PDA

View Full Version : A laugh and a half



mbjvx
2003-Oct-22, 04:12 AM
I love these guys.

"You only have to look at the PAN forum on the badastronomy site to see what complete lunatics these people are. They claim to have debunked any evidence that the Moon missions were faked, when in reality their debunking claims are even more ridiculous and absurd than the fake pictures. They spend all their time writing gibberish nonsense to each other. This gibberish nonsense is typical of the sought of nonsense that emanates from an inpatient within a psychiatric unit."

http://www.geocities.com/apollotruth/

=D>

freddo
2003-Oct-22, 04:25 AM
For context, a PAN is a Pro Apollo Nutter....

BigGig
2003-Oct-22, 04:56 AM
So this guy knows what it's like inside a psychiatric unit, with all his ranting and raving I'm not surprised. :D

mbjvx
2003-Oct-22, 05:08 AM
I'm still waiting for some smart *** to come around and say something along the lines of, "Hey! That guys knows exactly what it's like in this forum, hehe."

How witty! :x

It'll happen, just you wait!

kucharek
2003-Oct-22, 07:01 AM
When testing the feasibility of humans in space, tests were first conducted using animals. No animal however was used to test a return Moon journey.

Already the first sentence is not true. The soviets sent some animals (including turtles) in their Zond (modified Sojuz) spacecraft around the moon and back to Earth before Apollo 8 went.

Harald

Stylesjl
2003-Oct-22, 07:05 AM
I'll debunk


When testing the feasibility of humans in space, tests were first conducted using animals. No animal however was used to test a return Moon journey.


The reason they didn't test animals was because they had to get to the moon NOW not stuff around with testing animals as this would have costed a lot of money and delayed the trip even further (remember they had to beat the russians)




If a Moon landing was possible, in reality it was not, then surely it would make logical sense to send the astronaut who had the most space experience on the first Moon mission. An astronaut who had experienced long duration's of weightlessness in Earth orbit. Apollo 11 was Armstrong's second and final space mission, which of course was in low Earth orbit.

Dam im no good at this debunking

They had trained for years on earth in simulated conditions is this good enough (someone pleease expand on this)



When mankind ventures into new, unknown territory, with great risks attached, the first person who makes that journey would, in all sense and reason, accompany the second person, or persons on a return journey for guidance, and essential procedures to prevent any mishaps occurring. Neither Armstrong, Aldrin, or any other Apollo astronaut for that matter accompanied fresh astronauts on that new journey. It is astonishing that all missions managed to land safely and take off again without a hitch, but they never got anywhere near to the Moon, which would of course explain why this was so.


Errrr i can't understand are you saying this is when armstrong steps on the moon or another journey? :-?


Astronauts with the most space experience should be first in line for any round trip to the Moon, being a return journey of 500,000 miles. However for many of the Apollo astronauts, the alleged Moon landing was their FIRST AND ONLY space mission, which seems somewhat odd. Those first timers were also manning the communication consoles at mission control during other Apollo missions. There were in fact TWO communication links on all Apollo missions. The first was LAUNCH CONTROL, who communicated with the astronauts from the moment of launch, up until they were in Earth orbit. Once in Earth orbit, communication to the astronauts was transferred to those "limited few in the know" who were manning MISSION CONTROL. They had to do it this way so that LAUNCH CONTROL would not wise up to the fact that they were not going to the Moon at all. For what other reason would they have two separate communication links, and why is this practice not operated today?


The launch control/mission control split was put in place for Gemini 4 and has been used ever since for both Apollo and shuttle. The switch occurs when the launch vehicle clears the tower. Mr. NASASCAM is once again showing his ignorance.

and why is this practice not operated today?

It is

In 1968 NASA Chief Astronaut, Deke Slayton, (one of the main perpetrators of faking Apollo), visited the film set of "2001 Space Oddity", in the UK He referred to it as NASA East, and it was here that he got the idea for filming the mock lunar module, and command module separation and docking. Film of the alleged booster stage falling away from module was also sequenced on Kubrick's film set. Think about it, how could you install a camera in the center part of a rocket booster engine without it being burned to a crisp? It can only be done on a film set, and why is it we only see this sequence, albeit repeated for each Apollo mission, only on the Moon missions, and not on any other space mission? TV pictures allegedly beamed back to Earth showing the lunar module separation, were razor sharp color images, why therefore were the TV transmissions from the Moon gray and fuzzy, after all they were supposedly transmitted across the same distance in space


How do you he got the idea from that? Prove it with more evidence

The camera was sheilded inside the module

The reason its used for a moon mission is prahaps because of the greateter distances you need to travel

The colour (Australian spelling) is because the camera was close to earth and could transmit more data live


In Tim Furniss's book "One Small Step", there are numerous references to mechanical, electrical, and other problematic failures in practically EVERY Gemini and Apollo mission. It's unbelievable that the USA ever got into space at all, let alone to the Moon and back, which of course they did not. Many NASA space problems and failures continued long after the Apollo program, and still continue today. If NASA could achieve such amazing feats over 34 years ago, then space technology has gone backwards instead of forward.


So you've only looked at this from one source? Come back with more evidence. NASA has many technological feats your only pointing out a few problems they have had in the past

Technology NEVER goes backwards (well the church makes it possible) it is just never used again prahaps due to lack of interest, money, etc


In the 80's, at the height of the Reagan's Star Wars program, a shuttle was launched into space , and it's on board computer was programmed to "lock on" to a laser beam projected from the top of a 2,000 foot high mountain somewhere in the states. Unfortunately all distance measurements programmed into the shuttle's computer were registered as miles, consequently the "lock on" device aboard the shuttle began scanning the globe searching for a 2,000 mile high mountain. Unable to locate one, the shuttle turned on it's back, and began scanning outer space to search for the immortal 2,000 mile high mountain.


