• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion - continuation thread

tinribmancer said:
...

...it's stuff like this, that can leave someone speechless when reading stupid stuff. Can they also count to potato?
Click to expand...
You really don't want to read the other articles on that site. . . .

So much stupid.

Oh - and they are the sceptics, btw.
Q. Isn't the burden of proof on you to prove it?

A. No. You're the one claiming that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and space ships into the solar system.
We're not claiming those things.
...
The burden of proof is always on the claimant and never on the skeptic. The burden of proof is on you.​
 
Last edited:
EHocking said:
You really don't want to read the other articles on that site. . . .

So much stupid.

Oh - and they are the sceptics, btw.
Q. Isn't the burden of proof on you to prove it?

A. No. You're the one claiming that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and space ships into the solar system.
We're not claiming those things.
...
The burden of proof is always on the claimant and never on the skeptic. The burden of proof is on you.​
Click to expand...

2ir4wgi.jpg
 
smartcooky said:
You mean the last stage don't you? The first stage DID crash into the Atlantic (and was found in 2013 - http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-032013a.html)

In any case, Jodrell Bank tracked the Apollo spacecraft all the way to the moon and back, so crashing the S5 is not an option. Your CT has to involve the British government and most of the British Scientific establishment, right down to the dish operators at Jodrell Bank.


ETA....and the Aussie dish staff at Parkes, and the Spanish DSN staff in Madrid, Spain. We're up for four countries already, and we haven't even got halfway to the moon yet!
Click to expand...

And once you get there don't forget to transmit fake suit-to-lander vox just in case some yahoo in a yard manages to point his ham radio the right way.
 
EHocking said:
You really don't want to read the other articles on that site. . . .

So much stupid.

Oh - and they are the sceptics, btw.
Q. Isn't the burden of proof on you to prove it?

A. No. You're the one claiming that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and space ships into the solar system.
We're not claiming those things.
...
The burden of proof is always on the claimant and never on the skeptic. The burden of proof is on you.​
Click to expand...
THAT burden of proof is satisfied many times over by the vast array of video, audio and photographic documentation, by the physical examples of Apollo machinery and by the testimonial record of the thousands of people who worked on the project.
If said proof is challenged then the challenger has the burden of proof to back his claim.
So far the efforts in that arena (Apollo Hoax) have been woefully inadequate, so much so as to be laughable to anyone with a modicum of knowledge and rationality.
 
EHocking said:
Spherical.
I don't know how widely accepted the idea is, but this from Flat Earth Society Wiki
The moon is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.​
Oh, and before you ask?
Rotoundity
Q. If the planets are round, why isn't the earth?

A. The earth is not a planet.​
Click to expand...

Wait, so they accept the evidence that other bodies are round-ish, but they reject the very same evidence for the Earth?
 
Argumemnon said:
Wait, so they accept the evidence that other bodies are round-ish, but they reject the very same evidence for the Earth?
Click to expand...

What evidence? They can see with their own eyes that objects in the sky are round. Unless they get taken up into outer space, they can't see the same for the Earth. Who are you going to believe, a bunch of scientists with impressive academic credentials, or your own eyes?

:duck:
 
jaydeehess said:
THAT burden of proof is satisfied many times over by the vast array of video, audio and photographic documentation, by the physical examples of Apollo machinery and by the testimonial record of the thousands of people who worked on the project.
If said proof is challenged then the challenger has the burden of proof to back his claim.
So far the efforts in that arena (Apollo Hoax) have been woefully inadequate, so much so as to be laughable to anyone with a modicum of knowledge and rationality.
Click to expand...

Argumemnon said:
Wait, so they accept the evidence that other bodies are round-ish, but they reject the very same evidence for the Earth?
Click to expand...

thedopefishlives said:
What evidence? They can see with their own eyes that objects in the sky are round. Unless they get taken up into outer space, they can't see the same for the Earth. Who are you going to believe, a bunch of scientists with impressive academic credentials, or your own eyes?

:duck:
Click to expand...

Well, you can't say that I didn't warn you. . . .
EHocking said:
You really don't want to read the other articles on that site. . . .

So much stupid.
Click to expand...
 
Moon race question: if N1 had worked and the Soviets had conducted a daring and successful landing before the US. What affect would this have had?
 
Hans said:
Moon race question: if N1 had worked and the Soviets had conducted a daring and successful landing before the US. What affect would this have had?
Click to expand...

Long run, next to nothing. Maybe no ISS today because the USSR woulda burned those Rubles flying to Luna instead of shrugging at second prize to the moon and burning them into LEO and Venus probes. Their gear looked like it would work and it was far less fussily over engineered than NASA hardware, so it was dumb and tough like all Russian machinery. Their overall achievements would have been modest, maybe two landings.

Instead they invented the Soyuz which is like the model-t ford farm truck to LEO: rugged, loud, upgrades options and interior over the decades but mostly the same workhorse.
 
Hans said:
Moon race question: if N1 had worked and the Soviets had conducted a daring and successful landing before the US. What affect would this have had?
Click to expand...

Just speculation for the sake of the hypothetical, but A11 swiftly followed by cancellation of the Apollo program.

Outside bet at long odds, the response might have been "OK, we will put the first man on Mars" but I doubt that such a goal would have been attainable at the time. In any event, the funds expended on A12,13,14,15,16,17, 18,19 and 20* would be redirected to some other first for the US.

*Yes I know 18,19 and 20 were cancelled. Nevertheless significant budget had been spent already.
 
Jrrarglblarg said:
Long run, next to nothing. Maybe no ISS today because the USSR woulda burned those Rubles flying to Luna instead of shrugging at second prize to the moon and burning them into LEO and Venus probes. Their gear looked like it would work and it was far less fussily over engineered than NASA hardware, so it was dumb and tough like all Russian machinery. Their overall achievements would have been modest, maybe two landings.

Instead they invented the Soyuz which is like the model-t ford farm truck to LEO: rugged, loud, upgrades options and interior over the decades but mostly the same workhorse.
Click to expand...
I agree, but with the caveat that I don't think that NASA tech was necessarily "fussily over engineered". I think the Apollo 1 tragedy tends to indicate there were many people, both NASA and the contractor(s), who were not fussy enough.
 
BazBear said:
I agree, but with the caveat that I don't think that NASA tech was necessarily "fussily over engineered". I think the Apollo 1 tragedy tends to indicate there were many people, both NASA and the contractor(s), who were not fussy enough.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Apollo was actually still pretty damn risky. Part of the reasoning for cancelation of 18-20 despite the funds already expended (as abaddon mentioned) was that nasa administrators felt with each apollo flight that the risk of a major loss was increasing.
 
How was it 'fussily over engineered' ? It worked while Russian 'dumb and tough' never worked.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
How was it 'fussily over engineered' ? It worked while Russian 'dumb and tough' never worked.
Click to expand...

There was a massive amount of redundancy in it - there were so many back ups and contingencies that you could probably have got two rockets out of each Saturn V.

Apollo 13 showed how handy that might be :D
 
BazBear said:
I agree, but with the caveat that I don't think that NASA tech was necessarily "fussily over engineered". I think the Apollo 1 tragedy tends to indicate there were many people, both NASA and the contractor(s), who were not fussy enough.
Click to expand...

I would venture my judgment that the Apollo 1 accident had more to do with operational factors than with engineering. Not enough attention had been paid to the risks of the test environment. Procedures ought to fall under "fussy engineering," so it really just depends on how you want to parse the words.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom