Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[JayUtah]

more often than not, they write this story as though it's pure oxygen that "burns/blows".

I find no such claim in the article. I see an omission of any mention of a specific fuel, but there is nothing supporting your claim that they say it's the oxygen that "burns/blows" (quotation ambiguous, as there is no such language in the source).

Look at the end of this article, all the people interviewed with the text approved/reviewed by Kraft and Lovell.

There are many details omitted in this version that can be found in other versions, and vice versa. Approval or review is not a guarantee of completeness. You have access to all the relevant materials. Quibbling that this or that version omits this or that detail just makes you look desperate.

Why didn't you tell this guy to tell us about the Teflon and aluminum?

Why don't you? Mike Dinn is a good friend of mine. Give me your contact information and I'll have him call you and you can harangue him to your heart's content.

 

[SpitfireIX]

That said, my point is easy to prove by simply asking oneself the question, "why Armstrong did not photograph LITTLE WEST CRATER?" The astronauts allegedly did not know where they were "exactly" as Aldrin is fond of saying, so the obvious thing to do would be to photograph the most distinctive landmark(s). In this case, LITTLE WEST CRATER would have been the Golden Gate Bridge. Were the Apollo 11 Mission Real, then Armstrong and Aldrin would in addition to being EXPLICITLY instructed to photograph distinctive landmarks such as LITTLE WEST CRATER, they would know this would be the thing to do simply given the context of the situation.

So if it was announced in real-time where the Eagle landed, THE GARDEN VARIETY, NOT IN ON THE FRAUD GEOLOGIST THERE AT MISSION CONTROL WOULD SHOUT, "TELL 'EM TO WALK OVER TO LITTLE WEST CRATER AND PHOTOGRAPH IT".

Get it? They fear pressure from within the mission, Apollo 11 Mission personal would tell the astronauts to DOCUMENT THE DISTINCTIVE LANDMARKS OF WHICH THOSE NON-FRAUD-INSIDER PERSONAL WERE ACUTELY AWARE. IN THIS WAY, THE ROCKS AND SO FORTH COULD BE "UNDERSTOOD" IN THEIR RIGHTFUL CONTEXT. This point cannot be overemphasized and proves Apollo fraudulence without a hint of the remotest doubt.

Armstrong claimed he walked over to LITTLE WEST CRATER, and he never took a photo of it?

Right there BOOM, Apollo is proven fraudulent......

17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8 ZERO, SCAM OFF, WE HAVE SCAM OFF, APOLLO 11 SCAM OFF

Photos taken of Little West Crater by Armstrong:

AS11-40-5954

AS11-40-5955

AS11-40-5956

AS11-40-5957

AS11-40-5958

AS11-40-5959

Epic fail.

 

[abaddon]

There's no reason for you to refuse to address this.

Yes, there is.

You have been comprehensively refuted on this and other sites.
You have refused to answer any of these refutations, nor even listen to/read them.

Why would anyone waste the time to simply repeat the same refutations, just to have you ignore them yet again?

 

[Erock]

I've shown the footage to a few people and they all immediately said, "That's in gravity".
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1

Presumably they all had the experience of a fruit bat. I see it and it is weightless.

This is such clear proof of a hoax it closes the whole case. In space there is no up or down and in that clip there's an obvious up and an obvious down.

There's an obvious great big object striking his jacket as he pushes himself up from the floor and down from the bulkhead.

There are plausible explanations for all of that "Evidence" that the missions were real and there's a ton of evidence that the missions were faked.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487

I believe you are aware of this blog that turns your silly old 'mountain' into one of bovine excrement...

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/

I am simply appalled at the two videos of your spamming on the last post - bizzarre behaviour.

If just one case of clear proof of a hoax appears, all of your "Evidence" that the missions were real falls by the wayside.

Nope, since it isn't a clear case, it is your uninformed observation.

Common sense says that an object moving in zero-G will not stop moving and change directions unless a force makes that happen. In the footage of Collins' jacket corner bouncing up and down there's no identifiable force making it stop going up and go back down except for gravity. Compare it to the footage of the straps in the other video.

A force such as that object bashing into his jacket, or him pushing in opposite directions. Anyway, since when do you have common sense

When the fabric bounces, it folds. Fabric that's stiff enough to push something down would not fold. The movements are not just horizontal. There are up and down movements that could not happen in zero-G.

Yet this video series demonstates that the whole sequence has weightlessness....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NkijOFUnu0&feature=bf_prev&list=PLA042F23232F0B1AF&lf=results_main

That object is not moving in a way that would make the corner stop going upward and go back down. The corners of the jacket in the earth footage are moving the same way and there's no large objectd banging his chest.

