PDA

View Full Version : NASTA Apollo hoax discussion



NASTA
2010-Mar-31, 02:52 PM
Someone please correct my completely wrong labeling of parts.

CSM umbilical fairing. Whatever. As long as we know what you're talking about. If you want to get uber-picky, there will be a part number for it.

And is there actually damage there, or is it merely "soot?"

Heat tinting. No soot from hydrazine motors. It's not necessarily damage. Clearly the plume has impinged on the metal, but many alloys respond to heat by changing color. It won't drastically affect the mechanical properties of the material.

The nozzles of the Marqhardt motors themselves become heat-tinted in operation -- they exhibit a very beautiful post-firing palette of blues and yellows that shimmer under varying light.

soot hey i beg to differ, to me it looks like a very bad welding job that has started to rust.
if it was soot it should cover a larger area than just where the weld is.
one other thing if it was heat tinting it wouldnt be that color.
i have worked on all sorts of exhaust systems and never seen one have a rust orange color heat tint.

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-88-11974HR.jpg

NASTA
2010-Mar-31, 03:30 PM
in this picture you can plainly see the 2 guys in the center of the bottom row have nothing more than regular army boots painted silver on their feet.
now having been in the army i know these boots are resistant to some materials but radiation found in space is not one of them.
also these boots would not seal to keep the oxygen in so they could breathe.
so can anyone tell me how they managed to stay alive wearing nothing but silver painted army boots.
that just proves to me they faked alot more than moon landings.

xfahctor
2010-Mar-31, 03:39 PM
in this picture you can plainly see the 2 guys in the center of the bottom row have nothing more than regular army boots painted silver on their feet.
now having been in the army i know these boots are resistant to some materials but radiation found in space is not one of them.
also these boots would not seal to keep the oxygen in so they could breathe.
so can anyone tell me how they managed to stay alive wearing nothing but silver painted army boots.
that just proves to me they faked alot more than moon landings.


Well then, I guess it's a good thing they took the picture on earth and didn't try to wear those boots in space isn't it. What was the point you were trying to make?

JayUtah
2010-Mar-31, 03:46 PM
.

soot hey i beg to differ...

As well you should; I claim it is not soot. Hydrazine motors don't produce soot. Their exhaust products are purely gaseous. Hence there can be no sooty deposition from them.

...to me it looks like a very bad welding job that has started to rust.

There is no weld at that point on the CSM. That's the umbilical fairing, which is actually articulated at the point in which the mark appears. Besides, how would such a "poor" weld be allowed on a spacecraft as rigorously quality-controlled as an Apollo spacecraft? How would rust occur in space?

one other thing if it was heat tinting it wouldnt be that color.

Why not? It shows the characteristic patterns of color that relate to different heat loads, from black and blue in the center to yellow and orange on the fringe where the heat loading is less.

i have worked on all sorts of exhaust systems and never seen one have a rust orange color heat tint.

How many spacecraft have you worked on? How many of the designs you work on employ the Marquardt 100-lbf thruster?

I'm really not convinced that this isn't heat loading. You've got characteristic tint effects, and the surface in question faces a rocket motor just a few feet away.

Daggerstab
2010-Mar-31, 03:52 PM
in this picture you can plainly see the 2 guys in the center of the bottom row have nothing more than regular army boots painted silver on their feet.
now having been in the army i know these boots are resistant to some materials but radiation found in space is not one of them.
also these boots would not seal to keep the oxygen in so they could breathe.
so can anyone tell me how they managed to stay alive wearing nothing but silver painted army boots.
that just proves to me they faked alot more than moon landings.

*sigh*

Space suits have layers, you know. Like onions. Or ogres. :)

http://www.hightechscience.org/mercury_space_suit.htm

To seal the suit at the feet, loose "socks" of airtight fabric were attached directly to the legs of the suit. The boots were laced up tightly over the pressure socks to keep them from ballooning and becoming too cumbersome.

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/meresuit.htm

The Mercury suit was worn "soft" or unpressurized and served only as a backup for possible spacecraft cabin pressure loss - an event that never happened.

JayUtah
2010-Mar-31, 03:53 PM
so can anyone tell me how they managed to stay alive wearing nothing but silver painted army boots.

What makes you think that boots worn for a publicity photo are the same boots that were worn in space? You might as well try to claim the Moon landings were faked because the astronauts have their helmet visors open in this photo.

Donnie B.
2010-Mar-31, 04:01 PM
... to me it looks like a very bad welding job that has started to rust.
Are you saying that's what it looks like, or that you think it actually is a rusty weld? If the latter, I think you need to do a bit of research about the materials and techniques used in spacecraft construction.

FWIW, I've seen plenty of examples of heat tinting that look very much like that visible in the linked picture. A project involving a stainless steel stanchion comes to mind.

ToSeek
2010-Mar-31, 04:05 PM
Moved from the "Wagging the Moondoggie" thread since it's got nothing to do with McGowan

captain swoop
2010-Mar-31, 04:25 PM
'Heat Tinting' is used as a decorative effect in sculpture and jewelery making. In fact, you can by Exhaust SIlencer cans for Motorbikes that have heat tinting on them to make them look more 'dramatic', they have a range of colours along their length from an almost blue-black out to a feint orange.

Tedward
2010-Mar-31, 04:57 PM
I have used heat to colour metal work projects when I was in school. We also messed around with different metals to see which would be pleasing before choosing the metal to work with. Or rather the teacher did as there was never enough o go around for us all to heat up and cool etc as an experiment.

Daffy
2010-Mar-31, 04:58 PM
What makes you think that boots worn for a publicity photo are the same boots that were worn in space? You might as well try to claim the Moon landings were faked because the astronauts have their helmet visors open in this photo.

LOL! Very well said, Jay!

Bozola
2010-Mar-31, 05:01 PM
This photo (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/birth-order/mercury7.jpg) proves that the Mercury 7 Astronauts were all way too big to fit into the spacecraft. Damn that NASA.

NASTA
2010-Mar-31, 05:11 PM
What makes you think that boots worn for a publicity photo are the same boots that were worn in space? You might as well try to claim the Moon landings were faked because the astronauts have their helmet visors open in this photo.

then why did they paint them silver to make them blend in so people wouldnt notice.
like none of you had ever noticed till now.
all of the others are wearing the same boot except these two.
did nasa with their huge budget run out short of buying 2 more sets of boots.
as for the visor being open thats just a stupid comment jay whingley and i would have expected more from you.
if they did only wear these for a picture as you put it why are they not wearing the same boot as all the other guys and unless they were trying to deceive people why did they paint them silver.

as for the moon landings being fake i dont have to prove that nasa did it for me by making mistake after mistake.
here is one bit of proof under one of your own theories, you say that the pressure under the rocket that powers the lm decreases due to displacement and no atmosphere amoungst other things.
yet even with your theory there would still be 1.5 psi of pressure at the very least coming from the rocket when it touched down considering from the faked first moon landing we know the rocket was still running for 5 seconds after it touched down and that this pressure of 1.5 psi would have made a reasonable hole underneath where the rocket was yet there was nothing there.
now the fact there is only 1/6th the gravity of earth would make it easier for the material in the photos to be moved because as we all know things would be lighter there.
funny thing is in every moon landing photo of a lm there is no crater or evidence of any disturbance to the supposed moons surface.
now i know you will say in others they just let the lm drop to the surface, how ever they never tested that type of landing and i have enormous doubts that the legs of the lm could handle the force from the drop of the height you reckon they dropped from and i doubt they would have risked the craft and crew by performing such a landing as a leg could have easily bent and more than likely the lm would have fallen over never being able to leave the moons surface.

there is also no video proof that they used this type of landing which i know you have stated before on how they landed them.
the only landing footage i have ever seen was powered landings which were all the way to the surface and would have left a crater of some size.
yet in not one photo is there any evidence of such creators or disturbance.
now if they had have used the drop version of landings you have stated they did the pads of the lm would be depressed into the surface not sitting flush on top.
maybe before you try and make other people appear stupid by making silly statements you should look at how many times you have had to retract things you have said because you have been proven to be wrong.
what amazes me the most is someone with your supposed qualifications can believe the moon landings were real.

there is so much proof they never actually landed there i would have to make hundreds of posts pages long just to cover it all.
one very good one is a photo released in an australian paper 12 hours before nasa said the photo was even taken.
now their footage has time codes saying it was taken 12 hours after you could buy a copy of that paper in australia, so how did they get a photo that didnt exist yet, must be magic or just good special effects.
just for you toseek that photo i posted came from mcgowans web site so in a way it did have something to do with him.

oh and one more thing jay, if it was soot it would cover alot more of the spot like around the sides and further up it and just one other thing to destroy your soot theory that little side rocket had not been used yet in that picture for obvious reasons.

Bobbar
2010-Mar-31, 05:15 PM
Looks like heat tinting to me.

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/6004/speed305.th.jpg (http://img143.imageshack.us/i/speed305.jpg/)

http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/9591/heattint.th.jpg (http://img249.imageshack.us/i/heattint.jpg/)

Swift
2010-Mar-31, 05:23 PM
<snip>
as for the moon landings being fake i dont have to prove that nasa did it for me by making mistake after mistake.

NASTA,

Just so we are clear, under the rules of this forum it is your responsibility, as someone suggesting the landings were faked, to prove exactly that. It is not up to everyone else to prove they did happen, though people will volunteer such information.

If you have not done so, I would suggest you read over The Rules for this Board (http://www.bautforum.com/forum-rules-faqs-information/32864-rules-posting-board.html) and the specific advice for the conspiracy theory forum (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/86593-advice-conspiracy-theory-supporters.html).

Oh, and one more minor suggestion... you might want to make use of paragraph breaks and the occasional capital letter, it would make your posts easier to read. Thanks,

NASTA
2010-Mar-31, 05:36 PM
NASTA,

Just so we are clear, under the rules of this forum it is your responsibility, as someone suggesting the landings were faked, to prove exactly that. It is not up to everyone else to prove they did happen, though people will volunteer such information.

If you have not done so, I would suggest you read over The Rules for this Board (http://www.bautforum.com/forum-rules-faqs-information/32864-rules-posting-board.html) and the specific advice for the conspiracy theory forum (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/86593-advice-conspiracy-theory-supporters.html).

Oh, and one more minor suggestion... you might want to make use of paragraph breaks and the occasional capital letter, it would make your posts easier to read. Thanks,

i am pretty sure i have added proof for the things i have said, i dont think there is any need for me to post pics everyone has seen such as the lm landing pics.
sorry for the lack of paragraphs i fixed that up for you.

NASTA
2010-Mar-31, 05:41 PM
This photo (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/birth-order/mercury7.jpg) proves that the Mercury 7 Astronauts were all way too big to fit into the spacecraft. Damn that NASA.

thank you for bringing that up even though you were just trying to be smart we all know the lm at nasa has a door with a 32 inch diameter which is much to small for a man in a space suit to fit through.

Tedward
2010-Mar-31, 05:45 PM
in this picture you can plainly see the 2 guys in the center of the bottom row have nothing more than regular army boots painted silver on their feet.
now having been in the army i know these boots are resistant to some materials but radiation found in space is not one of them.
also these boots would not seal to keep the oxygen in so they could breathe.
so can anyone tell me how they managed to stay alive wearing nothing but silver painted army boots.
that just proves to me they faked alot more than moon landings.

Deke says in his book that it was the only time they were there all together at that place. So, wholly conceivable that boots left behind or not ready. Why do you think otherwise?

Edit. Page 87 in his autobiography. Good read if I may add.

LaurelHS
2010-Mar-31, 05:49 PM
funny thing is in every moon landing photo of a lm there is no crater or evidence of any disturbance to the supposed moons surface.

You haven't read Clavius, have you?
http://www.clavius.org/techcrater.html

Fazor
2010-Mar-31, 05:52 PM
then why did they paint them silver to make them blend in so people wouldnt notice.
like none of you had ever noticed till now.

I'm trying to understand why NASA, in all their evil genius, would pose astronauts for a photo with the purpose of deceiving the public, but fail to make enough fake-boots for the people in the photo to wear.

If they boots were fake, then they wouldn't need to function, correct? And if they don't need to function, then couldn't they just be some cheaply made futuristic looking boots? If anything, the fact that they didn't all have the correct foot ware seems to support the fact that the suits were real; with the most likely (hello Mr. Occam!) scenario being that boots to fit those particular astronauts had either not been completed yet, or were otherwise not available.

I love the idea that NASA is so full of themselves that they're happy to fool us moronic public with some spray paint, but if they were trying to hide something, don't you think they'd do a better job at it?

Bobbar
2010-Mar-31, 06:29 PM
what amazes me the most is someone with your supposed qualifications can believe the moon landings were real.


Even more amazing; you never see a 'qualified' person who believes they were faked.

Weltraum
2010-Mar-31, 06:31 PM
then why did they paint them silver to make them blend in so people wouldnt notice.
like none of you had ever noticed till now.
all of the others are wearing the same boot except these two.All of the others? We can only see what four of them in total are wearing, and of them, it's the two in the middle without the outer covering on the boots.

