Poll

Is it a coincidence that the US is now talking about going back the moon now that China has set forth its plans or is our government in fear of losing its title and being embarrassed?

yes
3 (60%)
unsure
0 (0%)
no
2 (40%)

Total Members Voted: 4

Voting closed: February 13, 2004, 06:40:13 AM

Author Topic: Coincidence or not?  (Read 69876 times)

Offline MRuthless

  • Stargazer
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Coincidence or not?
« on: January 14, 2004, 06:40:13 AM »
A while back I heard about China's plan for space with eventual plans to put a man on the moon.

I remember telling my wife that I bet we'd be going "back" to the moon. She asked why and said because of China. You see I am one of those disbelievers about our landing on the moon and in order to maintain our place in history as the 1st country to put humans on the moon we may actually have to really get there before China. If not China could easily capture this title and embarass us in the process, propelling them ahead in their quest to be seen as the greatest country in the world.


So I was wondering does or did anyone else have this feeling when they heard news? Is it coincidence that this is happening now as China begins to seek the moon or what. Because for years we have looked at it like no big deal and now all of a sudden its worth the time and money. It really does seem wierd to me though to say that to my wife and now the US is talking about doing it.

Offline LunarOrbit

  • Administrator
  • Moonwalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 3357
  • Gender: Male
    • TheSpaceRace.com
Coincidence or not?
« Reply #1 on: January 14, 2004, 10:53:58 AM »
The fact that China is talking about going to the Moon may have influenced President Bush... that's how politicians think, afterall, but it wasn't the only factor.

You could also say that the fact that President Bush was the governor of Texas, a state with a huge role in the space program, and the fact that his brother is the governor of another state with a large role (Florida), may have played a part in the decision.

The loss of Columbia and the lack of a clear goal for the space program also had something to do with the decision.

There are a lot of factors that went into President Bush's new plan for NASA.

As far as your belief that the United States did not really land on the Moon before, well, all I will say is that is just plain wrong. Sorry. There is a mountain of evidence supporting the Apollo program, and I have yet to see a single hoax claim that can't be debunked.
" We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard..."
 - John F. Kennedy

Offline MRuthless

  • Stargazer
  • *
  • Posts: 19
faked?
« Reply #2 on: January 14, 2004, 03:16:08 PM »
Saying you believe the moon landing has been faked of course sounds conspiracy theoryish, but I think if you you look at the entire plan at its conception and the the fact that we were in the cold war with Russia it has to raise some doubt.

First off, in order to believe it was well as naything was hoaxed I think to ask a few simple questions about the hoaxes. They are as follows:
1)Motive- Did the US have a motive to fake the landing?
2)Means- Did the US have the means to pull it off?

I believe on both parts the answer is yes.
First we had the motive. It was the space race with the Russians that prompted Kennedy to declare we would put a man on the moon by the end of that decade. Back then the moon landing was a military plan not one of space exploration. Putting a man on the moon before the Russians would greatly influence peoples's minds as the US being the superior country. It would also help eas the minds of our citizens as from what I understand many people were worried and even frightened that the Russians had put a satelite up in orbit. This supposedly made them feel vulnerable and unsafe.

Secondly, did we have the means? With the space program being of military concern and being considered a "must do" money and resources would not be a hurdle. But if they were then you could also ask what would be more cost effective? To do the real thing or to fake it? Faking it surely would be less costly. As far as the means to keep it secret. It was a military exercise and those who flew and that were involved were military personnel and therefore bound not to disclose anything. As honorable men and women doing there mission to ensure the saftey of our country was in their blood. Their patriotism would never everlet them divulge any secrets. Even years later it would seem dishonarble to do so.

Of course this does not disprove, but it does show that if need be it could have been a last resort.

So what happened? I think they tried, but were unsuccessful to do it by the end of decade as was Kennedy's vision and goal. To save face and not look like we couldn't do what our president said we would and to appear supreme to the Russians they decided to bluff the Russains and fake it.

As far as evidence their are of course some things that people can easily discredit, but there a few things that make me say no way.

In checking out moon program videos from the library it connfirmed the fact the Armstrong never once landed the lander on earth succesfully while testing and practicing. One time he even had to eject just seconds before he would have died. Now if they were never successful on earth, why would they even think to try and do it on the moon? Would you? Perhaps being a military man and ordered to as my mission one would agree to do it, but then for it be pretty much a perfect landing... sounds strange to me.

There are other things as well but one major problem that really got me. Then  when I see this problem, just like the Bible, I have to question the integrity of any other evidence or statements.

The only way for me to get this point across is to do present this problem in a form of a quiz, which hopefully I could do and post via this forum. Putting it in a quiz form allows this evidence to be viewed unbiased because you not arguing for or against but rather to answer questions based on your personal observations and individual reasoning. Then when you find out the "answers" you can wiegh you reasoning against what you were told to be true.

So far everyone I have shown on paper has had doubts about the authenticity of the moon landing and not because I persuaded them, but because they actually looked at the evidence and were astounded to find out that what they thought was impossible was actually what NASA was claiming.


Anyway I'll try to make it up in a form that I can post and maybe we can run it for 30 days and at the end of 30 days I will post the answers. Then people can come back to check and see the results.

Offline MRuthless

  • Stargazer
  • *
  • Posts: 19
I had to add this
« Reply #3 on: January 14, 2004, 03:37:30 PM »
This is the Kennedy quote that was posted on the website. Notice how adamant he was on the US winning. Losing was NOT and option. If they had to fake it to "win" then that would be acceptable too.


"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."
John F. Kennedy
Rice University
Sept. 12, 1962

Offline LunarOrbit

  • Administrator
  • Moonwalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 3357
  • Gender: Male
    • TheSpaceRace.com
Coincidence or not?
« Reply #4 on: January 14, 2004, 03:50:47 PM »
I have debated the Moon hoax theory for nearly three years now... I can assure you I've heard (and debunked) every hoax claim ever made.

I can also assure you that Russia had the means to determine if NASA was faking the Moon landings and they would have made sure we knew it if they were.

I moved this thread to the "Fact or Fiction?" area of the forum because that's where it belongs.
" We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard..."
 - John F. Kennedy

Offline Bferrero

  • X-15 Pilot
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Coincidence or not?
« Reply #5 on: January 14, 2004, 06:08:49 PM »
I don't know what to believe. Moon Hoax theories are to me are like flavors, people may or maynot understand, some believe some don't, there are a few who keep coming up with the idea the moon landing was hoaxed, and then there are those who debunk those crazy theories.
I'm a wait and see guy, do I believe we went to the move of course, were there questionable camera angles yes, thats what I believe, I'm not entrenched in all things NASA so that is my opinion, and should be taken with a grain of salt on this issue alone.

It pains me to know how jaded most people are about the space program in general, I've come off idiotic at times, overall I do think the timing is needed because of the Columbia disaster. Maybe a new vision is what people need. Not another silly tirade about hoaxing Moon landings, etc. etc.

I'm as skeptical as the next guy, but come on this has been debated infinity x 300.

Offline LunarOrbit

  • Administrator
  • Moonwalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 3357
  • Gender: Male
    • TheSpaceRace.com
Re: faked?
« Reply #6 on: January 14, 2004, 11:39:32 PM »
Quote from: MRuthless
First off, in order to believe it was well as naything was hoaxed I think to ask a few simple questions about the hoaxes. They are as follows:
1)Motive- Did the US have a motive to fake the landing?
2)Means- Did the US have the means to pull it off?


The answer to 1) is possibly yes, but they also had the motive to actually go to the Moon. So that's the first flaw in your theory right there. The answer to 2) is definately no... there is absolutely no way they had the means to pull off such a huge hoax.

A hoax that big would be 100% guaranteed to fail... maybe not immediately but eventually. You see, the hoax isn't something they can pull off in 1969 and then forget about... it is something that would have to be maintained forever. It means that even if they have fooled us for this long, they still have to worry about someone in the future discovering the hoax.

First of all, they would have had to not only convince the general public that the landings were real, but also the scientific community, the NASA employees, and every single world government (friend & foe) advanced enough to have radio antennas. And the most difficult part would be convincing the Russians because they would have been looking very closely at the American space program... it actually wouldn't surprise me to find out there were KGB agents infiltrating NASA at that time.

In order to pull off the hoax they would have to find a way to fool the Russians radar tracking... an impossible task. The Russians had the capability to track any object in Earth orbit, whether it was a satellite, manned spacecraft, nuclear warhead, or space debris.

The Russians also would have been able to track the Apollo spacecraft's radio transmissions, and the only way to make radio transmissions come from the Moon is to go there.

At this point most hoax believers will say "NASA could have done all of that using robotic probes". But that brings up a whole new flaw in the theory.

In order to use robotic probes to transmit radio from the Moon NASA would first have to design, build, test, and launch them. That would require bringing more people into the loop, and the more people who know about the hoax the more likely it is to fail.

So not only would NASA have to design and build the Apollo capsules and landers (all of which must be convincing enough to make the engineers that built them believe they will really work... they can't just be hollow models), but they also have to build the robotic probes that will actually go to the Moon.

And don't forget, pre-recorded transmissions from probes are not interactive the way live transmissions from real people are.

All of that adds to the complexity and cost of the hoax, and I haven't even discussed all of the evidence that supports the Apollo program (ie. moon rocks, photographs, video, etc.)

Quote
Secondly, did we have the means? With the space program being of military concern and being considered a "must do" money and resources would not be a hurdle. But if they were then you could also ask what would be more cost effective? To do the real thing or to fake it?


That's my point... faking it would be MORE expensive than actually going to the Moon. Not only do you have to bribe hundreds, if not thousands, of people to keep the secret, but you also have to make the fake space program so convincing that it will pass close inspection, even by your enemies. They couldn't just launch fake space capsules into orbit because the engineers that built them would have to be in on the secret (we're talking about bribing hundreds of thousands of people) or they would know the capsules were fake.

There are real Apollo spacecraft in museums for anyone to look at. They are not empty shells made of fibreglass, they are actual functioning vehicles. The Russians even got a full tour of one when the Apollo-Soyuz docking occurred in 1975.

Quote
It was a military exercise and those who flew and that were involved were military personnel and therefore bound not to disclose anything.


NASA is not a military organization, and not all of the astronauts were in the military. Neil Armstrong was a civilian at the time of Apollo 11, although he had been in the military before that. Harrison Schmitt (Apollo 17) was a geologist who had never been in the military. Most of the mission control team members were civilians under the age of 30. The engineers who built the spacecraft were mostly civilians.

Quote
As honorable men and women doing there mission to ensure the saftey of our country was in their blood. Their patriotism would never everlet them divulge any secrets. Even years later it would seem dishonarble to do so.


Is perpetrating the largest hoax in history honourable? I would think that if the hoax was real there would be a lot of guilty consciences out there... and yet not ONE person has come forward to tell the truth. How strange...

Quote
To save face and not look like we couldn't do what our president said we would and to appear supreme to the Russians they decided to bluff the Russains and fake it.


If it wasn't possible for NASA to go to the Moon in 1969, don't you think it would have been less embarrassing to admit it than to try to fake it and have the hoax fail?

If such a hoax failed (and like I said, failure would be guaranteed) the reputation of the United States would go down the toilet. They would be a laughing stock around the world for the rest of time.

Believe me, it would have been far easier for them to just come right out and say "Look, we tried, but it doesn't look like we will be able to go to the Moon like President Kennedy promised. We're sorry." The Russians wouldn't have made a big deal about that because it would have been impossible for them to go to the Moon too.

Quote
In checking out moon program videos from the library it connfirmed the fact the Armstrong never once landed the lander on earth succesfully while testing and practicing. One time he even had to eject just seconds before he would have died. Now if they were never successful on earth, why would they even think to try and do it on the moon?


First of all, Neil Armstrong did successfully fly the lunar landing training vehicle (LLTV) on more than one occassion. I have the video footage to prove it.

Secondly, the LLTV was not even close to a perfect way to practice flying the real lander. The Moon has no atmosphere and less gravity than Earth... and the real Lunar Module had a different form of propulsion.

Third, the British military developed an early prototype of their Harrier "jump-jet" years before NASA went to the Moon. The Harrier proto-type functioned in pretty much the same way as the LLTV.

The Lunar Module is well understood. Anyone with any knowledge of it will tell you there is no reason why it wouldn't work. Again, there are LM's in museums today... they are identical to the ones sent to the Moon. If they didn't work they would have been hidden away or destroyed to hide the evidence of a hoax.

Quote
The only way for me to get this point across is to do present this problem in a form of a quiz, which hopefully I could do and post via this forum. Putting it in a quiz form allows this evidence to be viewed unbiased because you not arguing for or against but rather to answer questions based on your personal observations and individual reasoning. Then when you find out the "answers" you can wiegh you reasoning against what you were told to be true.


I expect your questions to be flawed, skewing the results.

Quote
So far everyone I have shown on paper has had doubts about the authenticity of the moon landing and not because I persuaded them, but because they actually looked at the evidence and were astounded to find out that what they thought was impossible was actually what NASA was claiming.


Then I suggest that you send those people to this forum, or better yet to this website, because they are in need of a re-education.

Over the last three years I have come to realize that the people who claim to believe the Moon landings were faked are either: a) con artists out to make money; or b) people who haven't given it enough thought and just don't understand Apollo.

Which are you?


LunarOrbit
" We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard..."
 - John F. Kennedy

Offline MRuthless

  • Stargazer
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Coincidence or not?
« Reply #7 on: January 15, 2004, 09:26:47 AM »
Quote
A hoax that big would be 100% guaranteed to fail... maybe not immediately but eventually. You see, the hoax isn't something they can pull off in 1969 and then forget about... it is something that would have to be maintained forever. It means that even if they have fooled us for this long, they still have to worry about someone in the future discovering the hoax.


Of course, but military priority at the time was to "Win" as Kennedy had stated and as a last resort I think it is fair to say that trickery could and would be used just as we have use blow up tanks and other things on the battlefield to fool our enemy into thinking we have more troops and in many locations. Of course, they would also deny it until a time that it would no longer threaten our national security or subject any of those involved to the scrutiny of the public.

Quote
First of all, they would have had to not only convince the general public that the landings were real,


Let me just say "War of The Worlds" and Christianity


Quote
but also the scientific community, the NASA employees, and every single world government (friend & foe) advanced enough to have radio antennas. And the most difficult part would be convincing the Russians because they would have been looking very closely at the American space program... it actually wouldn't surprise me to find out there were KGB agents infiltrating NASA at that time


It sounds like a daunting task but how many people are working on top secret military programs this  very minute? Where are all of those military or non military scientists and engineers and why do they not expose these programs?

Quote
In order to pull off the hoax they would have to find a way to fool the Russians radar tracking... an impossible task. The Russians had the capability to track any object in Earth orbit, whether it was a satellite, manned spacecraft, nuclear warhead, or space debris.

The Russians also would have been able to track the Apollo spacecraft's radio transmissions, and the only way to make radio transmissions come from the Moon is to go there.


Interesting point as I am sure the Russians were watching, but not expecting a fake moon shot and could have been caught off guard. Slieght of hand and deception are tools wielded by magicians and they can and have fooled millions of people time and time again.


Can you direct me to where I can find information that Russians obtained as they monitored our program, I would like to look into that and see if we can know what they knew. I will try a web search and see what I can come up with.


Quote
All of that adds to the complexity and cost of the hoax, and I haven't even discussed all of the evidence that supports the Apollo program (ie. moon rocks, photographs, video, etc.)


Faking it would of course be a complex and costly task, but the more complex the task the less likely people would  think it was fake.


Quote
That's my point... faking it would be MORE expensive than actually going to the Moon. Not only do you have to bribe hundreds, if not thousands, of people to keep the secret, but you also have to make the fake space program so convincing that it will pass close inspection, even by your enemies. They couldn't just launch fake space capsules into orbit because the engineers that built them would have to be in on the secret (we're talking about bribing hundreds of thousands of people) or they would know the capsules were fake.


Once again we have many top secret programs going on at this moment. Are you suggesting we have to bribe all our military and all these other people to maintain our secrets. How many people in Al Quieda do you think know where Bin Laden is? Not many, but he's thier head honcho. Even with a $25,000,000 reward on his head no one has yet to give him up.
Some people are motivated by more than just money. Also, information on military projects is given on a need to know basis, this confidentiality allows missions to be carried out with out disclosing information that could aid the enemy. When I was in the Marines and told to drive my vehicle from point A to point B and deilver a package to the base general, I didn't look in the package to see what it was nor did I ask what was in the package.

As far as our budget for top secret programs, do you really think they are listed for example as "money for top secret program X, developing technology Y for military plan Z"? If they want to hide the cost they will. But as far as making it look real visually, if you had to do it yourself, do you think you could do it for less by actually going there rather than by setting up a set somewhere. And just say they did bribe a few. At a million a head and threat of death they could easily do 1000 people for a mere billion. That's a fraction of the cost of the space launch. Toss a few billion at some other countries for hush money and it would  still be cheaper to pull off.


Quote
NASA is not a military organization, and not all of the astronauts were in the military.


Need I post the entire page form the NASA history page on its website?

Launching NASA


"An Act to provide for research into the problems of flight within and outside the Earth's atmosphere, and for other purposes." With this simple preamble, the Congress and the President of the United States created the national Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) on October 1, 1958. NASA's birth was directly related to the pressures of national defense. After World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union were engaged in the Cold War, a broad contest over the ideologies and allegiances of the nonaligned nations. During this period, space exploration emerged as a major area of contest and became known as the space race.

During the late 1940s, the Department of Defense pursued research and rocketry and upper atmospheric sciences as a means of assuring American leadership in technology. A major step forward came when President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved a plan to orbit a scientific satellite as part of the International Geophysical Year (IGY) for the period, July 1, 1957 to December 31, 1958, a cooperative effort to gather scientific data about the Earth. The Soviet Union quickly followed suit, announcing plans to orbit its own satellite

The following is the link if anyone needs it.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/factsheet.htm

NASA was clearly formed as a military department stemming form the department of defense.

Quote
Is perpetrating the largest hoax in history honourable? I would think that if the hoax was real there would be a lot of guilty consciences out there... and yet not ONE person has come forward to tell the truth. How strange...


If it leads to the success of the mission yes and that success is all that matters. Was it honarable to drop a nuke on Japan twice and kill hundreds of thousand innocent people? No, but it got the job done. The true honor for these people would be serving the greater need of the country and if they had suck it up and fake it instead of actually getting to really do it then that was all just part of the job.

Quote
Neil Armstrong was a civilian at the time of Apollo 11, although he had been in the military before that. Harrison Schmitt (Apollo 17) was a geologist who had never been in the military. Most of the mission control team members were civilians under the age of 30. The engineers who built the spacecraft were mostly civilians.


True, but he and others were prior military and was a test pilot which was what they needed. Also your patriotism and feeling of need to server your country does not just end when your enlistment is up.


Quote
Believe me, it would have been far easier for them to just come right out and say "Look, we tried, but it doesn't look like we will be able to go to the Moon like President Kennedy promised. We're sorry." The Russians wouldn't have made a big deal about that because it would have been impossible for them to go to the Moon too.


Tha was not an option. As they felt is imperative that the US win the race to prove their superiority over Russia and communism.

Quote
First of all, Neil Armstrong did successfully fly the lunar landing training vehicle (LLTV) on more than one occassion. I have the video footage to prove it.


Please post the name of the vidieo and where I can find it. I would like to see it myself and then compare it to the one at the library. Perhaps it was made at a later date.

Quote
Secondly, the LLTV was not even close to a perfect way to practice flying the real lander. The Moon has no atmosphere and less gravity than Earth... and the real Lunar Module had a different form of propulsion.


And amazingly they got it right on the very 1st time even after you admit it was  not even close to a perfect way to practice. Sounds like a suicide mission to me then.

Quote
The Lunar Module is well understood. Anyone with any knowledge of it will tell you there is no reason why it wouldn't work. Again, there are LM's in museums today... they are identical to the ones sent to the Moon. If they didn't work they would have been hidden away or destroyed to hide the evidence of a hoax.


Have any of these ever actually been tested by an outside resource? If so please post where I can find the results. I would like to see them. The only problem is you would have to go to the moon to do so, so I guess not. Not having the means to test and prove does not mean they had to work and we all know as we see in court that one expert will testify on the behalf of the defense and another expert will testify against so the only real proof would be to launch the thing.

Quote
I expect your questions to be flawed, skewing the results


I would expect you would, but no flaws just straight up observations and reasoning.

Quote
Over the last three years I have come to realize that the people who claim to believe the Moon landings were faked are either: a) con artists out to make money; or b) people who haven't given it enough thought and just don't understand Apollo.

Which are you?


Well, I am not out for money and would gain nothing by conning by anyone as a con artist would, but I have given it much thought and looked into much on the web and like I said I even took the time to go to our local library to see what I could find. Several hours of videos, of which the bulk do not even contain much about the actual landings, but rather more on the prep work, the people involved and why they went. I have checked many sites in favor and against, but I just can't seem to accept the fact that we did it. Strangely years ago when I first heard talk about it being fake I thought it was some crazy religious garbage, because it was coming from a certain individual I worked with. It wasn't until years later when I started looking into it that I began to actually question.


So I would have to say I am just a skeptical person with a curious mind, that would like to know the truth. My beliefs are formed from information I can gather in as many forms as possible coupled with my life experiences and sense of reason (even though you may find that skewed) And so far I have yet to see anything that really makes say "Wow, I think we really did land on the moon". Until then I will keep searching.


Hypothetically speaking (for you) I am just curious to know how you would feel or react if lets say it was clearly proven to have been faked.

Would you feel let down or a sense of embarassment? Would the US be less of a country?

Offline LunarOrbit

  • Administrator
  • Moonwalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 3357
  • Gender: Male
    • TheSpaceRace.com
Coincidence or not?
« Reply #8 on: January 15, 2004, 12:27:49 PM »
Quote from: MRuthless
Of course, but military priority at the time was to "Win" as Kennedy had stated and as a last resort I think it is fair to say that trickery could and would be used


So you honestly believe that NASA would be willing to completely destroy the United States reputation? They would have known in 1969 that the hoax would fail sooner or later... why would they do it?

Quote
Quote
First of all, they would have had to not only convince the general public that the landings were real,


Let me just say "War of The Worlds" and Christianity


Only a small number of gullible fools believed the "War of the Worlds" broadcast was a real Martian invasion... just like how only a small number of gullible fools believe the Moon hoax theory.

Quote
It sounds like a daunting task but how many people are working on top secret military programs this  very minute? Where are all of those military or non military scientists and engineers and why do they not expose these programs?


There is a HUGE difference between a top secret military program to design a new stealth airplane, for example, and trying to pull of a huge lie right out in the open in front of everyone.

NASA had over 400,000 employees during Apollo... and you're saying not a single one of them has a guilty conscience? Not one of them has ever sent an anonymous letter to a major newspaper?

Quote
Interesting point as I am sure the Russians were watching, but not expecting a fake moon shot and could have been caught off guard. Slieght of hand and deception are tools wielded by magicians and they can and have fooled millions of people time and time again.


Explain to me how NASA could make a spacecraft appear to go to the Moon without actually sending it there. All the magic in the world won't fool radar tracking.

Quote
Can you direct me to where I can find information that Russians obtained as they monitored our program, I would like to look into that and see if we can know what they knew. I will try a web search and see what I can come up with.


It's quite simple, really. They've had over 30 years to examine the Apollo missions... I'm sure they've even heard all of the hoax theories by now... and yet they haven't come forward to say these hoax theories have merit.

As far as KGB agents infiltrating NASA is concerned, it's only a hunch. The CIA obtained top secret information from the Russian space program, so I'm sure they were doing the same thing... and it would have been easier for them because NASA did everything in the open.

But here's a clue that maybe the Russians have spied on NASA in the past... do you think it's a coincidence that the Russian space shuttle Buran looks almost identical to the American space shuttle?

Quote
Faking it would of course be a complex and costly task, but the more complex the task the less likely people would  think it was fake.


Huh?

The more complex something is, the more likely it is to fail. Simple = easy, complex = hard.

President Nixon couldn't even cover up the Watergate incident... none of his Presidential power could keep it a secret. President Clinton couldn't keep his private life private. And in comparison to the Moon hoax those lies are small.

Quote
Once again we have many top secret programs going on at this moment. Are you suggesting we have to bribe all our military and all these other people to maintain our secrets.


Like I said, military programs are conducted out of the public eye... Apollo wasn't. Thousands of people witnessed every Saturn V launch. Amateur astronomers witnesses the spacecrafts making course corrections through their telescopes, and they even saw the cloud of debris around the Apollo 13 capsule after the accident. HAM radio operators listened to the communications and were able to study the dopler effect to show that the transmissions were actually coming from the Moon.

If you were to try to pull off a lie that big you would find there are so many variables that determine success or failure that you couldn't possibly control it. It would be like trying to predict the weather 10 years in advance, there are too many variables that you can't predict or control.

Quote
Some people are motivated by more than just money. Also, information on military projects is given on a need to know basis, this confidentiality allows missions to be carried out with out disclosing information that could aid the enemy.


Then why did NASA broadcast every Saturn V launch on national TV? Why did they make "top secret information" available to the public through the "Freedom of Information Act"?

I've got a book that tells me everything about the rockets and the spacecraft... right down to the weight of the ice that formed on the sides of the rockets before launch.

Quote
And just say they did bribe a few. At a million a head and threat of death they could easily do 1000 people for a mere billion. That's a fraction of the cost of the space launch. Toss a few billion at some other countries for hush money and it would  still be cheaper to pull off.


But what is keeping people from taking the bribes but exposing the hoax anyway? Let's say I'm a former NASA engineer and I've got proof the program was faked. I could very easily drive 100 miles to a different town and use a public library or cybercafe to send all of the damning evidence to a hundred news outlets in a single email. The government would never know it was me, so how could they hurt me?

And what is stopping one of the bribed countries from exposing the hoax? The US has it's hands full with Afghanistan and Iraq... would they really want to go to war with China right now if they tried to expose the hoax?

And what would be the point of the hoax in the first place if enemy governments knew about it and had to be bribed to keep it quiet? I thought the point was to fool those governments, not to hand them billions of dollars for no reason.

So let's do the math:

NASA's budget between 1962 and 1970 was roughly $32,555,607,000 (but let's say $33 billion). Note that that is NASA's entire budget, Apollo's funding was just part of that.

$33 billion

- $1 billion to bribe a thousand NASA employees (a thousand people is a tiny percentage of the NASA employees)

- $1 billion for every world government capable of detecting the hoax. Australia, Canada, England, China, Korea, Japan, Russia, Germany, and France are just some of the countries that have radar capabilities & radio antennas. There are more. But those countries alone would make $9 billion.

So far we have taken $10 billion out of NASA's budget just to bribe people.

You would then still have the normal NASA employee salaries, the normal rocket developement costs (we know they worked, people saw them launch), spacecraft developement (even if they weren't fully functional they were still built), infrastruct (buildings, launch towers, etc.), the cost of diverting the Navy to recover the spacecraft after the mission, and then you have the top secret hoax expenses that we aren't supposed to know about... for example, they would have had to build secret movie sets that accurately represent the Moon.


Quote
Quote
NASA is not a military organization, and not all of the astronauts were in the military.


Need I post the entire page form the NASA history page on its website?


Go for it. You won't find anything that says it is a military organization.

Quote
NASA's birth was directly related to the pressures of national defense. After World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union were engaged in the Cold War, a broad contest over the ideologies and allegiances of the nonaligned nations. During this period, space exploration emerged as a major area of contest and became known as the space race.


That doesn't change the fact that it is a civilian organization. The head of NASA does not have a military rank, NASA does not have offices in the Pentagon.

Quote
NASA was clearly formed as a military department stemming form the department of defense.


It has is roots in national defence but it is not military. General Motors built Jeeps for the army... are they a department of the military too? Boeing and Lockheed Martin build military planes, but they are civilian companies that are traded on the stock exchange.

Having ties to the military does not make NASA part of the military. They are a scientific research agency.

Quote
Tha was not an option. As they felt is imperative that the US win the race to prove their superiority over Russia and communism.


That is where the hoax theory fails time and time again. First the hoax believer will say the purpose of the hoax is to fool the Russians, and then when I point out that the Russians had the means to expose the hoax they turn around and say the Russians were in on the hoax and were bribed to stay quiet.

Which is it? Was the point of the hoax to fool the Russians, or were they in on it? If they were in on it, what was the point of faking the Moon landings in the first place?

That is a very important point. If you can't answer it then retire from the hoax debate because there is no point in continuing.

Quote
Quote
First of all, Neil Armstrong did successfully fly the lunar landing training vehicle (LLTV) on more than one occassion. I have the video footage to prove it.


Please post the name of the vidieo and where I can find it.


Apollo 11: Men on the Moon, 3 DVD's, available from the Spacecraftfilms.com website or in some stores.

Quote
I would like to see it myself and then compare it to the one at the library. Perhaps it was made at a later date.


I can guaranty that the films were made exactly when NASA claims they were. How do I know that? Because after Neil Armstrong ejected from the only existing LLTV, destroying the vehicle, they couldn't have gone back to make more film footage later.

Quote
And amazingly they got it right on the very 1st time even after you admit it was  not even close to a perfect way to practice. Sounds like a suicide mission to me then.


The lunar module was tested in Earth orbit during the Apollo 9 mission, and in Lunar orbit during Apollo 10.

But I would like to know why you believe these vehicles can't work? The principles are fairly simple... gyroscopes are used to keep the vehicle balanced, it's the same principle that Robert Goddard used on the very first liquid fueled rocket decades before Apollo. It's the same principle that guided the much, much, larger Saturn V rockets on a safe trajectory. If a Saturn V can fly safely without going off course, why can't a lunar module?


LunarOrbit
" We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard..."
 - John F. Kennedy

Offline Glom

  • The Right Stuff
  • Stargazer
  • ****
  • Posts: 15
Re: faked?
« Reply #9 on: January 15, 2004, 01:44:47 PM »
Quote from: MRuthless
First off, in order to believe it was well as naything was hoaxed I think to ask a few simple questions about the hoaxes. They are as follows:
1)Motive- Did the US have a motive to fake the landing?
2)Means- Did the US have the means to pull it off?


1) As I described in the other thread, not necessarily.  Just because you want to do something, doesn't mean you're willing to fake it.

2) Not at all.  How do you build an city sized evacuated soundstage at 1000km from the core?  How do you design, build and launch a robotic probe capable of collecting 380kg of documented samples including core tubes, trench samples and gas samples?  How do you do this all in complete secrecy?  At the end of the day, it would be much harder and much more expensive than just doing it for real.

Quote from: MRuthless
Faking it surely would be less costly.


False, false and thrice false!  The money goes into building the hardware to do the program and it's still going to do that.  Plus, you have to pay for the bribes, death squads, city sized evacuated sets at 1000km from the core, the robotic probe capable of collecting 380kg of documented samples including core tubes, trench samples and gas samples and the sandwiches.

Quote from: MRuthless
As far as the means to keep it secret. It was a military exercise and those who flew and that were involved were military personnel and therefore bound not to disclose anything.


It's a nice fantasy, but completely not the way it happened.  NASA is not a military organisation.  Many of the astronauts were military and kept their commissions, but it was still a civilian operation and the most open public works project of our time.  And Neil Armstrong was a civilian at the time of Apollo 11.

Quote from: MRuthless
So what happened? I think they tried, but were unsuccessful to do it by the end of decade as was Kennedy's vision and goal. To save face and not look like we couldn't do what our president said we would and to appear supreme to the Russians they decided to bluff the Russains and fake it.


Why couldn't they do it?  If they couldn't, there was no way in hell they could fake it.

Quote from: MRuthless
In checking out moon program videos from the library it connfirmed the fact the Armstrong never once landed the lander on earth succesfully while testing and practicing.


Well of course he didn't.  The LM couldn't lift its own weight on Earth.

Quote from: MRuthless
One time he even had to eject just seconds before he would have died. Now if they were never successful on earth, why would they even think to try and do it on the moon? Would you? Perhaps being a military man and ordered to as my mission one would agree to do it, but then for it be pretty much a perfect landing... sounds strange to me.


Armstrong was not military.  You are most likely referring to a crash of a Lunar Landing Training Vehicle.  Your statistics are abhorrent in their inaccuracy.  Yes, the vehicle crashed, but it had been used hundreds of times successfully.  The flaw was a poorly fitted helium line I believe on this one  occasion.  Your facts are simply wrong!

And the LLTV was not a LM test vehicle.  It was a training vehicle.  It was merely designed to give astronauts a feel for the handling of a VTOL vehicle.  They used helicopters a lot as well.  Your conclusion is similar to saying that I crashed my Cessna 172 and therefore my Piper Warrior couldn't work.

Quote from: MRuthless
So far everyone I have shown on paper has had doubts about the authenticity of the moon landing and not because I persuaded them, but because they actually looked at the evidence and were astounded to find out that what they thought was impossible was actually what NASA was claiming.


If your quiz contained as many faulty facts as above, it's no wonder.  If you said they discovered the soundstage and the astronauts confessed to everything, that might also make them doubt the authenticity of Apollo.  Unfortunately, in order for their doubts to be deserved the statement has to fulfil that pesky criteria of being true.
Beware the JAA!  They can be treacherous!

Offline Glom

  • The Right Stuff
  • Stargazer
  • ****
  • Posts: 15
Re: I had to add this
« Reply #10 on: January 15, 2004, 01:46:31 PM »
Quote from: MRuthless
This is the Kennedy quote that was posted on the website. Notice how adamant he was on the US winning. Losing was NOT and option. If they had to fake it to "win" then that would be acceptable too.


"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."
John F. Kennedy
Rice University
Sept. 12, 1962


WTF?  Talk about exaggerating!  He says "we intend to win" and you intepret that as saying "failiure is not an option".
Beware the JAA!  They can be treacherous!

Offline Glom

  • The Right Stuff
  • Stargazer
  • ****
  • Posts: 15
Coincidence or not?
« Reply #11 on: January 15, 2004, 02:11:46 PM »
Quote from: MRuthless
Of course, but military priority at the time was to "Win" as Kennedy had stated and as a last resort I think it is fair to say that trickery could and would be used just as we have use blow up tanks and other things on the battlefield to fool our enemy into thinking we have more troops and in many locations. Of course, they would also deny it until a time that it would no longer threaten our national security or subject any of those involved to the scrutiny of the public.


Using blow up tanks to make the enemy think your numbers are greater is not the same as faking the largest and most open public works project of this age.

Such a massive conspiracy is all but guaranteed to fail by sheer virtue of its size and complexity.  It's not enough to make it work in 1969, it must and is still working today since scientists and engineer (you know the ones who actually know about these things) believe they were authentic.

Quote from: MRuthless
Let me just say "War of The Worlds" and Christianity


And how long did the War of the Worlds scare last?  How many people were fooled?  As for Christianity, well that is a bit of a mystery.  I think it's a case that when it comes to issues of fact, most people are not fooled.  Only the Young Earth Creationists, but they're also in a minority, just like the HBers.  And may I remind you of the old addage, you can fool some people all of the time and all of the people some of time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.  That rules out Apollo then as a bit of foolery.

Quote from: MRuthless
It sounds like a daunting task but how many people are working on top secret military programs this  very minute? Where are all of those military or non military scientists and engineers and why do they not expose these programs?


NASA was not a military organisation.  There is also a case that if faking Apollo was in the best interests of the country, why are you spoiling it?  We should have you arrested for treason!  Of course, many of us don't think of such an act of deception as honourable or in the country's interest, although it would be impressive.

Quote from: MRuthless
Interesting point as I am sure the Russians were watching, but not expecting a fake moon shot and could have been caught off guard. Slieght of hand and deception are tools wielded by magicians and they can and have fooled millions of people time and time again.


Caught off guard?  They weren't expecting a fake moon landing?  What about keeping an eye out for ICBMs and  spy planes and satellites.  Surely you can't miss an Apollo spacecraft not leaving LEO.

Quote from: MRuthless
Faking it would of course be a complex and costly task, but the more complex the task the less likely people would  think it was fake.


Nice fantasy, but it doesn't work like that.  The more complex, the greater the likelihood of it going wrong.  You have a very low opinion of the public's intelligence.

Quote from: MRuthless
Once again we have many top secret programs going on at this moment. Are you suggesting we have to bribe all our military and all these other people to maintain our secrets.


Engineers building the F-117 didn't need bribes because they respected that the need for the aircraft and knew why it needed to be kept secret.  Apples and oranges.

Quote from: MRuthless
How many people in Al Quieda do you think know where Bin Laden is? Not many, but he's thier head honcho. Even with a $25,000,000 reward on his head no one has yet to give him up.
Some people are motivated by more than just money.


Of course they are.  The terrorists believe the west is an afront to god and must be destroyed.  They're not bribed.  The people asked to work on the hoax know this act of deception is not noble and are also not bribed.

Quote from: MRuthless
Also, information on military projects is given on a need to know basis, this confidentiality allows missions to be carried out with out disclosing information that could aid the enemy. When I was in the Marines and told to drive my vehicle from point A to point B and deilver a package to the base general, I didn't look in the package to see what it was nor did I ask what was in the package.


And your country appreciates you delivering that package unopened.  But in the field of engineering, things are a little different.  It fine for you to not know what was in the package.  All you needed to do was drive.  But engineers must know the big picture in order to do their work.  It's no good designing an air circulation system if they don't know how the cabin is shaped.

Quote from: MRuthless
As far as our budget for top secret programs, do you really think they are listed for example as "money for top secret program X, developing technology Y for military plan Z"? If they want to hide the cost they will. But as far as making it look real visually, if you had to do it yourself, do you think you could do it for less by actually going there rather than by setting up a set somewhere. And just say they did bribe a few. At a million a head and threat of death they could easily do 1000 people for a mere billion. That's a fraction of the cost of the space launch. Toss a few billion at some other countries for hush money and it would  still be cheaper to pull off.


Actually, there was half a million people involved.  That takes the cost to $500 billion.

Quote from: MRuthless
If it leads to the success of the mission yes and that success is all that matters. Was it honarable to drop a nuke on Japan twice and kill hundreds of thousand innocent people? No, but it got the job done. The true honor for these people would be serving the greater need of the country and if they had suck it up and fake it instead of actually getting to really do it then that was all just part of the job.


And what if they got caught?  What are the implications then?

Quote from: MRuthless
And amazingly they got it right on the very 1st time even after you admit it was  not even close to a perfect way to practice. Sounds like a suicide mission to me then.


That's what test pilots do!  That's why they're heroes!

Quote from: MRuthless
Have any of these ever actually been tested by an outside resource? If so please post where I can find the results. I would like to see them. The only problem is you would have to go to the moon to do so, so I guess not. Not having the means to test and prove does not mean they had to work and we all know as we see in court that one expert will testify on the behalf of the defense and another expert will testify against so the only real proof would be to launch the thing.


Irrelevant.  You can't just dismiss it like that.  Do you know of any reason the LM was unable to do its job?
Beware the JAA!  They can be treacherous!

Offline MRuthless

  • Stargazer
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Coincidence or not?
« Reply #12 on: January 15, 2004, 03:18:02 PM »
Quote
So you honestly believe that NASA would be willing to completely destroy the United States reputation? They would have known in 1969 that the hoax would fail sooner or later... why would they do it?


I think if they felt it neccessary yes and that they would just continue to lie and deny it being fake, just like they lie about pretty much everything else.
For instance Roswell, not that it was aliens but how many times did they change thier story or denying that area 51 even existed or that our SS number would never be used for ID purposes. The list can go on and on. DO you honeslty think they have always told us the truth?


Quote
Only a small number of gullible fools believed the "War of the Worlds" broadcast was a real Martian invasion...


Sure caused a big panic though and as result I believe a law was enacted because of the panic caused.

Quote
NASA had over 400,000 employees during Apollo... and you're saying not a single one of them has a guilty conscience? Not one of them has ever sent an anonymous letter to a major newspaper?


Do you think if it was going to be faked they would tell all 400,000 of them? And then ask them to be quiet?


Quote
Explain to me how NASA could make a spacecraft appear to go to the Moon without actually sending it there. All the magic in the world won't fool radar tracking.


I never said they they didn't I orbit I just don't think they ever landed.


Quote
Quote:
Faking it would of course be a complex and costly task, but the more complex the task the less likely people would think it was fake.


Huh?

The more complex something is, the more likely it is to fail. Simple = easy, complex = hard.


Example: Crop circles many people think they are real because they are too elaborate to have done by humans.


Quote

NASA's budget between 1962 and 1970 was roughly $32,555,607,000 (but let's say $33 billion). Note that that is NASA's entire budget, Apollo's funding was just part of that.

$33 billion

- $1 billion to bribe a thousand NASA employees (a thousand people is a tiny percentage of the NASA employees)

- $1 billion for every world government capable of detecting the hoax. Australia, Canada, England, China, Korea, Japan, Russia, Germany, and France are just some of the countries that have radar capabilities & radio antennas. There are more. But those countries alone would make $9 billion.

So far we have taken $10 billion out of NASA's budget just to bribe people.

You would then still have the normal NASA employee salaries, the normal rocket developement costs (we know they worked, people saw them launch), spacecraft developement (even if they weren't fully functional they were still built), infrastruct (buildings, launch towers, etc.), the cost of diverting the Navy to recover the spacecraft after the mission, and then you have the top secret hoax expenses that we aren't supposed to know about... for example, they would have had to build secret movie sets that accurately represent the Moon.


Today that 33 billion is estimated to be worth about 250 billion.

Quote
That doesn't change the fact that it is a civilian organization. The head of NASA does not have a military rank, NASA does not have offices in the Pentagon.


So its a military organization under the guise of a civilian one. It's purpse and reason it was founded was because of the cold war. Do you think the pilots had a top secret military clearance?

Quote
General Motors built Jeeps for the army... are they a department of the military too? Boeing and Lockheed Martin build military planes, but they are civilian companies that are traded on the stock exchange


General Motors, Lockheed or Boeing wer not founded by the Department of Defense. But you could be you would need a clearnce to work on many of the projects at an upper level. 50,000 people can easily make parts and not know what they are for. Only the upper few would have to know. And they wouldn't even have to know it was going to be faked. After all they were trying to get there so they better try and design it to get there.


Quote

I can guaranty that the films were made exactly when NASA claims they were. How do I know that? Because after Neil Armstrong ejected from the only existing LLTV, destroying the vehicle, they couldn't have gone back to make more film footage later



For one why did he have to eject? Because he couldn't pilot the damn thing and two how do you know they only had one? He probably told them they were crazy from his experience as a test pilot to try and land that thing on the moon when he couldn't do it here. Personally, I would wantto have landed several times myself before i would want to undertake the task. Especially 250,000 miles from earth far  from the reach of any ambulance.

Quote
But I would like to know why you believe these vehicles can't work? The principles are fairly simple... gyroscopes are used to keep the vehicle balanced, it's the same principle that Robert Goddard used on the very first liquid fueled rocket decades before Apollo. It's the same principle that guided the much, much, larger Saturn V rockets on a safe trajectory. If a Saturn V can fly safely without going off course, why can't a lunar module?


Its not the flying I question its the landing and then getting back safely.

Offline MRuthless

  • Stargazer
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Coincidence or not?
« Reply #13 on: January 15, 2004, 04:01:49 PM »
Quote
2) Not at all. How do you build an city sized evacuated soundstage at 1000km from the core? How do you design, build and launch a robotic probe capable of collecting 380kg of documented samples including core tubes, trench samples and gas samples? How do you do this all in complete secrecy? At the end of the day, it would be much harder and much more expensive than just doing it for real


Uh, Area 51 seemed to work quite well under complete secrecy. I believe it wasn't until satellite imagery would force the US to admit it existed.

Quote
It's a nice fantasy, but completely not the way it happened. NASA is not a military organisation. Many of the astronauts were military and kept their commissions, but it was still a civilian operation and the most open public works project of our time. And Neil Armstrong was a civilian at the time of Apollo 11.



No matter how open a project is they will not let unathorized people roam around at free will to snoop.


Quote
Why couldn't they do it? If they couldn't, there was no way in hell they could fake it.


They could surely try if neccessary

Quote
Well of course he didn't. The LM couldn't lift its own weight on Earth.


Then why did he have to eject when it was the air. Perhaps we are talking about different things. I am talking about the test vehicle in which he tried to land but ejected seconds from crashing.


Quote
Armstrong was not military. You are most likely referring to a crash of a Lunar Landing Training Vehicle. Your statistics are abhorrent in their inaccuracy. Yes, the vehicle crashed, but it had been used hundreds of times successfully. The flaw was a poorly fitted helium line I believe on this one occasion. Your facts are simply wrong!


Please inform me where I can find results from hundreds of test landings. Hundreds sounds like quite a bit to me.

Quote
Armstrong was not military.


Well he was before he became a test pilot and he worked for the US gov't on a military program that was designed to beat the Russians to the moon to prove our technological superiority. If that's not enough I guess you got me.


Quote
If your quiz contained as many faulty facts as above, it's no wonder


Nothing but mere observation put into a form of a quiz then they thought about it and drew thier own conclusion.

Quote
WTF? Talk about exaggerating! He says "we intend to win" and you intepret that as saying "failiure is not an option".



Coming from the priority of winning and the addressing of this point to the nation to ease the mind of the public, I would have to say yeah, failure was not an option.


Quote
Such a massive conspiracy is all but guaranteed to fail by sheer virtue of its size and complexity. It's not enough to make it work in 1969, it must and is still working today since scientists and engineer (you know the ones who actually know about these things) believe they were authentic.


Even experts can be fooled and many well educated people have been sucked into things like religion and cults and ponzi schemes and internet fraud scams.


Quote
As for Christianity, well that is a bit of a mystery


Perhaps the moon hoax can also fall along the lines of the same mystery. The only thing wrong is there is much more evidence to support a moon landing than there is a god but in either case people still believe. Perhaps it is just our nature. Curious but gullable


Quote
NASA was not a military organisation. There is also a case that if faking Apollo was in the best interests of the country, why are you spoiling it? We should have you arrested for treason! Of course, many of us don't think of such an act of deception as honourable or in the country's interest, although it would be impressive.


Again it is under the guise of a "civilian" department but it was founded as a military purpose. As far as spoiling it. It is no longer neccessary to to lie as the only harm done down by exposing it would be to cause some embarassment those who were involved. But all they have to do is come out and say "It ws my job"

As for treason. It is America and merely freedom of speech which cannot be construed as treason.


Quote
Caught off guard? They weren't expecting a fake moon landing? What about keeping an eye out for ICBMs and spy planes and satellites. Surely you can't miss an Apollo spacecraft not leaving LEO.


Sure it could have left, but did it land?

Quote
Nice fantasy, but it doesn't work like that. The more complex, the greater the likelihood of it going wrong.


Exactly why if it goes well it will be viewed as legit.

Quote
You have a very low opinion of the public's intelligence.



Again, War of The Worlds", religion, believing our gov't is honest, still being herded around in a 2 party political system.


Quote
Engineers building the F-117 didn't need bribes because they respected that the need for the aircraft and knew why it needed to be kept secret.


And so would those working on the moon project respect its need. Apples and apples

Quote
But engineers must know the big picture in order to do their work. It's no good designing an air circulation system if they don't know how the cabin is shaped.


True to some extent. Part makers do not need to know what they are for and if it was designed to actually work in a real attempt to make it there then the engineers would be trying to build it. Even then not many people would have to be told it didn't make it or it only stayed in orbit.



Quote
Actually, there was half a million people involved. That takes the cost to $500 billion.


You need not have to bribe every single one with money and the 33 billion would be around 250 billion today.

Quote
And what if they got caught? What are the implications then?


Total denial

Quote
That's what test pilots do! That's why they're heroes!


Yes they were and I salute them for that.

Quote
Irrelevant. You can't just dismiss it like that. Do you know of any reason the LM was unable to do its job?


For the sake of science, yes I can dismiss it. Whenever a scientist comes up with some new claim that they can do something other scientists attempt to replicate it in order to prove it can or cannot be done. They also publish thier results so others can see them. To simply discard this part of science because testing would be too hard or impractacle and excepting what you were told was done, goes against the scientific process.

Offline DogB

  • Stargazer
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Coincidence or not?
« Reply #14 on: January 15, 2004, 07:08:08 PM »
Quote from: MRuthless
Quote
Uh, Area 51 seemed to work quite well under complete secrecy. I believe it wasn't until satellite imagery would force the US to admit it existed.


Are you suggesting that area 51 has a giant vacuum chamber with 1/6 gravity. That's pretty cool. If we could do that then getting to the moon would be a bit of a doddle really.

Quote
No matter how open a project is they will not let unathorized people roam around at free will to snoop.


Except for all the reporters and TV crews they invited in.

Quote
Then why did he have to eject when it was the air. Perhaps we are talking about different things. I am talking about the test vehicle in which he tried to land but ejected seconds from crashing.


You're talking about the LLTV (Lunar Landing Test Vehicle) also known as the LLRV (Lunar Landing Research Vehicle). If you don't even know what it's called maybe you might think that you're not really qualified to discuss it. No... hang on you're a hoax believer...you know everything.


Quote
Please inform me where I can find results from hundreds of test landings. Hundreds sounds like quite a bit to me.


Hundreds is correct
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apoollrv.htm

Quote
Nothing but mere observation put into a form of a quiz then they thought about it and drew thier own conclusion.


Why don't you show us this quiz if it is so convincing.

Quote
Even experts can be fooled and many well educated people have been sucked into things like religion and cults and ponzi schemes and internet fraud scams.


True, some are. Most aren't however.

Quote
Sure it could have left, but did it land?


Just so we can pin down your current delusion. You are now claiming they flew all the way to the moon but didn't land. OK. (Ignoring photos, samples, laser reflectors etc)

Quote
Again, War of The Worlds", religion, believing our gov't is honest, still being herded around in a 2 party political system.


Once again.. just because some people are dumb doesn't mean all are.

Quote
True to some extent. Part makers do not need to know what they are for and if it was designed to actually work in a real attempt to make it there then the engineers would be trying to build it. Even then not many people would have to be told it didn't make it or it only stayed in orbit.


So all those engineers build the LEM with the capability of landing on the moon. You admit they probably hauled that damn thing all the way to the moon. Please enlighten us. Why the hell wouldn't they just use it.

Quote
Yes they were and I salute them for that.


Then call them liars with the same breath.

Quote
For the sake of science, yes I can dismiss it. Whenever a scientist comes up with some new claim that they can do something other scientists attempt to replicate it in order to prove it can or cannot be done. They also publish thier results so others can see them. To simply discard this part of science because testing would be too hard or impractacle and excepting what you were told was done, goes against the scientific process.


Nothing new about the LEM. All old reliable technology. Just because it was used in a unique environment doesn't change that. A rocket is a rocket here or on the moon.

P.