Right; We haven't found it here, so we need to expand the search.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

I think a descriptive title of the thread content would be useful.

I've got my eye on a few of them...

Nanoo-Nanoo!

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

Not a good example, the V rockets were unguided and uncontrolled after launch.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Well, let's see.

36 posts after the OP, and SLF:JAQ SFDJS has yet to respond to all the real information provided and pertinent questions asked.

There seems to be a pattern revealed here.

Could the key word begin with "t" and end with "l"?

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

...the V rockets were unguided and uncontrolled after launch.

Not quite true. The V-2 was guided through the boost phase by an azimuth computer. A separate mechanism stopped the engine when the proper state vector had been attained, after which it was purely ballistic. That's the general flight profile of any ballistic missile. It was only after the development of the MIRV concept that in-flight manuevers began to occur after the boost. The V-2 wouldn't have hit London without some form of control.

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

This is one of my favorite (if not particularly useful or practical) controlled rockets: the Rocket Pack.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

No.

__________________
Olsen the moderator.

During powered flight, the guidance system controlled the V-2's course using four movable graphite vanes that were mounted on the rim of the engine nozzle and stuck into the exhaust stream.

__________________
"Transport of the mails, transport of the human voice, transport of flickering pictures - in this century, as in others, our highest accomplishments still have the single aim of bringing men together." St. Exupery

And let's skip the "science" and the hard math. Plus, it's insulting.

Just for the sake of argument:

At its height, the Apollo program (and various subcontractors) employed 250,000 people. Granted, that one weirdo living in Arizona with his genuine imitation space glove who started this whole hoax mess was formerly one of those contractors. That doesn't explain the 249,999 other people who were all directly involved and didn't think it was a hoax. At some point Occam's Razor has to come into effect. And, for he sake of argument, let's say that one percent of the Apollo workers "came clean." What's the rate of alcohol and/or drug adiction in this country? Or serious mental illness?

What I find insulting is the implication that mankind couldn't put a man on the moon with a sliderule; that we, as a species, aren't intelligent enough.

I feel the same way when people claim that the Maya were really aliens, because they weren't smart enough to look up into the sky and say, "You ever notice that every year, about this time, that really bright star comes up in the same spot?" Or that human beings were too stupid to figure out some basic geometry and use a few thousand slaves for brute work, and that therefore the only logical explanation for the pyramids is "Alien Architects."

(sorry to jump in so late, btw)

So, what do I think of this?

I think these people have not done sufficent research, nor are qualified to denounce one of the greatest space missions accomplished in human history.

In the "Facts" area, for example, it is stated that computer chips were not invented. That is untrue.
Apollo used Third Generation computers. It was the forerunner of the modern computer chips we use today.
Also, there is a misunderstanding of how computer power is put to use in a simulator and in a real world enviroment.

There is much more that is wrong. Some of it is "not even wrong".

I would like note how the "standards" that are applied to Apollo by people like these are not applied to other space missions. Why don't they pick on Russia's program? Why not the unmanned program? Why?

__________________
This is no fantasy. No careless product of wild imagination. - Jor-El

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

they figure that if they go right to the top of the heap and prove that the biggest single technical achievement in all of human history didn't happen, then the other stuff starts to look like it was faked, too..
of course, if i wanted to disprove it, i think i'd start at the bottom and work my way up the technical heap and try to pick away at the foundation to get the rest to cave in on itself.
but that's just me.

__________________
"blacker than the blackest black... times infinity."- Nathan Explosion
The.. Best.. Thread..Ever...

What I find insulting is the implication that mankind couldn't put a man on the moon with a sliderule; that we, as a species, aren't intelligent enough.

I agree. There is an oft-quoted saying: "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." We often naively apply it only to our advanced technology today as seen by less advanced contemporary humans. We often wrongly believe that technology is a linear progression of quality through time. In fact, the history of technology is a disjoint sequence of kinds of technology developed, used, refined, and finally abandoned in favor of other new kinds of technology -- entirely new ways of solving problems.