What's also not clear is that the boots were painted, and it's certainly not clear that there was any attempt at deception in the image. Find us a photograph of a man supposedly in space wearing something not air-tight, and then maybe you'll have something worthy of consideration.


oh and one more thing jay, if it was soot it would cover alot more of the spot like around the sides and further up it and just one other thing to destroy your soot theory that little side rocket had not been used yet in that picture for obvious reasons.
Jay said quite explicitly that he is not saying it was soot:

soot hey i beg to differ...

As well you should; I claim it is not soot. Hydrazine motors don't produce soot. Their exhaust products are purely gaseous. Hence there can be no sooty deposition from them.

And as for the crater claims, has anyone performed any form of experiment to try and verify how the regolith should behave under the thruster engine? All this unfounded "it should be this way..." kind of rhetoric from conspiracy believers is just that. Prove your claim in some fashion that there should be a crater there, given the characteristics of lunar regolith and a vaccum in 1/6th gravity. Your claim that there are no visible signs beneath the LM are patently false, by the way:
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9234HR.jpg
In this image, just to give one example, you can see a wind-swept appearance to the regolith in the background. This is certainly consistent with what you do see in the videos, which show regolith flying outwards from the centre of the thrust.

I should also point out that if NASA were out to create fake photos to support a moon landing hoax and everyone thought there should be a crater under the LM, why didn't they just dig a crater under the thing? Doesn't that seem like kind of a big thing to mess up on?

JayUtah
2010-Mar-31, 07:16 PM
...

then why did they paint them silver to make them blend in so people wouldnt notice.

Because that's what publicity photos are for. It is pointless to wonder why these two astronauts were dressed differently, because the conditions depicted in the photo are not meant to duplicate exactly the conditions under which the astronauts flew.

as for the visor being open thats just a stupid comment jay whingley and i would have expected more from you.

Windley, please. Not "whingley." If you're going to call me out by name, please do me the courtesy first of getting my name right and second of introducing yourself too, including your full name. I have put my personal and professional reputation on the line by addressing these silly hoax claims under my real name, on national and international television and in print. Kindly don't patronize me from behind a veil of anonymity.

And further: that's the point. Their visors are open in this picture. Does that mean their visors will be open in space? No. Hence it doesn't matter what boots they're wearing for the picture. If you're going to nit-pick details, don't stop at just the ones that don't seem silly.

as for the moon landings being fake i dont have to prove that...

Yes you do. There is a mountain of evidence connected to Apollo. If you're going to argue that it was all fabricated, then you bear that burden of proof.

nasa did it for me by making mistake after mistake.

If you know who I am then you know what I think of these claims of "mistake after mistake." They all turn out to be mistakes on the part of conspiracy theorists, most of whom have no relevant training or experience and have done next to no homework.

you say that the pressure under the rocket that powers the lm decreases due to displacement...

Where do I mention "displacement?" Please provide a reference.

...and no atmosphere amoungst other things.

I do claim the LM DPS plume disperses in a vacuum, yes. I can provide references to industry-standard descriptions of that phenomenon if you wish.

yet even with your theory there would still be 1.5 psi of pressure at the very least...

Please show how you derived this value.

we know the rocket was still running for 5 seconds after it touched down...

What is your evidence for the duration of DPS operation after LM footpad contact?

...and that this pressure of 1.5 psi would have made a reasonable hole underneath

Please describe (i.e., give measurements, derivations, etc.) what you mean by a "reasonable hole."

...yet there was nothing there.

For Apollo 11, photographs taken of the area immediately beneath the DPS skirt show discoloration consistent with heat effects. Photographs taken of the area swept by the DPS plume show striations consistent with fluid erosion. Please explain those. Thereafter, photographing the effect of the LM propulsion upon the surface was not deemed important, so few photographs were taken that specifically would show impingement effects.

now the fact there is only 1/6th the gravity of earth would make it easier for the material in the photos to be moved because as we all know things would be lighter there.

They would indeed have less weight. However their mass (and therefore their inertia) remains the same regardless of gravity.

how ever they never tested that type of landing...

False. I have seen film provided by Grumman Aerospace of several drop tests of the LM undercarriage.

and i have enormous doubts that the legs of the lm could handle the force from the drop...

Please express your "enormous doubts" quantitatively in engineering terms. Are you aware of the design of the LM struts? How many LM struts have you personally inspected?

there is also no video proof that they used this type of landing...

Several of the J-type missions employed this landing, and there is film of it.

...the pads of the lm would be depressed into the surface not sitting flush on top.

By how much? Please provide a measurment and show how you derived it.

maybe before you try and make other people appear stupid by making silly statements...

Please show an example of such "silly statements." I largely don't have to do anything to make people appear stupid. Most people who end up looking stupid do so simply because they have made claims they cannot support.

you should look at how many times you have had to retract things you have said because you have been proven to be wrong.

Where have I ever claimed to be infallible? Infallibility is not required in order to point out others' errors. And yes, when confronted with evidence that contradicts my claims, I change my claims. That is how rational people are expected to behave.

what amazes me the most is someone with your supposed qualifications can believe the moon landings were real.

Perhaps it would interest you to know that everyone with my qualifications believes the Moon landings were real. Conversely, no one who believes they were fake seems to be able to supply any sort of relevant credential, qualification, or evidence of experience; and further they cannot actually demonstrate the required knowledge.

now their footage has time codes saying it was taken 12 hours after you could buy a copy of that paper in australia...

No, those who have interpreted the time codes have done so incorrectly and are off by one day.

if it was soot it would cover alot more of the spot...

For the third time, I am not claiming the mark is soot. Please actually read what I write.

Gillianren
2010-Mar-31, 07:45 PM
For heaven's sake, it's a point of pride around here to be the one to correct Jay!

ravens_cry
2010-Mar-31, 08:01 PM
the only landing footage i have ever seen was powered landings which were all the way to the surface and would have left a crater of some size.
yet in not one photo is there any evidence of such creators or disturbance.

Looks pretty disturbed to me. (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5921.jpg)
But a crater? While it is true that some NASA artist renderings (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/lores/s69-39335.jpg) show craters, this raises it's own question.
If the physics said there should be a crater, and art, released by NASA no less, shows a crater, why didn't the alleged production team for the alleged hoax add one? Movies don't make themselves. Every detail, including thousands of rocks, would have had to be made and put in place. Every streak under the LM seen in photos would have had to have been sculpted in, by hand. If they can do all that, surely they can add a crater if one was warranted?
The only answer I have ever gotten from conspiracy theorists involves vague hand waving about whistle-blowers. But again, the logical implications are not followed through.
Now NASA, the same NASA that is frequently alleged to have "Death Squads" roaming the world to put a stop to any scientists or engineers who would reveal their hoax, murdered Apollo 1 and Challenger astronauts, the same NASA who was able to fool or pay off the former Soviet Union into not revealing what would have been for the USSR one of the biggest propaganda coups ever, despite the fact the Soviets had thier own moon rock samples, their own tracking stations ,their own rovers and landers and orbiters ,and their own attempts to get to the moon, including experiments to test the radiation conditions of the Van Allen Belts and Cislunar space (http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/864491/files/p484.pdf), can not stop photos that would alleged prove a hoax from being published on their own website?
* * *
Yeah.

JayUtah
2010-Mar-31, 08:09 PM
...

we all know the lm at nasa has a door with a 32 inch diameter

"Diameter" is for round objects only. The LM forward hatch is square, albeit with rounded corners to combat fatigue cracking. The LM forward hatch opening is 32 inches wide and 32 inches tall, but in the vertical dimension there is a slight interference from structure supporting the control panel above it, so the actual effective opening is about 30 inches. Yes, I measured them myself on an actual LM.

which is much to small for a man in a space suit to fit through.

How many inches wide and tall is an astronaut in a space suit? Please provide numbers. You have the measurements for half the problem, but no measurements for the other half. On what basis do you conclude that the opening is "much too small?"

LaurelHS
2010-Mar-31, 08:20 PM
James Irwin seems to be able to fit through the LM hatch in this video (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15v_1490409.mpg), although it does look a little awkward.

ravens_cry
2010-Mar-31, 08:20 PM
Much too small?
Yet, somehow, they do it. (http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15v_1490409.mpg)
EDIT: Dang, beat me to it, LaurelHS. :lol:
Still, let's watch and see if they ignore BOTH our posts.

LaurelHS
2010-Mar-31, 08:21 PM
Great minds think alike. :)

ravens_cry
2010-Mar-31, 08:25 PM
Great minds think alike. :)

Family tradition forces me to reply with, ". . .and fools seldom differ." But thanks. :o

Fazor
2010-Mar-31, 08:30 PM
The LM's in those videos are clearly upscaled versions specifically built to shoot entry and exit video. :whistle:

It sure seems like a close and uncomfortable fit (it's been too long since I've seen an LM in person, so I can't draw on personal experience), but I know I've had to squeeze myself into some astonishingly tight spots before too, and I'm not in shape or athletic like these guys are.

You can't say "that's obviously too small to fit in". Want a good example? A co-worker of mine builds soap-box racers. Here's a picture of his car and his driver (http://www.wr-racing.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/katelynkneeling.jpg.w560h420.jpg). I'd say there's no way she can fit in there even without a space-suit! But she does (sans space suit, of course.)

Glom
2010-Mar-31, 08:55 PM
in this picture you can plainly see the 2 guys in the center of the bottom row have nothing more than regular army boots painted silver on their feet.
now having been in the army i know these boots are resistant to some materials but radiation found in space is not one of them.
also these boots would not seal to keep the oxygen in so they could breathe.
so can anyone tell me how they managed to stay alive wearing nothing but silver painted army boots.
that just proves to me they faked alot more than moon landings.

I'm sorry, but that line of reasoning really is not very intelligent.

Point 1: It's Mercury! Not Apollo! Mercury! The clue is in the file name so you have no excuse (unless you really had no idea that a program called Mercury ever existed, in which case, your knowledge of manned spaceflight is so incredibly non-existent that I insist you retract all claims immediately and just read what people far more knowledgeable than you have to say on the matter).

Point 2: It's a publicity shot. They are supposed to look kinda spacey, not be actually ready for spaceflight (and in a third of cases, suborbital spaceflight only).

Point 3: Even if you want to take their attire as the full and correct dress for their flight, did you stop to consider that maybe the pressurised suit would go inside the army boots? That's a common thing. Our survival suits we wear for the helicopters to go offshore have booties and the end of the legs, which form the sealed water tight vessel. We then put our regular shoes back on over them after donning the suits.

Donnie B.
2010-Mar-31, 09:24 PM
To be fair, though, it does seem clear that the boots in the OP's second post are "fake", and he may be correct that they're just "army boots painted silver".

There must be a story behind that, and I'd like to know what it is. Did Glenn and (not sure who's on Glenn's right) have odd-sized feet so their boots didn't come in on time? Did they leave them in their lockers? If they were the only two that didn't have the right boots (which isn't certain), why not put them in the back row where it wouldn't show? Who got hold of the "army boots" and a can of spray paint? Why go to that much trouble instead of sending somebody to collect the real boots?

I know NASA was a considerably lower-budget operation in those days -- the first Mercury capsule was carried to the launch site on a mattress on the bed of a pickup truck! -- but this seems unusual even by that standard.

Or is the whole picture a Photoshop job to yank chains in pro-Apollo fora?

One other interesting detail is that we can see two air hoses, presumably connected to two of the suits. But no sign that the others were connected. Why only two? Were the others connected but the hoses hidden? If so, why leave those two showing?

Amazing, all the little mysteries that a simple group snapshot can encompass.

Jason Thompson
2010-Mar-31, 09:33 PM
then why did they paint them silver to make them blend in so people wouldnt notice.

Because that's how you make a nice publicity photo. That's all that picture is.


like none of you had ever noticed till now.

I was well aware of it, having read about it in one of the many books available on the subject by the men who actually worked on the program.


all of the others are wearing the same boot except these two.
did nasa with their huge budget run out short of buying 2 more sets of boots.

No, they just weren't ready in time for the photo. It was taken well in advance of any flight.

Are you actually aware that there is film of every Mercury astronaut suiting up before their respective flights? That there is plnety of film of them getting into the capsule before flight, and out of it after? If you want to claim fraud, don't do it with a publicity picture when there is actual material from the missions available.


funny thing is in every moon landing photo of a lm there is no crater or evidence of any disturbance to the supposed moons surface.

On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence of disturbance. in fact, one of the first things Neil Armstrong did when he stepped out of the LM was comment on it. Not a great way to make a fake, is it? Have the guy on live TV draw attention to it.


i have enormous doubts that the legs of the lm could handle the force from the drop of the height you reckon they dropped from

Really? Do please feel free to provide us with your engineering qualifications that allow you to reach that conclusion.


and i doubt they would have risked the craft and crew by performing such a landing as a leg could have easily bent and more than likely the lm would have fallen over never being able to leave the moons surface.

Or, here's a novelty, they tested the system in scale on Earth first. Do you honestly think they designed it, built it, and then just said 'ah, let's send it up and see what happens'? Do you have any idea how much testing went into the LM? Do you also realise that much of the development phase was filmed and documented?


there is also no video proof that they used this type of landing

Nor would there be, all the landings being filmed from out the window on 16mm film, not on a video camera.


the only landing footage i have ever seen

Which landing footage was it? have you seen the film footage from all six landings? I have. At least two of them show evidence of the 'drop' landing, and on one of them you even hear the astronauts comment on the small jolt they get when they drop those last few feet.


maybe before you try and make other people appear stupid by making silly statements you should look at how many times you have had to retract things you have said because you have been proven to be wrong.