Irrelevant


In the 90's, an American shuttle due to dock with the Mir space station, had a fuel leak, and was spraying out fuel as it approached Mir. Russia refused the shuttle to come anywhere Mir, until the leak had been repaired, in case the spewing fuel damaged the stations sensitive solar panels.

Irrelevant


Admittedly Russia has had the occasional problem/failure, however their problem/failure rate is substantially lower than that of the USA. Russia was of course the first in space with sputnik, an animal, a man, a woman, a space walk, and finally a space station. They were the first in everything to do with space. The USA were paranoid at the Soviet successes in space, as it could not be seen that a Communist country was leading the world in this new found technology.


Russians have had many blunders, most of these however were surpressed and often occured before they got anywhere near space

The USA is by far the most advanced in the world



It was after Shepherd's 15 minute sub orbital "space hop", that JFK made his now infamous speech that America should commit itself to landing a man on the Moon, and returning him safely to Earth, within 8 years. A bold, brash, and somewhat ridiculous statement to make following a 15 minute space hop a mere 69 miles above Earth, after all the Moon was over 250,000 miles away. Scientists knew there and then that it was an impossibility, but Kennedy had said it, and USA would face ridicule if they could not achieve it.
By the mid to late 60's, NASA realized a Moon landing was totally impossible within 8 years. Top NASA officials met in secret, and decided the only option was to fake the Moon landing in 1969, in the hope that they would get there shortly after, whereby they could shroud the earlier faked missions with genuine Moon photographs and film.

Just because someone is an optimist doesn't mean you can jump on them when everting goes their way

Whats the evidence that they met in secret? Prove it


Many point to President Richard (Tricky Dicky) Nixon as the main culprit behind the biggest lie ever inflicted on society. This however is incorrect because the idea's and planning which went into faking the Moon missions began in the early 60's, following Kennedy's now infamous speech to Congress. It was therefore L B Johnson who had the most inside knowledge and plans to fake the Moon mission, and it was he who made most of the Apollo material classified, with a declassification date of 2026. Nixon took office shortly before Apollo 11, but continued the lies under guidance from the CIA in order to boost American pride which was at an all time low. Every U.S. President from L B J up to Dubya Bush are fully aware that the Moon missions were faked, but CIA have the upper hand when it comes to American security, and pride of place in space technology.


the classified material is probaly reserved for the military and so china or russia can't move their asses into space theres good reason from keeping military specs and other stuff under wraps for a long time


Getting to the Moon and back is, of course, a long way into the future, and could not be achieved today, even with a joint international effort to share the cost. NASA faked Apollo so as not to face ridicule over JFK's speech, but over 34 years on they are making themselves a worldwide laughing stock with the ridiculous pictures on their Apollo web sites. One does not have to be a photographic expert to spot that the pictures are 100% fake.

Your stating this as a fact you can't do that because it is merely an opinion

Are you a photographic expert? Because thats probaly the reason you think their faked you have no knowledge of photography


NASA's feeble excuse for not returning to the Moon is because they cannot afford it. The Apollo program allegedly cost $25 billion, at a time when the USA was heavily involved in the Vietnam war, that alone cost them $250 billion, 10 times the cost of Apollo. They have not been involved in anything as big as Vietnam since, so why this feeble excuse, especially as technology has increased four thousand fold since 1969? If NASA's Moon landings were genuine, then getting to the Moon and back should be far easier today than what it was back in 1969. It would cost the same, or less than what Apollo cost, because the technology, ie, tried and tested methods, along with drawings and equipment etc., has apparently already been done. The reason they cannot return is because they never went there in the first place. One cannot return to a place one has never visited.

TAX COLLECTOR TIP HIM UPSIDE DOWN AND TAKE ALL HIS CASH!!!!!!! You really want to pay those taxes?

No reason to go back yet they beat russia

Conspiracy theroyists cries of Prove it! not withstanding

I don't belive the vietnam war cost 250Billion Prove it

Why go back when you can use 25 billion on something else? Such as SCHOOLS!

Why aren't maglevs cheap to run if they've been around for 20 years?

In 1981, ex NASA employee, and long time skeptic of Apollo, Bill Kaysing, appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show, detailing how NASA had conned the American people into believing that they had landed men on the Moon. A national survey by the program makers showed a staggering 60% of Americans believed the Moon landings were faked. We have moved on a further 20 years, and it is now estimated the figure is 97%.

Bill kaysing is not a NASA empolyee you idiot

Those statistics are waaaaaaaaaaay inflated its really only 6% who belive was faked

Besides i don't care whether 100% belive it was faked it doesn't prove anything

Bill Kaysing has offered to appear on a live TV debate with any of the Apollo astronauts, NASA officials, or even the whole lot of them together, verses him on his own, to answer questions, and debate the authenticity of Apollo. Think about this, if these astronauts had indeed been to the Moon, and NASA truly landed men on the Moon as they claim, then they have absolutely nothing to fear, and could demolish Bill Kaysing's theory in less than 5 minutes. Not only that, but they would make him look ridiculous in front of millions of people, however both astronauts and NASA continually decline for any such meeting/debate on television. That just about sums it up in a nutshell, THEY CANNOT ANSWER HIS QUESTIONS.



