PDA

View Full Version : Another Question for CosmicDave



jrkeller
2002-Jun-08, 06:19 PM
Over the past few weeks, I gleaned bits and pieces of your feelings on the Moon Landings. My question is this,

How do you think the moon landing hoax was done from after liftoff to the final landing in the ocean?

The rest of you, let's let CD answer this one first.

Martian Jim
2002-Jun-10, 01:59 PM
oh look, his ignoring this post, i wonder why? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-11, 07:35 PM
Perhaps its because I have a more interesting life than just sitting on here asking your questions all day?

Anyway to answer your question. I believe that the lunar surface footage was shot weeks in advance, and that the module stayed in near earth orbit. People have commented about how Moon rocks could have been collected, but many of them are unaware that Von Braun travelled to Antartica a couple of years before the Apollo missions - was this to bring back lunar rock?

The LEM on its 'alleged' return was simply dropped by a high altitude plane into the ocean. An event that was done away from any TV cameras in the middle of the Ocean.

Firefox
2002-Jun-11, 07:41 PM
Anyway to answer your question. I believe that the lunar surface footage was shot weeks in advance, and that the module stayed in near earth orbit.

Except that it's already been established that that would not have been possible without the spacecraft being detected from the ground...unless you're implying we developed cloaking technology.


People have commented about how Moon rocks could have been collected, but many of them are unaware that Von Braun travelled to Antartica a couple of years before the Apollo missions - was this to bring back lunar rock?

What's relevant about this? It's been shown and explained ad nauseum that you cannot trick geologists by using meteorites as substitutes for bona fide fresh Moon rocks, complete with micro impact craters and ionized solar wind particles. That, and how did they find over 850 pounds of rocks in Antarctica?


The LEM on its 'alleged' return was simply dropped by a high altitude plane into the ocean. An event that was done away from any TV cameras in the middle of the Ocean.


...are you referring to the CM, or have you forgotten that the LEM cannot re-enter the atmosphere?


Adam

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-11, 07:47 PM
On 2002-06-11 15:35, cosmicdave wrote:
Perhaps its because I have a more interesting life than just sitting on here asking your questions all day?

Anyway to answer your question. I believe that the lunar surface footage was shot weeks in advance, and that the module stayed in near earth orbit. People have commented about how Moon rocks could have been collected, but many of them are unaware that Von Braun travelled to Antartica a couple of years before the Apollo missions - was this to bring back lunar rock?

The LEM on its 'alleged' return was simply dropped by a high altitude plane into the ocean. An event that was done away from any TV cameras in the middle of the Ocean.

False. Many people were aware that Von Braun travelled to Antarctica, however it's been argued quite convicingly in another thread that moon meteorites and lunar samples are not the same, and would not fool any geologist worth his degree. Do you have any evidence to refute theirs?

Also, Apollo 13 is the only mission that went to the moon where the LM returned to earth. I believe you meant the CM. And if it was dropped from a high-altitude aircraft how could the Apollo 13 pictures show earthshine out the window as you have claimed here? Either it was in orbit or it wasn't. Please choose one.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pvtpylot on 2002-06-11 15:48 ]</font>

Jim
2002-Jun-11, 08:30 PM
On 2002-06-11 15:35, cosmicdave wrote:
... I believe that the lunar surface footage was shot weeks in advance, and that the module stayed in near earth orbit. ...

The (CM) on its 'alleged' return was simply dropped by a high altitude plane into the ocean. An event that was done away from any TV cameras in the middle of the Ocean.


So, the astronauts were on board the Saturn V at lift off, but stayed in LEO (somehow undetected)?

And the CM was dropped from a plane.

Then:
1) What happened to the CM in LEO?
2) How did the astronauts get from the LEO module to the one dropped from the plane?
3) How did the CM dropped from a plane get those really neat re-entry burns?

sts60
2002-Jun-11, 09:43 PM
dave,

we've already explained that the transmissions from the CM/LM could not have come from low Earth orbit.

The apparent path in the sky of an object in LEO and one in a translunar trajectory are completely different. Do you dispute this? If so, please explain why. If not, do you retract the claim that the CM/LM was in LEO?

Looking forward to your reply.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sts60 on 2002-06-11 17:45 ]</font>

DaveC
2002-Jun-11, 09:52 PM
More fundamentally, how the heck did hours of continuous fake video get shot without a single need for edits where astronauts were simulating a 1/6g vacuum environment. To just blithely state that the film and video was shot in advance, without any understanding of the complexity involved, shows the same kind of blinkered vision that HBs all display. Watch the darned videos and films before making such a monumentally stupid statement - and if you still want to make the same monumentally stupid statement, at least have some experienced filmmaker provide an explanation as to how it could be done in a single take. Every film and video is absolutely flawless with respect to its continuity and consistency with the expected observations in the lunar environment. In simple terms, that is not possible in a fake shot on earth.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-11, 10:09 PM
I believe that the lunar surface footage was shot weeks in advance ...

... using techniques you still have not described in detail. You mention only two methods of simulating low gravity: wires, and adjusting the film's playback rate.

The latter is purely subjective, and I do not agree that when the film is sped up to twice the normal playback speed, it depicts normal movement.

The former does not explain all the visible effects. Further, your evidence regarding visible wires is confounded with the VHF antenna. (I.e., what evidence can you present that you're looking at a suspension wire and not the VHF antenna known to be at that place on the space suit?) Your contention that this resembles the training rigs on earth is complely incorrect since those rigs were mounted at the hips and required a bridle beam just above the astronaut's head.

... and that the module stayed in near earth orbit.

How is this to be reconciled with the apparent source of the signals?

many of them are unaware that Von Braun travelled to Antartica a couple of years before the Apollo missions - was this to bring back lunar rock?

This has been refuted at length:

1. Von Braun is the wrong person to look for moon rocks.

2. Antarctica was not identified as a viable source of lunar surface meteorites until after von Braun's visit.

3. Von Braun did not bring back 850 pounds of anything.

4. Lunar surface meteorites are unsuitable to masquerade as samples recovered directly from the lunar surface.

Please address these points.

The LEM on its 'alleged' return was simply dropped by a high altitude plane into the ocean.

As has been pointed out, the LEM did not perform the re-entry. We'll assume you mean the CM.

Please reconcile this with your earlier argument that the CM was in orbit. If the CM containing the astronauts was in low earth orbit, it could simply de-orbit and land as the CMs did whose missions were merely earth-orbit checkouts.

In fact you are merely fastening upon an argument perpetuated by Bill Kaysing in which he claims an airline pilot flying from Tokyo to San Fransisco (or vice versa, I don't recall at the moment) claims to have seen the Apollo 15 CM being pushed out of a cargo plane.

First of all, the commercial route in question is about 100 miles from the Apollo 15 splashdown site. Second, why would NASA conduct re-entry and recovery operations within a mile or two of commercial air traffic, especially if they were trying to falsify something?

This story has more holes in it than alpine Swiss cheese. Please try to think more critically.

An event that was done away from any TV cameras in the middle of the Ocean.

Then explain why there are photographs and television pictures of the terminal descent and splashdown? What do these photographs really depict? Why would the CM need to be dropped from an airplane if not to provide something to photograph? If these operations allegedly took place far from prying eyes in order to keep them from being photographed, why the charade?

This is reaching the point where your arguments cannot even be reconciled with each other, much less with the facts. It's clear you are simply latching onto whatever story tells you what you want to hear. Your arguments are not even coherent anymore.

jagster
2002-Jun-11, 10:56 PM
*slowly shaking head from side to side as if mildly scolding a 5 year old*

Dave, Dave, Dave…..It’s OK to be wrong. It doesn’t mean you’re stupid. As a matter of fact it means you have the common sense and knowledge to know what it is you don’t know, y’know? I don’t have the knowledge that some of this group has, but I do know when an argument is just wrong. Yours (or should I say Bennett and Percy’s) is wrong. There is no need to dig your hole any deeper. It’s time to just realize that there are people in this world that have more knowledge than you in certain areas. It’s Ok. There is nothing wrong with it. These guys are WAY smarter than me when it come to this stuff. Why? Because they spent many years and many dollars obtaining the education. I didn’t and neither did you. Incidentally, neither did Bennett or Percy. All of the facts add up to a real lunar landing. All of your handwaving is not going to change that. Large amounts of time and patience have been spent trying to educate you just a bit. Please be courteous and attempt to learn what is being taught. Stop trying to fit insane pieces of 'evidence' to fit some crazy story, it’s just not going to fit. Your arguments remind me of a stubborn child trying to make a jigsaw puzzle fit the way he wants and not the way his loving parent is so carefully showing him. It is obvious that you have no clue what you’re talking about but as I said, that’s OK. It’s time to back off and talk about something you know. Just slowly put the argument down and back away…..