Not that many. I have been told I am wrong about Apollo many times, but no-one seems eager to provide the evidence to back that claim up.


one very good one is a photo released in an australian paper 12 hours before nasa said the photo was even taken.
now their footage has time codes saying it was taken 12 hours after you could buy a copy of that paper in australia, so how did they get a photo that didnt exist yet, must be magic or just good special effects.

Please provide this photo and the evidence it was published when you say it was, and that it was taken when you say it was.


oh and one more thing jay, if it was soot it would cover alot more of the spot like around the sides and further up it and just one other thing to destroy your soot theory that little side rocket had not been used yet in that picture for obvious reasons.

Why is it that Jay has said TWICE now that it was NOT soot, yet you keep arguing with him as if he has said it is?

LaurelHS
2010-Mar-31, 09:44 PM
According to Wikipedia's caption of the Mercury 7 photograph, the astronaut on Glenn's right is Deke Slayton.

Garrison
2010-Mar-31, 10:52 PM
Looking at the photograph it is painfully obvious that the astronauts in the front row are wearing two different types of boots, which too my mind proves there's no fakery or fraud involved. If it was rigged they would have ensured everyone would have been wearing the same footwear, in the real world somebody forgot their boots, or they weren't ready yet and they had to get the photo taken. It's too dumb not to be real.:)

slang
2010-Apr-01, 12:30 AM
Looking at the photograph it is painfully obvious that the astronauts in the front row are wearing two different types of boots

Yup. Left ones and right ones.

blueshift
2010-Apr-01, 12:45 AM
NASTA, in order to fake all the moon landings all the private contractors would have had to been bought off and the number of people involved with the Apollo program exceeded 500,000. Most of those were private contractors like my brother-law (former owner of Astro Tool, now merged into MS Astro) and to take a bribe from NASA to not produce something at all would have left them with criminal investigation when inventory took place. So NASA would have to pay off Astro Tool and the businesses responsible for conducting the overseeing of those faked inventories.

A better plan would be to conceal things by making a bunch of disfunctional junk that was just for show to make things look good. The trouble with that is that all of the disfunctional junk has to be hidden somewhere in a place that takes up space in an area that is not going to be used for anything else. So I guess a recycling of the material would be the next step to cover things up and make use of all that piled up junk. But then you have to have someone who is buying the recycled material to be paid off to keep silent about it and hope that no rumors spread from them. The trouble with that is that the number of people getting in on the take is now multiplying like a virus. The budget for NASA just wasn't that high and there were too many competitive bureaucracies like the military and the DOD who would have a lot to gain by a falsification of NASA's mission. They would be leading the conspiracy claims....unless NASA paid them all off as well.

So how much do you think each would take for a bribe? 10 bucks each? $100? $1000? One million would probably do an individual back in 1968 but a firm would want much more since the risk of getting caught would make their legitimate customers lose confidence in them. So extra money must be added to secure the coverup. And even more money must be used to "stage" the event and do all the "faked photos".

How about threats? The trouble with that is that not all governmental employees in the late 60s and early 70s were really all intimidated by threats. I was a postal worker for 35 years and we walked out on strike against the government in March 1970 and we ignored a Presidential order to return to work. In subsequent years we would develope a reputation for shooting our superiors. At the same time soldiers were fragging officers they didn't like in the battlefield. So governmental employees were not at all intimidated so easily with threats.

The cheapest thing to do was to go ahead and make machines that flew to the Moon and to train people to fly them and return. No bribes and only one kind of threat, "Make it workable or you don't get paid just as the contract states."

Geo Kaplan
2010-Apr-01, 12:58 AM
then why did they paint them silver to make them blend in so people wouldnt notice.

The answer is in the last clause of your own question -- it was so people wouldn't notice! Publicity photos are composed to satisfy certain aesthetic goals, not engineering ones. I'm surprised that this isn't obvious.


like none of you had ever noticed till now.
all of the others are wearing the same boot except these two.

You are making an assumption. What is the basis for your claim that "none" of us had ever noticed? Why have you rejected the most likely hypothesis -- that no one cared?


did nasa with their huge budget run out short of buying 2 more sets of boots.

My, you certainly are hung up on the boots non-issue, aren't you? One might be tempted to believe that you have so little of substance that you've adopted the rhetorical tactic of repetition and bluster as a smokescreen. Unfortunately for you, we've noticed.


if they did only wear these for a picture as you put it why are they not wearing the same boot as all the other guys and unless they were trying to deceive people why did they paint them silver.

Again, your boots obsession is making you look positively unhinged. You keep insisting that the only possible reason for the boots is an evil conspiracy to deceive. As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, it was a publicity photo. Notice, for example, the lack of a spacecraft in the photo. Notice that the astronauts are not in orbit. Notice that the visors are open. Given that the context is clearly terrestrial, what possible dark motivation (or utility) could there be to fake the boots? The most obvious, rational explanation is that, for a publicity photo, the photographer wanted the crew to look...nice.


as for the moon landings being fake i dont have to prove that nasa did it for me by making mistake after mistake.

Ah, but here you most definitely have to offer proof. Them's the rules. How about it? Got anything? So far, you've come up with bupkis.


here is one bit of proof under one of your own theories, you say that the pressure under the rocket that powers the lm decreases due to displacement and no atmosphere amoungst other things.
yet even with your theory there would still be 1.5 psi of pressure at the very least coming from the rocket when it touched down considering from the faked first moon landing we know the rocket was still running for 5 seconds after it touched down and that this pressure of 1.5 psi would have made a reasonable hole underneath where the rocket was yet there was nothing there.

Really? Provide your engineering calculations for what a "reasonable hole" would have been. You seem not to have considered that the problem lies with your erroneous expectations. You have provided no evidence that you possess sufficient knowledge of what is "reasonable." You seem to be a member of the "often wrong, but never in doubt" clan. The many misstatements you make lead one to question your qualifications.


now the fact there is only 1/6th the gravity of earth would make it easier for the material in the photos to be moved because as we all know things would be lighter there.
funny thing is in every moon landing photo of a lm there is no crater or evidence of any disturbance to the supposed moons surface.

Again, Lucy, you have some 'splainin' to do. Or some homework, at least. Study this, for example: http://www.clavius.org/techcrater.html


now i know you will say in others they just let the lm drop to the surface, how ever they never tested that type of landing and i have enormous doubts that the legs of the lm could handle the force from the drop of the height you reckon they dropped from and i doubt they would have risked the craft and crew by performing such a landing as a leg could have easily bent and more than likely the lm would have fallen over never being able to leave the moons surface.

Once again, you are revealing your own ignorance, rather than an elaborate hoax. You assert, without foundation, that "they" never tested that type of landing. What is the source of your assertion? Cite a reference, please, for it is wrong. The Grumman engineers spent countless hours testing many, many scenarios. Precisely because they didn't want to be responsible for stranding a crew on the moon, the Grummies worked incredibly hard to ensure that a survivable landing would also be one that enabled a functioning, properly supported ascent stage for the return.


there is also no video proof that they used this type of landing which i know you have stated before on how they landed them.

Are you referring to tests of this type of landing? Many kilometers of film footage of the tests have been archived. Some were even used in Tom Hanks' series, From the Earth to the Moon. There's even a segment where a LM leg snaps in an early test. The footage was taken from the archive. It was not a Hollywood recreation.


the only landing footage i have ever seen was powered landings which were all the way to the surface and would have left a crater of some size.
yet in not one photo is there any evidence of such creators or disturbance.
now if they had have used the drop version of landings you have stated they did the pads of the lm would be depressed into the surface not sitting flush on top.

Early in the program, there was great worry that the moon was covered with a deep layer of dust that would engulf the LM. The landing pads were increased in size and altered in conformation in response to the worry, adding to the challenge of the Grummies, who were already under tremendous pressure to keep weight to a minimum. Surveyor, among others, showed that the layer was not too deep at all. That relative shallowness created trouble later on, when Apollo 15's Dave Scott had great difficulties with a drill.


maybe before you try and make other people appear stupid by making silly statements you should look at how many times you have had to retract things you have said because you have been proven to be wrong.

I'll let your own statements speak for me here. I could hardly do better.


what amazes me the most is someone with your supposed qualifications can believe the moon landings were real.

I'm not at all amazed that someone with your qualifications believes the moon landings were faked.


there is so much proof they never actually landed there i would have to make hundreds of posts pages long just to cover it all.
one very good one is a photo released in an australian paper 12 hours before nasa said the photo was even taken.
now their footage has time codes saying it was taken 12 hours after you could buy a copy of that paper in australia, so how did they get a photo that didnt exist yet, must be magic or just good special effects.
just for you toseek that photo i posted came from mcgowans web site so in a way it did have something to do with him.

So much proof that you can't present even a shred of it here? C'mon.


oh and one more thing jay, if it was soot it would cover alot more of the spot like around the sides and further up it and just one other thing to destroy your soot theory that little side rocket had not been used yet in that picture for obvious reasons.

Soot and soot! What is soot? (My apologies to both Morg and I-Morg). You keep behaving as if Jay hadn't blown your soot theory all to hell. Say to yourself in soothing tones: "Hydrazine -- no soot. Hydrazine -- no soot." Repeat as necessary.

blueshift
2010-Apr-01, 01:22 AM
there is so much proof they never actually landed there i would have to make hundreds of posts pages long just to cover it all. Try giving us at least one. You haven't done that yet.

one very good one is a photo released in an australian paper 12 hours before nasa said the photo was even taken.
now their footage has time codes saying it was taken 12 hours after you could buy a copy of that paper in australia, so how did they get a photo that didnt exist yet, must be magic or just good special effects.Are you aware of how the international date line works?

NASTA
2010-Apr-01, 03:13 AM
I'm sorry, but that line of reasoning really is not very intelligent.

Point 1: It's Mercury! Not Apollo! Mercury! The clue is in the file name so you have no excuse (unless you really had no idea that a program called Mercury ever existed, in which case, your knowledge of manned spaceflight is so incredibly non-existent that I insist you retract all claims immediately and just read what people far more knowledgeable than you have to say on the matter).

Point 2: It's a publicity shot. They are supposed to look kinda spacey, not be actually ready for spaceflight (and in a third of cases, suborbital spaceflight only).

Point 3: Even if you want to take their attire as the full and correct dress for their flight, did you stop to consider that maybe the pressurised suit would go inside the army boots? That's a common thing. Our survival suits we wear for the helicopters to go offshore have booties and the end of the legs, which form the sealed water tight vessel. We then put our regular shoes back on over them after donning the suits.

i never said they were from apollo now did i.
i am sorry to inform you that one of their pressurised suits would never fit inside the army boot once pressurised so that was not very intelligent now was it.
i wore army boots for years and i know how tightly they fit and there would be no room for a suit to expand.
not that survival suits are even close to the same thing, you say they have booties on them which would be made to fit your shoe size and then you put your regular shoes over the top.
i find it hard to believe when the booties would have increased the size of your foot so there would not be the room in your regular shoes for the booties to fit inside.
every time i have worn a survival suit there is no way i would have been able to get my shoes on over the top of them.
yes they may have done suborbital space flight but they did also do space walks.

NASTA
2010-Apr-01, 04:40 AM
now their footage has time codes saying it was taken 12 hours after you could buy a copy of that paper in australia...

No, those who have interpreted the time codes have done so incorrectly and are off by one day.

so nasa cant get their own time codes right is that what you are trying to tell me as this was filmed by them and recorded by goldstone.

http://www.youtube.com/user/WhiteJarrah#p/c/87BD99395C7513BC/4/HSdrhq8uNqM

NASTA
2010-Apr-01, 04:54 AM
You haven't read Clavius, have you?
http://www.clavius.org/techcrater.html

yes i have only to find the site is full of lies and things that have been proven to be wrong by jarrah white and others.
as well as that site is owned by jay whindley.
oh and jay i knew your name was whindley i just called you whingley as i think it seems to fit you.

Tom Servo
2010-Apr-01, 05:01 AM
in this picture you can plainly see the 2 guys in the center of the bottom row have nothing more than regular army boots painted silver on their feet.
now having been in the army i know these boots are resistant to some materials but radiation found in space is not one of them.
also these boots would not seal to keep the oxygen in so they could breathe.
so can anyone tell me how they managed to stay alive wearing nothing but silver painted army boots.
that just proves to me they faked alot more than moon landings.


Gee this argument is as weak as the (But the space suits have zippers on them. How the heck can those keep the air in. Its all faked because I made this observation) argument.

I found a nice picture of other astronauts with their boots on.
http://hammerandfeather.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/gpn-2000-001478.jpg

Looks like to me the fella on the right has his boots on and the fella to the left has his boots on under his booties just fine.
Have you actually looked at how many layers a space suite is made of. Here is a picture showing how bulky a fully suited astronaut is.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/mike-massimino-nasa-astronaut.jpg
Look at how small it makes him look.

I have a question. Did the Mercury 7 astronauts do space walks in their shiny suits seen in the promo picture. No they never left the cabin with these suits on.