More recently Kaysing has accused NASA of murdering the 3 astronauts in the Apollo 1 fire because they would not go along with any faking of Moon missions. This is a very libelous statement to make if it were untrue. Has NASA taken any legal action to sue Kaysing for labeling them as murderers? No of course not because (A) The statement may be true, (B) If it were not true any legal action would bring into question the authenticity of the alleged Moon landings, and that is what NASA do not want.

They can't meet them beacuse they have better things to do than demoslish some guys theroy besides anything NASA said would have been untrue becuase of the nature of conspircay theroists


This statement doesn't even need to be sued over let the guy belive what he wants to belive NASA doesn't give a rats *** what he thinks

The TV series "From the Earth to the Moon", showed just how easy it was to create a Moon landscape, as well as simulated gravity. The film was identical in every way to the original Apollo films, and yet this series was filmed in a TV studio. The film makers even used the same scene from the faked Apollo 17 pictures, and even used the same Moon buggy, which was supposedly LEFT ON THE MOON.

Its a show okay i can make a show about computers would that make computers fake?

Errr the moon buggy on the moon hmmmmm i don't know about that


There are many, many visual signs in the photographs and film, which point to the fact that they are not genuine, likewise there are many irregularities in the alleged Moon mission data, statements made describing each mission, and comments made by the astronauts. Scientific evidence also proves that they could not have landed on the Moon, and returned safely to Earth.

See badastronomy.com about that

And what scientiffic evidence?


It is not mankind's greatest achievement as we were told back in 69, but possibly the biggest scam, con, hoax, call it what you like of the last century. NASA refuse to answer any questions regarding Apollo, and likewise the astronauts are reluctant to talk about their alleged Moon missions, as shown in the acknowledgments section of Tim Furniss's fictional book entitled "One Small Step".

NASA and the astronaughts have got better things to do then answer questions to stupid people who will twist everting they say

You can tell by Armstrong's actions, and the look on his face during pre launch interview, that he knows he is not going anywhere near the Moon, and has been forced to tell lies in front of millions of people. He is nervous, stumbles over his words, and looks down at the table in front of him like some little boy who has been told off by his teacher. This was to hide his guilt from the camera, hardly the behavior of a man about to make history. The guilt is also clearly visible on the faces of all three astronauts whilst in the quarantine chamber aboard Hornet. All three struggle to raise a smile, but are unable to keep it up. There faces quickly return to a sullen look as if to say "We should not be conning the American people in this way".

Oh come on! The moon landings are a big step don't you think they would of been nervous about going into space? Its called fear they were fearing it would go wrong or they would die

Don't pounce on nervousness its like getting the results to a test


There is an old saying that "A liar needs a good memory". Nowhere is this more true than in the Apollo program. NASA tell lies to cover up previous lies, and other discrepancies uncovered by people investigating the Moon landings. Altering previous data, removing photographs, and retracting statements made, only re-enforces the evidence that NASA are on the run, and being forced into a corner to which they cannot escape. The actions of those under investigation makes the investigator more aware they are bluffing. The longer that person, or persons, who make the extravagant claims continue, the more lies they have to tell in order to counteract it, until it reaches the point where it becomes ridiculous. That point was passed in July 1999, when NASA officials were questioned about the Moon landings on television. They dodged the all important questions like a drifter dodges the heat.


Prove they are destroying evidence

And remember NASA has better things to do than answer questions


Many Apollo astronauts have long since died, as to have many of the original NASA officials involved in the scam, consequently current officials, who know that Apollo was a fake, have not quite got it right when talking openly in public. Perhaps the biggest slip of the tongue was made by NASA Chief Dan Goldin when interviewed by UK TV journalist Sheena McDonald. He said that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, 250 miles into space, until they can find a way to overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. He must have forgot that they supposedly sent 27 astronauts 250,000 miles outside Earth orbit over 34 years ago.

So what if one person says something? DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING!!!!!


During the 60's and 70's, many Third World countries were drifting towards Communism, and the USA regarded any increase in Communism, no matter how small, as a direct threat to their democracy. The USA, under the guidance of the CIA, would pull out all the stops, and do practically anything, to halt this sway towards Communism, no matter how bizarre a plan was put forward. At this time Russia was, and still are, way ahead of the USA in space technology. The CIA assumed that those countries drifting towards Communism were impressed with the Soviet space success rate, when in reality they were simply ridding their countries of corrupt democratic governments.

And........?


The CIA also surmised that working class people in the countries moving towards Communism were of low intelligence, and therefore gullible enough to believe anything. Again this is untrue, as Cuban schools have, since 1969, always taught the Apollo Moon landings as fake. If the USA could impress the world with a super human technological feat, it may turn the tide, and convince those countries that a democracy like the USA was the way forward.


Indeed they were undereducated poor and desparate so they were gullible Its a proven fact SOLCIALISM CANNOT SURPASS CAPITALISM!!!!!!!

Cuban schools teaching that? Prove it


It was of course a pathetic move by the CIA, who were ill informed at the time, and did not consider the future implications, because they now cannot find a way to follow on from Apollo. When questioned why no Moon missions have taken place since Apollo, NASA make feeble excuses that they cannot afford it. The real truth of the matter is that they do not have the technology to accomplice such a feat in the year 2003, and certainly would not have had it back in 68, when Apollo 8 supposedly orbited the Moon.