Who says? I say it does.

It just looks loose to me. We can't see what's under it. What does this have to do with the way the corner moves? I can't see any relevance.

The jacket is puffed up with air in a weightless cabin. That closes the whole contention. Next.

In a diving plane zero-G can be simulated for about twenty five seconds if I remember correctly. The theory is that they were going up and diving down repeatedly to get enough fake footage. If there's some footage that shows gravity, it means they got careless and left that footage in during the editing.

It is a physical impossibility to have signs of gravity and weightlessness on the Vomit comet. Since his jacket is puffed up and his sleeves float - no contest.

You're misrepresenting what happened there.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/190138-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio-5.html

Betamax destroyed his credibility by trying to obfuscate the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked in a water tank. That it was faked in a water tank is so clear that the issue makes a good objectivity test. Once it's clear that a poster isn't debating in good faith, there's no point in continuing.

Yeah that sounds right. He disproves possibly one of the most stupid conspiracy theories EVER, and that is your test as to his credibility This whilst he buries that very theory. I lurk at that forum, and he pointed out that the man who made the 'Chinese fake spacewalk' video is pro-Apollo!! If I recall, your reply was that he was got at - guffaws loudly.

It doesn't take any special qualifiactions to recognize the effects of strong gravity and know that would be impossible halfway between the earth and moon.

It takes objective informed observation. You do not have that quality.

I'm done - I've seen your posting behaviour already, numerous times. Others may wish to further engage your spamming - I do not!

 

[Erock]

Photos taken of Little West Crater by Armstrong:

AS11-40-5954

AS11-40-5955

AS11-40-5956

AS11-40-5957

AS11-40-5958

AS11-40-5959

Epic fail.

Thank you kindly - I couldn't be bothered to go hunting for them.

Now Patrick, your whole wall of a post disproven, where does that leave your theory

Again, I want to reiterate -

Supposedly NASA deliberately staged an overshoot of Apollo 11, because they wanted to hide(what Patrick says was a military operation designed to improve gravity understanding of the Earth, targeting of nuclear weapons etc.) from THE GENERAL PUBLIC!! But not from the Russians, the ones they were trying to gain an advantage over.

This....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Svwm_k9hYk


Is this where Patrick:

1/ Goes quiet and ignores this(I will keep pressing for an answer if so).
2/ Comes back with a wall of obfuscation.
3/ Changes the subject yet again.

Vote now.

p.s. Patrick - REALLY - put up or shut up.

 

[Patrick1000]

It is not just Teflon, but aluminum as well Erock......

Sounds like you want other people to provide you with the answers. Everybody knows why, because you have no clue, what with your 1 year's chemistry, your teflon wouldn't burn claim, laughable backpeddling and now a little remark at the end of that statement showing complete ignorance.

Yes, you will say it's flippant, but it wasn't. The craft is not 'floating' anywhere. At the distance of 200,000 miles from Earth during lunar coast it was travelling at close to 3,600mph.

I expect you think satellites at the L2 and L3 points also 'float' in the same way to support your ludicrously untenable theory

Now, for the 4th time....

"The whole reason you contrived for them 'pretending to' land long was to fool the Russians into not finding where the LRRR was located, then by heavens those silly old NASA people then pass it on to LICK (alongside all the other estimates)!! Then by heavens they go and publish the mission reports a few weeks later."

Now, that is just absurd. Explain how this works. I am not the only person who has pointed out the forehead slapping stupidity of your assertions.

It is not just Teflon, but aluminum as well Erock......

You misunderstand the point; titanium will burn, molybdenum will burn, steel will burn and so too will aluminum and Teflon. The Cortright Investigators must show us by way of experiment that it would be a reasonable thing to think Teflon and aluminum may have burned as they existed under the alleged exotic circumstances of the Apollo 13 O2 tank number two cryogenic environment.

Aluminum does not burn unless very hot;

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/At_what_temperature_will_aluminium_burn

The Cortright Investigators only have 10-20 joules to work with. That is not going to get any aluminum to 4000 degrees Kelvin, is it?

Aluminum might burn at a lower temp under very special circumstances, but as far as I can tell, not any special circumstances were revealed by the Cortright report.

