Merged Discussion of the moon landing "hoax"

[grmcdorman]

I'm sorry, but grmcdorman has not flunked anything. You have been shown to be demonstrably wrong. Crying 'flunk' in the face of that being pointed out is not going to help anything.

As directed by the mods, we should stop engaging in this, and stick to the topic.

"Just the facts, please."

 

[kookbreaker]

I don't think that's true. I think it's been established for quite a while that minerals from the moon are much closer in composition to earth rocks than meteorites. That's the main piece of evidence that tipped the balance in the debate over how the moon was formed: It was once part of the Earth.

The Lunar meteorites show obvious signs of having been meteorites, i.e. having burned their way into our atmosphere and subsequently were exposed to our air for a long period of time. They also tend to be on the small side and they are very rare.

By comparison, the Apollo samples include dust, larger rocks that do not have any signs of exposure to air or entry. Also good is the large core sample they got. This is not the same stuff from Antarctica by any means.

 

[dafydd]

I'm sorry, but grmcdorman has not flunked anything. You have been shown to be demonstrably wrong. Crying 'flunk' in the face of that being pointed out is not going to help anything.

He was wrong or lying about the movie with the wires, another hand wave coming up.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Of all the Apollo hoax threads ever this has to be the leastest.

 

[grmcdorman]

Huh. Interesting fact about the AGC: it's ones-complement. Neat. I worked on UNIVAC Sperry UNISYS 1100 mainframes, which were also ones-complement.

 

[Spindrift]

Perhaps the first flight was faked and the rest real.

Here's an LRO picture of Apollo 11. Is it faked?

 

[Justinian2]

For interest, here's a bit of a post by the esteemed JayUtah on ApolloHoax.net about the AGC code:
Now, I'm not familiar with the Z80, but I don't think the Z80 had instructions like that. In particular, the Z80 was an 8-bit machine; the AGC was not.

From Wikipedia:

XCH (exchange)
Exchange the contents of memory with the contents of the A register. If the specified memory address is in fixed (read-only) memory, the memory contents are not affected, and this instruction simply loads register A. If it is in erasable memory, overflow "correction" is achieved by storing the leftmost of the 16 bits in A as the sign bit in memory, but there is no exceptional behavior like that of TS.
CS (clear and subtract)
Load register A with the one's complement of the data referenced by the specified memory address.
TS (transfer to storage)
Store register A at the specified memory address. TS also detects, and corrects for, overflows in such a way as to propagate a carry for multi-precision add/subtract. If the result has no overflow (leftmost 2 bits of A the same), nothing special happens; if there is overflow (those 2 bits differ), the leftmost one goes the memory as the sign bit, register A is changed to +1 or -1 accordingly, and control skips to the second instruction following the TS. Whenever overflow is a possible but abnormal event, the TS was followed by a TC to the no-overflow logic; when it is a normal possibility (as in multi-precision add/subtract), the TS is followed by CAF ZERO (CAF = XCH to fixed memory) to complete the formation of the carry (+1, 0, or -1) into the next higher-precision word. Angles were kept in single precision, distances and velocities in double precision, and elapsed time in triple precision.
AD (add)
Add the contents of memory to register A and store the result in A. The 2 leftmost bits of A may be different (overflow state) before and/or after the AD. The fact that overflow is a state rather than an event forgives limited extents of overflow when adding more than two numbers, as long as none of the intermediate totals exceed twice the capacity of a word.
MASK
Perform a bit-wise (boolean) and of memory with register A and store the result in register A.
MP (multiply)
Multiply the contents of register A by the data at the referenced memory address and store the high-order product in register A and the low-order product in register LP. The parts of the product agree in sign.
DV (divide)
Divide the contents of register A by the data at the referenced memory address. Store the quotient in register A and the absolute value of the remainder in register Q. Unlike modern machines, fixed-point numbers were treated as fractions (notional decimal point just to right of the sign bit), so you could produce garbage if the divisor was not larger than the dividend; there was no protection against that situation. In the Block II AGC, a double-precision dividend started in A and L (the Block II LP), and the correctly signed remainder was delivered in L. That considerably simplified the subroutine for double precision division.
SU (subtract)
Subtract (one's complement) the data at the referenced memory address from the contents of register A and store the result in A.

These instructions have comparibles to subsequent computers like the Z80 and the PDP 8.

OK, maybe not DV.

 

[dafydd]

And the movie? Do you admit that you made it up?

 

[grmcdorman]

The compare and branch instructions are very different, though, not to mention the instruction coding in binary.

Anyway, this isn't relevant to the discussion. What about the points raised above?

• Long list originally posted by sts60 (as I recall, to lazy to go back a page to verify)
• LRO photos
• Apollo samples v.s. terrestrial rocks and meteorites, esp. lunar meteorites

Specifically, what claims do you still have on the table?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Specifically, what claims do you still have on the table?

His claim to have been pwned by Lunar Lander still stands.

 

[tsig]

They probably found a way to test the entire system on earth.

However, I would have programmed the first AGC to descend to the moon and then return in order to test the hardware.

