Merged Discussion of the moon landing "hoax"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Justinian2 said:
OK, everything I've said is wrong. Does that make you feel better?
Click to expand...
It should make you feel better.

See, you're just an anonymous poster on a somewhat obscure Internet discussion forum. Yet your ego seems all wrapped up in this. But really, it's okay to be incorrect, especially when not one of us should matter to you because, to you, we're anonymous as well.

Nobody "wins" the thread, nobody "beats" the other person in an exchange. What makes it interesting, to me anyway, is wondering how anyone can seriously embrace such things as enormous conspiracies, even when being shown their errors.

Friend, the moon landings were, without so much as a molecule of doubt, real, true, and freaking awesome. Why deny?
 
matt.tansy said:
Young and Duke jumping, with narrative by Duke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16D0hmLt-S0
Click to expand...
The narrative of this series and accompanying video can be found at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal section here.

Duke jumps about four feet rather easily, in a bulky pressure suit, but as noted the astronauts found it was not really a good idea.

Anyway, more refutations of the original "no big jump" claim.
 
Justinian2 said:
The training vehicle used for simulating the lunar lander crashed before the first moon landing and almost killed the astronaut that was practicing his landings. They never practiced after that.
Click to expand...
At least you got the 'training vehicle' part right. Most hoaxies simply claim it was a 'lander prototype'.
If you get all your 'information' about Apollo from Hoax Proponent sites that kind of disinfo is all you'll ever know.
 
frenat said:
It crashed due to a mechanical defect NOT due to anything related to simulating 1/6 gravity. It happened a YEAR before Apollo 11 and yes they did practice much more after that. The simulators had HUNDREDS of successful flights.
Click to expand...

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apoollrv.htm

Some on the LLRV program:

Three of the five vehicles were later destroyed in crashes at Houston - LLRV No. 1 in May 1968 and two LLTV's, in Dec. 1968 and Jan. 1971.

The two accidents in 1968, before the first lunar landing, did not deter Apollo program managers who enthusiastically relied on the vehicles for simulation and training.

Donald "Deke" Slayton, then NASA's astronaut chief, said there was no other way to simulate a moon landing except by flying the LLTV.

LLRV No. 2 was eventually returned to Dryden, where it was on display as a silent artifact of the Center's contribution to the Apollo program.

AKA: Apollo LLTV;Lunar Lander Test Vehicle;Lunar Landing Research Vehicle.
Click to expand...

3/5 LLRVs crashed, but none of the lunar landers did. That isn't proof, but makes one suspicious about the reliability of the program.

I stand partially corrected - they continued to fly the LLTVs after the first two crashes.
 
Last edited:
Justinian2 said:
3/5 LLRVs crashed, but none of the lunar landers did. That isn't proof, but makes one suspicious about the reliability of the program.
Click to expand...
Only if one doesn't know anything about the program.

As was already pointed out to you, there were hundreds of LLRV/LLTV flights, with a sucess rate over 98%.

There were six attempted lunar landings with the Apollo LM variants. And the LM was an easier and, by design, safer vehicle to fly.

Justinian2 said:
I stand partially corrected - they continued to fly the LLTVs after the first two crashes.
Click to expand...

You were completely wrong. Let's go to the tape, shall we?
Justinian2 said:
The training vehicle used for simulating the lunar lander crashed before the first moon landing and almost killed the astronaut that was practicing his landings. They never practiced after that.
Click to expand...

The LLRVs/LLTVs (plural, not "the ... vehicle") were used throughout the Apollo program (not "never practiced after that").

Just admit you were wrong, learn from it, and move on.
 
Last edited:
sts60 said:
Astronauts' personal testimonies are evidence; they would be admissible in court. However, they are far from the only evidence..
Click to expand...

True. I would like to see them testify in a court.

And we're still waiting for you to produce any evidence to back up your claims that the landing wasn't possible.
Click to expand...

If the new and old video footage was mixed, it would be impossible to prove anything was faked. I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the new and old footage except that the old footage had anomolies that only a video made on earth - and perhaps with spotlights - would have.

And we're still waiting for you to address the numerous errors of fact you've made.
Click to expand...

I have addressed my one error with the longevity of the LLRV program.

See the QuickTime movie linked just above this text, which shows such a jump.
Click to expand...

I heard an audio clip at that link.

You have said you did "research", but, again, your very first claim was wrong, and you could have seen this rather easily.

Now that we've seen the strongest argument - no big jump - shown to be wrong, would you care to address the other issues with your claims?
Click to expand...

I may have seen that jump at Cape Kennedy when they were showing how they filmed the new footage of the lunar walk. As I have said, I will never trust the video or photographs after seeing the way they 'doctored' the old video and photographs. And they did it so openly, like they weren't hiding anything.

Haven't the faintest idea what you're on about - feel free to provide a name/date for this movie - but in all my time at KSC/CCAFS, working in Hangar S, Hangar AE, the O&C building, VPF, SSPF, OPF, and at Pads 39 A & B, I didn't see it. In any case, re-creations don't look much like the real thing. Certainly not when the real thing goes on for many hours of spans of kilometers
Click to expand...

The re-creations looked very good. They showed how with the aid of wires they could make it look like an astronaut jumped five feet to the lunar lander. Didn't see it too well as it was in the shadow. Go to Cape Kennedy - airfare is cheap to Florida.
 