Space suits made for the Mercury project were basically modified versions of the original jet aircraft suits, primarily based on the Navy's MK IV high altitude jet aircraft pressurized suit. These suits kept the designs of the old suits, yet were modified with added layers of aluminized Mylar for heat protection, and an extra outer layer of silver nylon to make the suits look futuristic. However, the suits could never be exposed to space for they lacked a micrometeriod protection layer. In essence, these suits were worn "soft", and only used as backups if the Mercury capsule cabin lost air pressure, which never did actually happen.

Heres another nice picture of the mercury 7 suit boots.

http://ssoar.org/research/space-suits/history/space-suit-mercury-parts.jpg

You have since replied with this statement

i am sorry to inform you that one of their pressurised suits would never fit inside the army boot once pressurised so that was not very intelligent now was it.
i wore army boots for years and i know how tightly they fit and there would be no room for a suit to expand.
not that survival suits are even close to the same thing, you say they have booties on them which would be made to fit your shoe size and then you put your regular shoes over the top.
i find it hard to believe when the booties would have increased the size of your foot so there would not be the room in your regular shoes for the booties to fit inside.
every time i have worn a survival suit there is no way i would have been able to get my shoes on over the top of them.
yes they may have done suborbital space flight but they did also do space walks.

Based on this statement I dont think you understand what layers go on top and what layers go on bottom.

No they never did space walks in just the shiny silver boots. Always inside the cabin which never lost cabin pressure.

The Picture I provided shows that they can wear a few layers of foot wear no problem.

Please reply and tell me if it is still imposible for the astronauts to wear booties over their boots or are you going to retract your statement

ravens_cry
2010-Apr-01, 05:02 AM
Mercury never did any space walks, NASTA.
That was Gemini. Specifically Gemini 4, and a completely different spacesuit (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/g04_s65_30430.gif).
There were others, but that was the first American spacewalk.

Geo Kaplan
2010-Apr-01, 05:07 AM
Mercury never did any space walks, NASTA.
That was Gemini. Specifically Gemini 4, and a completely different spacesuit (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/g04_s65_30430.gif).
There were others, but that was the first American spacewalk.

What I love is that NASTA's "analysis" is wrong on multiple levels simultaneously. First, independent of the historical facts you cite, he seems to think that because his boots were tight, it therefore requires a violation of the laws of physics for others to have boots and a suit. Then beyond that, that's not how the suits were configured. And Ed White wore a different suit for his spacewalk.

NASTA -- are you ever going to provide an actual, logical, sensible argument with, you know, facts and stuff, or are you just going to continue spewing absurdities?

NASTA
2010-Apr-01, 05:16 AM
just one other thing the reason i am taking so long to respond to all of your false evidence is because for no reason at all i have been put on moderator review.
i guess thats what happens here when people are scared of the truth and of people who dont agree with their small narrow minded views on some thing most people think was a hoax.
there fore i cannot say that any of my posts will be added exactly how they were written by me and could be changed to suit the beliefs of the owner of this site and his followers.

people like the so called myth busters who made up material such as a foot print cant be formed in a vacum, i have never heard anyone ever make that claim ever on any site from any country yet they used it as a myth on their pathetic show which only busted the fact that these 2 have any intelligence at all.
personally i think they should stick to what they do best making special effects and lying.

my hope is next time phil and jay want to try and disprove that the moon landings were a hoax on tv that they actually do it them self instead of dragging friends of theirs in and making them look stupid on world wide tv.

oh and jay i can post a vid by jarrah white for every argument you can come up with as well as the psi under them lm rocket, which will only in the long run prove what we already know which is everything you say is eventually proven to be false and you have to retract it and that the moon landings were indeed a hoax.

i will give you one thing you did not say it was soot on the side of the craft, yet you did not explain how this mark that appears to be rusted came to be there.
you did state it came from the motor but as i stated that motor had not been used yet in that picture and you know it hadnt.
please feel free to come back with another flawed argument for me to laugh at as i do enjoy a good laugh.

Tom Servo
2010-Apr-01, 05:18 AM
i never said they were from apollo now did i.

Then you should know that these suits are the Mercury 7 suits right.

Here is some information about Mercury 7 I got from this site http://history.nasa.gov/40thmerc7/intro.htm

On October 7, 1958, the new National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announced Project Mercury, its first major undertaking. The objectives were threefold: to place a human spacecraft into orbital flight around Earth, observe human performance in such conditions, and recover the human and the spacecraft safely. At this early point in the U.S. space program, many questions remained. Could a human function ably as a pilot-engineer-experimenter in the harsh conditions of weightless flight? If yes, who were the right people for the challenge?

Doesn't look like they did any space walks you have been talking about.

Van Rijn
2010-Apr-01, 05:27 AM
i never said they were from apollo now did i.
i am sorry to inform you that one of their pressurised suits would never fit inside the army boot once pressurised so that was not very intelligent now was it.


What wasn't? Do you understand that you were showing a publicity photo?

Do you understand that, for the flights, the Mercury astronauts wore boots designed for the suits?



i wore army boots for years and i know how tightly they fit and there would be no room for a suit to expand.


The (custom) boots would be put over the pressure layer while in atmosphere. When going into a vacuum, it would be like inflating a balloon inside a bottle. What happens there?

Weltraum
2010-Apr-01, 05:31 AM
What I love is that NASTA's "analysis" is wrong on multiple levels simultaneously. First, independent of the historical facts you cite, he seems to think that because his boots were tight, it therefore requires a violation of the laws of physics for others to have boots and a suit. Then beyond that, that's not how the suits were configured. And Ed White wore a different suit for his spacewalk.

NASTA -- are you ever going to provide an actual, logical, sensible argument with, you know, facts and stuff, or are you just going to continue spewing absurdities?

Oh, I think we can count on this guy to ignore all sorts of plain facts against his belief and concentrate on arguing with absurdities. He's shown no sign whatsoever of having any idea of how evidence and the scientific method work.

He was even good enough to link us that MoonFaker clown on YouTube.

PetersCreek
2010-Apr-01, 05:42 AM
just one other thing the reason i am taking so long to respond to all of your false evidence is because for no reason at all i have been put on moderator review.

Well yes, actually, it is for a reason. Posts by any new member that contain links, images, and/or certain keywords are subject to being held in a queue for moderator approval. Don't take it personally. It's a spam control measure. After you get a few more posts under your belt, it will no longer hold you up.


i guess thats what happens here when people are scared of the truth and of people who dont agree with their small narrow minded views on some thing most people think was a hoax.
there fore i cannot say that any of my posts will be added exactly how they were written by me and could be changed to suit the beliefs of the owner of this site and his followers.

And it is at this point that I will remind you that our rules require you to be civil. They also require you to support your assertions. Insults will not fly here. Nor will accusations of unethical behavior that you can't back up. Further warnings on these matters may result in the accumulation of infraction points. Too many of those, and you'll be suspended. To avoid that, please read and follow the rules linked in my signature line below. It would also benefit you to read the advice to conspiracy theorists.

Edit to add:


oh and jay i knew your name was whindley i just called you whingley as i think it seems to fit you.

Just saw this after posting this warning. NASTA, you may address JayUtah by his screen name or any other proper name he gives you. You will not disparage him with any other of your own making.

NASTA
2010-Apr-01, 05:44 AM
Gee this argument is as weak as the (But the space suits have zippers on them. How the heck can those keep the air in. Its all faked because I made this observation) argument.

I found a nice picture of other astronauts with their boots on.
http://hammerandfeather.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/gpn-2000-001478.jpg

Looks like to me the fella on the right has his boots on and the fella to the left has his boots on under his booties just fine.
Have you actually looked at how many layers a space suite is made of. Here is a picture showing how bulky a fully suited astronaut is.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/mike-massimino-nasa-astronaut.jpg
Look at how small it makes him look.

I have a question. Did the Mercury 7 astronauts do space walks in their shiny suits seen in the promo picture. No they never left the cabin with these suits on.

Space suits made for the Mercury project were basically modified versions of the original jet aircraft suits, primarily based on the Navy's MK IV high altitude jet aircraft pressurized suit. These suits kept the designs of the old suits, yet were modified with added layers of aluminized Mylar for heat protection, and an extra outer layer of silver nylon to make the suits look futuristic. However, the suits could never be exposed to space for they lacked a micrometeriod protection layer. In essence, these suits were worn "soft", and only used as backups if the Mercury capsule cabin lost air pressure, which never did actually happen.

Heres another nice picture of the mercury 7 suit boots.

http://ssoar.org/research/space-suits/history/space-suit-mercury-parts.jpg

You have since replied with this statement


Based on this statement I dont think you understand what layers go on top and what layers go on bottom.

No they never did space walks in just the shiny silver boots. Always inside the cabin which never lost cabin pressure.

The Picture I provided shows that they can wear a few layers of foot wear no problem.

Please reply and tell me if it is still imposible for the astronauts to wear booties over their boots or are you going to retract your statement

i never said socks or booties as you call them wouldnt fit as we all know you can wear socks with shoes, he was talking about survival suits which is totaly different and has nothing to do with the space suits so maybe you should learn to read properly.
just one other thing that pic you showed only shows the tounge of the boot not whats under them.

as for the space walk i should have stated the exact mission i was referring to so there was no confusion.
i wouldnt have thought that a wrong boots statement would have led to survival suits and booties or socks as normal people call them.

i would rather talk about space craft films unedited yet edited dvd's.

i think you should all go and watch this vid from start to finish it will answer every question you can come up with and prove that your so called experts are wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/user/WhiteJarrah#p/c/87BD99395C7513BC

NASTA
2010-Apr-01, 05:49 AM
What wasn't? Do you understand that you were showing a publicity photo?

Do you understand that, for the flights, the Mercury astronauts wore boots designed for the suits?



The (custom) boots would be put over the pressure layer while in atmosphere. When going into a vacuum, it would be like inflating a balloon inside a bottle. What happens there?

i was talking about the army boots not the other ones what cant you understand about that.

NASTA
2010-Apr-01, 06:01 AM
Oh, I think we can count on this guy to ignore all sorts of plain facts against his belief and concentrate on arguing with absurdities. He's shown no sign whatsoever of having any idea of how evidence and the scientific method work.

He was even good enough to link us that MoonFaker clown on YouTube.

unfortunately i dont think you have an open enough mind to believe anything other than the rubbish you are fed by the us government nasa and people like jay.
i doubt you would believe it if it jumped up and bit you on the language.
you can keep pushing your propaganda on people but that does not mean its true or even close to being right, hey jay.(MR WRONG)

what makes him a clown the fact he proved jay and nasa wrong on so many different occasions its hard to count them all or is it because deep down you know he is right and dont want to admit the fact you are wrong.
either way he has been proven to be right and backs it up with evidence something none of you do, all you do is make statements with no actual evidence at all, then you relly on things proven to be wrong or fake, some evidence you have.
if i could afford it i would send a camera on a remote vehicle to the supposed landing sites to prove there is nothing there, what would you say then.

Van Rijn
2010-Apr-01, 06:03 AM
i was talking about the army boots not the other ones what cant you understand about that.

So, you were talking about boots from a publicity photo?

Again, do you understand that, for the flights, the Mercury astronauts wore boots designed for the suits?

Gillianren
2010-Apr-01, 06:04 AM
i was talking about the army boots not the other ones what cant you understand about that.

May I suggest that if you wrote more clearly, you would be more easy to understand?

And for heaven's sake, Jarrah White? That's your source of information? Oh, dear.

Geo Kaplan
2010-Apr-01, 06:06 AM
i was talking about the army boots not the other ones what cant you understand about that.

Perhaps he generously thought you were actually talking about astronauts' equipment, instead of illogical irrelevancies. But please feel free to keep talking about your own footware issues. It's fascinating.

LaurelHS
2010-Apr-01, 06:12 AM
if i could afford it i would send a camera on a remote vehicle to the supposed landing sites to prove there is nothing there, what would you say then.
You would be proven wrong. We already know what is at the six landing sites: leftover Apollo hardware and astronaut footpaths (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/revisited/index.html).

PetersCreek
2010-Apr-01, 06:13 AM
A general note to all: please watch the tone. As frustrated as you might feel, do not respond to rudeness in kind. Thanks!

Geo Kaplan
2010-Apr-01, 06:20 AM
{snip} all you do is make statements with no actual evidence at all, then you relly on things proven to be wrong or fake, some evidence you have.{snip}

Please do not shift the burden of proof. You are the one making the claim ("the moon landings were faked" or some such thing), so it is up to you to provide support for your claim. So far, as has been shown, you have made statements without backing them up. If you cannot provide evidentiary support for your position, then retract your claim. If you have evidentiary support, then please present it.

Cavorite
2010-Apr-01, 06:28 AM
people like the so called myth busters who made up material such as a foot print cant be formed in a vacum, i have never heard anyone ever make that claim ever on any site from any country yet they used it as a myth on their pathetic show which only busted the fact that these 2 have any intelligence at all.
personally i think they should stick to what they do best making special effects and lying.

How hard did you look before jumping to the conclusion the Mythbusters just made it up? That's one of the oldest hoax claims around, made first IIRC by the godfather of hoaxists, Bill Kaysing. You can certainly find examples of sites repeating the claim with a simple googling. Did you do this?



my hope is next time phil and jay want to try and disprove that the moon landings were a hoax on tv that they actually do it them self instead of dragging friends of theirs in and making them look stupid on world wide tv.


