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 69815 times)

Offline LunarOrbit

  • Administrator
  • Moonwalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 3357
  • Gender: Male
    • TheSpaceRace.com
Coincidence or not?
« Reply #15 on: January 15, 2004, 11:41:02 PM »
MRuthless,

First I want you to clarify one thing... do you believe the purpose of the alleged hoax was to fool the Russians? Yes or no?
" 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 DataCable

  • Stargazer
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Coincidence or not?
« Reply #16 on: January 16, 2004, 04:10:28 AM »
Quote
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.

But you initially called it "the lander," which is terribly non-specific, and initially brings to mind The Apollo Lunar Module, not the LLRV or LLTV.

Quote
For one why did he have to eject? Because he couldn't pilot the damn thing...

Yes, he couldn't "pilot the damn thing"...  not because of any defficiency in skill on Armstrong's part or inherent design flaw of the vehicle, but simply because it broke.  The vehicle lost pressure to the maneuvering thrusters, leaving it uncontrollable, hence the immenent crash, hence Armstrong's ejection.

Your car would similarly be uncontrollable if the steering wheel came off in your hands and the break lines ruptured while you were careening down the highway at 65mph.  Such mechanical failures do not make all cars uncontrollable, it makes that car uncontrollable at that time.

Quote
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.

Please post this quiz.

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

But you have already asserted that the government was willing to resort to million-dollar bribes and death threats to keep the secret hushed up.  So what has prevented them from bribing or eliminating you in order to ensure the continuation of the lie?

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

To clarify, this is a stipulation on your part that the Apollo spacecraft did in fact leave Earth orbit, is it not?  I just want to clear this up now, lest the discussion drift back to "they never left Earth orbit" later.

Quote
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.


But you are saying that this is somehow evidence of a  hoax:  Complex = hard = convincing fake.

More likely: Complex = hard = convincing actual success.

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

Again, War of The Worlds"

You seem to enjoy comparing the supposed moon-landing hoax to Orson Welles' "War of the Worlds" hoax, so let me ask you this:  How many people still believe that Martians actually landed as described in that radio broadcast?

Quote
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...


Hang on a sec, we're not talking about "part makers" here, we're talking about "part designers."  You seem to have this impression that NASA put out a mandate to XYZ contractor: "Produce this part to these specifications," without the need to inform the contractor of how the part would fit into the overall design of the spacecraft, therefore allowing them to compartmentalize the entire process and keep left hands from knowing what right hands were doing.

It doesn't work like that.  NASA put out a mandate to the contractors "Design and build a machine which will do this."  It was then up to the contractors, and there were many of them which had to cross-coordinate with each other, to deliver the product.

Quote
[...] Even then not many people would have to be told it didn't make it or it only stayed in orbit.

Precicely the point of my previous clarification request.  Sources independant of US government influence have verified that Apollo did, in fact, leave Earth orbit.  Are we agreed that this point is no longer in dispute and off the table?

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

So, tell us, how did all of these highly-bribed workers spend their new-found fortunes?  Bribe money is worthless if they can't spend it.  And theretofore average engineers earning modest wages suddenly making extravegant purchaces would surely have raised someone's suspiscions.

Quote
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.

The results have been published for all the world to see for decades.  And before once again asking us to provide you with information, please tell us, what have you looked for, and how have you looked for it?

Failing to find relavent information within the first few hits after punching a few words into Google doesn't constitute exhaustive research or grounds to declare that the information doesn't exist.

Offline Glom

  • The Right Stuff
  • Stargazer
  • ****
  • Posts: 15
Coincidence or not?
« Reply #17 on: January 16, 2004, 11:32:57 AM »
Quote from: MRuthless
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.


Well if your attitude is that paranoid, there really is no talking to you.

Quote from: MRuthless
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?


Irrelevant.  Just because they lie about event A, doesn't mean they automatically lie about event B.  Do you think the US government have ever been truthful about anything?


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


Again irrelevant.  The point is that there were still a great many who weren't fooled.  Not the case here.  In fact, those who apparently were "fooled"  are the ones who know more about these things.

Out of curiosity, what's your profession and qualifications?

Quote from: MRuthless
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?


Okay, say you tell the lot.  That's obviously a huge conspiracy that has next to zero chance of working.  I think we can agree on that.

But say you only tell a few.  Only the people who actually do that faking perhaps as well as the ringleaders.  But not the contractors.  Can't trust those civilian types.  Too freethinking.

So NASA tells Grumman to build a lunar module.  Grumman believes it must actually do this.  NASA doesn't care if they can't, but Grumman would care.  They wouldn't want their spacecraft to be the weak link in the grand endeavour.  Their engineers are going to find out what the problems are and solve them.  So while NASA is busy working on its soundstages that are the size of a city, fully evacuated, deep down inside the core, where no one has ever reached before, Grumman builds a working lunar module.  If NASA have a working lunar module, why not actually use it?  The most foolproof why of convincing someone you did something is to actually do it after all.  If Grumman couldn't build it, they'd tell NASA and then NASA would tell them to keep quiet about it, which gets you back to the large implausible conspiracy.

Quote from: MRuthless
I never said they they didn't I orbit I just don't think they ever landed.


Why not?  What was wrong with the LM?

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


Apples and oranges.  No one questions that they're real.  The question is who did them.  But I don't intend to get into a discussion over crop circles.

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


But you don't have that luxury.  You can't just keep people out the loop like that.  And you also underestimate the morality of some people.

Quote from: MRuthless
Today that 33 billion is estimated to be worth about 250 billion.


But it wasn't back then.

Quote from: MRuthless
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?


If you sleep better at night believing that NASA's civilian nature is just a facade, there's really not much we can say.

Quote from: MRuthless
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


That's partly to protect the company's interests.

Quote from: MRuthless
For one why did he have to eject?


Because a thruster was not corrected properly, meaning he lost control of the vehicle.  It's like the steering wheel coming off in your hand.

Quote from: MRuthless
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.


