW001

If you are going to take someone who has been nothing but forthcoming, who is actually looking to expand their relevant knowledge, and who has openly admitted a lack of good understanding from the get go, and decimate them wholly and completely with what can only amount to feelings of distain and disgust for me, a feeling of being intellectually and generally better, to the point of feeling you could even tell me what to do and to fob ule emotive me by adding please at the start you cannot be this disappointing surely? Where do you get off .

I didn’t react to you because I look weaker if I do but what you did was uncalled for and out of line from anyone in any walk of life and in this set of cist, menaces it somehow hurt more as I had inositol asked for help not abuse.
Go live with that you #ing jack off, decimate me and then cannot even hold your own # together despite having all the relevant knowledge , all the tie ins, and all the theory to apply all of it to every square inch.

Oh, and subtlety, it’s not your strong point., Please read up on it.

Bullies, you are one, please read up on them.

Self-grandeur, you have it and it can very very dangerous.

edit on 23-12-2012 by kaptabs because: Removed awearing

Upon reflection and a new day, I want to apologise for a lack I control above

I had been made to feel like an inconsequential irritant in just two paragraphs by having my lack of relevant knowledge highlighted and mocked despite having never claimed anything other than a theory resonating with me due to it catering to my level of understanding and my openness to learning more .

To be intentionally schooled, belittled, and spoken down to including a subtle dig at level of knowledge in an attempt to show justification, never mind it being based on unfair judgement of me and an incorrect assumption, and with obvious distain be told to further educate myself as to be worthy of contribution and then subjected to the double emotive of "please" to make the demand seem less like bulling which, in fact, the entire thread was a transparent attempt to bully subtly, was disappointing and completely uncalled for.

Finally, and the transport subtlety now simply dropped completely, an honest, if not very relevant point of mine was twisted enough to create a situations where I was portrayed childlike by a detailed explanation of a type of ruler that fit the twisted version of my point but in no way reflated what I had actually been saying. This is really wrong, but you go live with that. Shame on you though for allowing yourself to believe this is anything like appropriate behaviour.

This whole approach is dangerous and exactly the type of stuff I was alluding to with previous posts in this thread when I declared a feeling if disappointment that ATS had evolved over the years from ma great source with good people to a place where egos seem to have adapted to suit a platform that is unregulated an allows for shaming of others and bullying tactics thrive so that the egos are satisfied.

That the amount of time spent arguing as a default rather than listening, adjusting beliefs or helping others do the same, is very sad. Furthermore that people seem happy to resort to verbal abuse and very personal attacks that designed to humiliate and force submission and are well out of line. There seems such a lack of understanding, empathy or even agreeing to disagree if needs must. Behaving this way is bad news and while will provide a five second ego boost and feelings of worth and superiority, there is no awareness of what the words and actions here actually have, good or bad, and what the roll on effect of that might actually result in.

I hate that humans happily treat each other this way, even deriving pleasure in it. That makes my reaction to what I felt was deserved Karma all the worse. I had been a better person in my original response and should have left it at that. Sometimes it is hard when justice finally turns up not to have fun with it but if that were the case and I didn't then feel remorse I would be just as bad as those who I feel need a rethink in regard to their values. In fact it shouldn’t even get to the point where remorse is needed.

Karma has been described as a bitch and I am not sure if that is because she really does make the target reconsider their original actions or simply because Karma takes her sweet time in showing up. In this instance she came quickly and I overreacted, and rather than enjoying the schooler being schooled from afar, I jumped in to make sure my pain was heard and so I could drag vindication out kicking and scream if necessary.

That was quite pathetic on my behalf irrespective of the circumstances.

For that I am sorry

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by kaptabs

 

If you are going to take someone who has been nothing but forthcoming, who is actually looking to expand their relevant knowledge, and who has openly admitted a lack of good understanding from the get go, and decimate them wholly and completely with what can only amount to feelings of distain and disgust for me, a feeling of being intellectually and generally better, to the point of feeling you could even tell me what to do and to fob ule emotive me by adding please at the start you cannot be this disappointing surely? Where do you get off .

Please do not misinterpret my response; it was not intended to be disdainful. It is clear that you have many misconceptions about the nature of space travel, but I do not know what your general level of knowledge is. I replied as simply as possible to the points you raised. I applaud your desire to expand your knowledge and understanding, and would be willing to recommend books appropriate to your level of schooling and comfort with mathematics. (Also whether you prefer Imperial or Metric units.) Ironically, some of the best not-too-technical introductions to rocketry and orbital mechanics were written in the early 1960s, when the whole field was new and exciting. Most of the books since the 1970s take general knowledge of the subject for granted and go straight into intimidating mathematical treatments. A trip to a good library might unearth some older books that would help form a solid base for understanding at least the basic principles.

I have amended my apology from this morning to reflect you acknowledging this so thanks.

I still believe considering your audience, the circumstances and the effect of your words is a good thing before
posting is a responsible thing to do, rather than, after the fact, advising your words not be interpreted.

Whether you like it or not, whether you realise it or not, the post in question was loaded with derision, methods to belittle, judgement, assumption, methods of bullying you don’t even seem aware of, and condescension that came across as heartless and cruel to a person who was only interested in learning.

This happens over and over in here and elsewhere, the Internet is creating a bunch of egos out of control and without any awareness of what their online actions would translate to in the solid social world.