NASA Doesn't have enough money unless you would like to pay extra taxes and risk your life going on the moon


The most baffling aspect of all this, is how astronauts like Armstrong and Aldrin could have been led astray by such a scenario. Both are highly trained fighter/test pilots, and could not therefore be classed as dumbo's, moreover highly intelligent personnel, with a highly skilled job. How could they possibly go along with such a scam, which would undoubtedly be exposed in later years? Many believe they, and the other astronauts, were influenced by mind expanding drugs, which were extremely common at about this time. However I have found no evidence to support this claim. The only real way to find out would be to speak to Armstrong or Aldrin direct, and of course this is impossible. Armstrong, and other Apollo astronauts still alive, have strict instructions not to discuss the authenticity of the Moon landings with any reporter, or investigative journalist.


This can be best summed up by Neil Armstrong's remark when confronted by investigative journalist Bart Sibrel. "Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies". Would Armstrong make this remark if he had nothing to hide?

The Astronauts just don't take the bait of conspiracy theroists

And Bart Sibrel had said that remark not Buzz Aldrin


PAN is next post im tired


Edited for multiple times for numerous corrections
Edited as well for spelling corrections

kucharek
2003-Oct-22, 07:28 AM
If a Moon landing was possible, in reality it was not, then surely it would make logical sense to send the astronaut who had the most space experience on the first Moon mission. An astronaut who had experienced long duration's of weightlessness in Earth orbit. Apollo 11 was Armstrong's second and final space mission, which of course was in low Earth orbit.

Dam im no good at this debunking

They had trained for years on earth in simulated conditions is this good enough (someone pleease expand on this)


Actually, Apollo 10 and Apollo 11 were the only Apollo flights where no rookie was on the crew.

A7: Schirra, Eisele (Rookie), Cunningham (Rookie)
A8: Borman, Anders (Rookie), Lovell
A9: McDivitt, Schweickart (Rookie), Scott
A10: Stafford, Cernan, Young
A11: Armstrong, Aldrin, Collins
A12: Conrad, Gordon, Bean (Rookie)
A13: Lovell, Swigert (Rookie), Haise (Rookie)
A14: Shepard, Roosa (Rookie), Mitchell (Rookie)
(As Shepard only had his 15-minutes Mercury hop, the A14 crew was also called the "All Rookie"-crew)
A15: Scott, Worden (Rookie), Irwin (Rookie)
A16: Young, Mattingly (Rookie), Duke (Rookie)
A17: Cernan, Evans (Rookie), Schmitt (Rookie)

R.A.F.
2003-Oct-22, 01:42 PM
For context, a PAN is a Pro Apollo Nutter....

YIKES, I guess that would make me, RAF the PAN from CAL. Notice the middle "A" in each set of letters. Must be a conspiracy! :lol:

AstroSmurf
2003-Oct-22, 01:53 PM
I think this has been debunked before. Perhaps not this particular page, but the "APOLLO FACTS (http://www.geocities.com/apollofacts/)" page is the one which contains such gems as:

FACT: It would have been impossible to have a water cooled space suit on the Moon, when outside temperature was already at boiling point of water, there would be no where for the heat to dissipate.

(Radiative heat dissipation? And of course, the fact that boiling consumes heat...)

FACT: Earth is 250,000 miles from the Moon, yet reflected sunlight from its surface is strong enough to illuminate the darkness on planet Earth. Anyone hovering above surface would be blinded by the light.

(Switch places of "Earth" and "Moon" in that sentence...)

FACT: It would have been impossible for the astronauts to get from the Command Module to the conical space capsule, as the heat shield would obstruct them. It would have also been impossible for them to get out at the conical/pointed end of space capsule, as this section was occupied by the 3 large reentry parachutes, which ejected from the conical end.

(Comment superfluous)

And of course:

FACT: Anyone who believes the Moon landings must be "essentially green".

(Yeah, that told us!)

ToSeek
2003-Oct-22, 02:22 PM
There were in fact TWO communication links on all Apollo missions. The first was LAUNCH CONTROL, who communicated with the astronauts from the moment of launch, up until they were in Earth orbit. Once in Earth orbit, communication to the astronauts was transferred to those "limited few in the know" who were manning MISSION CONTROL. They had to do it this way so that LAUNCH CONTROL would not wise up to the fact that they were not going to the Moon at all. For what other reason would they have two separate communication links, and why is this practice not operated today?


The two com links are probaly because of the frequency problems its probably because of the way the dishes are positioned :-? sorry im losing it again

The launch control/mission control split was put in place for Gemini 4 and has been used ever since for both Apollo and shuttle. The switch occurs when the launch vehicle clears the tower. Mr. NASASCAM is once again showing his ignorance.

2003-Oct-22, 02:35 PM
of the two tails
the one sponcered by the 'CENTRAL' bank
and the one unFUNded
i prefer the ladder

Glom
2003-Oct-22, 03:04 PM
Nasascam...

Get...

The...

Nuclear warhead!

R.A.F.
2003-Oct-22, 03:29 PM
FACT: It would have been impossible for the astronauts to get from the Command Module to the conical space capsule, as the heat shield would obstruct them. It would have also been impossible for them to get out at the conical/pointed end of space capsule, as this section was occupied by the 3 large reentry parachutes, which ejected from the conical end.

(Comment superfluous)


I agree, but I'll comment anyway...

I've always found this "fact" to be amazingly funny because it shows a TOTAL lack of understanding about how Apollo worked. They don't even realize how embarrassed they should be to have "stuff" like this on their page. :lol:

Humphrey
2003-Oct-22, 03:35 PM
When testing the feasibility of humans in space, tests were first conducted using animals. No animal however was used to test a return Moon journey.

Already the first sentence is not true. The soviets sent some animals (including turtles) in their Zond (modified Sojuz) spacecraft around the moon and back to Earth before Apollo 8 went.

Harald

So you are saying turtles were the first to go around the moon? cool. Another rreason why I should rule the planet and be its hero. I'll let humphrey know. :-)

JayUtah
2003-Oct-22, 04:33 PM
When testing the feasibility of humans in space, tests were first conducted using animals. No animal however was used to test a return Moon journey.

Animal tests were not intended to validate the flight hardware. They were intended to verify that a complex organism could live and work in space. Once that is done it doesn't have to be redone for every new spacecraft.

The U.S. and Canada both tested the cislunar radiation environment using biological samples aboard balloons and sounding rockets. Those tests did not have to be done inside an Apollo capsule.

"They had trained for years on earth in simulated conditions is this good enough (someone pleease expand on this)"

You don't have to buy into his hidden presumptions. This is known as the argument of, "If I Ran the Zoo." The author is simply explaining how he would run a space program. And since NASA didn't follow the same procedure he would have, it must have all been faked.

The astronauts trained generally, but also individually for specific mission. Training for Apollos 12 and 13 was already well underway during Apollo 11. Astronaut training is especially rigorous, and you cannot subject the same person to multiple cycles of closely-spaced mission-specific training. He will "burn out" and make mistakes. Further, repeatedly assigning the same experienced astronaut to mission after mission accumulates all the flight expertise in one person. If that person should be killed, that expertise is lost. By training an entire astronaut corps, the risk of losing expertise is mitigated.

The author here begs the question that it's logical always to assign the most experienced astronaut. When closely examined, it's not logical at all.

The first was LAUNCH CONTROL, who communicated with the astronauts from the moment of launch, up until they were in Earth orbit.

No. Control handoff occurred when the Saturn V cleared the tower.

Mission Control is in Houston because Lyndon Johnson wanted it that way. And when you get right down to it, it doesn't really matter where on earth you put a control station. Houston is as good a choice as any.

Launch Control is in Florida because that's the best place to launch from inside U.S. territory.

For what other reason would they have two separate communication links...

Typical argument. He can't think of any legitimate alternative, so the wacky theory must be true by default.

First, it's not two "separate communication links". It's all the same loop. Sometimes it's over VHF and sometimes it's over S-band. One group can hear the other group.

Second, there are dozens of links in the MSFN configuration. Why is this particular set of links the only one the author can explain?

...and why is this practice not operated today?

It is.

...it was here that he got the idea for filming the mock lunar module, and command module separation and docking.

Pure speculation.

Think about it, how could you install a camera in the center part of a rocket booster engine without it being burned to a crisp?

It wasn't installed in the engine.

TV pictures allegedly beamed back to Earth showing the lunar module separation, were razor sharp color images

The booster sep images weren't TV images. They were 16mm film recovered later.

...why therefore were the TV transmissions from the Moon gray and fuzzy, after all they were supposedly transmitted across the same distance in space

Only one set of transmissions was "gray and fuzzy" -- and there was a good reason for it. The rest were in color and fairly good quality.

The CSM television camera was connected to a fuel-cell powered transmitter with a high-gain antenna. Apollo 11's LM camera was connected to a battery-powered transmitter with a comparatively small antenna.

It's unbelievable that the USA ever got into space at all, let alone to the Moon and back, which of course they did not.

The author fails to describe how those problems affected the mission and what was done to solve them. No space mission is ever expected to go flawlessly. The author begs the question that only absolutely flawless space missions can be credible.

Many NASA space problems and failures continued long after the Apollo program, and still continue today. If NASA could achieve such amazing feats over 34 years ago, then space technology has gone backwards instead of forward.

This presumes everything else is held equal. Mission complexity has increased. Budgets have decreased.

Russia was of course the first in space with sputnik, an animal, a man, a woman, a space walk, and finally a space station.

Sputnik is a red herring. The space race began with Sputnik. For political reasons the existing technology was not used to launch a U.S. satellite.

Putting a woman in space is a win for equal rights, but there's no technological advantage to it.

The Russians got the first space walk, but only by subjecting Alexei Leonov to extremely dangerous conditions.

The first space station was the silver medal. After failing in their attempts to reach the moon, the Soviets turned their attention to space stations.

They were the first in everything to do with space.

Including most of the first fatalities.

After about 1965 or 1967, the U.S. had caught up to the Soviet Union and surpassed them in many respects, including a three-to-one superiority in space hours. The U.S. held the endurance record, the altitude record, and was the first to conduct an orbital rendezvous.

Now that we can look into the former Soviet space program, we see the reason for this. The Soviets under Krushchev were geared toward breaking records. They weren't geared for creating an infrastructure. It's the classic tortoise and hare story. When the firstmanship efforts came crashing down, the U.S. was able to catch up.

Scientists knew there and then that it was an impossibility, but Kennedy had said it...

False. The Apollo program was already under way when Kennedy made his speech. Most conspiracists don't realize this. Neither do they realize that it was NASA who came shopping to Kennedy for more space money. Kennedy's speech was an answer to NASA's requests, not a challenge.

Top NASA officials met in secret, and decided the only option was to fake the Moon landing in 1969

Pure speculation.

Nixon took office shortly before Apollo 11, but continued the lies under guidance from the CIA in order to boost American pride which was at an all time low.

