the discussions regarding moon landing hoax, reminds me of a huge discussion I've got with a universty professor regarding the biblic facts.
the creation of universe/man by God in Genesis ( 1st day, 2nd day ...) cannot be accepted , scientifically speaking.
BUT this professor maintains that 6 days = 13 billion years !!! if we consider Relativity !!! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]
and regarding Noah Arch oddity: again Relativity applied on creation ( not evolution ) of species !!! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]
and regrding food Kasherot ( why Rabbit, shrimps not Kasher ?? ): ther must be a health reasons !!! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]
have u heard about cancer due to eating rabbit ?? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

MY viewpoint, is that Bible is a Fake ( I'm sorry for believers, no harm, just my opinion) fabricated by a couple of jews, some 2500 years ago. smart conspirators that invented/borrowed stories/legends, rewrote them to make them look attractive and doubtless, ie. the holy truth.
there were no way to detect the hoax for centuries. untill modern science discovered the lies. mny biblic lies.

the point is:
a believer will do everything --- possible and impossible -- to defend his belief.

Franckly, both pros and cons arguments regarding moon hoax are sound.

perhaps one day, the science that revealed biblic lies, will shed the light on the truth regarding moon hoax. ie. a super powerful telescope, or super laser stuff, or a simple way to go to moon ... that will show us doubtless that moon landing occurred in 1969/72 ... or not.

Sorry, I have to disagree with you, cable. I have yet to see a "sound argument" in support of the moon hoax position.

Not one.

I'm also an atheist, and as such, I don't believe in the existence of supernatural deities. However, I have no reason to doubt that we landed on the Moon. None.

I would like to hear your reasoning for why we didn't, and covered it up instead. How did you come around to that position?


-Adam

OK I'm new here and english is not my mother tongue. so be indulgent .
WELL I didn't read everything at this forum.
Franckly, I'm finding both pros and cons arguments sound.

BUT 2 points disturbing me:
1. the number "13":
this is well known unlucky number. NASA could have scipped it, doing Apollo 11, 12, 14 .... 18.
or simple coincidence ?? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

2. Reliability:
I've read about soviet lunar stuff. they considered sending 2 unmanned QUALIFIYNG missions to the moon that are same as the ones to be manned. that may remain on moon and later be used as spare.
( at Ariane Space, they DO have qualifiying 2 launches, before accepted by insurance companies)

no such a reliability precautions/fears at NASA, knowing that NASA was not 100 % reliable with early Apollos ...

YET all 6 lunar Apolos worked , say 98 % trouble free. wowwwwwww !!! except one , probably caused by that famous number 13 !!! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Not to be crass or anything, but if Arianespace really insists on two qualifying launches before entering the vehicle into service, they wouldn't have had the problem they recently experienced, with the loss of two commercial payloads along with the maiden flight of Ariane V ECA. What it usually comes down to is cost. Qualifying flights are very expensive.

1) Number Thirteen.
Number thirteen being unlucky -- well, at that point NASA wasn't feeling very superstitous. They were thinking that there was nothing to be afraid of with the number "13" so they went ahead with it. If you are a superstitious person, you can think that perhaps that is what doomed Apollo 13. But for those who prefer more factual explanations, what happened was that one of the systems in the fuel cell system had been used for a series of demonstration tests. This had overstressed it. None of the other Apollo service modules were subjected to as much strain, and this one simply was strained too far. It eventually wore out, there was a short, and the liquid oxygen tank exploded.

Later, NASA did become a little touchy about the number. This is why there was never an STS-13 shuttle mission. They changed the numbering scheme for a while; when they went back to it, there was no #13. The closest they have been was STS-113 just a few weeks ago, and that flight was a huge success.

