Merged Discussion of the moon landing "hoax"

[AdMan]

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.

Was it this one?

 

[sts60]

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

Yes, they did.

However, I would have

"If I ran the zoo" fallacy. The problem is, your opinion doesn't really matter, because you are manifestly unfamiliar with the program.

programmed the first AGC to descend to the moon and then return in order to test the hardware.

You're wrong in two different ways here.

First, the computer systems were exercised in a lunar descent profile on Apollo 10, as has been pointed out to you lo these many times. Including, most recently, in response to a question from you asking if the computer had been used near the Moon.

Second, the AGC works with human pilots. It flies the vehicle automatically in several different modes, selected by the pilots at various stages. It doesn't fly fully automated descents/ascents, because it was designed with a man-in-the-loop approach. Unmanned testing of the LM had been considered, but was rejected because such a test introduced its own confounding issues, and was unnecessarily expensive in terms of cost and schedule.

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

That question, to put it bluntly, is childish. Of course they would have tried again.

In specific terms, if the AGC had failed during any part of a lunar descent/stay/ascent, the AGS was ready, willing, and able - as I already pointed out.

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

Asked and answered.

I also would have rehearsed the whole landing on a set that simulated the moon.

Again, "if I ran the zoo" doesn't mean anything when you don't know anything about the program. This was done in at least three different ways (off the top of my head).

I would have filmed the whole landing to enable review.

The landings were filmed.

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.

You mean the Nixon who was President for six entire months before the first landing? What the heck, he didn't have a war or domestic unrest or anything else to worry about.

That's what makes your appeal to magic secret plans so funny. You don't even have a framework to hang the unspecified magic "secret plan" on, let alone evidence for one.

Nixon did have a nice speech ready if the first landing had failed with loss of the crew. But that's no secret. ("No, Mr. President! They made it - right coat pocket!")

Just being the devil's advocate...

No. You're just making mistake after mistake and waving your hands.
----------------------------------

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

For that one post, you were doing the same thing you've been doing in almost all your other posts: making stuff up and getting it wrong.

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

Not my temper. I'm quite entertained, actually.

 

[grmcdorman]

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

Not my temper. I'm quite entertained, actually.

I may have contributed a bit, but no, I'm not upset either. As sts60 says, this is somewhat entertaining (and I am learning the odd bit, such as from looking up details of the AGC assembly language).

Justinian2, it would be nice if you would take time on your self-imposed rest to do some research (and not on YouTube, which is infested with idiotic chopped-up clips that destroy all context). The library would be a nice place to start.

 

[little grey rabbit]

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

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/47624d388a4450c39.jpg[/qimg]

Notice the way the shadow of the Module falls and the shadow of the large crater to the right?
Now go to google/moon
http://www.google.com/moon/
Magnify the Apollo 11 site up to the highest or second highest level. On the bottom is a strip of photos, the position of photos 15 and photo 16 is marked on the image. You can look at photos 15 and 16 and see the shadow is on the other side of the crater.

So in answer to your question either the ground shots are fake or the LRO image is fake or both are fake. But they can not both be genuine.

 

[tsig]

Notice the way the shadow of the Module falls and the shadow of the large crater to the right?
Now go to google/moon
http://www.google.com/moon/
Magnify the Apollo 11 site up to the highest or second highest level. On the bottom is a strip of photos, the position of photos 15 and photo 16 is marked on the image. You can look at photos 15 and 16 and see the shadow is on the other side of the crater.

So in answer to your question either the ground shots are fake or the LRO image is fake or both are fake. But they can not both be genuine.

They're both fake?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Notice the way the shadow of the Module falls and the shadow of the large crater to the right?
Now go to google/moon
http://www.google.com/moon/
Magnify the Apollo 11 site up to the highest or second highest level. On the bottom is a strip of photos, the position of photos 15 and photo 16 is marked on the image. You can look at photos 15 and 16 and see the shadow is on the other side of the crater.

So in answer to your question either the ground shots are fake or the LRO image is fake or both are fake. But they can not both be genuine.

Or the sun moves in relation to the lunar surface.

 

[Andy_Ross]

How fast would the shadows have to move?

 

[little grey rabbit]

How many hours in a lunar day?

 

[BTMO]

How many hours in a lunar day?

There is actually a second part to that question.

"How much time elapsed between taking the photographs".

 

[little grey rabbit]

20 years? 35 years? I dunno, when was this photo released

 

[Andy_Ross]

Not enough

How do you know?

When were the two photographs taken?

 

[little grey rabbit]

How do you know?

When were the two photographs taken?

Cap'n Please see my Esprit de L'escalier (sp?) alteration above to answer your question.

 

[Andy_Ross]

So you don't know when the photographs were taken but you think the shadowmoves too slowly to be in different positions in different photographs?

OK.

 

[BTMO]

20 years? 35 years? I dunno, when was this photo released

O... kay.

I have photos of me as a child standing in my backyard, next to a tree. 20 or 35 years ago.

I recently visited the old home and have another photo of me in the same position.

The tree is gone, and I am no longer a child.

Which photo is faked? Or are both fake?


... or is there, perhaps, another explanation?

 

[matt.tansy]

Notice the way the shadow of the Module falls and the shadow of the large crater to the right?
Now go to google/moon
http://www.google.com/moon/
Magnify the Apollo 11 site up to the highest or second highest level. On the bottom is a strip of photos, the position of photos 15 and photo 16 is marked on the image. You can look at photos 15 and 16 and see the shadow is on the other side of the crater.

So in answer to your question either the ground shots are fake or the LRO image is fake or both are fake. But they can not both be genuine.

Oh! My! God!

The Google Moon images were from the landing in 1969. The LRO pictures were from this century.

Are you seriously suggesting the Moon doesn't rotate?

Edit: Stundie withdrawn.

 

[JohnG]

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!

How is that an ad hominem?

 

[sts60]

The ALSJ is your friend, but hoax believers are generally (a) ignorant of the record and (b) rather less observant of the real world than average.

 

[little grey rabbit]

So is Apollo 11 on the photo or not?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Which photo?

 

[Obviousman]

Did any of the moon hoax people bother to consult computer hardware and programming experts, to see if the hardware and code could do the job it was meant to?

I did, and it was perfectly capable of fulfilling its task. I'll take their word rather than people who have no expertise or knowledge of the subject.

This may also be of interest to some:

http://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Luminary.html