Did Willy Walk on the Moon?
john_baker
I've expressed some reservations as to the factual nature of the moon
landings and have taken a bit of friendly chiding for my iconoclastic
opinions here on hlas, from the usual suspects.
So I've taken some time to answer the concerns of NASA supporters,
like Art and David Webb, and skeptics as well, in the essay that
follows. Its not totally off subject, since it concerns a widespread
popular belief that is based on printed materials.
Use the links to learn more on both sides of the issue. See the
Collier film and enjoy!
I should begin by saying to those 12 brave men who ventured towards
the moon on the Saturn launch vehicles and claim to have landed and
walked upon its surface, that IF you did not actually walk on the
surface of the moon, you are still my heroes.
I'm sure you believed you were acting in the best interests of your
country and mankind. I know IF you faked it you acted under the
direct orders of your superiors.
If I thought you did it for the money or for the fame, I would not
feel this way.
All skeptics ask for is a bit of proof.
I shall more explicit as to what sort of proof in a moment. Its
because we all know televised and even still photos can be easily
faked, that skeptics have come to doubt the landings and the lunar
EVAs.
I also want to say thanks to Art and Nicholas for the links to NASA's
side of the story, particularly to on "Did We Land On The Moon? A
Debunking of the Moon Hoax Theory," a useful site.
It is a detailed 13 page essay, with lots of pictures and links.
It was authorerd by a university trained engineer, Robert A. Braeunig.
Braeunig operates the Website, *Rocket and Space Technology," and here
is that link: http://users.commkey.net Braeunig/space/hoax.htm. He
may be reached by E-mail at: Braeunig@commkey net)
I noticed a typo that would send Kathman, Ross and Webb into orbit, if
I or Roger S. had made it. It surfaces in the paragraph detailing Mr.
Braeunig's qualifications, he writes he is "self-taught in the
principals [sic] of Orbital Mechanics and Rocket Propulsion." (The
capitals and spelling are his.)
Since I make similar mistakes I'm not laughing, just pointing out that
mistakes are possible.
David boasts a degree in civil engineering from the University of
Cincinnati in 1981. (About 35 years after I was there.)
I have reviewed his remarks at length. I have also visited many of
the Websites he cites and find NO poof of a manned landing upon and
return from the surface of the moon.
So I must confess, sadly, that I remain a reluctant skeptic. I'd
hoped, on the basis of Art's and Nicholas's sentiments, that new
evidence had turnned up.
Just as I cann't prove the Stratford man didn't write Shakespeare, I
can't prove we didn't walk on the moon. All I can do is point out
that the NASA evidence isn't conclusive, as with the Stratfordian
evidence.
Remember that I _witnessed_ the Saturn take offs, several from
_inside_ the Kennedy Space Center, so I don't doubt that we took off.
I don't even doubt we circumnavigated the moon, though there is plenty
of pictorial and circumstantial evidence to doubt at least some of the
flights, particularly Apollo 13. (Too darn odd that the trouble
happened on mission 13 and the Collier analysis shows the films of it
were shot in a simulator.)
The most reasonable suspicison (there are many skeptics and many
different opinions, some quite wild) is that we circumnavigated the
moon and sent the LM or LEM down _unmanned_ on autopilot and thus,
"faked" _only_ the moon walks.
The motivation sprang from technical failures and problems, which
included the fatal fire on 27 January 1967, which needlessly killed
Lt. Col. Virgil I. Grissom, "Gus"and his crew (they shouldn't have
been using oxygen during simulations) coupled with the lost of
international prestige and, of course, _billions_ of dollars.
The deciding factor was, speculation runs, the failure to soft land
the Lunar Module on the lunar surface during the Apollo 10 mission
in July 1969. This failure left us with just five months to make good
on Kennedy's challenge.
During that mission astronauts E. A. Cernan, J. W. Young and T. P.
Stafford maneuvered the LM to within 50,000 feet of the lunar surface.
Damn close.
Since the previous Apollo 9 mission had already tested the LM in
earth orbit and since it worked quite well there it would, obviously,
work well in orbit around the moon, which has 1/6th or so of our
gravitational pull...so it seems possible Apollo 10 had a _hidden_
purpose: its reall purpose was to soft-land the LM on the lunar
surface on autopilot. And bring it back up. Thus testing it.
NASA hid this test from us by telling us they were merely testing the
LM in lunar orbit...a nonsense test for the reasons mentioned above.
When this off-camera test _failed_, theory goes, it was decided, with
time running out, to fake the landings, for the safety of the crews.
Imagine the alternatives: going public with wasting all that money in
the late summer of 1969!
So out of six more trips to lunar orbit and six more attempts
_unmanned_ to land the LM, three were successful.
Theory has it those three soft-landed the laser reflectors that are
there today and, perhaps, one or more of them returned the 800 or so
pounds of "lunar rocks" taken from the surface.
Not very many people would know of the ruse, the circle of principles
was and remains under one hundred.
Most of NASA doesn't know we faked the landings and, like the general
public, simply believes in it, as I did myself for thirty years.
Here is a link to NASA's statement on the hoax, which offers us NO
additional proof of moonwalks or manned landings.
What sort of proof are skeptics looking for?
The cheapest and best would be original photographic negatives (or
pictures made from them) of the planets taken from the surface of the
moon.
Young, during Apollo 16 is filmed setting up a telescope to take just
such pictures, but no pictures have, according to skeptics, been
produced.
The pictures should have been prime objectives, as they constitute
incontrovertible proof, since it would be a simple matter to prove
from the "orientation" of the planets, to the the background of fixed
stars, that the camera which took the picture was on the moon.
A picture of one of the astronauts, for example, holding the earth in
his hands, might also have worked, since it would have been difficult
to fake.
Such a "priceless" picture seems irresistible. So why wasn't it taken
by _all_ the astronauts? Here budy, you do, then I'll do it. We can
show them to our kids. T
he earth had to be in a direct line of sight or the communictions with
MC wouldn't have worked!
So where are these pictures?
We'd also like a public admission from NASA that the photos released
to the press were faked. Which they obviously are. One of the most
highly recommended of the pro NASA sites, which shows us a picture of
two astronauts casting shadows at nearly right angles to each others,
asks if the men were lighted with separate lights, wouldn't they cast
two shadows? Of course not...thats what a flood light is for.
http://www.lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon.htm, see the first picture
". If, in fact, the shadows were cast by different light sources,
wouldn't each astronaut have two shadows, instead of just the one each
we see here? Of course they would."
_No they wouldn't._
About the best NASA has to offer for proof is "800 pounds of moon
rocks." Rocks which could have been brought back by automated
collectors. See:
http://users.commkey.net/Braeunig/space/lunar_landing.pdf
That the hoax, if it was a hoax, was nearly unchallenged for three
decades shows how remarkably well planned and executed it was.
Having said this I should point out that Cincinnati's Braeunig takes a
Stratfordian stance: he assumes the NASA landing was real, just as
Stratfordians do the rustic's authorship.
Braeunig thus works from a position of over confidence rather than
neutrality. It is a deadly problem. Its leads him to many circular
arguments, problems which mar this otherwise well intentioned and
thorough looking essay.
I think the parallels to Stratfordianism are obvious and important.
Only twelve men supposedly walked on the surface of the moon during
the course of six Apollo missions.
Those men were, in order, Neil A. Armstrong, Edwin "Buz" Aldrin, Jr,
Charles Conrad Jr, Alan L. Bean, Alan Shepard, Edgar Mitchell, David
Scot, James Irwin, John Young, Charles Burke, Jr. Eugene Cernan and
Harrison Schmitt.
Neither Braeunig nor I have any direct knowledge and, like the entire
rest of the human race, are expected to believe it on the testimony of
these twelve individuals.
I do not need to name the twelve apostles, who supposedly witnessed
the events of the New Testament, including the resurrection of Jesus
and his assent into Heaven, for they are widely enough known, but I
will point out that considerable doubt persists and than these distant
events are taken simply as articles of faith, not fact, by modern
Christians, who have no proof of them.
Nor, for this audience, will I list the twenty-five actors who
supposedly witnessed Shakespeare writing the plays later attributed to
him, most of whom were already long dead by the time their names were
attached as witnesses to the First Folio.
I will, however, recall the often neglected names of the 12 men who
witnessed for the Book of Mormon. As given there they were Joseph
Smith, Jr., Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Martin Harris, Chrstian
Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer, Jr., John Whitmer, Hiram Page,
Joseph Smith, Sr., Hyrum Smith, and Samuel H. Smith.
My point is that testimony, even when direct, is not always
universally believed.
I also need to say that Mr. Braeunig's essay focuses on the Fox
broadcast of February 15, 2001, which I have not seen.
I suspect it wasn't investigative journalism at its best from
BraeuniBraeunig's refutation of it.
I point out, however, the question isn't whether or not the Fox
special can be doubted or even critically answered, the quetion it is
whether or not NASA can prove "we landed upon and returned from the
moon," as Collier makes perfectly clear in his early documentary, "Was
it Only A Paper Moon?"
I became a _reluctant_ skeptic only _after_ seeing this film and
reflecting on the problem for several _years_.
Braeunig does not mention this landmark documentary and investigation,
which I would again urge all to see.
It does not make many of the mistakes the Fox program appears to have
made, such as calling Bill Kaysing an engineer. I did notice, a
couple of problems, it attributed Netwon's laws of motion to
Einstein, for example.
Near the end of Mr. Braeunig's essay appears a large, and thus
important heading, entitled, "Yes, We Landed on the Moon!" with a link
to "Apollo 15 Landing Site Spotted In Images" by the senior space
writer for _Space. Com_, 27 April 2001, which suggests that
"geological scientists at Brown University in Providence, Road
Island,...found anomalies in the Moon's surface in the vicinity of the
Apollo 15 landing site...[which they] contend... [were] created by the
lunar module's engine during touchdown."
This must be considered Mr. Braeunig's major new evidence.
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions
/apollo15_touchdown_photos_010427.html
Indeed several of the sites toot it.
However Mr. Braeunig and other NASA apologists have expended
considerable time and energy trying to explain to skeptics why the
LM's engine did NOT produce craters under the LM, since _no_ crater
appears in any of the photos.
Worse loose sand, almost directly under the rocket nozzle, look Neil's
footprint for that unforgettable shot, "one small step for man, one
giant step for mankind." A rather odd state of affairs, skeptics say.
Take off would have left even less of a crater.
See the last paragraph of this letter from NASA:
http://users.commkey.net/Braeunig/space/lunar_landing.pdf
It agrees: no crater.
Skeptics would say the craters are the result of LM crashes, not soft
landings.
Consider next Braeunig's analysis of the "luminosity" [~albedo] of the
lunar surface. Braeunig undertook it to explain why the photographs
evidence backlighting and multiple light sources. Braeunig misses the
point that the there is "a real variation [in albedo] of 20%...[due
to] the varying distance of the moon from the sun and the earth."
(En.Brt.)
This variation in brightness, so apparent to observers here on earth,
is complicated "by the varying angle of incidence of the sun's light."
However "the greatest cause of the relative faintness of the half moon
must be the unevenness of the moon's surface so that an important
fraction of the surface is [always] in shadow." Thus all of
Braeunig's marvelous calculations prove superfluous.
Worse the simple photographic evidence is that moon rocks, which were
not in the subject of the photo, do have _very_ dark shadows, as
anticipated when a set is primarily illuminated with a single light
source or if we are on the moon, as evidence by
all photos of the surface taken in orbit or by earth based telescopes.
If the surface of the moon or, less likely, the "earth shine," were
causing the "backlighting" then it would impact these regions as well.
It doesn't.
So the backlighting was accomplished by floods or more than likely
with parabolic reflectors one sees on many picture sets. These light
sources were focused on the men and not on the rocks.
Rock, which not only have Roman Numerals on them, but which appear to
have been weathered or "rounded" by weathering
conditions....impossible on the lunar surface.
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/2666/MoonHoax2.html see the rock
marked "R" here.
Let's cut to the chase. The Lunar Landing Module or LM *never* flew
on Earth. That's odd.
David's brief discussion on this makes it _appear_ as if it had.
He writes, "the 爽ntested' LM was far from untested. The LM flew
flawlessly to the moon because of the hard work of thousands of
workers over many years during the design, development and
construction of the spacecraft."
Now the fact is that LM *never* flew on earth. (Lunar Module)
The simulated version of it nearly *killed* Neil Armstrong in one
particular text. Footage of which is shown in the Collier film.
All that was required to test this craft was to drop it from a tower
or from a C5A or B-52. It could then power down to a soft landing and
be adjudged safe.
No such tests were ever performed.
The LM *never* "flew" on earth. It _never_ flew on earth.
Moreover, the LM could have been "flown" on take off, without dropping
it. Just hovering it on the pad and maneuvering it around a bit would
have been very helpful to any pilot who was going to have to fly it
cold turkey on the moon. A bit like "touch and goes."
But the LM _never_ flew on earth. True it was designed to "fly" in
lunar gravity, but this could have been compensated for by reducing
the payload.
Two Apollo missions were devoted to testing the LM.
The first was Apollo 9, Commanded by Ames McDivitt with Braid Scott
and Russell Schwelckart. I witnessed the take off on March 3, 1969,
with the young woman who would become my wife a year latter.
Well I remember how I fought my way towards her through roads that
were full of _parked_ cars as millions of us waited out the launch,
which was placed on hold at the last moment. I, thus, saw it not from
the Center but from her home on the beach. (I shall never forget the
magic. Hello Kathy, I still remember you.) Later, In earth orbit,
"docking" tests were preformed to test the LM. And it worked!
The next mission, Apollo 10, took the LM into moon orbit. It left on
18 May 1969, with astronauts E. A. Cernan, J. W. Young, and T. P.
Stafford aboard. (This launch I witnessed from the Indian River.) In
that lunar orbit mission, the LM was flown to within 50,00 feet of the
lunar surface. But according to the coverage, it was NOT landed.
Here are my concerns. In-space or space flights with the LM, both in
earth and lunar orbit, would be _no_ different than in-space flights
of the CM. A rocket is a rocket is a rocket. It would simply test
the crews' ability to enter and exit the LM, to dock it and to rocket
it around a bit.
The LM's main tasks, soft-landing on the moon and taking off from the
moon were _never_ performed. And could not be performed in orbit,
either here or at the moon.
That's _never_ performed.
My question is why, after this near pass of the lunar surface, wasn't
the LM landed on the moon by autopilot?
Surely enough fuel could have been saved to land, if not to take off
again. Landing would have been important. Yet the LM was,
supposedly, _not_ soft-landed.
Indeed it would seem more important to have kept the astronauts in the
CM and set the LM to and from the moon by autopilot, since it had
already docked in earth orbit, than to jet around in near lunar
orbit...
Go figure.
This leads me to speculate that on this mission, Apollo 10, a _Secret_
attempt was made to soft-land the LM.
During it or during take off from the moon the LM, unmanned, crashed.
NASA could not afford to have this knowledge made public, time was
running out. Kennedy's challenge had just seven month's left.
It was at this point (and not before) that NASA official decided to
fake Apollo 11.
Skeptics suppose that seven attempts were made to land the LM by
_autopilot_ from lunar orbit. All seven were _unmanned._
Theory has it three of the seven succeeded.
This is why we have three laser reflectors on the moon today at three
different locations. This is why Apollo 15 shows a crater. It
crashed.
I have used, improperly, the word "flew," since the LM doesn't fly and
was designed to rocket about in a vacuum.
Flight is a word that applies to aerodynamics.