They're called simulators.  They used them a lot.  They also used the LLTV a lot.  You are trying to make out that the LLTV crash was a regular occurence.  It was not.  It was a technical glitch on one of many test flights.

Quote from: MRuthless
Its not the flying I question its the landing and then getting back safely.


Why do you question that?  Landing is the same a flying, except you reach the ground and shut off the engine.
Beware the JAA!  They can be treacherous!

Offline Glom

  • The Right Stuff
  • Stargazer
  • ****
  • Posts: 15
Coincidence or not?
« Reply #18 on: January 16, 2004, 12:06:02 PM »
Quote from: MRuthless
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.


No.  Area 51 worked fine as a development site for America's most advanced aircraft, but it would serve little purpose as a place to fake the lunar surface.  You need an environment of one-sixth Earth surface gravity.  Hence, you'd need to go down to about 1000km from the core.  You need it to be big to accommodate many square kilometres of lunar surface.  You also need it be a vacuum, using technology we don't have today.

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


They didn't let them snoop freely, but they allowed a lot of people to have a look.

Quote from: MRuthless
They could surely try if neccessary


They could try, but if they couldn't do it for real, they'd most certainly fail.

Quote from: MRuthless
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.


The Lunar Landing Training Vehicle was not a test vehicle.  Just because the ailerons on my C172 fall off, it doesn't mean my PA28 doesn't work.

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


Try Langley Research Center.

Quote from: MRuthless
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.


Apollo was not military.  It used military support but it was not military.  It's only military in your conspiracy theory, because you need it to be.


Quote from: MRuthless
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.


You're still putting motives in their heads.

Quote from: MRuthless
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.


An expert can be fooled.  But the entire scientific community?  Such a notion is pretty farfetched, especially when you consider that those saying they have been are remarkably light on qualifications.

Quote from: MRuthless
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


Much, much, much, much, much, much more!  There is also precious little evidence that it was fake.  In light of this, finding in favour of authenticity is the logical option.

Quote from: MRuthless
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"


But no one has admitted it, so perhaps nothing it wrong.

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

Quote from: MRuthless
Sure it could have left, but did it land?


That wreaks of compromising for plausibility.  You know saying that entire thing was fake will get you no credit, but by shrinking the scale of the hoaxery, you hope to create a semblance of plausibility.  Either way, such fakery is beyond us.

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


How about believing every sensationalist tabloid conspiracy article that is published?

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


You are alone on the assumption that faking it would be considered honourable.

Quote from: MRuthless
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.


What about the tests done on Apollo 5, 9, 10 and 11?  Those tests were done to ensure it worked.  They were exquisitely documented for all to see.  If you have some reason to believe those tests were not what they seemed, give the reasons.
Beware the JAA!  They can be treacherous!

Offline Glom

  • The Right Stuff
  • Stargazer
  • ****
  • Posts: 15
Coincidence or not?
« Reply #19 on: January 16, 2004, 12:27:24 PM »
I've just thought of one important point, MRuthless, you're pushing us into discussing the plausibilities of a such a conspiracy, with very little discussion of evidence for it.  Plausibilities are irrelevant.  

We don't care what could be done, we care what actually was done.

You might be able to conjure up some way the conspiracy could be accomplished with your conjectural assertions of military puppeteers and eager conspirators, but at the end of the day, but at the end of day, it doesn't make the conspiracy theory any more truthful than my conjectural whims that Bin Laden is a Goa'uld shows my government has a stargate.

If, as you clearly do, believe that the landings were a hoax, you're going to have to accept that you need evidence that this is actually the case and not just some suppositions and thought experiments that show it is simply possible.

If you endulge the conspiracy theory simply based on that, you are no more logical than those weirdos who believe in god simply because it is, under a lot of conjecture about divine plans, possible.
Beware the JAA!  They can be treacherous!

Offline LunarOrbit

  • Administrator
  • Moonwalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 3357
  • Gender: Male
    • TheSpaceRace.com
Coincidence or not?
« Reply #20 on: January 16, 2004, 12:29:58 PM »
Quote from: MRuthless
Sure it could have left, but did it land?


The radio transmissions coming from the spacecraft split into two separate signals as the Lunar Module (LM) undocked from the Command/Service Module (CSM).

The radio signals coming from the CSM continued to show that it was orbiting the Moon, while the the signals from the LM showed it slow down and eventually stop over one part of the Moon. So it either landed or it hovered over one spot for hours without running out of fuel. Which explanation is more plausible, MRuthless?
" 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 #21 on: January 16, 2004, 06:21:31 PM »
Quote
I've just thought of one important point, MRuthless, you're pushing us into discussing the plausibilities of a such a conspiracy, with very little discussion of evidence for it. Plausibilities are irrelevant.


I seem to be seeing "evidence" posted from my opposition as well. All of which are mereley personal beliefs or repeating information that was read from books and videos or the internet that was supplied by what I would call the hoaxing party. So let me ask this. Has anyone here, that has spoken on this matter, actually requested through FOIA any materials from our government to try and verify the claims the US makes and that you guys support?


I mean come on, how do know there was only 1 LLTV ot that those signals stopped or this or that? You only know that because you read it or heard it and then you made the judgement to believe it. That in no way means it is true or accurate information, it only means it was enough to convince you and that is fine, but it is not enough to convince me, at least no as of yet. Perhaps one day I may see enough to convince me, but at least I am still looking for information that can confirm what I have been told.


Having said that, I have begun requesting through the FOIA, information that I feel could clear up a few things. If our government is so "open" about this issue then it will be no problem to do so, but if I recollect I don't think that all of the information will be completely declassified for about another 20 years. If that is to be the case can one of you please explain to me why this information is not yet available? After all it has been nearly 35 years since "we landed" so what harm to our country could ever come about from any bit of information? All that technology is old and far beyond obsolete.

Considering that you guys don't like to hear just concept or hypothesis as part of a debate and demand real evidence from my arguements,(which is fair) insuitating that I don't have any or it must be flawed or whatever, I would therefore assume that you would require the same level of proof from the US government and if not you would not lend them the credibility that you do now. (which is also fair)

By the way as far credibility goes, there are many scientists that believe in a god and many so called "credible" people have made claims to seeing aliens or spaceships, including high ranking military people. So is there a god or aliens just because these people say so and because they are credible or have an occupation that makes them an "expert"? And even large numbers of these people do not always make them right, because millions have claimed UFO sightings and billions believe in a god or gods. As I recall everyone even thought the world was flat and that we were the center of the universe.


Oh and by the way, can someone give me some insight as to what the following statement means?


[/quote] Requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue
Quote




Offline Glom

  • The Right Stuff
  • Stargazer
  • ****
  • Posts: 15
Coincidence or not?
« Reply #22 on: January 16, 2004, 06:57:31 PM »
Quote from: MRuthless
I seem to be seeing "evidence" posted from my opposition as well. All of which are mereley personal beliefs or repeating information that was read from books and videos or the internet that was supplied by what I would call the hoaxing party. So let me ask this. Has anyone here, that has spoken on this matter, actually requested through FOIA any materials from our government to try and verify the claims the US makes and that you guys support?


You completely missed the points I was making.  You can't just dismiss evidence because it could be faked.  NASA did the moon landing.  They have the evidence.  You are dismissing because you judge them, apparently circularly, to be untrustworthy.  Unacceptable.  You must show that the evidence is fake before dismissing it.  LLRC ran the LLTV and LLRV program.  Who else would have the evidence for it?  In fact, until you use the evidence to show that NASA is untrustworthy, you have no reason to believe that they are.  Your reasoning is circular.

Quote from: MRuthless
I mean come on, how do know there was only 1 LLTV ot that those signals stopped or this or that? You only know that because you read it or heard it and then you made the judgement to believe it. That in no way means it is true or accurate information, it only means it was enough to convince you and that is fine, but it is not enough to convince me, at least no as of yet. Perhaps one day I may see enough to convince me, but at least I am still looking for information that can confirm what I have been told.


So you think NASA hasn't provided adequate evidence?  Why then do you assume they faked it?  For any given proposition, we may conclude three things.  If the evidence for the proposition is good enough, we may hold the proposition.  If evidence for the converse of the proposition is good enough, we may hold the converse.  If insufficient evidence either way is available.  We can only suspend judgement on this issue.  You are saying that NASA's evidence is insufficient (based on extravagantly stringent standards) and yet you propose that the landings never occured.  Well, you cannot say that because you have no evidence for it.  The only logically defensible position you may take is to suspend judgement on this issue pending further evidence.

Unfortunately, given your standards of proof, you are unlikely to find such a thing.  NASA holds the evidence because they carried out the missions, although independant universities have a stake in the scientific results, including the Russian geologists who examined the selenological samples and Switzerland that funded the Solar Wind Composition experiment.

Quote from: MRuthless
Having said that, I have begun requesting through the FOIA, information that I feel could clear up a few things. If our government is so "open" about this issue then it will be no problem to do so, but if I recollect I don't think that all of the information will be completely declassified for about another 20 years. If that is to be the case can one of you please explain to me why this information is not yet available? After all it has been nearly 35 years since "we landed" so what harm to our country could ever come about from any bit of information? All that technology is old and far beyond obsolete.


Not all of the classified information was about technology.  Some of it was medical records, which are classified because that is confidential information between the astronauts and their doctors.  It's none of the public's business.  Also, the British Government classified war documents for 50 years.  There are many circumstances of classifications lasting far longer than is really necessary.

Quote from: MRuthless
Considering that you guys don't like to hear just concept or hypothesis as part of a debate and demand real evidence from my arguements,(which is fair) insuitating that I don't have any or it must be flawed or whatever, I would therefore assume that you would require the same level of proof from the US government and if not you would not lend them the credibility that you do now. (which is also fair)


We have observed the evidence and found no flaws that would imply foul play.  That's why we trust it.  We cannot say about the quality of your evidence you have yet to present much.  Indeed, the only evidence you present was the crash of the LLTV, which was based on completely false information about the nature of the vehicle and the circumstances of the incident.  So thus far, your evidence leaves much to be desired.

Quote from: MRuthless
By the way as far credibility goes, there are many scientists that believe in a god and many so called "credible" people have made claims to seeing aliens or spaceships, including high ranking military people. So is there a god or aliens just because these people say so and because they are credible or have an occupation that makes them an "expert"?


I might add that no such alien spacecraft have ever been accepted as genuine.  Indeed many people report seeing strange things such as floating lights, but the credible ones simply say they saw an unexplained light and suspend judgement as to what it was.

Quote from: MRuthless
And even large numbers of these people do not always make them right, because millions have claimed UFO sightings and billions believe in a god or gods. As I recall everyone even thought the world was flat and that we were the center of the universe.


You're getting into red herrings.  We don't care about flat earther and the like.  The issue is Apollo.  And might I add that while you go on about perfectly rational people believing stupid things, I could quite easily turn that around at say the same thing of you.

Quote
Requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue


Basically keep it classified.
Beware the JAA!  They can be treacherous!

Offline LunarOrbit

  • Administrator
  • Moonwalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 3357
  • Gender: Male
    • TheSpaceRace.com
Coincidence or not?
« Reply #23 on: January 16, 2004, 11:39:46 PM »
Quote from: MRuthless
I seem to be seeing "evidence" posted from my opposition as well. All of which are mereley personal beliefs or repeating information that was read from books and videos or the internet that was supplied by what I would call the hoaxing party.


The evidence I talk about has been verified by independent sources, or even hostile ones like the Russians. That makes it pretty convincing, in my opinion.

Here are some of the types of evidence Apollo has on it's side:

1) Eye Witnesses

We know the Saturn V rockets worked, for example, because people witnessed them during launch and the trans-lunar injection stages. We also know the spacecraft didn't stay in Earth orbit because at that altitude the capsule would have been visible to the naked eye.

2) Radar and Radio Tracking

Many countries around the world had the capability to track Apollo all the way to the Moon and back. Even amateur HAM radio operators could do that.

3) Photographic, Video, and Audio Recordings

There are thousands of photographs, and hours of audio & video recordings, from the Apollo missions.

The photographs and videos show us many things that can not be faked here on Earth. For example, take a look at the dirt kicked up by the astronauts and rovers... it flies in perfect arcs instead of forming dust clouds. That proves they were in a vacuum and in 1/6 gravity.

There are also the videos that show the astronauts floating in their capsules with the distant Earth outside their window.

The audio transmissions were interactive, clearly not pre-recorded. For example, during the launch of Apollo 12 the rocket was struck by lightning twice and the crew called back a long list of warning lights... how could that have been scripted? And if those astronauts were sitting in a cozy room at the Cape instead of inside the capsule then they were the best damned actors ever.

4) Lunar Sample Returns

The Apollo astronauts brought back over 800lbs. of Moon rocks & soil samples. Some of these rocks were loaned to other countries, including Russia, so that they could analyze them. Lunar rocks are unique and can not be faked... NASA couldn't have created rocks in a lab that were 4 billion years old, and which had never been exposed to oxygen or water. The lunar rocks had been exposed to micrometeorites and direct solar radiation.

Needless to say, all of that had been verified by the Soviets and others. Don't you think that if there was even a hint that the Apollo program had been faked that the Russians would have made sure we knew about it?

Quote from: MRuthless
I mean come on, how do know there was only 1 LLTV


I was wrong about that actually.... there were two LLRV's (the prototypes) and three LLTV's (the actual training vehicles) according to http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apoollrv.htm.

    "NASA had accumulated enough data from the LLRV flight program at the FRC by mid-1966 to give Bell a contract to deliver three LLTV's at a cost of $2.5 million each.
    ...
    When the LLRV's arrived at Houston, where research pilots would learn how to become LLTV instructor pilots, No. 2 had been flown just 7 times while No. 1, the veteran, had a total of 198 flights. In Dec. 1967, the first of the LLTV's joined the FRC's LLRV's to eventually make up the five-vehicle training and simulator fleet.

    Three of the five vehicles were later destroyed in crashes at Houston: LLRV No. 1 in May 1968 and two LLTV's, in Dec. 1968 and Jan. 1971."[/list:u]

Quote from: MRuthless
ot that those signals stopped or this or that?


I know the signals stopped because if they hadn't then the Russians would have known the LM didn't land and that the Apollo program was a hoax. And if the Russians knew Apollo was fake then WE would know it was fake.

Quote
You only know that because you read it or heard it and then you made the judgement to believe it.


It's not just based on what I have read... it's based on logic. It is illogical to believe that NASA would try to pull off a hoax that is 100% guaranteed to fail. I didn't have to read that in a book.

Assuming you're married, would you cheat on your wife and lie about it if you knew she was almost certain to find out? Or, when you were in highschool would you have cheated on a test if the teacher was watching you like a hawk?

It would be extremely stupid of NASA to fake Apollo when they knew the entire world was watching everything they did.

Quote
If our government is so "open" about this issue then it will be no problem to do so, but if I recollect I don't think that all of the information will be completely declassified for about another 20 years. If that is to be the case can one of you please explain to me why this information is not yet available?


There is certain information that remains classified because in the wrong hands a Saturn V rocket makes a pretty damned good weapon... even 35 years later.


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 #24 on: January 17, 2004, 03:07:34 AM »
Quote
You can't just dismiss evidence because it could be faked


I guess you can accept it though if you feel it couldn't have been faked, again, like crop circles or other hoaxes.


Quote
You must show that the evidence is fake before dismissing it.

Just as evidence should be proven before accepting it.

Quote
Why then do you assume they faked it?


Becasue they couldn't make it when the great Kennedy said they would. It was of utmost military importance to do so as they strongly felt it was in the best interest of the nation to beat the Russians to it. Perhaps they thought to fake the 1st one and hold them over until they could get there. This of course is merely my hypothesis based on the circumstances surrounding the issue. Am I right? Who knows? I don't even know. All I am saying is that to date I do not yet believe they landed.


Quote
If insufficient evidence either way is available. We can only suspend judgement on this issue.
I would assume this would also apply to any info NASA has that is with held. Meaning that until all info is declassified, disregarding medical records or other info that would not be pertinent in proving the issue, then you cannot make a logical assessment or judgement and thus making a decisive choice in favor or against.


Quote
(based on extravagantly stringent standards)
Would you propose high standards of proof to be foolish?


Quote
The only logically defensible position you may take is to suspend judgement on this issue pending further evidence.


Correct. I don't beleive I said they didn't. I beleive my point was that I do not beleive they did.

But if NASA won't give up all the info, how then can anyone make a proper judgement as this violates your statement?


Quote
Some of it was medical records, which are classified because that is confidential information between the astronauts and their doctors. It's none of the public's business.


I don't see how medical records would be factor in proving or disproving unless they showed something like Armstrong had no legs so he couldn't have walked on the moon. What I am refering to is information that one may request to verify or backup already posted information. If they chose to not provide that info then I would reach the assessment that perhaps they were not being completely honest. Just as if you asked me where  I got my source and I said, "sorry, can't say". Would you really even consider that information as viable or trustworthy then?


Quote
We have observed the evidence and found no flaws that would imply foul play. That's why we trust it. We cannot say about the quality of your evidence you have yet to present much.



As to ensure I do not to post bogus or misleading info I am waiting until I get back my FOIA filings. I will of course post any denials as to show this program was not and never was completely open to the public as suggested in prior posts.

Quote
I might add that no such alien spacecraft have ever been accepted as genuine. Indeed many people report seeing strange things such as floating lights, but the credible ones simply say they saw an unexplained light and suspend judgement as to what it was.


Are you saying that the astronauts and pilots that have reported such sitings during lunar missions and other missions are not credible as there are several that have made public statements about their sitings and beliefs that they were of extraterrestial nature.

The list which appears to include the following.

Major Gordon Cooper
Ed White & James McDivitt
James Lovell and Frank Borman
Neil Armstrong & Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin
Donald Slayton
Major Robert White
NASA Pilot Joseph A. Walker
Commander Eugene Cernan
NASA's Maurice Chatelain
NASA's Scott Carpenter

Please note, I know must now seek to verify these from sources posted, but would it be fair to assume that these statements would be slanderous if untrue and damaging to the crediblity of those that are claimed to have made these statements?

If these people's credibility is to be held in high standard and used for proof of a moon landing then I guess you have to lend them the same credibilty for these statements.

Quote
Basically keep it classified.


Yes and why, "as to leave no discretion". They won't tell you because they don't want to raise any judgements against them, which is exactly what they know that info will do. Yeah, thats' a great way to validate and prove an arguement. You won't accept this from me so why accept it from them?


Quote
1) Eye Witnesses

The police often get contradicting stories from eye witnessess, just as well many eye witnessess have seen David Copperfield make elephants or mountains disappear and many others have seen ghosts, bleeding statues, demons, god and we have millions of eye witness UFO sightings. People can be decieved.

Quote
Radar and Radio Tracking


Good arguement. I will have to look into that more.


Quote
3) Photographic, Video, and Audio Recordings


Beleieve half of what you see and none of what you hear. Again people can be easily tricked with photos, video and audio. It is my understanding that NASA had a filter delay on the recording of converstaion. If this is true, why would it be so? Unless it was to have a chance to hide anything that they would not want to be known. Sounds like a pretty wide open project to me.



Quote
That proves they were in a vacuum and in 1/6 gravity.

That doesn't prove anything other than you seen a video where that looks to be the case and heard a debunking arguement and hold that to be true. Are you saying that every single piece of evidence that they present could have no way in any shape or form been faked? That this is completely 100% impossible to simulate? Because that does not sound very realistic. We can put a man on the moon, but it's too hard to simulate it and it make it look real.


Quote
4) Lunar Sample Returns



Please explain how you know that every single moon sample came from where they claim it came. Do you believe they put landers on the moon prior to take samples? How do you these or other landers did not gather them? Clearly you don't. Unless you witenssed it yourself and I do not believe you were there to do so.

Quote
Assuming you're married, would you cheat on your wife and lie about it if you knew she was almost certain to find out? Or, when you were in highschool would you have cheated on a test if the teacher was watching you like a hawk?

It would be extremely stupid of NASA to fake Apollo when they knew the entire world was watching everything they did.


And so would it be for Christians to sin as they all believe god is looking over them and knows their every move. Yet they still do. You may call it stupid, others may just say they had a lot of balls to do it.

Well, its late and I'm tired and going to bed, but I would still like to know how you would feel or respond if it were to come out that it actually was faked. And please don't reply something like " I don't know, because it couldn't have been faked". That's like saying "god moves in mysterious ways"

Personally, I would feel relieved to know that it really happened and have no problem in saying that I used to not believe. Being right doesn't matter to me, I am merely looking for the truth and feel the need to question info that gives me doubts.

Offline DataCable

  • Stargazer
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Coincidence or not?
« Reply #25 on: January 17, 2004, 03:20:39 AM »
Quote from: MRuthless
I seem to be seeing "evidence" posted from my opposition as well. All of which are mereley personal beliefs or repeating information that was read from books and videos or the internet that was supplied by what I would call the hoaxing party.

So then, what sort of evidence will you consider irrefutable and impossible to manufacture fraudulently?

Quote
So let me ask this. Has anyone here, that has spoken on this matter, actually requested through FOIA any materials from our government to try and verify the claims the US makes and that you guys support?

What sort of information must be requested via the FoIA which is not already freely availible in one form or another?

Quote
I mean come on, how do know there was only 1 LLTV ot that those signals stopped or this or that? You only know that because you read it or heard it and then you made the judgement to believe it.

So then, how do you know the LLTV crashed?  Why must the claim that the moon landings happened be false, but the report of a training vehicle crash is true?  It all originates from the same government, doesn't it?  If one is a lie, then both are, isn't that your entire line of reasoning?

Quote
Perhaps one day I may see enough to convince me, but at least I am still looking for information that can confirm what I have been told.

The amount of evidence necessary to convince you of Apollo's validity is likely to remain x+1, where x is the amount of evidence you have already been provided with.  You have obviously convinced yourself that any evidence supporting Apollo's validity can be forged and any expert asserting Apollo's validity was either bought or decieved.  If the mountain of existing evidence isn't convincing, one more pebble won't make any difference.

Quote
Having said that, I have begun requesting through the FOIA, information that I feel could clear up a few things.

What information, specifically?  And why would you believe any information you were provided in response to this request, since you have already stated that you do not believe any information already provided by the government?

Quote
Considering that you guys don't like to hear just concept or hypothesis as part of a debate and demand real evidence from my arguements,(which is fair)...

Actually, we're requesting any evidence.  You have not brought forth anything specific, merely a statement that you do not believe any of the existing evidence is reliable.

Offline Glom

  • The Right Stuff
  • Stargazer
  • ****
  • Posts: 15
Coincidence or not?
« Reply #26 on: January 17, 2004, 10:24:37 AM »
Quote from: MRuthless
I guess you can accept it though if you feel it couldn't have been faked, again, like crop circles or other hoaxes.


I never accepted crop circles.  I suspended judgement on the issue since I didn't know much about it.

Quote from: MRuthless
Just as evidence should be proven before accepting it.


No.  There is no way to prove conclusively that evidence is not faked.  Therefore it is illogical to presume that it isn't without evidence.  In other words, you are given evidence.  You accept that evidence until you have reason to believe it is dodgy.  Do you have reason to believe the huge body of evidence in favour of Apollo is dodgy?

Quote from: MRuthless
Becasue they couldn't make it when the great Kennedy said they would.


Yes but why?  What was the showstopper?

Quote from: MRuthless
Perhaps they thought to fake the 1st one and hold them over until they could get there.


Such things have been suggested and they demonstrate complete ignorance of the program on the part of the proponent.  You can't just skip the testing phase and jump straight to functional missions.

Quote from: MRuthless
This of course is merely my hypothesis based on the circumstances surrounding the issue. Am I right? Who knows? I don't even know. All I am saying is that to date I do not yet believe they landed.


Then you have suspended judgement on the issue of their landings.  And yet you have held the proposition of them orbiting.  Your analysis is rather strangely structured.

Quote from: MRuthless
I would assume this would also apply to any info NASA has that is with held. Meaning that until all info is declassified, disregarding medical records or other info that would not be pertinent in proving the issue, then you cannot make a logical assessment or judgement and thus making a decisive choice in favor or against.


Anal retention.  Saffy can show me a hundred photos of her on top of the Eiffel Tower.  But if she refuses to show me the photo of her flashing her boobs to Paris below, I won't then claim she has provided insufficient evidence of her claim that she went to the top of the Eiffel Tower.

If your standards of proof are so stringently high, there's not much we can do.  Are twenty thousand photographs not enough?  Are complete transcripts of the Lunar surface stays not enough.  Are hours of television and sequence footage not enough?  Are scientific results published in many reports not enough?  Are you really saying that all of that is insufficient but a few designs of a booster will be enough?  You don't even doubt the Saturn V.  It sounds like you're constantly moving the goal posts to keep the football out.


Quote from: MRuthless
Would you propose high standards of proof to be foolish?


There are limits.  You simply blissfully unaware of the enormous amount of evidence available.  You haven't even specified a means by which it could all be faked.  You've simply said in the abstract that someone might be able to figure it out.


Quote from: MRuthless
Correct. I don't beleive I said they didn't. I beleive my point was that I do not beleive they did.

But if NASA won't give up all the info, how then can anyone make a proper judgement as this violates your statement?


They've given plenty of data.  Are you this suspicious when your friends come round to talk about their holiday to the Caribbean?

"Yes the photos and the video is all well and good.  The copy of the boarding pass and the souvenirs are fine.  The sea shells and the lucious Caribbean girl you have on your arm are okay.  But you still haven't shown me the in flight magazine, so I'm sorry, but I don't yet believe you were actually in the Caribbean.  I'd need more evidence before making a judgement."

Quote from: MRuthless
I don't see how medical records would be factor in proving or disproving unless they showed something like Armstrong had no legs so he couldn't have walked on the moon. What I am refering to is information that one may request to verify or backup already posted information. If they chose to not provide that info then I would reach the assessment that perhaps they were not being completely honest. Just as if you asked me where  I got my source and I said, "sorry, can't say". Would you really even consider that information as viable or trustworthy then?


What evidence are they concealing then?  There's plenty of information to backup what we've said.  That's where we learned this stuff.  Just take a browse through nasa.gov.  Their history section is extensive and thorough.  Plus also check out astronautix.com.  We accept though that not all information will be retained or be available.  We respect that ultra-heavy lift boosters are not exactly something that should be given how to build instructions over the Internet.

Quote from: MRuthless
As to ensure I do not to post bogus or misleading info I am waiting until I get back my FOIA filings.


The Armstrong crash information you posted was bogus and misleading.  True you didn't realise that and no malice was interpretted.  But you should be aware we know a lot about the program and evidently more than you do.  So you'd do well to listen to us rather than try to outsmart us.

Quote from: MRuthless
I will of course post any denials as to show this program was not and never was completely open to the public as suggested in prior posts.


Nothing is completely open, particularly when dealing with super boosters.  But the amount of information available to us is staggering and awe inspiring.  You seem to want to interpret the slightest classification as evidence of maliciousness.

Quote from: MRuthless
Are you saying that the astronauts and pilots that have reported such sitings during lunar missions and other missions are not credible as there are several that have made public statements about their sitings and beliefs that they were of extraterrestial nature.


If they saw a light in space, then it was obviously extra terrestrial.  I am not aware of any cases where astronauts thought and firmly attached themselves to the belief that they'd seen alien spacecraft.  Possibly Ed Mitchell, but he's a bit weird.  I know about John Glenn's fireflies incident, but that was attributed to thruster exhaust.

Please provide more details and sources of any events of which I am unaware.  This is not to demand you prove such a thing, although that's part of it, but to learn more about the event so that I might comment on it properly.

Quote from: MRuthless
If these people's credibility is to be held in high standard and used for proof of a moon landing then I guess you have to lend them the same credibilty for these statements.


First, their testimony is only one component of a much larger body of evidence.  Second, did they actually go Hoagland on us?

Quote from: MRuthless
Yes and why, "as to leave no discretion". They won't tell you because they don't want to raise any judgements against them, which is exactly what they know that info will do. Yeah, thats' a great way to validate and prove an arguement.


There you go with the presumptions.  You are interpretting classification as malicious.  If the information is classified, how do you know that it contains damning evidence?  For all you know, it could be Aunt Martha's Secret Recipe for Bacon Squares in toothpaste tubes.  And if you've so honourably suspended judgement on this issue, where do you get off making claims like this?

But we do not need this classified data to draw our conclusion.  There is already ample evidence in favour of Apollo.

Quote from: MRuthless
You won't accept this from me so why accept it from them?


The only evidence you've provided so far has been a completely inaccurate account of an LLTV crash.  NASA on the other hand have provided ample evidence.  You are simply getting worked up over a few classified documents.  Until we see that evidence, we cannot know if it is corroboratory or contradictory.  It may contain data on city sized evacuated soundstages at 1000km from the core, but then it might contain an astronauts report on his urinal habits in flight.  We cannot know and so we must use what rather abundant evidence we have to make our judgement.

You are just hung up on your friend showing that in flight magazine because all the other goodies from his holiday aren't enough.

Quote from: MRuthless
The police often get contradicting stories from eye witnessess, just as well many eye witnessess have seen David Copperfield make elephants or mountains disappear and many others have seen ghosts, bleeding statues, demons, god and we have millions of eye witness UFO sightings. People can be decieved.


Testimony is a small brick in the wall of evidence.  In personal recountings, there will never be total consistency, but if there is a large amount of consistency between astronaut testimony, it may be used.

Quote from: MRuthless
Beleieve half of what you see and none of what you hear. Again people can be easily tricked with photos, video and audio.


A paranoid mentality.  If nothing is wrong with the footage, then there is no reason not to accept it.

Quote from: MRuthless
It is my understanding that NASA had a filter delay on the recording of converstaion. If this is true, why would it be so? Unless it was to have a chance to hide anything that they would not want to be known. Sounds like a pretty wide open project to me.


Astronauts are expected to be paragons of virtue.  They shouldn't swear.  But they are also test pilots and so do.  After Gene Cernan's "son of a bitch" on Apollo 10, NASA was very aware of the need to add a delay to bleep out bad language.  There was also a delay inherrent to processing the unusual signal.

Quote from: MRuthless
That doesn't prove anything other than you seen a video where that looks to be the case and heard a debunking arguement and hold that to be true. Are you saying that every single piece of evidence that they present could have no way in any shape or form been faked?


But what if one minute of the hours of footage could not be faked?  That would send your argument crashing down.

But it appears you've been ignoring my points.  I've already said that you are not logically at liberty to dismiss evidence because you imagine that someone (you haven't even given a process yourself) would figure out how to fake it.

We don't care what could be faked, we care about what was faked!

Until you provide evidence it was faked, you have no argument.  Saying you distrust NASA because you distrust the footage because you distrust NASA is, at a moment's thought, circular.  Stop playing mind games and thought experiments and get down to the facts.

Quote from: MRuthless
That this is completely 100% impossible to simulate? Because that does not sound very realistic. We can put a man on the moon, but it's too hard to simulate it and it make it look real.


You are bent on your ignorant notion that faking it would be easier than doing it for real.  David Percy and Bart Sibrel are as well but for all their arrogance, at least they have the good manners to present a method by which it could be faked more easily than doing it for real.  Even though their ideas are laughable, at least they try.  It may not sound realistic to you that it would be impossible to fake, but you don't even bother to say why.  How do you evacuate a city sized set?  How do you build one 5000km below the surface of the planet?

And you still haven't said what your expertise is.

Quote from: MRuthless
Please explain how you know that every single moon sample came from where they claim it came.


I've never examined a selenogical sample.  But many geologists from all over the world have.  Although it may be logically ideal to suspend judgement until you've seen for yourself, given that neither you or I have doctrats in geology, there is a necessity in life that we defer to the experience of experts.

They all say that the samples are indicative of material that formed in an airless, waterless environment with no protection from high energy particles or micrometeroids.  That rules out Earth rocks.

But again, you depend on your paranoid mentality to give your stubbornness credibility.  You doubt NASA's word because you doubt the samples, because you doubt NASA's word.  Quit it with the circular arguments.

Quote from: MRuthless
Do you believe they put landers on the moon prior to take samples?


No I do not.  There is no evidence for this.  The poop 'n' scoop proposals of conspiracists is not based on evidence.  It is merely a feeble, conjectural way to explain away evidence that contradicts their conspiracy theory.

Quote from: MRuthless
How do you these or other landers did not gather them? Clearly you don't.


Something gathered those samples.  We can either say it was the Apollo missions or we can conceive of some hypothetical poop 'n' scoop probes, for which there is no evidence.  Occam's Razor dictates we go for the former since the latter involves us indulging in conjecture.  Know this: logic is not on your side!

I frankly don't know how you get through life.  It must be awful for you.  You have a family?  You want to keep them fed.  When you cash a cheque, how can you be sure the banker actually cashed it?  Did you see what was on his computer screen?  For all you know, he entered the money into his own account.  What about when you pour out the cereal for your kids?  It says Cheerios on the box, but how do you know it's really Cheerios?  Were you at the Cheerio factory when they made and packaged the cereal?  It could be cyanide for all you know.

There is a certain degree of trust we must use in life.  We cannot live by doubting everything.  We may ask questions when things don't make sense, but if it all seems okay, why complicate.

And certainly, we don't endulge in conjectural cases that simply cloud the issue.  We have known, documented launches of Apollo.  We have selenogical samples.  It is much simpler to accept that those selenogical samples were gathered by Apollo, at least until contradictory evidence comes along.  It's much better than saying something unknown happened with Apollo and some conjectural secret missions retrieved those samples instead.

Quote from: MRuthless
And so would it be for Christians to sin as they all believe god is looking over them and knows their every move. Yet they still do. You may call it stupid, others may just say they had a lot of balls to do it.


Some doubt that god is really looking over them.  Some believe god wants them to do it.  Some are driven by their urges.  But don't even try to say that such a conspiracy could be undertaken because James Webb woke up horny one day! :!:

Quote from: MRuthless
Well, its late and I'm tired and going to bed, but I would still like to know how you would feel or respond if it were to come out that it actually was faked. And please don't reply something like " I don't know, because it couldn't have been faked". That's like saying "god moves in mysterious ways"


I would obviously feel a bit gutted because I'd have to face people with a lot less maturity who would gloat.  But I would take solice in knowing that my judgements were based on logic.  The evidence at the time logically pointed towards authenticity.  New evidence contradicts that.  That's science.

Quote from: MRuthless
Personally, I would feel relieved to know that it really happened and have no problem in saying that I used to not believe. Being right doesn't matter to me, I am merely looking for the truth and feel the need to question info that gives me doubts.


Then why are you so obstinate about accepting the huge body of evidence available to you.
Beware the JAA!  They can be treacherous!

Offline fiona_j

  • Stargazer
  • *
  • Posts: 14
    • http://fiona.zserv.co.uk
Coincidence or not?
« Reply #27 on: January 17, 2004, 12:00:24 PM »
Jesus Christ guys (excuse the profanity)!

I have read this (well as much as I can!) and it seems there's going to be no ends to this arguement. You can carry on quoting eachother if you want, but wouldnt it be more constructive to look at what's being said then look again at the evidence for and against. Then maybe when things have been researched a little (or a lot) more, come back and discuss (not argue) some more.

Seems to me like neither side are going to let up. I dont mean those who believe it to be true must now believe it was a hoax or vice versa, but maybe let things lie for a little.

I personally am not sure. I have seen some evidence to suggest it happened and some that suggests the opposite. I however, am no expert in the field of, well anything really. Therefore I dont form an opinion. It seems to me that the only aguements here are speculation and using quotes to twist words and arguements.

Plus the whole believing in God, crop circles, UFOs has nothing to do with it so I dont know how they came up! Landing on the Moon is something humans did. If it was a hoax, humans hoaxed it. There's a big difference between believing in something humans cant explain (such as crop circles) and believing in the lunar landings. A human claimed to do this, therefore someone knows whether its true or not.

Anyway, thats just what I think about this little novel you people are writing!

fi x

Offline MRuthless

  • Stargazer
  • *
  • Posts: 19
secrecy
« Reply #28 on: January 17, 2004, 01:09:20 PM »
A short post for those do not believe the US gov't could operate in complete secrecy on large projects.


The Greenbrier Bunker. The following is from  CNN website on it. Basically it was built starting in 1959 and was secret until 1992. Most of which the people working on it were civilians. Not bad keeping that secret for 30+ years. Sounds like a daunting task. I wouldn't know the numbers of people involved in keeping this a secret, but I would imagine it was a great number considering contruction, engineering, maintainance and so forth. Yet no oone came forward to spill the beans, even with the chance to get thier 15 minutes of  fame.

Why couldn't the same level of patriotism be applied to other projects that were of national interest and security? Because they throw mountains of evidence at us that make us think one thing has to be real? This bunker wasn't exposed for over 30 years it may take more to expose the moon if it was faked because their is greater risk involved if we find it was hoaxed. This of course is not proof that it was hoaxed, but I think it holds up as a good example of how things can be held in secret, as amazing as they may seem, for long periods of time and that such an example could be replicated in other matters.


http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/01/then.now/
Quote
Congressional Fallout
Cold War's end exposes plan to shelter U.S. officials from nuclear attack
by Bruce Kennedy
CNN Interactive Writer

It was built at the suggestion of then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower as a way of preserving the balance of power among the three branches of the U.S. government in the event of nuclear war. But now, the Government Relocation Center, located under the luxurious Greenbrier resort in the mountains of West Virginia, is a unique and eerie tourist attraction, a monument to a nation's Cold War fears.

Construction of the site began in 1959 and took 2 1/2 years to complete, at an estimated cost of up to $86 million. The 112,000-square-foot bunker is 64 feet beneath the West Virginia wing of the hotel. At the time, the cover story for the shelter was that The Greenbrier was constructing a medical clinic.

A team of 12 U.S. Defense Department security workers operated the bunker under a cover story that they were technicians for The Greenbrier's television system.

"Greek Island," as the project was code-named, has concrete walls three to five feet thick. Its 25-ton doors and air filtration system were meant to protect the facility against a nuclear detonation and the accompanying radioactive fallout.

The plan was this: During a nuclear war, about 1,000 people -- including all 535 members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, along with their top aides -- would have been evacuated to the facility. They would remove their clothing, which would possibly have been contaminated by radiation, and pass naked through a high-pressure shower system for decontamination. They would then be issued uniforms, underwear, canvas shoes and toiletries.

Conditions inside the shelter were Spartan. The lawmakers would sleep in one of 18 dormitories, all equipped with the same metal bunk beds.

The Government Relocation Center also had a 12-bed medical clinic, self-contained power plant and water purification plant. There was also a television studio with a backdrop of the U.S. Capitol, from which the lawmakers would ostensibly have made broadcasts to their constituents, who would have been suffering through the horrors of a world destroyed by nuclear war.

The center was designed to shelter people for up to 60 days. But its fresh-air supply was good for only 72 hours, after which those inside the bunker would have been exposed to airborne radiation.

The shelter stood ready for decades, its staff constantly maintaining the facility, updating supplies and even keeping current medical information on each lawmaker. But that all came to an end in 1992, when the Washington Post Magazine published a cover story on Greek Island. Soon after, the Pentagon issued a one-paragraph statement saying the bunker would be deactivated.


Offline Glom

  • The Right Stuff
  • Stargazer
  • ****
  • Posts: 15
Coincidence or not?
« Reply #29 on: January 17, 2004, 02:05:48 PM »
Quote from: fiona_j
Jesus Christ guys (excuse the profanity)!

I have read this (well as much as I can!) and it seems there's going to be no ends to this arguement. You can carry on quoting eachother if you want, but wouldnt it be more constructive to look at what's being said then look again at the evidence for and against. Then maybe when things have been researched a little (or a lot) more, come back and discuss (not argue) some more.

Seems to me like neither side are going to let up. I dont mean those who believe it to be true must now believe it was a hoax or vice versa, but maybe let things lie for a little.

I personally am not sure. I have seen some evidence to suggest it happened and some that suggests the opposite. I however, am no expert in the field of, well anything really. Therefore I dont form an opinion. It seems to me that the only aguements here are speculation and using quotes to twist words and arguements.

Plus the whole believing in God, crop circles, UFOs has nothing to do with it so I dont know how they came up! Landing on the Moon is something humans did. If it was a hoax, humans hoaxed it. There's a big difference between believing in something humans cant explain (such as crop circles) and believing in the lunar landings. A human claimed to do this, therefore someone knows whether its true or not.

Anyway, thats just what I think about this little novel you people are writing!

fi x


Your position is most logical.  Your suspension of judgement appears to be just from lack of research either way.  But MRuthless seems to be basing his suspension of judgement on his believe that the evidence could be faked, which is not a logically acceptable reason.  I am trying to point this out.
Beware the JAA!  They can be treacherous!