Standard conspiracy rhetoric: the CIA is really in charge, etc.

Nixon hated Kennedy, Johnson, and everything having to do with them. In public Nixon shook astronauts' hands and congratulated them because it was good politics. In private he dismantled Apollo.

the classified material is probaly reserved for the military...

But if it was all a hoax, of what possible use would any of that have been to the military?

One does not have to be a photographic expert to spot that the pictures are 100% fake.

Then why do we employ photographic experts at great cost to validate or repudiate photographs in other cases when we really need to know? If no special expertise is required to authenticate a photo, then anyone at any time could act as a photographic expert.

As expected, the "anomalies" that these laymen discover in the Apollo photographs are easily traced back to the layman's ignorance of various properties of light, geometry, and materials. This demonstrates quite conclusively that one does have to be a photographic expert.

They have not been involved in anything as big as Vietnam since, so why this feeble excuse

Public funding is a matter of public policy, which is in turn a matter of public opinion. The public does not want to fund continued manned lunar exploration. Therefore there is no money. NASA cannot simply do whatever it wants. It does what Congress directs it to do.

...the technology, ie, tried and tested methods, along with drawings and equipment etc., has apparently already been done.

That equipment is decades out of date. Since there is no money to upgrade it and keep it current, we would have to start all over again. Non-engineers routinely fail to comprehend this.

"Those statistics are waaaaaaaaaaay inflated its really only 2% who beliove was faked"

6% according to Gallup.

Bill Kaysing has offered to appear on a live TV debate with any of the Apollo astronauts...

A move which would make Bill Kaysing a household name -- that's what he wants.

...and could demolish Bill Kaysing's theory in less than 5 minutes.

Anyone with a science education can demolish Bill Kaysing's theory in less than 5 minutes. The point is not that Kaysing's theory can't be debunked. The point is that by doing it the way Kaysing proposes, it only serves to help Kaysing achieve the personal fame he has sought since the mid-1970s. NASA doesn't need to debunk Kaysing in order to continue on their mission. It's Kaysing who needs NASA.

Has NASA taken any legal action to sue Kaysing for labeling them as murderers? No of course not because (A) The statement may be true, (B) If it were not true any legal action would bring into question the authenticity of the alleged Moon landings, and that is what NASA do not want.

The third alternative is, again, that such a suit would play right into Kaysing's hands. Kaysing wants to become famous. He is trying to get NASA to do the hard work to make him famous. Instead, NASA properly ignores him.

The TV series "From the Earth to the Moon", showed just how easy it was to create a Moon landscape, as well as simulated gravity. The film was identical in every way to the original Apollo films, and yet this series was filmed in a TV studio.

Yes, I spoke at length to the people who made it.

The film is not identical in every way. Chiefly, it is composed of very short snips of film, as with all Hollywood films. Each of those five- or six-second shots takes half a day to set up. It took many months of principal photography followed by many months of post-production (digital wire removal, etc.). But the topical references in the Apollo moonwalks plus the scientific direction from the backrooms requires that they have been done live.

A British film crew and I got hold of one of the space suits made for that production. We put an actor in it and had him do moonwalk-like activities. He could only go for about 30 seconds without having to lift up his visor and gasp for air. And this was at night, outside, under only one studio light. (BTW, we actually had some of the same grips that worked on FTETTM.)

even used the same Moon buggy, which was supposedly LEFT ON THE MOON.

The ones left on the moon were not the only ones made.

NASA refuse to answer any questions regarding Apollo

Not true. They just don't respond to conspiracy theorists' bait.

likewise the astronauts are reluctant to talk about their alleged Moon missions, as shown in the acknowledgments section of Tim Furniss's fictional book entitled "One Small Step".

Funny, I can't get them to shut up about it. I have a whole bookshelf full of astronaut memoirs.

He [Armstrong] is nervous, stumbles over his words, and looks down at the table in front of him like some little boy who has been told off by his teacher. This was to hide his guilt from the camera...

Armstrong is a shy person, uncomfortable in crowds. He has always been this way. It has nothing to do with Apollo.

...as if to say "We should not be conning the American people in this way".

Pure speculation.

They dodged the all important questions like a drifter dodges the heat.

NASA has a huge effort involved in publicizing Apollo and talking about it. The notion that they don't want to talk about it is daft. But NASA does have a policy about not talking to conspiracy theorists. Since the conspiracists tend to spin everything their way no matter what was actually said, there's no point.

NASA Chief Dan Goldin when interviewed by UK TV journalist Sheena McDonald. He said that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, 250 miles into space, until they can find a way to overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. He must have forgot that they supposedly sent 27 astronauts 250,000 miles outside Earth orbit over 34 years ago.

The techniques used to manage radiation exposure for the Apollo mission won't work for a mission to any other destination or for lengthier missions.

Again this is untrue, as Cuban schools have, since 1969, always taught the Apollo Moon landings as fake.

Circular reasoning. This establishes Cuban schools as enlightened only if one already concludes that the moon landings were fake.

The most baffling aspect of all this, is how astronauts like Armstrong and Aldrin could have been led astray by such a scenario.

Yes, it is baffling. This departure from reality would lead most reasonable people to reject the conclusion as implausible. Yet in the conspiracist world that simply presents another opportunity for conjecture. Such as:

Many believe they, and the other astronauts, were influenced by mind expanding drugs, which were extremely common at about this time. However I have found no evidence to support this claim.

