There are ten thousand of them. Would you be so kind as to direct us to the one you mean?

I never needed to use those figures becouse I did not ever believe they were real or correct. I've convinced myself by studying most of the official multimedia that NASA has published. I just want YOU to prove something for YOURSELF. I of course believe that some of the conspiracists's arguments are wrong in some way, but some of the counter-theories are wrong too. And following that logic, when there's nothing except photos, videos, moon rocks and strange behaving former astronauts, there comes a logical answer.

By the way, I live in a post-sovietic country. Yes, we have electricity and computers. And we have a different way of thinking. I personally believe that in US government had more conspiracy than the former Soviet government, which had more than enough. The Moon Hoax could be started in Soviet Union too, but russians were not so easy to convince. (FYI: vodka was used instead of mass media). Again, sorry for my poor english.

And, about this board. It seems that you all are lurking and waiting for a stupid conspiracist to post some old arguments and after that you enjoy flooding the poor guy with numbers and the same old counter-arguments. Sorry to disturb you guys, I hope you had fun of me :wink: bye

post scriptum

the first of them for example.

P.P.S.

would you?

So you worked on the presumption that the data was faked from the outset? What led you to that presumption? If you never used the data in your analysis, how could you determine they weren't correct?

This sounds more circular than Aristotles model of the universe. The data is fake, therefore Apollo is fake, therefore the data is fake.

Which ones?

What standard of proof would you require?

We know that. If we didn't think that was the case, there never would have been a cold war.

Critical thinking isn't open to cultural differences.

The US government didn't cheat to get their first man into space. The US government didn't send their first astronauts on spacewalks in dangerously ill equipped vehicles. While the US government conducted its space program fully open to the public to witness all successes and failiures as they happened, the Soviet government concealed all space activities until they had been successfully accomplished. The Apollo 1 accident was announced to the public. The N-1 explosions weren't.

Apparently they are. Because the Russians fully accept the legitimacy of Apollo.

Don't go yet. We've only just begun. Admittedly, it may sometimes seem that way. That's because we enjoy discussing this subject. However, the same old arguments are one of our chief HBer annoyances. They're just boring. We like it when conspiracists present new arguments. We don't just flood the HBer with numbers, because that gets tedious. But sometimes, when HBers take a firm stand, they force the discussion into the realm of the quantitive ad we have to get to the numbers.

The first one is an artist's painting. And while the spacesuit is clearly pressurised, it's hardly ballooned to the point where motion is severely impeded.

http://www.clavius.org/techsuit.html

English is not my native language so I'm sorry but I'm not familiar with that abbreviation. But if you're referring to that they are paid off or that they're being threatened by government spooks, then why would they publish radiation figures of Apollo missions which imply that the missions were hoaxed?

I was hoping an answer to my first question, because I believe NSBRI was talking about radiation during interplanetary missions and not Apollo.

ok than tell me the density of moon dust...

All I can tell you is the density of upper lunar regolith as discovered by the Apollo astronauts. But why would you accept that, since you don't believe the missions took place?

EXACT power of rocket engine at all stages of touchdown, and I'll have a calculation.

I see. So we do all the research and preliminaries, and you do one thing at the end and proclaim yourself clever. No, it doesn't work that way.

What's even more disturbing is that you took us to task implying that if we did "calculations" then we'd be convinced you were right. But now you reveal that you haven't done any calculations yourself, even though you've come to a conclusion. How disingenuous is that?

I'll represent to you that the descent engine's mass flow rate at 25% thrust is 3.7 kg/s. I'll represent that its specific impulse is 300 seconds. Compute its thrust in newtons at that setting and we'll see if it makes sense for us to continue talking about calculations.

960 rem was exact dose of radiation which is to be applied to the spacecraft during the mission, according to Space Biomedical Research Institute.

Excellent. Then you should be able to give me a reference to a paper, journal article, report, seminar, publication or something similar wherein this organization published such a figure.