The report's claims;

http://history.nasa.gov/ap13rb/ap13index.htm

http://history.nasa.gov/ap13rb/ch4pt.1.pdf

https://plus.google.com/photos/107946557021507888184/albums/5711727614533774801

Must be demonstrated to be reasonable by way of their experiments/the results of those experiments.


http://history.nasa.gov/ap13rb/appF-pt.1.pdf

Such is simply not the case......... . simple questions again, where did the investigators get the 0.13 pounds of teflon figure that they used in determining the energy released upon combustion, if aluminum burned, from whence did it come, how could aluminum have gotten hot enough to burn, how much aluminum burned if any?

 

[SpitfireIX]

Since I am included in that list, I think it only fair to say thank you.

However, let us be very clear. I stand on the shoulders of giants.

It has been my privilege to have learned many engineering details, both large and obscure, from the experts here and elsewhere. For this I thank them.

+1

When I first became interested in moon-hoax conspiracy theories in 2002, I wasn't very knowledgeable about the engineering aspects of Apollo, or about engineering in general. Since then, I've learned an enormous amount, both from reading the posts and web sites of Jay and others, and in the physics, engineering, and technology courses I've taken. I still consider myself a second-stringer when it comes to debunking fake moon landing claims, though. I don't have any kind of in-depth knowledge of aerospace engineering (except about landing gear, because some of my company's products have to be able to resist being run over by an aircraft). But I try to contribute as I can.

 

[JayUtah]

Photos taken of Little West Crater by Armstrong

Indeed Armstrong was not supposed to go to Little West. He wasn't supposed to go farther than a short distance away from the LM. But when all was said and done, his photographs at Little West were eagerly gobbled up by lunar geologists who realized he had photographed what was probably lunar bedrock in the basin of the crater, and that this was bonus data that wouldn't have been obtained had he stuck to the plan. Rather than castigate Armstrong, NASA realized that this is why we send actual humans to think, act, and react creatively to do good site investigations. Armstrong made a command decision, and he made the right one by all accounts.

Eagle flew over Little West on the way to its landing site, but of course that was captured only on 16-millimeter film that wasn't viewable until the astronauts returned.

Little West is distinctive because of the smaller impact on its rim. This makes it an identifiable crater. Contrary to what Patrick1000 claims, there are photographs taken on Apollo 11 of distinctive identifying features that allow Eagle's landing site to be determined accurately in retrospect.

 

[Patrick1000]

Bogus Teflon Report Won't Stick For A Nanosecond

Page 22;

https://plus.google.com/photos/107946557021507888184/albums/5711736939627043825

Of the Cortright Report Section;

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700078913_1970078913.pdf

Above the actual claim from within the Cortright Report to the effect that 0.13 pounds of Teflon was available for combustion.

They must show experimentally how they arrived at this figure, 0.13 pounds. Note the total amount of Teflon wire insulation said to have been in the tank was 0.13 pounds, So they appear to be claiming, and indeed they are effectively claiming, that heating the tank to 1000 degrees F, though removing the Teflon from at least some of the wire, nevertheless left it all remaining chemically intact, no matter how remote from the spark, for combustion on the evening of April 13 1970.

There is absolutely no reason to buy this. A replica tank should have been heated to 1000 degrees just as the Apollo 13 tank was alleged to have been heated and its contents examined.

The report is not only bogus, but unscientifically so to boot.

The problem with their claims as regards aluminum is all the greater. They have NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIMS REGARDING ALUMINUM. Were this real, no astronaut in his right mind would climb into Apollo 14. If one understands not the problem, one cannot possibly understand the fix.

 

[Tomblvd]

Contrary to what Patrick1000 claims,

Somebody should consider copyrighting that phrase.

 

[JayUtah]

Aluminum does not burn unless very hot;

Ha ha ha ha! That confirms to me that you probably didn't pass your one and only chemistry class.

You are citing the temperature produced when aluminum burns, not the temperature it must be raised to in order to ignite. Wow, you don't understand even the basic concepts of combustion. No wonder you won't provide the promised computations. Just ... wow. I can't wait to see how you backpedal away from this blunder.

Powdered or granulated aluminum can be ignited simply by the friction of trying to sweep it up with a broom. As I mentioned earlier, one of my principal clients is ATK Wasatch Propulsion, which makes huge amounts of solid rocket propellant and solid rocket motors for space and defense. They have fatal accidents out there because they have a hard time keeping the aluminum from igniting.

For an object lesson, go get a regular griding wheel from the hardware store. Or go to your bike shop and use the one you may have there. Get some aluminum and some rusty steel. First grind the aluminum on the wheel until you get a nice coating of aluminum on it. Now without cleaning the wheel, grind the rusty steel and report back what happens.

I am not responsible for the serious injury you may -- and almost certainly will -- sustain in the course of this experiment.​

This is what aluminum does in the presence of large concentrations of oxygen. Your grinding wheel didn't produce a temperature of 4,000 F. FYI, grinding temperatures for soft metals are around 2,000 F at the contact point. The metal is rendered soft by friction heat, then mechanically abraded. Yet this is enough to ignite your aluminum coating.

 

[Patrick1000]

Fair enough, good point, the pics were taken....

Thank you kindly - I couldn't be bothered to go hunting for them.

Now Patrick, your whole wall of a post disproven, where does that leave your theory

Again, I want to reiterate -

Supposedly NASA deliberately staged an overshoot of Apollo 11, because they wanted to hide(what Patrick says was a military operation designed to improve gravity understanding of the Earth, targeting of nuclear weapons etc.) from THE GENERAL PUBLIC!! But not from the Russians, the ones they were trying to gain an advantage over.

This....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Svwm_k9hYk


Is this where Patrick:

1/ Goes quiet and ignores this(I will keep pressing for an answer if so).
2/ Comes back with a wall of obfuscation.
3/ Changes the subject yet again.

Vote now.

p.s. Patrick - REALLY - put up or shut up.

Fair enough, good point, the pics were taken....My point is/was, no reference was made to the landmark when it counted, in real time.

The point I was and am making as regards imaging is only relevant/meaningful when the astronauts are actually "up there".

Your point about the 70 mm pics having actually been taken is a good one, though my own point still stands. The main reason to not disclose the landing site coordinates was to avoid identification, or more appropriately , lack of identification with a specific place on the moon.

My understanding is the 16mm shots of all the local "landmarks" more than anything identified Tranquility Base's location at 00 41'15" north and 23 26' 00" east.

 

[Loss Leader]

My point is/was, no reference was made to the landmark when it counted, in real time.

Liar!

 

[JayUtah]

They must show experimentally how they arrived at this figure, 0.13 pounds.

Asked and answered. You continue beating this straw man. It has been refuted more times than I can count.

There is absolutely no reason to buy this. A replica tank should have...

You don't make the rules for professionals to follow.

The report is not only bogus, but unscientifically so to boot.

You are neither an engineer nor a scientist. You are not qualified to make this judgment.

If one understands not the problem, one cannot possibly understand the fix.

I have arranged for you to discuss this with NASA engineers in person. Why do you continue to disrespect me by ignoring my invitation?

 

[AdMan]

Fair enough, good point, the pics were taken....My point is/was, no reference was made to the landmark when it counted, in real time.

The point I was and am making as regards imaging is only relevant/meaningful when the astronauts are actually "up there".

No it wasn't, Patrick.

Armstrong claimed he walked over to LITTLE WEST CRATER, and he never took a photo of it?

Right there BOOM, Apollo is proven fraudulent......

17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8 ZERO, SCAM OFF, WE HAVE SCAM OFF, APOLLO 11 SCAM OFF

Once again, you are caught in one of your many lies, not to mention a huge mistake that demonstrates again just how careless you are in your "research."

By the way, when are you going to put up or shut up?

 

[Erock]

Fair enough, good point, the pics were taken....My point is/was, no reference was made to the landmark when it counted, in real time.

Irrelevant and that was not your original point! In real time Joe Public couldn't care less. When Joe Public sees the West Crater pictures and the Dac footage, plus the released NASA mission report, they know exactly where Apollo 11 landed. Not that Joe Public has any reason to care where Apollo 11 landed in the first place!

Soooooooooooo.

The public know, the Russians know, everybody knows. Sheeesh, there goes any military advantage huh?

Your theory is busted. It never held water, now you have just taken a 50mm canon to your foot. Unless you have something further to add, the whole of your reason for Apollo 11/12/14 laser ranging has been debunked......by you

Aluminium 101 - it's probably on some first year chemistry experiment. Go learn.

Now, put up or shut up.

 

[SpitfireIX]

You misunderstand the point; titanium will burn, molybdenum will burn, steel will burn and so too will aluminum and Teflon. The Cortright Investigators must show us by way of experiment that it would be a reasonable thing to think Teflon and aluminum may have burned as they existed under the alleged exotic circumstances of the Apollo 13 O2 tank number two cryogenic environment.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Aluminum does not burn unless very hot;

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/At_what_temperature_will_aluminium_burn

Wow, two epic fails in one day. First, answers.com is hardly a definitive source for scientific data. That aside, the answer given is the temperature of aluminum as it burns; it is not the temperature at which aluminum will ignite. Here is a proper scientific report on the subject. The short version: estimates vary, but the ignition temperature may be in the range of 1000-1300 K, or even lower in some circumstances.

The Cortright Investigators only have 10-20 joules to work with. That is not going to get any aluminum to 4000 degrees Kelvin, is it?

Aside from your being completely wrong about the ignition temperature, I'm going to repeat a question you've ignored several times. Do you know how hot an electric arc can get? Further, what makes you believe that burning Teflon couldn't have ignited the aluminum? And it's just "Kelvin," not "degrees Kelvin." I bring this up only because it further demonstrates your lack of real scientific knowledge.

Aluminum might burn at a lower temp under very special circumstances, but as far as I can tell, not any special circumstances were revealed by the Cortright report.

As noted, your premise is incorrect.

The report's claims;

http://history.nasa.gov/ap13rb/ap13index.htm

http://history.nasa.gov/ap13rb/ch4pt.1.pdf

https://plus.google.com/photos/107946557021507888184/albums/5711727614533774801

Must be demonstrated to be reasonable by way of their experiments/the results of those experiments.

As Jay has told you several times, asked and answered.

http://history.nasa.gov/ap13rb/appF-pt.1.pdf


Such is simply not the case......... . simple questions again, where did the investigators get the 0.13 pounds of teflon figure that they used in determining the energy released upon combustion, if aluminum burned, from whence did it come, how could aluminum have gotten hot enough to burn, how much aluminum burned if any?

As has been explained several times. 0.13 lbs is the weight of the Teflon insulation on the wires in the tank, and your assumption that some or all of that disappeared when the tank overheated during detanking is erroneous. And, as noted, your premise about the aluminum is incorrect.

 

[abaddon]

Fair enough, good point, the pics were taken....My point is/was, no reference was made to the landmark when it counted, in real time.

Even if true, what exactly do you think Armstrong should be concentrating on? Successful landing or handing descriptions back of his observations?

The point I was and am making as regards imaging is only relevant/meaningful when the astronauts are actually "up there".

And they were up there. Did you have a point to make?

Your point about the 70 mm pics having actually been taken is a good one, though my own point still stands.

You concede it is a good point, then proceed to ignore it.

The main reason to not disclose the landing site coordinates was to avoid identification, or more appropriately , lack of identification with a specific place on the moon.

That is an unevidenced claim, or in layman's terms, you made it up.

My understanding is the 16mm shots of all the local "landmarks" more than anything identified Tranquility Base's location at 00 41'15" north and 23 26' 00" east.

You have demonstrated that you do not understand it at all.

When will you be responding about angular resolution?

When will you be responding about how a doctor had only 1 year of high school chemistry?

Enquiring minds want to know.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Page 22;

https://plus.google.com/photos/107946557021507888184/albums/5711736939627043825

Of the Cortright Report Section;

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700078913_1970078913.pdf

Above the actual claim from within the Cortright Report to the effect that 0.13 pounds of Teflon was available for combustion.

They must show experimentally how they arrived at this figure, 0.13 pounds. Note the total amount of Teflon wire insulation said to have been in the tank was 0.13 pounds, So they appear to be claiming, and indeed they are effectively claiming, that heating the tank to 1000 degrees F, though removing the Teflon from at least some of the wire, nevertheless left it all remaining chemically intact, no matter how remote from the spark, for combustion on the evening of April 13 1970.

There is absolutely no reason to buy this. A replica tank should have been heated to 1000 degrees just as the Apollo 13 tank was alleged to have been heated and its contents examined.

The report is not only bogus, but unscientifically so to boot.

Again, please explain how many 747 fuel tanks the National Transportation Safety Board actually blew up to study fuel ignition due to electrical shorts during its investigation of the crash of TWA Flight 800.

The problem with their claims as regards aluminum is all the greater. They have NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIMS REGARDING ALUMINUM. Were this real, no astronaut in his right mind would climb into Apollo 14. If one understands not the problem, one cannot possibly understand the fix.

Your misconceptions regarding the combustion of aluminum have been noted in previous posts. And you are demonstrating yet again your tremendous ignorance about what the actual problems were, and how they were corrected for Apollo 14 and later missions.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Fair enough, good point, the pics were taken....

Taken by whom or by what, if, as you claim, the whole program was fake?

My point is/was, no reference was made to the landmark when it counted, in real time.

The point I was and am making as regards imaging is only relevant/meaningful when the astronauts are actually "up there".

And if you'd been paying attention, you'd know that the lunar geologists did attempt to determine the location of the landing site based on the local terrain (lunain?).