Jay has done exactly that, in a National Geographic special that predated the Mythbusters episode. It covered different claims than the ones Jamie and Adam did.

Tom Servo
2010-Apr-01, 07:17 AM
in this picture you can plainly see the 2 guys in the center of the bottom row have nothing more than regular army boots painted silver on their feet.
now having been in the army i know these boots are resistant to some materials but radiation found in space is not one of them.
also these boots would not seal to keep the oxygen in so they could breathe.
so can anyone tell me how they managed to stay alive wearing nothing but silver painted army boots.
that just proves to me they faked alot more than moon landings.


It looks like your not the first to notice the painted work boots.
Wikipedia even points it out on the caption under this picture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_Seven


Can you please provide proof that they used these work boots on an actual mission?
If not do you still beleive they used the work boots on a mission and did not don some of the actual boots that are supposed to go with the suit? (this is after all what this post is implying. Or am I wrong? Did you mean something else.)
If you no longer think that they used the work boots in their missions then just retract this statement.

I think the reason they used the painted work boots happened in a conversation like this one.


Mercury 7 Astronaut Shepard talks to Mercury astronaut Slayton
Shepard: Hurry up Slayton the photographer has waited for 4 hours already while we all got on our suits for this shot.
Slayton: Ive got it all on but my boots and Glenn's boots have not been made yet (or we left them in the locker at the other NASA building).
Shepard: well we don't have time to wait for that. lets just spray paint these old work boots to match the suits.
Slayton: If found some gray paint that looks pretty close.
(spray, spray, spray)
Shepard: there now they sort of like the shiny boots. Hopefuly no one will notice.
Slayton: yeah they look good lets get this shoot over with so we can go get some lunch. Im starving.
Shepard: good idea. Wait, just remember not to wear those work boots on the real mission.
Slayton: Wow thanks for reminding me I almost did that. That would have been silly.


Well anyway I see a conversation close to this being very plausible. Perhaps not the last two lines, but you get the idea.

Tedward
2010-Apr-01, 08:05 AM
now their footage has time codes saying it was taken 12 hours after you could buy a copy of that paper in australia...

No, those who have interpreted the time codes have done so incorrectly and are off by one day.

so nasa cant get their own time codes right is that what you are trying to tell me as this was filmed by them and recorded by goldstone.

http://www.youtube.com/user/WhiteJarrah#p/c/87BD99395C7513BC/4/HSdrhq8uNqM

I have not looked at the clip, having looked at Mr Whites offerings over the years I do not want to waste any more time. Can you precis it in your own words?


I have looked at the timing issue. Mr White is wrong and could have saved face by checking his dates and the standard, I assume that is the gist here?

Jason Thompson
2010-Apr-01, 08:10 AM
yes they may have done suborbital space flight but they did also do space walks.

Not on Mercury they didn't. The first American spacewalk was performed on Gemini 4. Your research skills are sadly lacking.

Jason Thompson
2010-Apr-01, 08:13 AM
as for the space walk i should have stated the exact mission i was referring to so there was no confusion.

Well? Go on then. Which mission on mercury was a spacewalk performed on?


i think you should all go and watch this vid from start to finish it will answer every question you can come up with and prove that your so called experts are wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/user/WhiteJarrah#p/c/87BD99395C7513BC

I think I'd rather poke both eyes out with a stick than watch anything by Jarrah White, having had personal experience with him on other discussion forums. This man thinks he has proved Jay a liar because Jay said he took photos on a clear night and Jarrah saw clouds in the daytime footage, for heaven's sake, and who has an unhealthy fixation with Jay to the exclusion of everyone else who took part in the discussion he was a part of.

Halcyon Dayz
2010-Apr-01, 08:38 AM
yes i have only to find the site is full of lies and things that have been proven to be wrong by jarrah white and others.

Thank you. That actually made me laugh out loud.


oh and jay i knew your name was whindley i just called you whingley as i think it seems to fit you.
Being disrespectful is not going to make you any less wrong.


i guess thats what happens here when people are scared of the truth and of people who dont agree with their small narrow minded views on some thing most people think was a hoax.
You are gunning for the coveted I-was-banned-from-BAUT badge, aren't you?
It is not as prestigious as you seem to think.


there fore i cannot say that any of my posts will be added exactly how they were written by me and could be changed to suit the beliefs of the owner of this site and his followers.
Isn't paranoia a beautiful thing.


people like the so called myth busters who made up material such as a foot print cant be formed in a vacum, i have never heard anyone ever make that claim ever on any site from any country
Apollo Believers are not only vastly more knowledgeable about Apollo then the Hoax Believers, but they, ironically, also tend to be more knowledgeable about what passes for the Hoax "Theory".


my hope is next time phil and jay want to try and disprove that the moon landings were a hoax on tv that they actually do it them self instead of dragging friends of theirs in and making them look stupid on world wide tv.
I'd watch that.
It would certainly be more in depth and serious.


oh and jay i can post a vid by jarrah white for every argument you can come up with...
You cannot think or speak for yourself?


i will give you one thing you did not say it was soot on the side of the craft, yet you did not explain how this mark that appears to be rusted came to be there. you did state it came from the motor but as i stated that motor had not been used yet in that picture and you know it hadnt.
Statements are NOT facts.
What is your EVIDENCE that it hadn't?


please feel free to come back with another flawed argument for me to laugh at as i do enjoy a good laugh.
Hello Mr. Kruger. Meet Mr. Dunning.

Daggerstab
2010-Apr-01, 08:39 AM
now their footage has time codes saying it was taken 12 hours after you could buy a copy of that paper in australia...

No, those who have interpreted the time codes have done so incorrectly and are off by one day.

so nasa cant get their own time codes right is that what you are trying to tell me as this was filmed by them and recorded by goldstone.

http://www.youtube.com/user/WhiteJarrah#p/c/87BD99395C7513BC/4/HSdrhq8uNqM

Summary: Jarrah White shows a clip with timestamp that indicates it was shot on the 198th day of 1969. Jarrah interprets this as 18 July. (This is actually 17 July. (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=17+July+1969)) He then shows an article about the telecast in an Australian newspaper dated 18 July and claims that this contradicts the dating of the footage. He makes the additional effort to phone the newspaper and ask when they print it. :)

Conclusion: Jarrah White can't count days.

chrlzs
2010-Apr-01, 09:16 AM
So that leads to a *direct question* to Nasta.

How do you explain that Jarrah White's video clearly states that the date was July 18, and yet the 198th day of 1969 is in fact July 17? Do you now withdraw that claim and admit that Jarrah's entire video is based on a false premise?

As I just posted to that video, it's easy to check in many ways, but here's an easy one. Open Excel, or OOCalc. In A1, type "1 January 1969" (no quotes). That cell now contains the FIRST day of 1969. So, to see what the 198th day is, in A2, type "=A1+197"
Now, what do you see?

Perhaps you might also like to explain how it is that you didn't research even the most basic premise of that silly video before posting such a claim here? Didn't you read the comments? :)

Daggerstab
2010-Apr-01, 09:28 AM
As I just posted to that video, it's is easy to check in many ways, but here's an easy one.

Here's an easier one: "(This is actually 17 July.)" above is a link to WolframAlpha. Just click on it. :)

chrlzs
2010-Apr-01, 10:08 AM
aaargh! I can't get used to this new look. Couldn't ya have made it blue and underlined it?? :lol:

But thanks - I was waiting for my first excuse to visit that site.
...
(ten minutes later)
...
Mmmhmm. That's a pretty cool engine...

Glom
2010-Apr-01, 11:12 AM
i never said they were from apollo now did i.

Then what relevance does it have to the authenticity of the moonlandings?


i am sorry to inform you that one of their pressurised suits would never fit inside the army boot once pressurised so that was not very intelligent now was it.
i wore army boots for years and i know how tightly they fit and there would be no room for a suit to expand.

So what? If the army boot restrained the expansion of the suit when pressurised, then so be it.


not that survival suits are even close to the same thing, you say they have booties on them which would be made to fit your shoe size and then you put your regular shoes over the top.
i find it hard to believe when the booties would have increased the size of your foot so there would not be the room in your regular shoes for the booties to fit inside.
every time i have worn a survival suit there is no way i would have been able to get my shoes on over the top of them.

We're obviously using different survival suits. This is what we use. (http://www.offshore-technology.com/contractor_images/shark/image1.jpg) Not that it's relevant. The point I was making is, just in the case our regular non-waterproof shoes are worn over our sealed waterproof survival suit, so too could the regular, non-pressurised army boots be worn over a pressure suit (though not donned with the suit pressurised of course). I was trying to demonstrate that you were leaping to prejudged conclusions rather than considering more mundane explanations.


yes they may have done suborbital space flight but they did also do space walks.

No they didn't. There were no space walks in the Mercury programme.

ToSeek
2010-Apr-01, 01:04 PM
just one other thing the reason i am taking so long to respond to all of your false evidence is because for no reason at all i have been put on moderator review.
i guess thats what happens here when people are scared of the truth and of people who dont agree with their small narrow minded views on some thing most people think was a hoax.
there fore i cannot say that any of my posts will be added exactly how they were written by me and could be changed to suit the beliefs of the owner of this site and his followers.


As has been explained to you more than once, we do that to all new members in order to prevent spam. In any case, your post count has reached a point where your replies should no longer be held for moderation. If they still are, let me know - we're still getting used to this new version of vBulletin, and I might have done something wrong.

ravens_cry
2010-Apr-01, 01:36 PM
NASTA, if you think wearing boots over spacesuits is some kind of impossibility, you should look at the first pressure suit ever, this rather steampunk looking number worn by Wily Post in the 30's (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/wiltsuit.htm).

Space Chimp
2010-Apr-01, 01:42 PM
if i could afford it i would send a camera on a remote vehicle to the supposed landing sites to prove there is nothing there, what would you say then.

Then I would say your video is a hoax and it was all shot in a studio. It works both ways you know. ;)

JayUtah
2010-Apr-01, 01:58 PM
...

i never said they were from apollo now did i.

You connected that photo with Apollo, indicating that because the photo was faked then Apollo must be faked too.

i wore army boots for years and i know how tightly they fit...

I wear Army boots all the time. I buy them at surplus stores as a reasonably inexpensive form of footwear for many kinds of labor. When I wear light socks during hot weather, I wear one size. When I wear heavy woolen socks during cold weather, I wear a size larger. Hint: boots come in different sizes.

...and there would be no room for a suit to expand.

That was the point.

JayUtah
2010-Apr-01, 02:04 PM
so nasa cant get their own time codes right is that what you are trying to tell me...

No, I'm trying to tell you that Jarrah White can't count days. This was one of his biggest gaffes. He didn't properly interpret the time code in the video, and so he was off by one day. Instead of saying, "Oops, I made a mistake," he made up a bunch of unsupported hogwash about how some time codes begin at one origin while others begin elsewhere.

We're all familiar with Jarrah's arguments. Do you have any that you haven't simply copied from him? Or are you just his fan boy?

JayUtah
2010-Apr-01, 02:20 PM
...

yes i have only to find the site is full of lies...

Link to three lies on my site and show how you know they're lies. This is a direct question, and if necessary the moderators will compel you to substantiate that claim.

...and things that have been proven to be wrong by jarrah white and others.

Does it matter to you how many times Jarrah (and others) have themselves been shown to be wrong? Not only wrong, but laughably wrong -- such as in basic arithmetic. Jarrah has an invitation from me to debate on any moderated forum. He tried it for a while in IMDB (www.imdb.com) but then slunk back to YouTube after failing to bluster his way along, and after whining about "censorship" after one of his posts was removed for what I was informed was his typical foul and abusive language. Jarrah has been invited many times to attend debates and discussions arranged for him with experts in the topics he covers, such as space radiation. He has declined all such invitations. Jarrah White has no credibility or influence outside his little YouTube channel. Sorry, not impressed.

Does it matter to you that you don't even seem to be able to read and interpret my arguments properly here? How many times did you misread my discussion about the discoloration on the umbilical fairing before figuring out that I was not claiming it to be soot? How many times so far have you put words in my mouth? See, neither you nor Jarrah is particularly good at getting things right when reading what I write. So I think you'd better be sure that what you think you're disproving is really what I said.

as well as that site is owned by jay whindley.

And that matters why? And for the second time, it's Windley.

oh and jay i knew your name was whindley i just called you whingley as i think it seems to fit you.

Sorry, but playground humor doesn't really fly here.

ineluki
2010-Apr-01, 03:38 PM
yes i have only to find the site is full of lies...
Link to three lies on my site and show how you know they're lies.
.

Just to be sure:"Jarrah said so" is not a valid answer.

Dave J
2010-Apr-01, 04:06 PM
NASTA,

It would appear the boot issue has been adequately explained. Your claim about the thruster not having been used makes no sense, I would imagine, being aligned with the pitch axis (being opposite the windows), it would have been used very shortly after undocking from the S-IVB during the pitchover for docking, some days prior to the photo.

You seem to think that Mr White has credibility. What he, and seemingly the rest of the hoax proponents seem to be lacking is knowledge about what they argue. They know the hoax side of things well, but know practically nothing about spaceflight, space science, spacecraft construction, or the space environment. One doesn't need to be a "rocket scientist" to get a working understanding of these subjects, many of us here are not. What we are is "interested" in the subject, and we do research. Hoax believers are not interested in Apollo or spaceflight, and their research consists of watching other HB videos, Wikipedia, or looking at a photo trying to find something "wrong". Researching (learning) is a burden to them, a tedious chore. And it shows in their findings, and the gross errors they make in their observations. We know their claims very well, and research and knowledge always has a simple and logical answer to them.

NASTA, you have been shown wrong in your assumptions about the Mercury PR photo, and also in the discoloration on the CSM umbilical shroud. Can YOU be "openminded" enough to accept that perhaps some folks here know more about the topic than you...and at least research the counterclaims made here? If not, then you have made up your mind, and won't even consider our inputs. Your "openminded" claim bears no fruit.

MartianMarvin
2010-Apr-01, 05:07 PM
Nasta, I see no reason to interpret this photograph as a claim by NASA that what is shown is the full flight attire, especially the boots worn by Slayton and Glenn, to be worn in a mission. My direct question to you is: how did you arrive at that conclusion?

Glom
2010-Apr-01, 05:27 PM
Link to three lies on my site and show how you know they're lies. This is a direct question, and if necessary the moderators will compel you to substantiate that claim.


One step at a time. He still needs to explain which Mercury flight included an EVA.

JayUtah
2010-Apr-01, 06:09 PM
...

...i have been put on moderator review.

As are all new posters, especially those who post links. Nothing suspicious.

i guess thats what happens here when people are scared...

No, it's a reasonable precaution on a popular site that otherwise receives a lot of spam.

...of the truth

You're welcome to attempt to prove your views as true, as your skill and information allow. You don't get to simply declare your belief, label it as truth, and then ignore all further discussion.

...and of people who dont agree with their small narrow minded views on some thing most people think was a hoax.

I think it's pretty optimistic to say that "most people" believe Apollo was a hoax. You need to look at the world outside YouTube. You especially need to look around at actual scientists, engineers, and other people who actually know about space missions. In the real world Apollo's authenticity is not questioned. In the real world, hoax theorists like Bill Kaysing and David Percy are rightly considered crackpots. Hoax hobbyists like Jarrah White don't even appear on the radar.

people like the so called myth busters who made up material such as a foot print cant be formed in a vacum, i have never heard anyone ever make that claim...

It may be true that you've never heard the claim; but it's been shown already that there's a lot you haven't heard, so you're not really telling us much. Most of your claims are simply arguments from ignorance, silence, or incredulity. A quick Google produced, among others:

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/moon_fakers.htm
http://www.moneymakergroup.com/Neil-Armstrong-Evr-Land-t74471.html&pid=5027684&st=45#entry5027684
http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/the-apollo-moon-hoax-footprints-need-water-to-form-right-and-how-hoaxers-argue/

Since there are literally hundreds of specific hoax claims, one can't produce a comprehensive 45-minute television program. A choice must be made what to address, based on the importance of each claim and the ability of the program to address it within its means and limits. But regardless of the criteria, any selection will naturally engender accusations of cherry-picking from people for whom lame accusation is their principal tool. Hoax theorists are so comically up in arms over the mere fact that Mythbusters didn't produce hours of film addressing their each and every claim. I believe that's to distract from how effectively the program demolished the claims they did address.

I know that an Apollo hoax episode had been in the works for at least four years, because that's when I was first contacted. Back then, the show was limited practically by its access to high-ticket items such as large vacuum chambers and zero-g aircraft flights. They were also concerned about fidelity to the show's ideological format: what exact "myths" would they test? Only when the show became popular enough to command more resources did this episode become possible.

I know that the producers had been accumulating hoax claims for years. I know that their selection was not limited by ignorance of the hoax claims. It remains, however, limited -- and somewhat guided by -- their ability to formulate workable tests. Getting access to a vacuum chamber, for example, lets them test one of the more popular claims (flag waving in a vacuum), but also opens up the door for testing other vacuum-related claims whether or not they're the most popular.

Whether you are aware of it or not, Bart Sibrel (one of the most outspoken hoax proponents) made the "suspiciously sharp footprint" claims on the radio just a couple of years ago, and I answered that same question on Yahoo! Answers no more than two days ago. It remains a prevalent claim, and Mythbusters addressed it with sufficient rigor.

...only busted the fact that these 2 have any intelligence at all.

Gee, sour grapes much?

The personal skills of the Mythbusters principals is only slightly relevant since they have an army of unseen producers, consultants, and technicians who assist them and provide scientific and empirical backing if necessary. None of this discounts the primary intent of Mythbusters as entertainment, leading to empirical tests that have a certain visual appeal or dramatic flair. That said, the fan base of Mythbusters tends to be entertained by rigor and ruthlessly criticizes the program when it seems to falter. Hence the producers walk a fine line, selecting demonstrations for their dramatic quality, but then executing those demonstrations with as much scientific and technical rigor as can be practically attained.

You want to talk about demonstrated skill and intelligence, but what have you done to put Jarrah White to the test? You repose such great faith in him, but have you done anything to see whether that faith is well placed? Right or wrong, the two principal Mythbusters subject themselves to a firestorm of scrutiny and criticism, to which they demonstrate that they pay attention. They devote entire episodes to correcting errors in previous shows noted by knowledgeable fans.

What about Jarrah? Who rides herd on him? He sits behind a wall and surrounds himself with sycophants who are neither qualified nor motivated to test his claims. How do you know that he knows what he's talking about? What tests have been done of his skill? What degrees or training certifications does he have in the fields that pertain to his claims? What jobs has he held? What conversations has he had with noted experts who endorse his findings? Has he ever said, "Gee, I was wrong about that one; sorry?"

If you're going to complain about tests of intelligence, at least apply them fairly to both sides.

my hope is next time phil and jay want to try and disprove that the moon landings were a hoax on tv that they actually do it them self...

This coming from an anonymous poster who simply parrots Jarrah White's videos? You need to step up your own game if you're going to accuse me and others of passive aggression.

You also need a serious reality check. Mythbusters called me, not the other way around. I performed for them the services that they requested, and for that was duly credited in the manner common to the industry. They did not ask for on-camera participation, and I have no means to demand it.

I appeared on camera in a program that airs in the U.S. market on the National Geographic Channel. It was actually produced by a London company funded by Channel 4 (U.K.) and Discovery Canada. It aired in those markets first, and in the U.S. some years later. Again, I participated only in the capacity of a solicited, consulted expert. I had almost no creative control, nor any editorial power.

I have subsequently appeared on camera for other television production companies (e.g., Ten Worlds Productions). To my knowledge these appearances have not aired in any market. But again, they called me -- not the other way around. These producers control how much or how little of my contribution they use.

Contrary to your belief, and that of the YouTube posse, I don't control these programs or direct them in any way, other than to answer the questions that they ask of me. The notion that I place these producers in harm's way as pawns in some evil plan, in order to avoid personal accountability, is as delusional as it can possibly be.

oh and jay i can post a vid by jarrah white for every argument you can come up with...

I'm sure you can, substantiating only that you seem to believe without question every word that comes out of his mouth. If you are so convinced of the truth of your beliefs, I want to know what you did to ascertain that truth. Fanboys need not apply. "Because a YouTube video said so," is not a very good argument. If you can't think for yourself, then how can you claim to be open-minded?

What have you done to test the hoax theories and the relevant sciences besides camp out at YouTube and watch home movies?

...as well as the psi under them lm rocket

You claimed the dynamic gas pressure would be "at least" 1.5 psi. I asked you to show how you came up with that figure. You ignored the question, so I'll ask it again -- how do you know the gas pressure on the lunar surface is "at least 1.5 psi?"

...which will only in the long run prove what we already know which is everything you say is eventually proven to be false...

Yeah, yeah. When Jarrah White sees fit to emerge from his carefully walled garden and engage the real world, then this might sound like more than misplaced bravado.

Jarrah seems to have attracted a small but vocal following at YouTube, but none of what he says or does seems to have any relevance. Much of his venom against me and Dr. Plait is simply trying to "prove us wrong" whether it has anything to do with the Apollo hoax theory or not. I'm not very interested in childish games or sick, obsessive vendettas. Jarrah and his ilk have been banned from most of the civilized Internet because of their abusive manner. He even claimed I managed to infect his home computer with a virus through YouTube. If that's the sort of delusion you want to subscribe to, be my guest. It really doesn't rise to a level I choose to pay attention to. If Jarrah wants to join the real world, he knows where to find it.

i will give you one thing you did not say it was soot on the side of the craft...

But how many times did I and others have to tell you this? This speaks to how carelessly you read and respond to statements that dispute your beliefs. You've

...yet you did not explain how this mark that appears to be rusted came to be there.

Yes I did. You are the one claiming it's rust from a poor weld. You were asked to substantiate that identification. Do you plan to do that?

The mark on the aft surface of the umbilical fairing is most likely heat tinting from the nearby RCS motor. You disputed the notion that it was heat tinting, saying that it didn't look like the kind of heat tinting from automotive exhaust systems with which you were familiar. That's an argument from silence, which was refuted by others who posted photographs of heat-tinted car exhausts.

I responded pointing out the detailed observations that supported my interpretation: the proximity of a heat source facing the surface in question, and the detailed pattern of coloration that is consistent with metal heat tinting under various thermal loads. You didn't respond to that detailed rejoinder, so I conclude that you have no answer.

you did state it came from the motor but as i stated that motor had not been used yet in that picture and you know it hadnt.

Actually I'm absolutely sure it had. The picture you showed me was of the Apollo 15 CSM in lunar orbit. Can you please explain how the CSM got to lunar orbit without having fired its RCS motors?

LaurelHS
2010-Apr-01, 06:14 PM
One step at a time. He still needs to explain which Mercury flight included an EVA.

Well, on Sigma 7, there was a slight communication problem and Deke Slayton mistakenly thought that the pilot, Wally Schirra, said he'd like to get up and walk around... :)

JayUtah
2010-Apr-01, 06:16 PM
Just to be sure:"Jarrah said so" is not a valid answer.

Agreed. I have no need for someone to point to Jarrah's videos, as I am perfectly able to find them myself; and I am perfectly capable of engaging Jarrah directly, should he elect to emerge from his fortress of solitude and submit to a debate he does not control.

If the claim devolves merely to, "Well Jarrah said Clavius.org is full of lies," then I'm not really interested in second-hand opinions.

captain swoop
2010-Apr-01, 07:03 PM
Just to echo what's already been stated. If you make claims in this forum you have to offer some support for them. Pointing us to a Youtube Video isn't support.
By now you will have read the rules for posting to this forum (linked at the bottom of this post) You will see that Rule 13 lays out what is expected in the Conspiracy Forum

Geo Kaplan
2010-Apr-01, 09:13 PM
Oh, I think we can count on this guy to ignore all sorts of plain facts against his belief and concentrate on arguing with absurdities. He's shown no sign whatsoever of having any idea of how evidence and the scientific method work.

He was even good enough to link us that MoonFaker clown on YouTube.

I love his belief that a link to a YouTube video constitutes evidentiary support! Somehow apropos that it's April 1.

captain swoop
2010-Apr-01, 10:56 PM
Geo Kaplan Please do not try and guess the motivation of posters or speculate on their future conduct. Stick to asking questions and challenging the subject of the thread

Weltraum
2010-Apr-01, 11:41 PM
if i could afford it i would send a camera on a remote vehicle to the supposed landing sites to prove there is nothing there, what would you say then.

I would say that you were operating on a bias and not genuinely curious about what's up there. At any rate, both Japan's Kaguya and America's LRO missions have found clear signs of Apollo activity on the lunar surface. I do wish you could send something to the moon, or even go there in person, and see for yourself, though it's rather sad that it should even need to go so far. By the way, if you did manage to take a look at the landing sites with your own probe and saw the Apollo relics up there, would that even convince you?

And I think we're still waiting for you to acknowledge the difference between a publicity photo and a photograph of what those astronauts actually wore on the missions. Tom Servo provided you an image of the actual suit boots used in Mercury 7 ( http://ssoar.org/research/space-suits/history/space-suit-mercury-parts.jpg ). You're one to talk about evidence - people have been providing you evidence against your claims, and thus far I've seen you ignore that completely while failing to provide any yourself. Apparently, your evidence consists of misinterpreting a publicity photo and in the opinions of a guy who makes YouTube videos.

ravens_cry
2010-Apr-02, 12:13 AM
NASTA,
Youtube videos are not bad, I have seen some excellent ones made by fellow Apollo Nutters, but don't just link and leave them. If your going to use them, use them as sources. Using your own words, take what you believe to be the evidence in the videos and explain how what it presents is evidence of an Apollo hoax. Unlike youtube where you only have 500 characters to get your point across, your options are much greater here. So take advantage of that.

Tom Servo
2010-Apr-02, 10:53 AM
James Irwin seems to be able to fit through the LM hatch in this video (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15v_1490409.mpg), although it does look a little awkward.

Nasta - Please go to this short clip video (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15v_1490409.mpg), and then either retract your previous statement about the hatch being too small or defend your argument further. Well what will you say?

So far you have said nothing which means you were probably wrong and can't defend it (so you must retract it). Or am I wrong?

Abaddon
2010-Apr-02, 01:40 PM
Nasta - Please go to this short clip video (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15v_1490409.mpg), and then either retract your previous statement about the hatch being too small or defend your argument further. Well what will you say?

So far you have said nothing which means you were probably wrong and can't defend it (so you must retract it). Or am I wrong?
Now that video makes me wonder. Would a vertical ladder have been more efficient for ingress/egress?

BetaDust
2010-Apr-02, 03:21 PM
4rd. Page allready....

It's obvious NASTA is just a Troll, isnt it?

ravens_cry
2010-Apr-02, 04:24 PM
4rd. Page allready....

It's obvious NASTA is just a Troll, isnt it?
No, actually. I think they are a young person with what they believe in the arrogance of youth to be Earth shattering evidence of the biggest conspiracy ever, and is surprised when we do not all bow down at their feet in supplication, crying "We are Not Worthy!, as the cast of Waynes World did unto Alice Cooper.

But a troll?
No.

BetaDust
2010-Apr-02, 05:16 PM
No, actually. I think they are a young person with what they believe in the arrogance of youth to be Earth shattering evidence of the biggest conspiracy ever, and is surprised when we do not all bow down at their feet in supplication, crying "We are Not Worthy!, as the cast of Waynes World did unto Alice Cooper.

But a troll?
No.

I disagree.

Wikipedia : Troll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)).


In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

IMHO, NASTA is a perfect example of a Troll.

PetersCreek
2010-Apr-02, 05:18 PM
4rd. Page allready....

It's obvious NASTA is just a Troll, isnt it?

It would seem that you missed captain swoop's warning (http://www.bautforum.com.php5-9.dfw1-2.websitetestlink.com/showthread.php/102596-NASTA-Apollo-hoax-discussion?p=1710601#post1710601) on page 3. If you have genuine concerns about possibly trollish behavior, report the post(s). In-thread comments are not appropriate.

ravens_cry
2010-Apr-02, 10:58 PM
Now that video makes me wonder. Would a vertical ladder have been more efficient for ingress/egress?
Well, in low gravity, things are more slippery as friction is partly a function of how strongly one is pressed against another, and hence weight. As well, they were fairly clumsy in those spacesuits, what with so much mass on their backs. Climbing a vertical ladder sounds like a recipe for busted ankles, or worse, during egress and ingress.
In this amateurs opinion, anyway.

Abaddon
2010-Apr-03, 12:23 AM
Well, in low gravity, things are more slippery as friction is partly a function of how strongly one is pressed against another, and hence weight. As well, they were fairly clumsy in those spacesuits, what with so much mass on their backs. Climbing a vertical ladder sounds like a recipe for busted ankles, or worse, during egress and ingress.
In this amateurs opinion, anyway.

So surely a vertical ladder would increase friction as all of the weight, and climbing effort would be in a vertical direction? As opposed to having a vertical and horizontal component on an angled ladder.

In my experience, the closer a ladder tends towards horizontal, the more difficult it gets to climb. Perhaps there is some optimum angle for a ladder which varies according to the local gravity?

ETA: sorry, bit of a derail, the video made me curious. Carry on.

Torch2k
2010-Apr-03, 01:43 PM
So surely a vertical ladder would increase friction as all of the weight, and climbing effort would be in a vertical direction? As opposed to having a vertical and horizontal component on an angled ladder.

In my experience, the closer a ladder tends towards horizontal, the more difficult it gets to climb. Perhaps there is some optimum angle for a ladder which varies according to the local gravity?



As someone who climbs a lot of ladders during the day (and the occasional wall during the evening), the standard is a 4:1, V:H ratio, or something comfortable close to that. Yes, horizontal sucks because it resembles walking on a bridge with more holes than substance; but, vertical also sucks because it leaves you hanging back off your arms, as opposed to being balanced comfortably over your legs.

With the addition of the PLSS, I gather the Apollo personnel were weighted even further backward, yet they look pretty comfortable. Would be interesting to know if their ease of ascent/descent was a design consideration, or whether they just got lucky.

sts60
2010-Apr-05, 07:11 PM
I'll echo Torch2k's comment, as someone who occasionally climbs a ladder in turnout gear with an SCBA apparatus on his back, which is a reasonable analog* to the Apollo EVA suit in terms of mass distribution and clumsiness. 4:1 is the standard ratio, but that is partly a convenient climbing angle and partly for the stability of the ladder (which is not applicable to a rigidly mounted ladder as on the LM). On a real fireground, ladders will be commonly be "thrown" over a range from somewhat steeper to much shallower angles, for expediency's sake.

One advantage of an inclined ladder is that your foot is less likely to slip off the rung, and your center of mass is not cantilevered out from the ladder as it is on a vertical ladder - if a slip happens, you have a better chance of grabbing the ladder.


*I said analog, not simulation. It's not a quantitative claim.

Swift
2010-Apr-05, 07:35 PM
I'll admit I've never gave it any thought, but having worn both an SCBA, as well as some other heavy backpacks, I'll agree that being at a slight angle leaning in, going either up or down (and not just on a ladder) does make it easier. As sts60 said, I think it has to do with keep your center of mass over your legs and hips. I even find that on a completely horizontal surface, that I tend to lean forward a little for the same reason.

Strange
2010-Apr-06, 12:25 PM
now if they had have used the drop version of landings you have stated they did the pads of the lm would be depressed into the surface not sitting flush on top.

The photo posted by Weltraum (to answer another of NASTA's factual errors) also shows that the pads are depressed into the surface and not sitting flush on top.


http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9234HR.jpg

KA9Q
2010-Apr-06, 02:05 PM
that little side rocket had not been used yet in that picture for obvious reasons.Can you enlighten us regarding the function of the "little side rocket"? What makes you say it had not yet been used? Why had it not yet been used? I must be a little slow, as the "obvious reasons" are not so obvious to me.

KA9Q
2010-Apr-06, 02:38 PM
Now that video makes me wonder. Would a vertical ladder have been more efficient for ingress/egress?Apollo considered many different ways for the astronauts to get out of the LM and back in. I believe even a rope ladder was considered.

Go rummage around the gold mine known as the NASA Technical Reports Server (ntrs.nasa.gov). Given some of the other esoteric Apollo material I've found there, I wouldn't be surprised if you could find a big study report on this exact topic!

Peter B
2010-Apr-06, 04:16 PM
Now that video makes me wonder. Would a vertical ladder have been more efficient for ingress/egress?

I think they simply took advantage of the inward angling of the LM's leg - that would have determined the angle of the ladder, not the other way around.

ravens_cry
2010-Apr-06, 05:11 PM
The dust wasn't very deep, hence the trouble had with pounding in the flag and extracting core samples.
But if you compare the footpad AS11-40-5925 (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5925.jpg) with the footpads seen in AS11-44-6581 (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-44-6581HR.jpg), you can see that it is indeed not sitting flush. The bottom of the footpads were not flat as NASTA seems to suppose, but convex.

R.A.F.
2010-Apr-08, 03:02 PM
...i can post a vid by jarrah white for every argument you can come up...

Jarrah has pretty much made a laughing stock of himself. He is supremely ignorant when it comes to spaceflight in general, and to the Apollo missions in particular, so I'm not sure how posting a vid of his "helps" your argument.

peter eldergill
2010-Apr-08, 05:49 PM
I don't think Nasta is coming back

Pete

Grashtel
2010-Apr-08, 06:39 PM
I don't think Nasta is coming back

Pete
True, but that is no reason for people to stop picking holes (or perhaps more accurately ripping it to shreds) in the stuff has has posted. If nothing else there is always the argument that it helps lurkers who may read this thread see how wrong Nasta is.

Bobbar
2010-Apr-08, 07:51 PM
I'd hope anyone reading would take one look at NASTAs rationalizations and do a little bit of :think:, and follow it quickly with a :doh:

It's so frustrating when you see someone who is so unwilling to learn or discuss their views and how they came to those conclusions. Especially when they are so hostile towards the people who are trying to help them. I don't think I'll ever understand why anyone would try to attack, or otherwise belittle people who are far and away more qualified and experienced than themselves and their peers.


unfortunately i dont think you have an open enough mind to believe anything other than the rubbish you are fed by the us government nasa and people like jay.

Not open-minded? Please. An 'open mind' can be dangerous and highly counterproductive if it is allowed to be too open to every single thought and idea that crosses its path. Without a proper 'hog wash screen', all kinds of strange and wacky creatures will crawl in and roost inside your head without you even knowing it. The words Dunning and Kruger come to mind. A proper 'hog wash filter' is something you develop as you mature into an adult. Just think of a young toddler, if you're persuasive enough, you can convince them of darn near anything! Now that's an open mind!

Feed your head; but please learn to stay away from the junk food.

Swift
2010-Apr-08, 08:52 PM
I don't think Nasta is coming back

Pete


True, but that is no reason for people to stop picking holes (or perhaps more accurately ripping it to shreds) in the stuff has has posted. If nothing else there is always the argument that it helps lurkers who may read this thread see how wrong Nasta is.
And just to make it official....

No, I don't think Nasta is coming back either.

But, we discourage public speculation about that (it is an accusation of breaking Rule 9).

And yes, please continue to discuss all of this, both as a general learning experience and for the benefit of lurkers and future searchers.

Spoons
2010-Apr-09, 12:44 AM
The words Dunning and Kruger come to mind.
The old, "The more you know the more you realise you don't know" thing huh? Or conversely, "The less you know the less you realise you don't know".

At the very least, knowing the Dunning-Kruger Effect would be a valuable lesson in schooling, so that people realise why research and learning is so important. It's disconcerting how many people seem to see learning as an unpleasant chore to be avoided. (I'm referring just to people I know with that comment)

Welcome to the sitcom generation. Would someone please tell me when to laugh?

Tom Servo
2010-Apr-09, 04:06 AM
I'd hope anyone reading would take one look at NASTAs rationalizations and do a little bit of :think:, and follow it quickly with a :doh:

It's so frustrating when you see someone who is so unwilling to learn or discuss their views and how they came to those conclusions. Especially when they are so hostile towards the people who are trying to help them. I don't think I'll ever understand why anyone would try to attack, or otherwise belittle people who are far and away more qualified and experienced than themselves and their peers.



Not open-minded? Please. An 'open mind' can be dangerous and highly counterproductive if it is allowed to be too open to every single thought and idea that crosses its path. Without a proper 'hog wash screen', all kinds of strange and wacky creatures will crawl in and roost inside your head without you even knowing it. The words Dunning and Kruger come to mind. A proper 'hog wash filter' is something you develop as you mature into an adult. Just think of a young toddler, if you're persuasive enough, you can convince them of darn near anything! Now that's an open mind!

Feed your head; but please learn to stay away from the junk food.

Well put Bobbar.



I think its increadably moronic to accuse someone of not being open minded when you have not even done any sort of basic research for yourself. How can you blindly follow a youtube clip and decide that this is the real truth and not even bother trying to verify that it has truth to it?

Spoons
2010-Apr-09, 04:53 AM
I watched one of these Jarrah White moc... er... documentaries to try and understand better what he was about. I was stunned that someone could both take his video seriously and also believe it.

Did he actually use a clip from that Fox mockumentary, or am I mistaken?

ravens_cry
2010-Apr-13, 01:21 AM
I found another clip of someone squeezing out of the lunar module.
Here at 19:00 (http://www.archive.org/details/Apollo1416mmOnboardFilm)

LaurelHS
2010-Apr-13, 03:03 AM
Good find. :)

Weltraum
2010-Apr-13, 11:27 PM
The old, "The more you know the more you realise you don't know" thing huh? Or conversely, "The less you know the less you realise you don't know".

At the very least, knowing the Dunning-Kruger Effect would be a valuable lesson in schooling, so that people realise why research and learning is so important. It's disconcerting how many people seem to see learning as an unpleasant chore to be avoided. (I'm referring just to people I know with that comment)

Welcome to the sitcom generation. Would someone please tell me when to laugh?

Priceless! :D

KA9Q
2010-Apr-21, 11:27 PM
Just out of curiosity, why does the CM/SM umbilical fairing line up (almost) with one of the SM RCS thruster quads? They could easily have been offset 45 degrees. Perhaps this was to simplify the control system by allowing a direct mapping between thruster pairs and control stick axes?

This is not the only example of Apollo RCS thrusters impinging on some spacecraft structure. Plume deflectors were added to the LM descent stage after Apollo 10 to keep the ascent stage RCS thrusters from impinging on the descent stage. And during the planning for Apollo-Soyuz, the Russians made a big deal about a supposed hazard from the Apollo forward-firing thrusters impinging on Soyuz during the final stages of docking.

I wonder whether, if one were to redo Apollo today, it could rely primarily on reaction wheels for attitude control and use thrusters only to unload a buildup of angular momentum (and for translation, as needed). Both spacecraft (CSM and LM) carried nontrivial amounts of RCS propellant, mass that could have been available for momentum wheels.

KA9Q
2010-Apr-21, 11:33 PM
Any sufficiently...Wasn't that originally Arthur C Clarke's third law -- any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic?

I have a version of Clarke's law that I apply to my field of communication systems: "Any sufficiently advanced communication signal is indistinguishable from noise". This is actually true when you consider Claude Shannon's basic principles of information theory. And it's a somewhat depressing thought for people working in SETI.

Grashtel
2010-Apr-22, 02:10 AM
Wasn't that originally Arthur C Clarke's third law -- any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic?
Yep, and my quotes are amusing (and to at least some extent true) corollaries of from the linked webcomics (which are well worth giving a look).

I have a version of Clarke's law that I apply to my field of communication systems: "Any sufficiently advanced communication signal is indistinguishable from noise". This is actually true when you consider Claude Shannon's basic principles of information theory. And it's a somewhat depressing thought for people working in SETI.
Which is a considerable part of why SETI is looking for deliberate attempts at communication (ie stuff that is supposed to be detected so isn't likely to get compressed and encoded to the point where its indistinguishable from noise) rather than inadvertent leakage.

Dave J
2010-May-01, 02:25 AM
"He has documents on everything, even stuff from the 60's."

Oh gosh...ya think????? My eyes are about to go into zombie mode...I must follow....

ravens_cry
2010-May-01, 02:55 AM
Wasn't that originally Arthur C Clarke's third law -- any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic?
A particularly appropriate variation in light of the woo-woo crowd coined by a Bowman's Wolf named Florence Ambrose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freefall_%28webcomic%29) goes,
"Any technology, no matter how primitive, is magic to those who don't understand it.":think:

ToSeek
2010-May-01, 05:23 PM
Posts related to Jarrah White and his following have been moved here. (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/103611-Jarrah-White-fan) Please report any posts that should (or should not) have been moved.

YDDES
2010-May-24, 04:37 PM
This is the Mercury astronauts. They never left their capsules, and their "spacesuits" were just modified high altitude suits for NAVY flyers. The inner layers in their boots were airtight. The suits were just a protective gear if the capsule should decompress, and the aluminum surface should help to cool the astronauts during reentry. I have an old photo of Walter Schirra testing his suit by inflating it before his flight, so the suits WERE airtight!

ravens_cry
2010-May-26, 09:25 PM
This is the Mercury astronauts. They never left their capsules, and their "spacesuits" were just modified high altitude suits for NAVY flyers. The inner layers in their boots were airtight. The suits were just a protective gear if the capsule should decompress, and the aluminum surface should help to cool the astronauts during reentry. I have an old photo of Walter Schirra testing his suit by inflating it before his flight, so the suits WERE airtight!
And chance you could share that picture with us?
And welcome to the Bad Astronomy-Universe Today Forum. :)

Nicolas
2010-May-31, 03:57 PM
I thought the shiny colour of the first space suits was just done as a request from the PR photo guy to make the space suits look more like, well, space suits as people would want them to appear?

LaurelHS
2010-May-31, 07:17 PM
X-15 pilots wore silver suits (http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/X-15/Small/E60-6286.jpg) too, though. It wasn't just the Mercury astronauts.

Occam
2010-Jun-01, 01:59 AM
And chance you could share that picture with us?
And welcome to the Bad Astronomy-Universe Today Forum. :)
I believe this may be the photo you want

http://www.life.com/image/82175960

ravens_cry
2010-Jun-01, 02:44 AM
I believe this may be the photo you want

http://www.life.com/image/82175960
Thanks a bunch.
Too bad YDDES hasn't replied since. I hope I didn't scare them off. :(

Occam
2010-Jun-01, 03:30 AM
Thanks a bunch.
Too bad YDDES hasn't replied since. I hope I didn't scare them off. :(
Welcome :)
I like to help where I can.
As far as this subject is concerned, these days I try to avoid discussion with nutjobs conspiracy theorists and leave that to people with more stamina, like Jay. I had my fill of delusional personalities years ago, here (http://www.bobwelch.com/The%20Enterprise%20Mission.htm) and here (http://communities.anomalies.net/forum/)

If you want a laugh, check out the first link, in which Hoaxland seriously suggests that John Glenn's star turn on "Frasier" was his way of revealing the truth :wall:

AstroGman
2010-Jun-01, 05:21 AM
Hey Didn't NASTA ever see the "MYTHBUSTERS"Episode Debunking the claims of those who are so desperate to get their fifteen minutes of fame that they would say that one of the greatest technological achievements EVER was nothing more than a Hollywood production???He owes it to himself to watch it.

GeorgeLeRoyTirebiter
2010-Jun-01, 07:17 AM
X-15 pilots wore silver suits (http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/X-15/Small/E60-6286.jpg) too, though. It wasn't just the Mercury astronauts.

The full pressure suits worn by A-12/YF-12/SR-71 crews in the early-to-mid '60s were also silver. The aluminized fabric outer covering has the advantage of being flameproof, but its reflectivity has both benefits (low radiant heat transfer) and drawbacks (severe cockpit glare). Glare was apparently enough of a problem that the silver covering was phased out for aircrew pressure suits even before suitable alternative flameproof textiles were available.

Ong
2010-Jun-08, 05:29 PM
Welcome :)
I like to help where I can.
As far as this subject is concerned, these days I try to avoid discussion with nutjobs conspiracy theorists and leave that to people with more stamina, like Jay. I had my fill of delusional personalities years ago, here (http://www.bobwelch.com/The%20Enterprise%20Mission.htm) and here (http://communities.anomalies.net/forum/)

If you want a laugh, check out the first link, in which Hoaxland seriously suggests that John Glenn's star turn on "Frasier" was his way of revealing the truth :wall:

So then, moderators, did you give Mr Occam here one of your infractions for using insulting and derogatory language?

And did you ban Mr NASTA?

I'm not even a believer in Apollo mission hoax - I believe it was probably real but many aspects of it are kept secret leading to all the suspicions - but all the unfair gang up tactics and secret bannings and double standards by the administrators of this place are abhorrent and highly suspicious.

"Conspiracy theorists". Do you know what the word "conspiracy" means, Mr Occam? Look it up. They try to lay that little bit of Newspeak on anyone who dares to question any aspect of the daily party line.

FDR: "Everything in politics is a conspiracy."


Ong

Daffy
2010-Jun-08, 05:40 PM
So then, moderators, did you give Mr Occam here one of your infractions for using insulting and derogatory language?

And did you ban Mr NASTA?

I'm not even a believer in Apollo mission hoax - I believe it was probably real but many aspects of it are kept secret leading to all the suspicions - but all the unfair gang up tactics and secret bannings and double standards by the administrators of this place are abhorrent and highly suspicious.

"Conspiracy theorists". Do you know what the word "conspiracy" means, Mr Occam? Look it up. They try to lay that little bit of Newspeak on anyone who dares to question any aspect of the daily party line.

FDR: "Everything in politics is a conspiracy."


Ong

There is some truth in the notion that rude language is tolerated in one direction here more so than the other.

HOWEVER: The Apollo Hoax "theory" is one for which there is zero evidence. Zero, zip, nada...and mountains of evidence against it. I can well understand why it is hard to be polite about something that is so absurd on so many levels. That someone would have to be delusional to believe it is at least a viable theory. Certainly much more viable than the Hoax "theory" itself.

captain swoop
2010-Jun-08, 05:56 PM
If you have a problem with a post then report it, don't ask for moderation in a thread or speculate on moderation. If you are unsure of the rules for posting then they are linked at the bottom of this post. We don't have 'secret' bannings. All suspensions and 'bannings' are recorded in This (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=1741257&page=19#post1741257) thread and reasons given.

Gillianren
2010-Jun-08, 06:32 PM
"Conspiracy theorists". Do you know what the word "conspiracy" means, Mr Occam? Look it up. They try to lay that little bit of Newspeak on anyone who dares to question any aspect of the daily party line.

You know . . . .

There's this remarkable belief from some people that everyone here believes the same thing, politically, and gets all their information from the same sources. That we believe blindly and haven't done any research. That we use the term "conspiracy theory" to separate people from the herd and shut them down for Daring to Question. And it gets tired. There's this belief that we don't know that governments lie. That we wear blinders.

But it's the conspiracy theorists who do. And I'll tell you why I use the term. Conspiracies exist; I can list you dozens. I can even list you government conspiracies that you don't know a thing about. I bet you even think "I drink your milkshake" was invented by a screenwriter. But there is evidence that pretty much the entire administration of Ulysses S. Grant (poor man!) was corrupt. There is evidence that Henry Clay threw his influence behind John Quincy Adams because he didn't personally like Andrew Jackson. (Nothing new under the sun, you see.) Or, if you insist on going modern, let's look at Iran-Contra. Do you know how long it took for Iran-Contra to come out?

There is, in conspiracism, this blind faith that we're all being lied to all the time, that the Government is one monolithic and impersonal entity. No one in the Government has any reason to reveal the Truth. And if they do, they're killed by the Government by hitmen who have no reason to reveal the Truth. Because a person has lied once, does that mean they always lie? No. Nor is it true with governments. All day, every day, people in the government are doing jobs which you'll never know about, making your daily life run a little smoother. But you'd rather focus on Watergate, which also took only a handful of months to be revealed. Who's wearing blinders now?

Paul Beardsley
2010-Jun-08, 06:45 PM
Very well put, Gillian. Very well put.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Jun-08, 06:52 PM
"Conspiracy theorists". Do you know what the word "conspiracy" means, Mr Occam? Look it up. They try to lay that little bit of Newspeak on anyone who dares to question any aspect of the daily party line.
Not quite, questioning "the daily party line" isn't in itself sufficient to earn the "conspiracy theorist" appellation.
It also needs an attempt at replacing "the daily party line" with an alternative explanation which requires a vast conspiracy, typically involving at multiple government agencies, almost invariably the US government, invariably assuming the government is a singular entity with no possibility of dissenting employees.

Gillianren
2010-Jun-08, 07:57 PM
Very well put, Gillian. Very well put.

Thank you. I just find the party line of the conspiracists tiring.

Swift
2010-Jun-08, 08:00 PM
So then, moderators, did you give Mr Occam here one of your infractions for using insulting and derogatory language?
Not all moderation is public. Just because you don't see something, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.


I'm not even a believer in Apollo mission hoax - I believe it was probably real but many aspects of it are kept secret leading to all the suspicions - but all the unfair gang up tactics and secret bannings and double standards by the administrators of this place are abhorrent and highly suspicious.
If this place is so abhorrent to you, there is no obligation to post here.

And whether you believe in the Apollo landings or not, if you are going to advocate any conspiracy regarding them, such as things kept secret about them, then you will be held to the rules of this board and asked to provide evidence for them.


There is some truth in the notion that rude language is tolerated in one direction here more so than the other.
If there is, it is only by mistake, at least as far as I am concerned (yep, human, I make mistakes). Rude language is not tolerated from any direction.

OK, enough metadiscussion. Stick to the OP, or we'll close this thread.

Strange
2010-Jun-08, 08:19 PM
I'm not even a believer in Apollo mission hoax - I believe it was probably real

"Probably"? What do you base that outlandish statement on?


but many aspects of it are kept secret

And what aspects are those? Oh, thats right, you can't say because it is secret.


Do you know what the word "conspiracy" means, Mr Occam?

The problem is not with "conspiracies", we all know they happen occasionally in government, business and elsewhere. And they are normally uncovered pretty quickly.

The problem is with "conspiracy theories"; i.e. people inventing non-existent conspiracies, based on no evidence, for their own personal reasons or gain. And sometimes for no apparent reason. What is scary is how narrow minded and uninformed those who believe in conspiracies are.

Ong
2010-Jun-09, 06:32 PM
"The problem is with "conspiracy theories"; i.e. people inventing non-existent conspiracies, based on no evidence, for their own personal reasons or gain. And sometimes for no apparent reason. What is scary is how narrow minded and uninformed those who believe in conspiracies are."

Yeah...so they tell us.



So then, moderators, did you give Mr Occam here one of your infractions for using insulting and derogatory language?

"Not all moderation is public. Just because you don't see something, doesn't mean it doesn't happen."

Translation from the politiciantalk: No.




"There is some truth in the notion that rude language is tolerated in one direction here more so than the other.

HOWEVER: The Apollo Hoax "theory" is one for which there is zero evidence. Zero, zip, nada...and mountains of evidence against it. I can well understand why it is hard to be polite about something that is so absurd on so many levels. That someone would have to be delusional to believe it is at least a viable theory. Certainly much more viable than the Hoax "theory" itself."

Since this is your forum and it is comprised almost entirely of your people and your moderators, and since you are endeavoring to make your arguments that the Apollo Missions were real in all respects, presumably for the benefit of rational objective onlookers who may be undecided, since you cannot convince irrational people, nor can those of you who will for whatever reason reflexively back up any and all pronouncements from whatsoever is in power at any given point in time be subject to rational argument and debate, nor do those of you who are rational and do believe in its veracity in all respects need convincing, therefore one would think that you would be making efforts to appear to be fair and even handed, but manifestly you are not, and this incites more skepticism.

So you did secretly ban the OP, didn't you?


Ong

PetersCreek
2010-Jun-09, 07:08 PM
As Swift promised in post #139, this thread is closed. The OP is not banned but has apparently chosen to abandon this thread. Since it has degenerated into speculation about so-called secret bans and complaints and accusations about moderation, there's little reason to carry on in this thread.

If anyone...including you, Ong...wish to take issue with a specific instance of moderation, use the report button. If you wish to discuss moderation applied to this subject or forum, in general terms, please make an appropriate post in Forum Introductions and Feedback.

Otherwise, if someone can make a case to reopen this thread for productive discussion of the OP, please report this post.

captain swoop
2010-Jun-09, 07:50 PM
Just for the record. A glance at the profile of Nasta will show his status and last activity. He is obviously not banned but hasn't been active since April