2) Test flights of the hardware.
NASA was actually very successful with early test Apollo hardware. In fact, it has been rightfully said that the Saturn has the best safety record of any vehicle ever flown. Even the Space Shuttle has one catastrophic failure; Saturn had no catastrophic failures, and only one partial failure. They tested early Saturn rockets, they tested Apollo CSM spacecraft on Little Joe II rockets, they performed automatic unmanned testing of LEMs and CSMs in Earth orbit, they did drop-tests of CMs, they tested the ability of the escape towers to pull the crew to safety, they did four manned test flights, and they sent Ranger and Surveyor spacecraft ahead to test out important procedures and determine the nature of the lunar surface before trusting it to humans. In all, they were doing major hardware testing for almost nine years before Apollo 11 landed on the Moon. For a full chronology of the Apollo program, including the early Saturn tests but not including the robotic Ranger and Surveyor missions, check out NASA's Historical Archive: Project Apollo

So let me see if I have this right...

Is it your claim that because NASA kept the number 13 and something went wrong with the mission, it was scripted that way, so as to be dramatic?

Are you claiming that because the Soviets did things differently, the US could not have accomplished the Apollo missions?

Aporetic

Cable, a little Apollo program background.

AS-201: Unmanned qualification of the Block I Command Module on a Saturn IB rocket.

AS-202: Unmanned qualification of S-IVB procedures on a Saturn IB rocket.

AS-203: Repeat of AS-201.

Apollo 4 (AS-501): Unmanned qualification of the Block II Command Module on a Saturn V rocket. Class A mission.

Apollo 5 (AS-204): Unmanned qualification of the Lunar Module on a Saturn IB rocket. Class B mission.

Apollo 6 (AS-502): Repeat of Apollo 4 more or less.

Apollo 7 (AS-205): Manned qualification of the Block II Command Module in Low Earth Orbit. Class C mission.

Apollo 8 (AS-503): Manned qualification of the Block II Command Module in Lunar orbit. Class C' mission.

Apollo 9 (AS-504): Manned qualification of the Lunar Module in Low Earth Orbit. Class D mission.

Apollo 10 (AS-505): Manned qualification of the Lunar Module in Lunar Orbit. Class F mission.

Apollo 11 (AS-506): Manned qualification of the Lunar Module on the Lunar surface. Class G mission.

Apollo 12 (AS-507): First functional selenogical mission. Class H mission.

Apollo 13 (AS-508): Functional selenogical mission. Class H mission.

Apollo 14 (AS-509): Functional selenogical mission. Class H mission.

Apollo 15 (AS-510): Advanced selenogical mission. Class J mission.

Apollo 16 (AS-511): Advanced selenogical mission. Class J mission.

Apollo 17 (AS-512): Last advanced selenogical mission. Class J mission.

As you can see, the Block II Command Module was tested twice, count 'em, twice, before astronauts were put inside it.

The Saturn V rocket was tested twice, count 'em, twice, before astronauts were launched on top of it.

The Lunar Module was tested once before astronauts used it and was tested twice, count 'em, twice, before being made to land.

You say that the NASA never did its qualification missions, but as you see, they did.

Futhermore, just because a qualification mission is manned, doesn't make it any less a qualification. When they worked as ordinary test pilots, they were made to fly aircraft that had been tested far less.

As for 13, NASA isn't superstitious. The cause of the explosion was clearly identified as being caused by damage to the tank during a botched detanking following the CDDT. There is nothing suspicious about NASA deciding it doesn't care about the number 13.

calliarcle, aporetic,

NO I'm not supersticious at all.
but I found this coincidence troublesome.
any links with this nuber "13" issue ?

No I'm not saying , because they did not follow soviet procedures, they must fail.
I'm just saying that there must by at least 1 qualification before the real manned mission took place. and putting spare stuff on moon is a matter of precaution.

Ooops ... more explanation ...

I've made a parallel between NASA and Bible, kuz of some hoax-theory similiarities.
here we have jews trying to show other folks that they have been chosen buy God, thus smarter and more advanceed than other [ US capitalism sperior than Soviet communism ]

jews knew nothing about the creation of universe/man. [ NASA didn't know how to send and return man safely]
so they fabricated a scenario of what happened 1st day, 2nd day ... (genesis) .
very captivating scenario indeed [ so did NASA with fancy captivating photos]
for centuries , no way to challenge biblic stories [ NASA version still prevails nowadays]
but modern science discovered the lies (not 6 days but 13 billion years, evolution ...).
BUT pro Bible folk won't accept the hoax. they still come up with "sound" arguments to show u that Bible is the holy truth.
kuz it's very hard for a believer to acept that he and his ancestotrs + 1 billion christians have been fooled by a handful early jews. absolutely unacceptable.
[ same for NASA hoax: absolutely unacceptable kuz it hurts very very much, even if it's really a hoax]

Putting spare stuff at the landing site may be a good precaution, but its irrelevant if your ascent engine doesn't light. The point is that the astronauts were paid to take the risk.

And, as I said before, qualification doesn't mean unmanned. The astronauts were test pilots, riding something that may explode beneath them of whatever was their job.

People who take the Bible to be the inerrant word of God are people like Creationists. We aren't all that fond of them in actual fact.

Most rational-minded Christians and Jews simply take the Bible to be more of an philosophical text to try to tell them who they are and how they should behave. They don't take it to be a Tamarian scientific journal.

(Tamarians are a race that appeared in 'Darmok' [TNG]. They only spoke in metaphor.)

Okay, I understand you now. I'm sorry; I'm a little sleepy today. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

I don't think they were troubled with the number 13 at the time. They are now, though....

They did do qualification flights. And they also seriously considered putting spare stuff onto the Moon, or at least having it ready to send along later. They ended up not doing it for cost reasons, however. There's an article at Encyclopedia Astronautica that goes over a few of them. It's a good read, and I think you'll enjoy it. By Gemini to the Moon

Particularily check out the various proposed Gemini rescue vehicles for use during Apollo. None were ever built.

well if it is actually manned than it cant be a qualification (= landing + returning mem to earth safely). same for an airplane: from take off to landing safely.

comparing with Arianespace, u can't speak of qualification that takes commercial + insured payloads ...

perhaps NASA and Arinaspace are uncomparable [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

If you read my previous post, you'll see that there were several manned qualification of technology before getting down to the Selenology. They didn't just go straight to the landings. There tested the hardware in space first.

what philosophical ?? I'm watching in enesis the "photos" of : day1 , day 2 ...

How about considering the moon landing as a ... philosophical fact ?? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Wouldn't that be epistemologically inaccurate? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

Cable -
I don't know what values your country holds, but racism is an attitude that the majority of people in this country (the U.S.) do not like. Your comments about the Jews seem to have pretty strong racial undertones and overtones.

I happen to be one of the few Christians on this Board, and I, too, find your comparisons of NASA with the Bible to be very humorous. For one thing, the Bible was written during a time long before "science" and scientific thought were in existance, and so the "language" of the Bible was not scientific in origin nor description. The writings in the Bible expressed the thought processes of the people of that time. It has only been relatively recent in the whole span of human history that men have defined "naturalistic" (non-diety based) explanations and descriptions for the formation of the world. Unfortunately, a lot of Christians and non-Christians alike fail to understand this, and there are a lot of conflicts because of it. People like me do have reasons to believe in the existance of God because of what we have been through, but religion of any kind is not something you can put into a scientific box.

NASA has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with religious beliefs. NASA's operations run 100% on science. To compare the Moon landings to the Creation account is so off base that you make youself appear as if you do not want to believe that the Moon landings were genuine and therefore are making up comparisons so as to prove your belief. That makes you look like the "religious fanatic" in this case. Sorry you don't like that, but that's the way it is.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: nebularain on 2002-12-14 18:04 ]</font>

Not to me, it's not. I was born on a 13th. And so was my niece.

I was divorced on a 13th and that was an extremely happy day for me and my children.

