So it was a simpler option. How typically Occam's Razor of you. :wink:

__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131

I've always felt that the Apollo 11 crew was a good choice for the first lunar landing. All had previous experience, Collins with docking and EVA, Aldrin with an EVA focus and docking, and Armstrong with command experience, plus all the experience from combat, the Gemini 8 problem and the X-15 flights. About the only other crews with good experienece was Apollo 12 which hadn't flown and Apollo 10 which just flew.

One of the things that NASAscam obviously doesn't know is that a crew is picked for a specific mission, not just for one person. While I have no direct knowledge as to how a specific Shuttle or ISS crew is ultimately selected, we (us thermal control people) are asked if we have any specific needs. For example, several future ISS construction missions are dedicated to the activation of the entire thermal control system. There are many fluids lines with quick disconnects. The astronaut (crew) office has chosen several people with knowledge of and experience installing these QDs. But of course NASAscam doesn't know this and won't try to find the answer.

Sorry, guys- I'm hooked. I promise this'll be the last (yeah, right, he thinks to himself, but I'd never type that aloud) .

He fails to note here that a vehicle in Earth orbit goes around 17,500 mph, but the Apollo CSMs only made about 5,000 mph around the Moon (correct me if I'm wrong).

Proof? Of course not. The only proof is that anyone who thinks otherwise is an insane NUTTER.

He then goes on to comment about a prediciotn made that we would land on Mars by 1985:
According to you they haven't. However, you have yet to show me one piece of evidence as to why we haven't. Notice he continually says we didn't go to the Moon, but never offers any evidence. By the way, quite a few flights (read that as "Gemini 11") have ventured higer than 250 miles in Earth orbit.


Talking about a comment by Werner that a baby would be born on the Moon by the year 2000:
Refer to above. Also, I would assume it would be a pregnant female who would give birth, but I wonder why he specifies one.... Maybe pregnant males will give birth soon?


The key part of this statement is the first three words of the "fact". Rumor also has that baseballs are sentient and that every time you eat a pie you actually stop aging.

Besides the fact that he has abolutely no basis for the first conclusion, I also wonder what he is referring to in the second statement. The only think I can think of that he might be talking about is the Delta Clipper, whch was not a NASA project and took place ten years ago (and did fly successfully at that).

Proof? Of course not. The LMs were indeed modified to carry more fuel, air, etc. on Apollos 15-17 and were also modified to bring more instruments to and more rocks back from the surface. I often find that the hoaxists don't really understand how the LRV collapsed. There is a great little thing in the US Space and Rocket Center that explains it perfectly, though- suffice it to say it did, indeed, fold.

Thanks for all the evidence you offered with that conclusion.

Again we have the no evidence syndrome! We talked about that on a different thread- Shepard really did have experimental surgery to treat his Meniere's Disease, which this guy likes not to capitalize. Of course, he has no idea of that, but even if he were told Shepard had an operation he probably would just say it was another NUTTER suggestion, and that he's right because of all his well-presented evidence.

What does he mean by a "leased channel"? I am really laughing hard now- I have no clue what he mant and am not going to waste time dwelling on it.

Uh- huh. All of six of whom? This is my favorite piece of evidence as it assumes: Since clause A, that we never went to the Moon, is true, then clause B, that Aldrin is suffering brain damage from guilt, is also true. It is self-reliant- one clause is only true becasue the other is asssumed true.

Becasue people like you put up sites like this. Also, I would refrain from calling Sibrel a "journalist". Remember, that journalist also thinks we bribed Canada, or Japan, or somebody like that to bomb Pearl Harbor to drag us into the war.

This guy showed up on the Yahoo apollo hoax group and got destroyed by a few folks over there, primarily Jay. He made a rapid departure after that.

Are you sure? I don't remember seeing that guy there.

__________________
~AstroMike

I'm not even going to try to explain orbital mechanics to this guy.

And amazingly -- although Sputnik was seen by the naked [eye], and the space shuttle and ISS are routinely seen by millions -- no one saw this spacecraft in orbit, including the Soviets who were no doubt looking specifically for it.

I fail to see how the failure of a prediction means the landings didn't occur. Predictions fail all the time. Yet awesome things manage to get done.


Everyone associated with Apollo who dies is "rumored" to have just been on the cusp of revealing the hoax. It's easy to make up whatever you want to about people who have died. And of course a rumor does not establish fact unless the rumor is heard by a conspiracy theorist.

I can't imagine a more textbook example of correct testing than the LM.

And contrary to the claims of the conspiracy theorists, the DC-X series did fly numerous times. And so did the LLTV and LLRV.

False. The J-mission LM was extensively modified, and the modifications are well documented. I too am surprised that the LRV stowage is such a mystery. It's a matter of readers not doing their own research.