Last edited:
Justinian2 said:
3/5 LLRVs crashed, but none of the lunar landers did. That isn't proof, but makes one suspicious about the reliability of the program.
Click to expand...

For a vehicle that shared no components and only a passing functional similarity to the LM it proves nothing.
 
Justinian2 said:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apoollrv.htm

3/5 LLRVs crashed, but none of the lunar landers did. That isn't proof, but makes one suspicious about the reliability of the program.
Click to expand...

You are just not getting it. The LLRV and TV was harder to fly than the actual lander. On final decent when the radar and computer failed. Armstrong began flying the luna lander like a helicopter to trying to clear a boulder field. Up to that instant none of the engineers realised you could do that with the equipment.
 
sts60 said:
Only if one doesn't know anything about the program.

As was already pointed out to you, there were hundreds of LLRV/LLTV flights, with a sucess rate over 98%.

There were six attempted lunar landings with the Apollo LM variants. And the LM was an easier and, by design, safer vehicle to fly.



You were completely wrong. Let's go to the tape, shall we?


The LLRVs/LLTVs (plural, not "the ... vehicle") were used throughout the Apollo program (not "never practiced after that").

Just admit you were wrong, learn from it, and move on.
Click to expand...

The two NASA films I watched that discussed the LLRVs briefly showed one really bad crash where the astronaut just barely ejected and then changed the subject. Subsequent crashes and successes were not discussed.

GIGO
 
Justinian2 said:
The two NASA films I watched that discussed the LLRVs briefly showed one really bad crash where the astronaut just barely ejected and then changed the subject. Subsequent crashes and successes were not discussed.

GIGO
Click to expand...

And hundreds of test jets have crashed, so those jets you see flying aren't real.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Paulhoff said:
And hundreds of test jets have crashed, so those jets you see flying aren't real.

Paul
Click to expand...

Reliability predictions showed that two space shuttles would crash with the given number of missions implying only that engineers have a handle on predicting failure rates.

I'm saying the lunar landers were new and untried. They were in the high failure rate zone of new products (the steep part of the bathtub curve). They were likely to fail far from home. If they succeeded, then they were the most successful space product ever made - considering the complexity and lack of testing at 1/6 gravity in a vacuum with harsh temperature changes.
 
Last edited:
Justinian2 said:
If the new and old video footage was mixed, it would be impossible to prove anything was faked. I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the new and old footage except that the old footage had anomolies that only a video made on earth - and perhaps with spotlights - would have.

I may have seen that jump at Cape Kennedy when they were showing how they filmed the new footage of the lunar walk. As I have said, I will never trust the video or photographs after seeing the way they 'doctored' the old video and photographs. And they did it so openly, like they weren't hiding anything.

The re-creations looked very good. They showed how with the aid of wires they could make it look like an astronaut jumped five feet to the lunar lander. Didn't see it too well as it was in the shadow. Go to Cape Kennedy - airfare is cheap to Florida.
Click to expand...


It's amazing you keep pushing these "filmed recreation" claims. All you have provided are vague recollections that you believe you saw something at the Kennedy Space Center that led you to believe that footage was recreated.

Please provide evidence--a link to a page in the Kennedy website, an article in a credible newspaper or magazine--anything that is more believable than your claims of what you may have seen (more likely imagined having seen) there.

And yes, it is up to you to provide evidence for this. Not up to us to provide proof it isn't true.
 
Justinian2 said:
Reliability predictions showed that two space shuttles would crash with the given number of missions implying only that engineers have a handle on predicting failure rates.

I'm saying the lunar landers were new and untried. They were in the high failure rate zone of new products (the steep part of the bathtub curve). They were likely to fail far from home. If they succeeded, then they were the most successful space product ever made - considering the complexity and lack of testing at 1/6 gravity in a vacuum with harsh temperature changes.
Click to expand...

Ignoring the many good points others have made is just trolling, and not very good trolling at that.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
I have yet to come across a Hoax Believer that even knows what this Acronym means.
Click to expand...

Don't forget their use of 'LEM'. LEM is practically code for "I get all my information from hoax believer websites. I have never visited, on my own initiative, any NASA website or private website that addresses hoax theories. I have never, nor will I ever, crack open a book about physics, chemistry, orbital mechanics, astronomy, thermodynamics, atmospherics, or the space program."
 
Matt, you're not a submariner by any chance, are you?

Only asking because of your location.
 
Justinian2 said:
Reliability predictions showed that two space shuttles would crash with the given number of missions implying only that engineers have a handle on predicting failure rates.

I'm saying the lunar landers were new and untried. They were in the high failure rate zone of new products (the steep part of the bathtub curve). They were likely to fail far from home. If they succeeded, then they were the most successful space product ever made - considering the complexity and lack of testing at 1/6 gravity in a vacuum with harsh temperature changes.
Click to expand...

They were hardly untested. Apollos 9 and 10 tested the LM in space.
 
Justinian2 said:
If they succeeded, then they were the most successful space product ever made - considering the complexity and lack of testing at 1/6 gravity in a vacuum with harsh temperature changes.
Click to expand...

Oh really... 132 Shuttle flight - 2 failures 98.5% success

Apollo..... 9 missions - 1 failure 89% success
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom