PeterJ, if you're still there...

http://www.geocities.com/bobandrepont/lmpdf.htm

Some documents for you. Plenty of manuals, system schematics, etc. Certainly not everything that was created, but something for you to gnaw on for a while.

If you go to the main page, you'll find similar documentation for the CSM, the various boosters, Mercury, Gemini. It's a good site, a very good reference.

Now, what's faked about all this stuff?

Nice collection of documents there, Dave J.

Huh?

John Jones! STOP calling peter J. a strawman!

Is there or was there also an LM in the Henry Crown Space Center of the
Chicago Museum of Science and Industry? I recall it being in a corner of
the multi-story lobby of that part of the museum, but I don't see a specific
mention of it on the museum's website. I was there in January 1997.

P.S. Thanks, Jay, for sneaking in the answer to my question about the
reason for the panels beside the LM front hatch.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

__________________
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

"The other planets?
Well, they just happen to be there, but the point of rockets is to explore them!"
-- Kai Yeves

I recall a CM or CSM in the Chicago museum, but it's been longer still since I've last been there.

My list isn't exhaustive by any means. There are other LMs. There are also a number of test articles, mockups, and so forth that can be called LMs, although not as authoritative as references as the flight-qualified LMs.

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

Just curious about what you will use to cast your judgment on the LM. Properly evaluation of an engineering design requires that a number of qualifying factors be satisfied before the evaluation commences. One critical factor is the evaluators' engineering training and experience, which, for aerospace designs, must be of the highest caliber in the appropriate fields. What kind of engineering training and experience will you be applying as you cast your judgment on the LM?

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

<Arriving late to the party>

Van Rijn - Thanks for posting the link to my post.

Peter J - The thread those posts were taken from has a lot of information you will find helpful. Here is another post of mine. Hopefully the photographs linked in both of them will clarify Jay's somewhat wordy explanations.

For further reading about the LM, I highly second Virtual LM, which Jay has already mentioned. Also check out Moon Lander, by Tom Kelly, the LM program manager at Grumman. Other books that may be useful (but which I have not personally read) are Apollo and America's Moon Landing Program: Lunar Module Reference and Building Moonships : The Grumman Lunar Module.

[Edited to add]Here's a useful site about the people who built the LM:

Lunar Module, SpaceCraft Assembly & Test, Grumman Bethpage

I also want to join those who have advised you to stick to one argument at a time until it is resolved. Remember that it is perfectly alright to respond to a question with "I don't know". You are already good at acknowleging people's input.

I hope this helps.

__________________
"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

Wow. Go to bed and the lighting issues exploded and evolved. I was somewhat curious as to how a comparison can be drawn to magazine covers and lunar pics. Noting that we have an atmosphere to boot but still pondering the lighting issue Peter J raised with magazine covers. I would like to hear how a comparison is being made between the two in the art of spotting spots.

Peter J said
Pick any magazine and you can find spotlights

Curious as to how you differentiate between a lit scene and a reflected scene. Reason I ask is from a TV point of view I have seen stock reflectors used to light a guests face on an OB. As camera persons are human the reflector is subject to getting lost or forgotten etc. So I have also seen ply wood, polystyrene, light building walls (actually it was painted white but the camera man suggested you may be able to get away with a duller building depending on the conditions). There is a point to that last sentence.

I am no expert and a blanket "find out for yourself" comment I find a tad vague. I like to try things out to see where you are going, copying your method might allow me to better understand your process. I should add I do not have PS full just Elements but sure it can be used?

With what I know now, the pics you posted hold no issues for me.

Also, my recent copy of Sky at Night appears to be missing spots.......

OMG! Is that what he was talking about?

PeterJ, a strawman argment is a logical fallacy. Basically. if you put words in someone's mouth and then argue against those words, it's called a strawman argument.

I wasn't calling YOU a strawman.

__________________
Wanted: Diabolical Plan for World Domination.

Peter J: It has already been explained that what you imagine are "spotlight and lighting supports," are actually notations on the film at the edge of the picture. For more information about them, see the following thread, Apollohoax question, of August 2004, where we went into the subject in depth.

Note that the answer came about because of my experience doing exactly the same thing back in the 1970s, and JayUtah's own experience backed up the answer.

I have to ask you, Peter J, what is it about blobs of ink on a duplicate negative that look like, to you, a spotlight and lighting supports? You don't seem to be at all familiar with photography which means you can hardly be a competent photo analyst, going no further than the usual hoax-believer stance of "It looks like... to me, so it must be."