Theory, not fact.

His condition was remedied. And let's keep in mind that Al was not without influence. Flight assignments were not made blindfolded.

The moon doesn't reflect radio signals very well, at least not in the S-band and containing recognizable television and digital telemetry signals. Plus, the conversations with MSFN operators precludes the double-relay theory.

The "leased channel" undoubtedly refers to the leased telephone lines over which some of the MSFN sites were connected. There is a theory that the telemetry was transmitted from NASA headquarters over leased phone lines to the MSFN stations so that the station operators wouldn't get wise to the notion that the dish wasn't really picking up anything. (So apparently this would fool the three guys out of twenty whose job didn't involve getting signals off the dish.)

As to the shutting down of the ALSEP transmitters by the Carter Administration, that was unfortunate. However they had all greatly exceeded their design lifetimes. Our author doesn't appear to realize that technology doesn't persist indefinitely unattended in a harsh environment. Even communication satellites have to be replaced every 10-15 years, and we build those babies to last.

It doesn't get much more circular than this. Buzz Aldrin's emotional problems are unfortunate, but not a mystery.

This is not what Armstrong said. This is what Bart Sibrel said about Armstrong when Armstrong refused to grant Sibrel an interview. The quote is Sibrel, not Armstrong.

And if Bart Sibrel is a journalist, I'm a principal dancer for the Bolshoi.

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

Are you sure? I don't remember seeing that guy there.

He only made three or four posts, and they were all talking about "his" web site, with this URL. I recognize the style of debate from Apollohoax. It was definitely him.

Lately he pretty much excludes himself from all contact with pro-Apollo folks.

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

No, that's Kaysing.

__________________
~AstroMike

He was the one who presented these sites as proof the landings were faked.

Nonetheless, flesh of the flesh. (I have no idea if that is the phrase I wanted to use )

Help! I'm drowning in confusion! :wink:

Look, buddy, do your research. :x Other Apollo rookies:

Walt Cunningham
Donn Eislie
Bill Anders
Rusty Schweickhart
Al Bean
Fred Haise
Jack Swigert

Also, the CM pilot for Apollo 16 was Thomas "Ken" Mattingly, not Mattingley.


Remember this?

I noticed something - I guess he considers the flights of Apollo 7 and 9 total hoaxes, since they really were in Earth orbit.

Obviously our guy here faces a total failure of his reasoning. Gemini 7, as far as I know, was longer than any Apollo flight. He compares Apollo missions to the later Geminis which were not duration missions.

Skylab 2 did not crash. I doubt he has any conception that Skylab 2 was a manned mission. I would look up the orbits but I am pressed for time, and you probably get my drift.

A) I thought the photos were fake, according to him.
b) Where did these genuine photos come from?

Bill Kaysing never worked for NASA. He may be a "Renaissance Man" to you, but do not give him false credentials.

We have, you just don't pay attention. Here is a major point of confusion; on the one hand, he challenges us to debunk the theory in five minutes; on the other, when we actually do it, we become brain-damaged NUTTERS. Sigh. :roll:

It was quite obvious they were not the real Apollo film; it was much sharper, in color on every mission, and often showed two astronauts. Any person with some basic familiarty with Apollo could tell between the TV series and the real thing. Apparently he is getting confused with modern-day special effects and old camera technology. And if the hoax is so well-covered up, how did the filmmakers get to use the Apollo 17 lunar rover (a phrase he has probably never heard) ? Why only the Apollo 17 rover and not 15 or 16? Proof?

You mean the "Big Lie" technique? Sigh again. What is he referring to? Anyone know?

Every time an astronaut dies he was on the verge of revealing the hoax. As far as I know, only Pete Conrad, Alan Shepard, and Jim Irwin have died, not "many Apollo astronauts." Also, if NASA kills all of its astronauts, why haven't they killed the hoaxers to prevent the cover-up from exposure?



First of all, you misunderstood him. The Apollo hoaxists continually confuse short and long radiation duration. Goldin, a man who lacked vision in my opinion (faster, better, cheaper, cancellation of the X-33), meant we cannot take interplanetary voyages until the risk of long-duration radiation exposure has been solved (which is pretty much true). And why wasn't Goldin killed?

Russia never was, and is not, way ahead of us in space technology. Korolev pulled several amazing feats, but those were essentially "built to order" for Khruschev. The Voskhod capsules were extremely dangerous, and Alexei Leonov almost died on his spacewalk. The Gemini capsules, which had abilities to redezvous, dock, do easy EVAs, and have long-duration missions, were far more advanced and capable. Russia's supposed lead in space exploration came to an end in 1967, when Vladimir Komarov died on Soyuz 1. I don't know what his basis is for making such a statement.