Armstrong, and other Apollo astronauts still alive, have strict instructions not to discuss the authenticity of the Moon landings with any reporter, or investigative journalist.

Not true. Ed Mitchell will talk to you about it. Brian O'Leary will talk to you about it. Buzz Aldrin talks about it all the time.

Most of the astronauts have learned that there is no value in speaking about these things to conspiracists, even to deny or refute it. So that's what's really happening.

This can be best summed up by Neil Armstrong's remark when confronted by investigative journalist Bart Sibrel. "Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies". Would Armstrong make this remark if he had nothing to hide?

Armstrong didn't say anything of the sort. The statement, "Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies," is what Bart Sibrel said, attempting to explain why Armstrong refused to be interviewed by him.

mcclir
2003-Oct-23, 05:23 AM
Russia was of course the first in space with sputnik, an animal, a man, a woman, a space walk, and finally a space station.

Why does Bart Sibrel not question Soviet space first???

Stylesjl
2003-Oct-23, 05:25 AM
Wow! Forget my debunking good work! (i will correct some errors you pointed out)


The main problem is i haven't watched the apollo videos in a long time

Superluminal
2003-Oct-27, 03:04 AM
Scanning over this guys site and other HB sites. I've notice several times that they will mention a link to a fake picture that has been removed from the NASA site. So have any pictures been removed and for what reason?

wedgebert
2003-Oct-27, 03:52 AM
I think NASA needs to take a more proactive approach and rid us of these conspiracy theories once and for all.

I suggest rebuilding one Apollo for a return trip to the moon. Remove things like the lunar rover and landers to save room and try to fit some extra people inside.

Then take all the major conspiracists you can fit inside and send them into a lunar orbit so they can see the Apollo remains for themselves.

Then, after the radio back confirmation we mention the fact that we found a programming "bug" that will cause the command module to invert the necessary angle for the burn to break orbit. This will cause the module to be flung out into empty space. Unfortunatly we just found the bug and the burn is scheduled to commence...now.

Glom
2003-Oct-27, 01:11 PM
I think NASA needs to take a more proactive approach and rid us of these conspiracy theories once and for all.

I suggest rebuilding one Apollo for a return trip to the moon. Remove things like the lunar rover and landers to save room and try to fit some extra people inside.

Then take all the major conspiracists you can fit inside and send them into a lunar orbit so they can see the Apollo remains for themselves.

Then, after the radio back confirmation we mention the fact that we found a programming "bug" that will cause the command module to invert the necessary angle for the burn to break orbit. This will cause the module to be flung out into empty space. Unfortunatly we just found the bug and the burn is scheduled to commence...now.

But the ones left on Earth will say it's part of the coverup.

Reacher
2003-Oct-27, 01:19 PM
Has Hub ever posted in colour before?

ToSeek
2003-Oct-27, 02:55 PM
Has Hub ever posted in colour before?

Yes, frequently. (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=129151#129151)

2003-Oct-27, 03:15 PM
7:07 pst he he the wall clock says 8 though
anyway about these {UM Go.mint fundED fun runs of CAMPus UNrest
yeah sure popcorns great .. and candy too ..
whats the real price 4me &U
ha ha thats (AND YOU) in event of loss in translation
---------------------------------------------------------------
anyway i was at the Sailing Club yesterday
NO I dint belive it euthor
50 squid /year of Foul weather
========================
I watched the sea gulls that hang out on the MUD FLAT
{theres a big mud flat just upriver (and the sea gulls land there)}
sure enought just like the video said they were faving the wind
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::
lets see today? No Maple 9.. its a confusing situation (HERE)
at PSU (Police State University) My guess the Go.Mint spends
more here per {oh never mind} there was a 1 week delayed opening
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????
and the scuttlebutt i hear is that there are not going to be any
Maple Apples (BWUW) maybe it was Apple, Maple:
I get eaisly confused when Moneys change lingual BASE'es{_ _ _}

Humphrey
2003-Oct-27, 05:50 PM
Hub: what was the govt. funding at your school? Sounds like it might of been homecoming. Those are aroiund this time.

Glom
2003-Oct-27, 06:23 PM
I tend to think of HUb' as the BABB spaniel.

Evil_Bomber
2003-Nov-09, 12:30 AM
Russia was of course the first in space with sputnik, an animal, a man, a woman, a space walk, and finally a space station.

Wasn't the US the first with Skylab in 1973? Mir was launched in 1986. Or was there another station that I'm forgetting?

Andreas
2003-Nov-09, 02:10 AM
Wasn't the US the first with Skylab in 1973? Mir was launched in 1986. Or was there another station that I'm forgetting?
Salyut 1 (1971, 1 crew)
Salyut 2 (1973, damaged during launch, no crews)
Cosmos 557 (1973, control system failure, no crews)
Salyut 3 (1974, 1 crew)
Salyut 4 (1974-1977, 2 crews)
Salyut 5 (1976-1977, 2 crews)
Salyut 6 (1977-1982, 16 crews)
Salyut 7 (1982-1991, 9 crews)

And Mir.

Evil_Bomber
2003-Nov-09, 09:05 PM
Thank you, I didn't realize I missed that much. I blame the fact that I wasn't born by the time most of this happened :)

Sister Ray
2003-Nov-10, 12:43 AM
The fact that he refers to the film 2001 as "2001 - A Space Oddity" is enough for me to not believe anything he says. If you can't even get a name of a popular movie right, how I am I expected to believe them on anything else?