It's amazing that you seem to think there (note, it's not "their") should be stars in the lunar surface photos. Do you not know that the exposure for stars is anything from about 30,000 times to 130,000 times more than that for sunlit objects: Fox Special rescreening in NZ -- 24 June 2003. Read the post above that one for a brief rebuttal of points made in the Fox TV Special "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?"

Are you also unfamiliar with logical fallacies? That's what you've committed whenever someone states "straw man", "poisoning the well," and "begging the question" (as JayUtah did in post 115) and in doing so you completely negate -- or completely ruin -- your argument. It might pay to learn a little about logical fallacies -- I also didn't know much about them before I came here.

In post 96 I wrote JayUtah and others have also suggested you spend time at Clavius. Please do. You might save a lot of time in the long run.

You can learn more about the Apollo Guidance Computer here:
http://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/index.html
and here:
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/compessay.htm

Also, if you acquire the Spacecraft Films' 2-DVD set "Mission to the Moon" you can watch a 29-minute documentary from the mid-1960s about how the AGC was made and what it did. The programme has some fascinating information, such as:
I have done a typescript like this of everything said in the programme and anyone is welcome to a copy -- send me a PM if so.

I'm not sure, but I've read through the thread twice now from the point where he joined and given the timing of the complaint, IMO, those comments are most likely to have prompted it.

If we're lucky, peter J will read about logical fallicies.

I consider the following, which I asked yesterday (jeez, look at what happens when you're off having a life!), to be direct questions by the standards of the board.

Further, allow me to repeat the standard questions.

What will convince you you're wrong?

Why and how were the landings faked?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

If NASA deliberately got rid of all the LM design documents to keep people from examining them and finding evidence of a hoax, why would they then allow the photographs with "obvious spotlight rigs" to be seen by everyone?

Further, allow me to repeat the standard questions.

To be fair, I think he believes he's already answered them.

What will convince you you're wrong?

"Indisputable proof."

But so far the "disputation" amounts to a whole lot of speculation and question-begging. As I said, no one gets truly indisputable proof. That's not how history works. But if you're going to dispute evidence, it has to be on bona fide factual grounds -- proof of actuality, not conjecture for what you think might have happened.

Why and how were the landings faked?

"I don't know how they faked it, I never claimed that I knew."

And we covered this too. Apollo isn't about a a few rolls of film. It's about a mountain of evidence, all of which points to or supports a conclusion that the missions that generated it was real. Picking out a few points here and there and leaving the rest of the evidence unanswered is cheating. But it's how conspiracy theories plan to work: they want to boil a very complicated question down to one bellwether issue that supposedly decides the whole thing by itself.

But on the bright side, we have seen that Peter J. is willing to look at other forms of evidence too, such as the lunar module.

Unfortunately any theory that can't explain how we got all the evidence, and show that the explanation is actually what occurred, falls very short on completeness grounds. A theory that can't account for all the evidence is categorically rejectable.

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

You're right, Jay, and I apologize for not noticing that. It does, however, give way to one other question to peter J.

Do you believe that science offered "indisputable proof" of anything?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

A couple of pictures of the excellent (although somewhat subsequently damaged) sheet metal joinery on LM-2.

Attached Images

	IMG_3131.JPG (46.8 KB, 45 views)
	IMG_3132.JPG (77.0 KB, 41 views)

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

The first image shows a join between separate upper and lower panels,
yet a crack from a fastener hole in the lower panel appears to extend
into the upper panel. How do you explain that??

Did you take these photos? They look like they were made under hazy
sun, with the sun on the right. I think you said LM-2 is the one in the
Smithsonian. That's near a huge wall of north-facing windows, but I
think the windows would be to the left, and sunlight should never hit
the lander in that location, anyway.

The only time I've seen the Air and Space Museum was in 1985. I did
see many of the same exibit items (not including the LM!) when I was
there in 1967.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

__________________
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

"The other planets?
Well, they just happen to be there, but the point of rockets is to explore them!"
-- Kai Yeves

I took the pictures. LM-2 is in the east end of the main NASM structure. I don't recall it ever being lit directly by sunlight while on display.

That's not a crack. It's some material that's been caught under the fastener -- probably from a dusting implement. That's actually why I took the photo with the long lens; I wanted to get a closer look at it.

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

Yeah, I thought that was a piece of plastic, like a bag or maybe tarp that had snagged and gotten jammed under the rivet head.