The New Age composer Kurt Bestor lives where I live. I've recorded and performed for him. Many of his vocal tracks require a pure, ballast-free tone that I'm good at. It's a tone he calls "monkish," and it's now a running joke among his vocal cadre. He just writes "monkish" in the music above the vocal part and we all just know what to do.

One of his monkish tunes is a piece he wrote for the Innovators album commissioned by a local software company. I've performed it live many times -- it's called "Three Tools." It begins with a single sung note, a pause, then two notes in an interval, a second pause, then a scale of three notes. The pattern repeats and develops into a symphonic tapestry that brings the orchestra to a crescendo of the same tripartite theme. The one-, two-, and three-note glyphs refer to the straightedge, the compass, and the square -- the three classical tools of the medieval masons. The subsequent musical development symbolizes the great cathedrals that were laid out in stunning complexity using only these three drafting tools.

That's the point I'm coming to. In my career I've witnessed just such a shift in paradigms. Back when I was in school, we still drew things on paper. We learned drafting techniques that went by the collective title "geometric construction." That was just a fancy word for making complex shapes like hexagons using clever processes that required only the three basic tools. The ancients we know were experts at this kind of geometry. But today we draw complex shapes on computers, and have the computers help us do it. Very little geometric construction is taught today, although you can still easily find the old textbooks. Computer-aided hexagons (and fasteners and fittings and such) let us work much faster and much more confidently as designers. But they represent a fundamentally different way in which to make designs.

In my mind the ancients weren't hobbled by not having AutoCAD or Pro/ENGINEER. In my mind the ancients are praiseworthy because of what we can see they accomplished using their highly-refined processes incorporating only three tools. (Well, there were more of course. The Egyptions, for example, used simple A-frame levels to level a building site, but you get the point.)

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

Hear, Hear!

I'm old enough to have done design engineering on a drawing board with a pencil, and old enough (just) to have done the supporting calculations with a slide rule. Most of the engineers I work with now couldn't do that, at least not without a considerable learning curve. They're not any less smart, they've just grown up with a different suite of tools.

Every time I walk up to a 747 I think about the guys who designed it. The last of them are retiring now. No calculators. No CAD systems. Maybe only a couple of computers in the company, for which you had to submit a deck of cards and get the results in the morning. But they produced that magnificent machine, the queen of the skies, with the tools they had. Clearly according to the HB's the 747 cannot exist, because they couldn't have done that.

__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.

I seriously doubt that it was faked at Langley, take a look at the plaster moon, it looks nothing like the one in the pictures and videos of the moon landings, how could the Astronauts drive the moonrover on that or even walk on it, its tiny.

__________________
Child of the Cosmos, Student of the Universe.

Aw.. I was hoping to be first to post that quote. Yes. Controlling a rocket engine is not only impossible: It is so impossible it can only be expressed with capitals.

Also every time a satellite is launched it works the same way... all the engineers get together to watch the launch and then cross their fingers and say "Oh man I hope that ends up in the orbit we want it, just by sheer chance. Because obviously we can't steer it. There's no controlling those damn rocket engines. They just go wherever the hell they want. Anyone with the slightest gumption knows that"

I love this quote: "Still not convinced?"

Uh, no.

And this one, from NASA files: "Hewes personally climbed into the fake craters with cans of everyday black enamel to spray them so that the astronauts could experience the shadows that they would see during the actual moon landing." (p. 375) From A.W. Vigil, "Piloted Space-Flight Simulation at Langley Research Center," Paper presented at the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1966 Winter Meeting, New York, NY, November 27 - December 1, 1966.

The key here, is "during the actual moon landing."

But I enjoyed the following quote the most: "NASA claim that picture on the right is far side of Moon, taken by Apollo 8. Compare this sphere with one shown above in left hand pic. It speaks for itself does it not?"

Uh, yes, it certainly does speak for itself, as the simulated sphere on the left, while good, is of very crude detail, compared to the nearly infinite detail of that sphere on the right, which is commonly called, "The Moon."