And your units are confused. If you're talking about radiation applied to something, that's a matter of raw radiation, which is measured in curies (in the system you've decided to use). If you're talking about the amount of radiation absorbed by the spacecraft and its contents, that's measured in rads. The rem measurement applies only to biological absorbed dose, and has no meaning when applied to a spacecraft. You don't appear to have understood what you read.

if you'd look at the photos, pressurized suits give a rigid balloon-like appearance which the moon astronauts did not appear to have.

Hhow much research did you do into the design, construction, and operation of Apollo space suits?

Can you define the terms "restraint layer" and "accordion joint"?

Why NASA is wasting peoples lives on columbia when it could waste them on a real trip to the moon?

What makes a moon voyage such a high priority?

...but silenced that project after they figured out it is still impossible?

Why do you believe that's the reason China gave?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Of course, we'd prefer becquerels, grays and sieverts. :wink:

I never needed to use those figures becouse I did not ever believe they were real or correct.

What did you do to determine they were unreal or uncorrect?

I've convinced myself by studying most of the official multimedia that NASA has published.

But you're talking about subjects that would normally require a scientific or engineering qualification. Did you acquire any of that expertise? If not, did you consult an expert?

I just want YOU to prove something for YOURSELF.

Ah, but we have. We have proven it to ourselves because we have the requisite training and understanding to test NASA's claims and see if they are plausible. You appear to have neither the expertise nor the inclination to actually put the matter to the test.

Again, you appear to believe that if we simply delve a little deeper into the question, we'll come to believe Apollo was faked. Most of us have delved much, much deeper into the question than any of the conspiracy theorists. We can therefore see clearly the deficiency in their understanding and the shallowness of their own research. We do not blindly believe that Apollo was authentic.

And following that logic, when there's nothing except photos, videos, moon rocks...

What other physical evidence that is practical to obtain do you believe should have been offered?

...and strange behaving former astronauts

What's strange about their behavior? Why do you believe it's strange? What evidence do you have that this behavior, if any, is caused by what you hypothesize?

And, about this board. It seems that you all are lurking and waiting for a stupid conspiracist to post some old arguments and after that you enjoy flooding the poor guy with numbers and the same old counter-arguments.

Lurking is hardly the word. We enjoy each other's company. And if you don't like our reaction to old arguments, then by all means come up with some new ones. It's quite impolite to barge in, accuse everyone of ignorance in your first post, and then backpedal away when it appears you are in fact the least informed.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Of course, we'd prefer becquerels, grays and sieverts.

Of course, but Molotov chose English units. I'll happily work in SI if necessary. Or we can do it all over in hogsheads and furlongs.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I'd just like to point out that $40 billion dollars represents more money than Microsoft - one of the largest and most profitable companies in the world - receives in a year. And that's revenue, not profits. It would take over five years of Microsoft profits to fund a $40 billion program - not, I think, something Bill Gates would be up for.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Boeing set the development budget for the B-777 at $8 billion. If the project had failed, the company would have been bankrupt. And you can't get to the moon on $40 billion today. Try more like $60 billion or $80 billion.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Saying that 1+1=3 isn't a different way of thinking. It's just wrong.

Harald

__________________
"Flying in space is risky business, but just staying on this planet is risky business too." - John Young, astronaut

You could have just stated the fact that the US went into Vietnam in an attempt to stop Communism, omitting the judgmental adjective "misguided." Your statement implied that the attempt to stop Communism was misguided; that was what I took exception to. If you meant to say that getting involved in Vietnam was misguided, I don't find that quite so offensive (although I submit that people who say so are Monday-morning quarterbacking), but it is still a political statement.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

... so stop talking politics, unless it relates to Apollo.

I wasn't negleting that the base remained, but I'll admit to not checking on the thruster power on take-off and to assuming most of the lander's weight was in the upper LM at that point rather than the base. My assumption was based on the base having near empty fuel tanks at landing, compared to the ascent stage's full tanks. I'll cop to making assumptions without checking though. Thanks for the catch.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Okay, this is a straightforward argument. You want us to compare the Apollo suit appearance to some other known pressurized space suit picture. Now the thing is, we need to see which pictures you mean. Please find two pictures - 1 Apollo suit that is not pressurized correctly but supposed to be on the moon, and 1 space suit that is pressurized that shows ballooning. We need you to show us the difference in appearance that you see. How can we answer the question if we can't see what constitutes a difference in appearance to you? I mean, maybe the space suit picture I claim as my comparison you would just discount as not pressurized correctly, too. So show us the pictures you want us to compare.

test

Welcome! :-D

And goodbye....