Why, then when we actually do a superhuman feat, land on the Moon, it is fake? Why woukd they believe anything else? I would also not trust what is taught in Cuban schools as absolute truth, especially when no one else teaches such [control temper] stuff [/control temper].


This is the only place where he admits there is no evidence for this claim, and yet he cites the entire thing anyway as if it were fact. He is very eloquent here (dumbo's, besides not a word has an unnecessary apostrophe). Mind expanding drugs? What does that mean? Does your brain grow? And then wouldn't they be off of the influence of said drugs by now?

__________________
"Too low they build, who build beneath the stars". - Edward Young, 1745

Save yourself. Close the browser.

__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131

Well, look at the bright side - we've covered pretty much everything of substance that is there, so a) there isn't much left there and b) we'll never have to talk about th is guy on a thread again! All will have been said already!

__________________
"Too low they build, who build beneath the stars". - Edward Young, 1745

Meaning what, exactly? This is still "If I Ran the Zoo". We're not talking about combat sorties or other missions accomplished by the dozens or hundreds. We're talking about a handful of missions with intense training requirements and an aggressive schedule. In order to launch a mission every three to six months, you have to have trained crews "in the pipeline" because the training program takes longer than that. Otherwise your project drags on for years at astronomical expense.

Consider also the significant probability of loss of crew. A trained crew is a very valuable commodity. If your program relies on one or two trained crews, what happens when one is lost to accident?

Finally, the author's conclusion presumes that actual flight experience is significantly more valuable than training experience. Each of the crews had undergone hundreds of hours of simulator training. The information gleaned from flight experience is simply what wasn't covered in simulation. The progressive nature of Apollo missions means that as flight experience is rolled into simulation, the discrepancy between them diminishes.


Except that you can't hide a spacecraft in low earth orbit.

Without seeing the lunar surface at close hand, how would these convincing fakes be accomplished? Why would NASA plan to do something so likely to emphasize the difference between real and fake?

Recall that our author says that NASA knew in 1958 it would be impossible to go to the moon. Even though they were given until 1970 to come up with moon-capable technology, they allegedly couldn't do it. So why would they try to fake it for 1969 and hope that some short time later they could solve the problem that they "knew" they couldn't solve in 12 years?

He never worked for NASA, never studied anything technical, and left Rocketdyne before Apollo work had progressed beyond pre-design.

Further, a detailed hypothesis is still a hypothesis. The ability to adorn one's theory with lots of unsubstantiated detail does not result in erudition or correctness.

This presumes NASA's silence is motived by fear instead of indifference. It presumes NASA has (or had at the time) the motive to disprove Kaysing's thesis. This is circular.

NASA's silence frustrates the conspiracy theorists because they need NASA's acknowledgement and attention in order to increase their credibility. Anybody can come up with a cockamamie story, but if you come up with a cockamamie story that people pay attention to who already have the public's ear, that's more money in your pocket.

The fact that you or I or any number of qualified individuals give evidence against the conspiracy theory is irrelevant. None of us has the stature to give the conspiracy theorists the exposure and attention they want. For them it's NASA or nothing. Unfortunately for them, NASA realizes that by keeping silent they do they worst thing possible to the conspiracy theorists -- ignore them.

Not true. From the Earth to the Moon was filmed in the traditional Hollywood way of spending several days preparing for a shot that may last only four or five seconds in the final version. The film is produced by connecting hundreds of such shots. The result appears seamless only because the public is used to being entertained for hours each day in that medium. Effects that persist for only a few seconds and which rely on post-production editing to remove evidence of them are not equivalent to keeping the same illusion going for up to an hour in some cases.

The Hollywood effects are convincing only because most people -- including conspiracy theorists -- do not have eyes for detail. This is why the shots are typically short. The longer they persist, the greater chances someone will see the "giveaway".


Numerous LRVs were constructed, not just the flight model. HBO does not in any way represent that they used a flight LRV. In fact, flight LRVs cannot hold up their own weight in earth gravity.

Correct. Those who defend Apollo have told essentially the same story since 1975 when the first organized conspiracy theory was published. However, the conspiracy theories have become more and more fanciful, and bounce wildly between competing assertions. Now, for example, instead of telling us the hoax was undertaken to fool the Soviets, they're telling us the Soviets were in on it all along.

This undoubtedly refers to the Fox program and some of its prototypes, whose interviews were conducted in 1999. While Brian Welch did not go into great detail, he did correctly summarize the major failings of the conspiracy theorists. Further, this author neglects to realize that these programs are produced by conspiracists who have the final editorial control over what is said -- and more importantly, what is left on the cutting room floor. Do you really believe that a program produced by conspiracy theorists for the purpose of promulgating the theory will air material contrary evidence? A film producer who seeks to make NASA look like fools can easily succeed.