And if it didn't work, what then? Try, try again?

Undoubtedly there's a good answer to the test methodology.

I also would have rehearsed the whole landing on a set that simulated the moon. I would have filmed the whole landing to enable review.

And if I were to think like Nixon then I would have considered using one of my 'secret plans' if any of the lunar tests failed.

Just being the devil's advocate...

Do you do this a lot? How can we tell if you're serious or 'just arguing" here or elsewhere?

This is just ad hominem crap!

You called yourself "the devil's advocate" after many posts that I thought you meant seriously.

In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who takes a position for the sake of argument

So my question was when can we tell you're posting as "the devil's advocate" and when are we to take you seriously?

 

[Justinian2]

You called yourself "the devil's advocate" after many posts that I thought you meant seriously.

In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who takes a position for the sake of argument

So my question was when can we tell you're posting as "the devil's advocate" and when are we to take you seriously?

For that one post, I was being the devil's advocate.

I am taking a voluntary vacation of a few days from this thread as tempers are getting hot.

 

[carlitos]

"starts slow clap"

 

[Arus808]

And the movie? Do you admit that you made it up?

notice how he has skipped this post to answer posts that appear after it?


so about that fake movie you saw at your september 2010 non-visit to the Kennedy space center?

 

[CptColumbo]

You flunk too. I received this reply from the Kennedy Space Center about the movie you claimed you saw there,you know,the one with the wires.



Thank you for your inquiry into the KSC Public Inquiries System.



No it does not exist and is not shown at the Kennedy Space Center.


The Apollo Moon landings were among the most completely documented and observed events in history. Moon rocks have been examined by scientists from all over the world, not just NASA scientists. U.S. Video special effects were in their infancy in the late 60's so that faking a landing on the Moon would probably have been more difficult than actually going there, and it seems highly unlikely that the hundreds or even thousands of people who would have had to be involved in such a conspiracy would have kept it a secret for so long. Ultimately you'll have to decide for yourself if any evidence offered to show this was all a hoax is compelling enough to overturn the overwhelming evidence that it actually occurred, but make sure you check the facts carefully, you need to be a little skeptical of the skeptics, too. For more detailed information, see:



http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/apollohoax.html

http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/

http://web.archive.org/web/20051023205705/www.rationalinquiry.org/essays/moon_lowman.html

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/

http://www.clavius.org/

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm



Wikipedia also has a very intense site on the Moon Landing Hoax theory



You are encouraged to frequently visit http://www.nasa.gov for the latest NASA news and information. In addition, NASA invites you to consider using one or more of the following easy and convenient communications tools for receiving NASA Updates on the exciting work NASA is doing.



· For more information on NASA and KSC please visit our Frequently Asked Questions page at http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/faq.html

· Subscribe to E-mail Delivery – Simply go to www.nasa.gov, enter your e-mail address, set your delivery preferences, and choose your area(s) of interest.

· Receive Updates by RSS (Really Simple Syndication) – NASA RSS Feeds are available at http://www.nasa.gov/rss/index.html

· Join Twitter at http://twitter.com/NASA



Your interest in NASA and America’s space program is greatly appreciated.



Sincerely,



Public Communications Officer

John F. Kennedy Space Center

[email protected]

The last time I was at Kennedy Space Center (the exact date escapes me, but it was the weekend after Coretta Scott King died) there was a movie in their IMAX theater. It was a 3-D film about the Apollo program. New footage (that was obviously a recreation) was mixed with archival footage (in 2-D) with actors reading quotes from the astronauts.

It was a great day, cause I got to meet Bill Pogue and Gene Cernan (they were signing books in the gift shop.

 

[Corsair 115]

When do we get to talk about ALSEP?

 

[PhantomWolf]

The last time I was at Kennedy Space Center (the exact date escapes me, but it was the weekend after Coretta Scott King died) there was a movie in their IMAX theater. It was a 3-D film about the Apollo program. New footage (that was obviously a recreation) was mixed with archival footage (in 2-D) with actors reading quotes from the astronauts.

It was a great day, cause I got to meet Bill Pogue and Gene Cernan (they were signing books in the gift shop.

I suspect that you are refering to Magnificent Desolation, which has already been suggested and commented on previously.

 

[BTMO]

That was just a single, isolated statement. It wasn't an argument ....

An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.




-- Roger

"No it isn't"

 

[dafydd]

For that one post, I was being the devil's advocate.

I am taking a voluntary vacation of a few days from this thread as tempers are getting hot.

We are all quite cool,that's just a cop-out. You've been busted,there was no movie. During your vacation do some research and learn some basic facts about the Apollo missions,and maybe read up on basic physics.

 

[dafydd]

The last time I was at Kennedy Space Center (the exact date escapes me, but it was the weekend after Coretta Scott King died) there was a movie in their IMAX theater. It was a 3-D film about the Apollo program. New footage (that was obviously a recreation) was mixed with archival footage (in 2-D) with actors reading quotes from the astronauts.

It was a great day, cause I got to meet Bill Pogue and Gene Cernan (they were signing books in the gift shop.

I can only point you to the email I received.