I am a jew. Yah a couple of jews might of gotten drunk one day and made up the story of Jesus and the bible for a frat prank. but we will never know. The cances are it probobly was a very smart, enlightened and healpfull person who really did help alot of people. I personally don't believe that he was eveything they say, but that is a matter for a different board. This is not a religion issue or board.

Jews and the bible have nuthing to do with NASA This i have to take offense at. From my understanding of your posts, it hints that the same type of people (jews) have willingly decieved millinos of people in the bible and in NASA. While it might not be jews in NASA, you hint that jews are decietfull, and this hurts. If i am wrong, please tell me.


Nasa has not willingly faked the moon landings. If they did, where did all of the money for the missions go? Why would they decieve millions? And the nimber 13 is just superstition. It is a North american (and european) superstitian. Go to Asia, or South america and they will think you are crazy for thinknig this. And the number of the rocket does not matter. Howcome something horrible does not happen on thew 13th of every month? Why don't you get in a car wreck on the 13? Why don't you trip on the 13th stair? It is a bunch of hogwash.

Next...

_________________
"Watch out for falling Coconuts!!!"
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." by Dan Sandler 2002

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: g99 on 2002-12-15 00:07 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: g99 on 2002-12-15 00:41 ]</font>

Ok, my take on this.

1. Comparing "organization A", which requires two qualifying flights, to organization "B", which doesn't, is a completely specious argument. All it shows is that the guys in charge of A are more paranoid about failure than B. Things like this are nothing more than procedural guidelines, highly changeable and dependent on the situation.

Besides, just because B doesn't have 2 qualifying flights doesn't mean it's not concerned with safety and reliability. There are other ways to ensure safety. Strenuous ground testing of the component parts, for example. And you don't always have to test the whole shebang at once, you know. You can sometimes test them a system or two at a time.

2. Cable: well if it is actually manned than it cant be a qualification (= landing + returning mem to earth safely). same for an airplane: from take off to landing safely.

Where do you get this? A qualification test is simply that, a test. Manned or unmanned is immaterial. The only point of it is to see if the equipment does the job within set parameters. That's what test pilots do all the time with new aircraft. Someone's gotta fly it first.

Besides, please tell me how NASA was supposed to run unmanned tests on equipment that was only designed for manned operation? Even if they could have somehow managed to rig up remote control devices, they would still not have been able to properly evaluate the life-support systems or other equipment designed for human use.

3. It's also wrong to say that they didn't run qualification tests. Glom gave a perfect rundown on the Apollo mission schedule above. every single mission up to and including Apollo 11, was a qualification test. That's right, Apollo 11 was a qualification mission. It just also happened to be the first lunar landing. Armstrong and Aldrin did as much science and PR as time allowed, but the primary purpose of A-11 was to test the equipment and procedures for later missions.

4. I don't even want to get into the number 13. What a ridiculous connection. Apollo 1 had a horrendous fire in which 3 people lost their lives. Does that mean that missions numbered 1 are also unlucky? The Japanese consider the number 4 to be ill-omened. Why didn't anything bad happen on Apollo 4?

5. Ditto with the bible argument. As the others have said, it's immaterial and smacks of racism. Also, it's just another version of "conspiracy A, therefore Conspiracy B". Which is not only a breach of logic, but doesn't even have a solid basis for claiming A in this case.
_________________
...And that, my leige, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

<font size="-1">(had to correct my numbering)</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Hall on 2002-12-15 02:41 ]</font>

The requirement that Soviet spacecraft be qualified in unmanned testing before being certified for human spaceflight was Brezhnev's backlash to Khruschev's recklessness. It was a largely arbitrary requirement. It is not common in aerospace.

True, we do not risk the lives of test pilots unnecessarily, but the idea of a fully automated spacecraft is purely a Soviet invention (and a political one at that): paranoia in the wake of high-profile fatal accidents. It is not necessarily sound engineering. This is because fully-automated (or automatable) manned craft are more difficult to engineer and more complex -- unnecessarily so since their purpose is to convey the occupants safely to the destination. To require a vehicle to be more complex than necessary is asking for trouble.

