Merged Discussion of the moon landing "hoax"

[excaza]

The guy called Buzz a liar and a coward! No need for that.

Except you're calling him a liar.

 

[JohnG]

Not only that, Justinian2 is calling Buzz a liar, too!

I'm a little disappointed that no one else picked up on that.

 

[twinstead]

LOL why yes--Justinian is calling Buzz a liar. I can only imagine how I would react after all I had been through and accomplished in my life if I were Buzz and some moron came up to me and called me a liar and a coward.

Buzz's response was probably milder.

 

[Sledge]

Not only that, Justinian2 is calling Buzz a liar, too!

I'm a little disappointed that no one else picked up on that.

I see what you're saying, but I think you overlooked the key point that Justinian2 is calling Buzz Aldrin a liar. C'mon, JREF forum! You guys should have noticed that.

 

[twinstead]

We should also note that Justinian2 is calling Buzz Aldrin a liar as well.

 

[Justinian2]

We should also note that Justinian2 is calling Buzz Aldrin a liar as well.

He's not a liar if government insisted that he not reveal that the moon landing was going to either fail or need an infusion of billions of dollars. But this is all speculation.

If space flight goes commercial, we could get back up to the moon very cheaply and cover our tracks. The space shuttle could have delivered three LM's to the moon in one shot! OK, off into science fiction on that one.

 

[Corsair 115]

Heck, was it Redstone 3 that was launched with one of the gauges pointing to 'HOLY CRAP! Launch and YOU'LL BLOW UP!!!!" but Shepard chose to ignore it?

Shepard missed the chance to be the first man in space because of the concerns over the booster. He was originally slated to go up on March 6, 1961, but the launch was delayed. Then Gagarin went into space on April 12th.

 

[dafydd]

I've never understood why moon-hoax believers accuse NASA of faking the landings. At the time, we were in a race to the moon with Russia. Are the Russians in on it too? I wish they would tell me how they faked the signals that Russia (and others) monitored. The Russians would have screamed louder than the hoaxers if it was faked.

This has to be one of the hardest conspiracies in the world to sustain, but they seem to do it anyway.

If the Russians had got even the faintest smell of a hoax they would have shouted it from the rooftops. Are you suggesting that the Russian government was and still is a part of your supposed conspiracy?

 

[dafydd]

I was responsible writing some of the test code for flight critical computers used in all commercial airlines. Don't forget to bring tranquilizers for your next flight. Relax a little though, because there is always a backup computer that will automatically switch on - they are redundant.

Using a 15 bit word instead of an 8 bit byte will speed up calculations and memory transfers. However, it will not necessarily halve the number of bytes required for the code.

Please tell me the names of the airlines so I can avoid them.

 

[MG1962]

Please tell me the names of the airlines so I can avoid them.

Pan Am

 

[dafydd]

If he had truth on his side he wouldn't have to resort to violence.

Aldrin was accosted by so many denier nutcases,he snapped. Understandable.

 

[Sledge]

He's not a liar if government insisted that he not reveal that the moon landing was going to either fail or need an infusion of billions of dollars.

Yes he is. Don't chicken out of the implications of your ill-thought out words.

But this is all speculation.

WE KNOW.

If space flight goes commercial, we could get back up to the moon very cheaply and cover our tracks. The space shuttle could have delivered three LM's to the moon in one shot! OK, off into science fiction on that one.

 

[Justinian2]

Please tell me the names of the airlines so I can avoid them.

They are used by three biggest airline manufacturers. You can't avoid it. Your family is safe because of my efforts. Take valium.

 

[dafydd]

He's not a liar if government insisted that he not reveal that the moon landing was going to either fail or need an infusion of billions of dollars. But this is all speculation.

If space flight goes commercial, we could get back up to the moon very cheaply and cover our tracks. The space shuttle could have delivered three LM's to the moon in one shot! OK, off into science fiction on that one.

Stop being so mealy-mouthed. If you believe the landings were faked ,then you are calling him a liar. Your attitude reminds me of 911 delusionauts,they never answer a question with a straight yes or no.

 

[dafydd]

They are used by three biggest airline manufacturers. You can't avoid it. Your family is safe because of my efforts. Take valium.

Your Moon landing delusion does not instill much confidence in your abilities.

 

[twinstead]

He's not a liar if government insisted that he not reveal that the moon landing was going to either fail or need an infusion of billions of dollars. But this is all speculation.

Indeed, because speculation is all you have. You either have NO rational reason to believe what you do other than personal incredulity, or you have NO idea how to articulate the rational reasons you have.

Neither is good debate fodder, frankly.

If space flight goes commercial, we could get back up to the moon very cheaply and cover our tracks. The space shuttle could have delivered three LM's to the moon in one shot! OK, off into science fiction on that one.

The Space Shuttle as it was built would be totally unusable to "deliver LM's" to the moon, but I would suspect you have no clue as to why.

 

[JohnG]

Your Moon landing delusion does not instill much confidence in your abilities.

Yes, but on the other hand I think Justinian2 should make this his custom sig:

"Your family is safe because of my efforts. Take valium."

 

[twinstead]

I thank Justinian2 for keeping my family safe...

BTW, I can see Justinian2 already gearing up to talk himself into when we finally get back to the moon and they find the Apollo hardware there. I'm sure his argument will be, "well, they've had 50 years to plant that evidence to cover their tracks"

Pre-rationalization ROCKS!

 

[fess]

Originally Posted by Justinian2
I feel I had to partly answer the reason that NASA would go all the way to the moon and NOT land.

Why would you only try to "partly" answer. Isn't that like saying you don't know? Try to reason why NASA would go all the way to the moon, and NOT try to land?

Originally Posted by Justinian2
My recall of the amount of memory in the LM was not incorrect. I thought it was 1K to 2K.

But you were proven to be incorrect, were you not? Just because you "think" you are right, doesn't really mean you are. Especially when you say;

Originally Posted by Justinian2
With the internet, you can get the exact information.

Why didn't you do a little research before making a statement?

Originally Posted by Justinian2
I am only your guide. If I want an exact source, I'll go to the internet (which isn't perfect either)

Now you assert the opposite is true? Just where are you trying to guide us to?

Originally Posted by Justinian2
I was talking about launching from the moon and hitting a target moving several thousand miles per hour. This is a seven dimentional requirement (pitch, roll, altitude, velocity, and x, y, z).

Are you trying to say that the angle of intercept had not already been computed?

Originally Posted by Justinian2
And I am only skeptical that the technology of the time was adequate. I am trying to find the reason that they did NOT land on the moon

First, try to prove that the technology of the time was inadequate. Then you may be able to reason how they did land on the moon.

 

[sts60]

He's not a liar if government insisted that he not reveal that the moon landing was going to either fail or need an infusion of billions of dollars.

Evasion noted. He has said he's walked on the Moon; you say we never landed there; you are necessarily calling him a liar. Don't try to tap-dance your way out of yet another claim you got caught out on.

In fact, I think I'll Stundie that one.

But this is all speculation.

Yes. Maybe we should all just wait until you can come up with some evidence for any of your claims, then resume the discussion.

If space flight goes commercial, we could get back up to the moon very cheaply

Spectacularly wrong.

and cover our tracks.

LOL! That's hilarious. You don't even know what constitutes "our tracks". (And, by the way, I hope you have plenty of appropriately-decayed²³⁸PuO₂ in the right fuel form for your track-covering.)

The space shuttle could have delivered three LM's to the moon in one shot! OK, off into science fiction on that one.

OK, that is so ridiculous - for at least four separate resons that come instantly to mind (I can easily supply more) - that I have to assume you're putting us on at this point.