Mellow
2003-Nov-19, 11:54 AM
As a child I had some books with grainy pictures of Salyut. Is there a good website out there at all where I can get some better info on the Soviet/Russian space station series?

I understand there was also a military version called erm.. Almaz?

ToSeek
2003-Nov-19, 04:55 PM
As a child I had some books with grainy pictures of Salyut. Is there a good website out there at all where I can get some better info on the Soviet/Russian space station series?

I understand there was also a military version called erm.. Almaz?

The Encyclopedia Astronautica (http://www.astronautix.com/) seems to be the most authoritative and comprehensive online source for that sort of information - if anything, it might tell you more than you want to know!

Mellow
2003-Nov-20, 10:25 AM
Thanks ToSeek, I had already looked there and was wondering if there was some Salyut obsessive that had created a site... :D

NASASCAM - I email the link to my friends for their fun and enjoyment. Even the friends who aren't interested in the program find that website funny.

ToSeek
2003-Nov-20, 03:42 PM
Thanks ToSeek, I had already looked there and was wondering if there was some Salyut obsessive that had created a site... :D



How about this site? (http://www.thespacestation.org/mir/mir_graphic.htm)

Conrad
2003-Nov-20, 04:23 PM
I love these guys.

"You only have to look at the PAN forum on the badastronomy site to see what complete lunatics these people are. They claim to have debunked any evidence that the Moon missions were faked, when in reality their debunking claims are even more ridiculous and absurd than the fake pictures. They spend all their time writing gibberish nonsense to each other. This gibberish nonsense is typical of the sought of nonsense that emanates from an inpatient within a psychiatric unit."

http://www.geocities.com/apollotruth/

=D>

Memo for attention HB's: a spell-checker will avoid embarassing gaffes like "sought" instead of "sort".
Sheesh. Some people!

ignorant_ape
2003-Nov-20, 05:26 PM
CONRAD : wrote " Memo for attention HB's: a spell-checker will avoid embarassing gaffes like "sought" instead of "sort".
Sheesh. Some people!"

will it ?, if there is a spell check out there smart enough to monitor context then i want one

sought and sort are both valid english words and the " ability " to confuse them is IMHO most common amongst people who use english as a second or third language

YRS - APE

calliarcale
2003-Nov-20, 11:13 PM
The fact that he refers to the film 2001 as "2001 - A Space Oddity" is enough for me to not believe anything he says. If you can't even get a name of a popular movie right, how I am I expected to believe them on anything else?

I was (almost) wondering if this was his tongue-in-cheek way of signalling that he really isn't a HB but is pulling all our legs. After all, "2001: A Space Oddity" is an actual movie. It's a recent spoof starring (I believe) Leslie Nielson. I never saw it; I understand it had major release difficulties because of Kubrick's estate throwing a fit.

Sister Ray
2003-Nov-21, 02:01 AM
The fact that he refers to the film 2001 as "2001 - A Space Oddity" is enough for me to not believe anything he says. If you can't even get a name of a popular movie right, how I am I expected to believe them on anything else?

I was (almost) wondering if this was his tongue-in-cheek way of signalling that he really isn't a HB but is pulling all our legs. After all, "2001: A Space Oddity" is an actual movie. It's a recent spoof starring (I believe) Leslie Nielson. I never saw it; I understand it had major release difficulties because of Kubrick's estate throwing a fit.

If that movie exists, I've never heard of it. The only parody of 2001 that I know of is the wretched Dark Star. If you haven't seen it, don't. It's not even unitentionally funny. Someone summed up the movie best by saying: "If forced to choose between death and watching this movie, choose death."

AstroSmurf
2003-Nov-21, 09:03 AM
That's strange, I thought Dark Star was hilarious. But I suppose tastes differ.

Then again, Ice Pirates is a lot funnier...

About the typing skill thing, it does seem to be fairly common. Then again, not everyone is as monomaniacally pedantic as I am about spelling...

it's me
2003-Nov-21, 11:02 AM
anyone out there who is picky about spelling don't read anything i have writen and if you do, spell it out

SeanF
2003-Nov-21, 02:35 PM
The fact that he refers to the film 2001 as "2001 - A Space Oddity" is enough for me to not believe anything he says. If you can't even get a name of a popular movie right, how I am I expected to believe them on anything else?

I was (almost) wondering if this was his tongue-in-cheek way of signalling that he really isn't a HB but is pulling all our legs. After all, "2001: A Space Oddity" is an actual movie. It's a recent spoof starring (I believe) Leslie Nielson. I never saw it; I understand it had major release difficulties because of Kubrick's estate throwing a fit.

The Leslie Nielsen flick was 2001: A Space Travesty (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0157262/).

earendur
2003-Nov-21, 03:28 PM
I have a feeling that one's reaction to Dark Star depends largely on the state of mind and circumstances in which one sees it. I first saw it in college with a sizable group of geeky college students. We thought it was pretty funny (especially the conversations with the bomb). I saw it again on television by myself, many years later, and thought it was dismal. Go figure :-?

-earendur
"Four seagulls mast dimes egg celery nation"

Madcat
2003-Nov-21, 03:55 PM
Actually, there was 2001: A Space Oddity, by Mad Magazine once. Better known though, is the spoof they put out soon after the movie's release: 2001 Minutes of A Space Idiocy. (It included such gems as Bowman staring at the Monolith wondering: "What is that thing, the box the U.N. building came in?") Personally I liked the movie.

Mellow
2003-Nov-21, 07:23 PM
To Seek,

thanks, the site is great, how sad am I that I love this stuff?