Apollo was designed from the start to require a human pilot for a successful lunar mission. And it is according to those standards that it should be most appropriately judged. Do not assume that the Soviets and the Americans worked according to compatible philosophies, nor that the Soviet plan was favorable because it appears to casual investigation to minimize the risk to human life.

As for testing, not only is it possible to do unit testing, we prefer to do it that way. You narrow down all-up testing to integration and inter-systemic problems which have no other way to test them.

Apollo 11 was indeed the final test flight for the LM. Apollo was not considered "operational" until Apollo 12. Apollo 11 had no other official mission objective than to land and return.

Ignoring the theology of this - which has no place here - this is so perposterous. If a "couple of Jews" wrote the Bible from scratch 2500 years ago, they were awfully prescient to describe, in rather great detail, the society of Roman Judea in the period between about 50BC and 50AD, don't ya think? To describe Roman infrastructure, the Roman military code or taxation schemes centuries before the Romans showed up in Judea...?

Say what you will about the truthfulness of the Bible, it certainly was (a) not written all at once and (b) not written in 500 BC.

But, I suppose, if you can believe that 250,000 people can conspire to fake a moon landing, you can believe just about anything.

to G99, Nabulamrim and all:

my apology if I have been misunderstood.

There's nothing of racism or antisemitism in my post. and I'm not suspecting any jewish conspiracy in the Apollo program. nor am I suspectng any nazi conspiracy, because Von Braun & Co. were nazi as found in some sites ....
I'm actually talking about EARLY jews who wrote the Torah, at least the Genesis.
so I'm comparing "photos" of day 1, day 2 ... with photos from NASA. in both cases I found some Fake and oddities that contradict scientific established facts.
when I read the Bible and find from the start some Fake, I'm suspicious about the whole book. my opinion is: nothing holy in the Bible.

SO let's close this religion issue, which is for sure off topic.( sorry moderator)

I'm not a theology scholar, and u right: roman period didn't occur in - 2500 .

BUT I'm actually talking about Torah, more precisely Genesis and the creation of universe/man. the biblic version contradicts scientific established facts.

agree. religion here is off topic ( sorry moderator).

[quote]
On 2002-12-15 04:33, cable wrote:
Um, actually, religion is not "off topic" -- since the title of your baiting thread includes the phrase "Bible Stories". Is such a thread appropriate? Possibly, possibly not. Are the insults against both Jews and Christians which you throw out as if they are some commonly accepted fact appropriate? No, not even if hell (for those who believe in it) should freeze over.

Belittling others to try and make your point seem superior shows how inferior your thought processes are.

Two topics will shoot you in the foot every time: religion and politics. And here in Utah you can't even bring up one without bringing up the other so you shoot yourself in both feet. Cable, whether you intended offense or not, religion is not a good thing to argue about "scientifically". You will succeed only in insulting the moderate, infuriating the dogmatic, and destroying your own credibility. Just a piece of friendly advice.

JayUtah,

I agree. but beleive me my intention has never been to insult anybody based on race or religion.
likewisely, NASA believers may feel insulted by conspiracists, while this not the case.
if u disagree with someone, this doesn't mean u are insulting him.

Here again my aplogy to christians and jews, who may feel offended.

apology accepted cable, thanks for telling me wrong on my througts of your intentions. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

[spelling]
_________________
"Watch out for falling Coconuts!!!"
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." by Dan Sandler 2002


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: g99 on 2002-12-15 12:38 ]</font>

Thank-you for the apology, Cable, and for clarifying what you meant. I was thinking that to avoid such confusion again, it may be helpful to keep in mind that historically, back then they were called "Israelites."

I am going to hold to my position, however, that comparing the writing of the 5 Books of the Law to NASA and the Moon landings is a completely innacurate comparison.