Pardon me for intruding upon the discussion once more, but I feel that the rule of parsimony indicates that my original, one syllable answer was all that was really required here.

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

"If it's on film are we led to believe it's real? No of course not, but that is exactly what PAN's, (Pro Apollo Nutters) are claiming. Their ridiculous debunking claim is that digital manipulation of photographs and film was not available back in the 1960's, but they did not have digital artifacts back in 1930 when the film "King Kong" was made."

The fool also doesn't realize "King Kong", circa 1930, was done with claymation, and not on a renderfarm

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

Oh, another gem:

"FACT: Rumor has it that Apollo 12 astronaut Pete Conrad was going public about the fake Moon landings on the 30th anniversary back in July 1999. He was killed in a motorcycle accident one week before the 30th anniversary."

Fact:Rumor has it.... So, a rumor is a fact to an HBer. To quote the Gieco Caveman, "Yeah, I have a response. Uh, what?"

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

This is so ludicrous that I'm wondering if this one is a parody site, along the lines of "Dark side of the Moon." It's getting hard to believe they're serious.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Agreed.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

NASA simulated moon landings: See! They were faking the landings!
Had NASA not simulated moon landings: See! They didn't even simulate before allegedly going there, missions are ALWAYS trained in simulators first, so hoax exposed!

Give me a boo, give me a hoo, boo-hoo.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

NASA can't convincingly fake a moon landing, but they can use their powerful mind-control waves to hurdle people from motorcycles 2,000 miles away.

This is so ludicrous that I'm wondering if this one is a parody site, along the lines of "Dark side of the Moon."

No, unfortunately Sam Colby (the author) is serious. And even less fortunately, a surprising number of people seem to believe him. The last fiasco at IMDB had someone claiming that Colby must be a "NASA insider" in order to have all that information. Apparently he hadn't considered the possibility that Colby just made it all up.

It really has me worried about the intellectual health of society when someone can show a publicly available picture, make up a completely fictional story to accompany it, and have other people insist that the photo is evidence of the story.

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

Wow. Given some of the other moon hoax claims, perhaps it shouldn't be a surprise, but it's just hard to understand how anyone could take the "impossible to control a rocket" and King Kong claims (among others) seriously.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Reading websites like Sam Colby's with an open mind (and, most of the times, an ignorant mind as well) can quickly lead to being not critical enough, being unable to look further than the issues raised on the website. I had similar troubles originally with this website. It's surprising how easily the average Joe can be 'persuaded' into 'believing' what a website says.

For a few days, I was convinced it was a hoax; however I did not 'close off' my mind for anything debunking claims the landings were hoaxed; I have no desire to be an 'outsider' or someone special, or the 'escaping from the sheeple' scenario often laid out by conspiracy websites.

I think the sheeple scenario is an important factor to persuade people into believing the moon landings were faked. "You're still not convinced? Oh come on, you're not a part of the numb, brainwashed, not-thinking part of the society, are you?" Articles with this attitude generally make people rethink about themselves, with (for conspiracy theorists) positive results.

That's all I have to say about that. For now.

- Spread the Love

__________________
Spread the Love!

You can use the same argument right back: "Oh come on, you didn't believe that website without checking up on it, did you?"

__________________
"The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head" Terry Pratchett

@
http://www.geocities.com/apolloreality/

gee im glad that Grissom, Chaffe and White survived as they were crewing Apollo 1

maybe Eisele, Schirra and Cunningham were killed by a tragic fire in Apollo 7??

more likely mr sam colby (as per usual) has (maybe) 1 `FACT' in 100 right???





(he seems to be confuzzled about the `first apollo' and the `first manned launch apollo)


but then sam colby seems confused by many things

__________________
No, I'm being ordinarily sarcastic. Don't make me get very sarcastic. You wouldn't like me when I'm very sarcastic. - JayUtah



Surely if you are going to start a conspiracy theory it is best to start with something that might have a grain of truth or reality in it. To start with the preposterous and go downhill from there is just stupid. steve(primus) (Avatar)