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

What trolling! There is colour 16mm photography. Low res colour B&W video. But no, I don't want that. I want hi res colour video before I believe they were there. Pathetic.

The abstract version of this particular argument is very common.

"The Apollo missions should have involved X. I don't observe X, therefore the missions are false."

There are two problems. First, the premise is usually unsubstantiated. That is, "The Apollo missions should have involved X," is not established by any means other than vigorous (and sometimes vulgar) assertion. Although "begging the question" is usually synonymous with a circular argument. I tend to associate it with the aspect of this fallacy which "begs" to accept the most important premise of the argument either as a self-evident fact, or something that just "ought" to be. Basically it lures an otherwise properly critical listener into accepting the proposition without an argument. If there's any opposition, the proponent tries various emotional arguments that paint objection as irrational.

Bennett and Percy use this technique extensively as they argue that something "so important" as the Apollo missions should have certain properties, and if they don't then it's somehow suspicious.

The major premised thus "begged" into truthfulness, the expected observations are duly failed to be made. The failure to observe is problematic in the general case because it cannot be determined whether the expected observation is missing because the event that would have produced it never occurred, or instead because there is some fault in the observation. Again here we see conspiracists employing prodigious apparent means of obtaining the observation, but coming up short. However easy it may be to obtain information pertaining to the observation (e.g., to order a DVD from Mark), it still nevertheless requires effort. Whereas to say one has looked all over for it to no avail requires no more energy than to say it.

And in this case where the two errors are mixed together in the same argument, the failure of the observation is best explained by the fault in the major premise. We don't see high-resolution motion picture photography because it's not rational to expect it. No amount of digging will produce it.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

A common HB argument is that the technology of the 1960s was insufficient for the task of landing a man on the moon, but this is the first time I've seen the argument that, not only was technology well advanced (at least in the area of video imaging), but that it was almost equal to that of today, and, hence, sharp, ca. 2004 videos should have been made. Maybe I'm just reflecting my inexperience with the HB phenomenon. I suppose what's really happening is that they'll propose whatever needs to be true to establish fakery.

I think this is a pretty fair statement.

I guess this "ethereally gorgeous footage" isn't good enough? :roll:

For All Mankind

__________________
I may have many faults, but being wrong ain't one of them. -- Jimmy Hoffa

I can't believe I missed that HB! That had to be one of the funniest arguments I've seen in a while: it's fake because there are no crisp color images like from a camcorder.

What's next? Elvis's music was not originally released on CDs therefore he never existed?

Indeed, why did the Astro-nots use a bulky Hasslebad when they could have taken a nice small digital camera? It beggars belief!!!!

Something smells...

__________________
There we were in the park when suddenly some old lady says I stole her purse..... I chucked the professor at her but she kept coming..... So I had to hit her with this purse I found.
-- Bender

I’ve been watching the videos where Buzz Aldrin, decks Bart Sibrel, right on the kisser for the past 8 months over on Youtube, and it just keeps getting funnier each time. LOL. While I was doing a search on Google this evening for more information on Buzz punching Bart Sibrel, I stumbled onto this page, so it looked like a good place to have fun.

Also being doing amateur astronomy for the past 29 years now, when its warm outside, and providing the skies are clear enough.

Anyway just like to say Buzz did the right thing, because if I was getting hassled like that, I’d do the same probably. Ole Buzz did all right.

__________________

Bart Sibrel is owned by the (Buzz-Lite-Punch) right on the chops.

We came in peace for all mankind…
The moon no longer as any astronomical importance! Thanks to NASA for defacing it!

You watched it for 8 months?