The LM was a rocket, similar to the one I was associated with as a
System Analyst for the Minuteman Intercontinental Ballistic Missile.
I targeted and aligned it and thus am, at least, operationally
familiar with "orbital mechanics" and general ballistics.
Which brings us to another problem. In my opinion the landing tapes
are fakes, not because of their cinematography defects, which are
pronounced, but because the LM would not have been able to land as
those tapes reportedly document.
As to why, I have endeavored to make this explanation clear without
the use of math or graphs so all might easily understand it.
Here is the problem, the NASA pictures show the LM traveling
_horizontally_ on its descent to the surface of the moon.
However it was this _improper motion_ which first gave rise, to
experts familiar with orbital mechanics and ballistics, to the
possibility of a hoax. (Albeit after 30 years of being so hoodwinked
we couldn't contemplate it objectively.)
The motion may be seen in the NASA videos and is discussed in the
Collier film. It is also backed up by the audio feed. This audio
feed gives the rate of descent as "9 feet horizontally...3 feet
vertically..."
That's a perfect 3 to 1 "glide path."
I shall demonstrate that such a path is, for all intents and purposes,
impossible to imagine for the LM.
There are a few concepts to be introduced at this point.
First since the moon has no atmosphere, it is impossible to "glide" in
it. It is also impossible to use what is called "atmospheric
breaking" to produce a "glide path" or to slow the LM, as the Space
Shuttle breaks.
So this kind of "glide path" approach must be created with rocket
propulsion or with preserved horizontal motion from orbit.
Consequently the angle has to be precisely set up in orbit _far_ from
the landing area and, worse yet, the LM would _gain_ speed as it
approached, since the thruster could not be used for breaking without
constantly pitching the craft. (A roll is to the side, a pitch, when
extended, becomes a forward or backwards roll.) However it is
accomplished, the rocket _must_ face the line of flight and the crew
ends up facing in the other direction.
The other two possible approaches seem much more likely: the so called
the fly ball, approach, where the descent is mainly down but slightly
to the side, as perceived by the center fielder as he endeavors to
catch a fly ball; and 3) the "tail of fire" approach where the ship
simply lands on its main thruster vertically. (This is one a bit like
a foul ball popped high up to the catcher, straight up, straight
down.)
To imagine a glide path of 3 to 1 one must picture a long, long "line
drive." It goes away from the plate faster than it falls towards the
earth. Its momentum is created by the bat, which propels it
horizontally, while gravity is pulling it towards the playing field at
the rate of 32 ft. per second/ per second.
So how do we set up such a path for the LM? The rocket motor or
"thruster" of the LM is at the _bottom_. Such a motor, unlike a jet
motor, which is horizontally aligned, will _not_ provide horizontal
thrust, unless the craft is rolled on to its side, a maneuver which
the NASA videos clearly shows. However it cannot land on its side, so
it must be rolled back and this maneuver is _not_ shown.
Most of these engines are "fixed", since the smallest movement causes
huge torque problems and will change, if wrong in the slightest bit,
the course of the craft.
Course corrections are taken care of by alignment or azimuth thrusters
which first point or position the craft in the right direction. Then,
and only then, is the main thruster, fixed, ignited and allowed to
burn.
These small thrusters cannot produce a horizontal thrust which could
propel a massive craft horizontally while it "hovered" on its vertical
thruster.
They work fine when the thruster is off because the pilot or autopilot
can play them off against each other until the craft is perfectly
aligned and then fire the main thruster.
But, and this is the problem, if they overcorrect _while_ the main
motor is firing, the rocket can easily tear itself apart or veer off
sharply to one side or the other.
Think about it this way, IF the landing thrust were perfectly balanced
so the LM "sat" on a tail of fire above the lunar surface, propelling
it sideways would be a bit like pushing a several ton machine over a
sheet of ice. Possible but tricky.
The estoppel here, and the signal to skeptics, is where the trusters
were located.
All pictures, design plans, etc, show they were well _above_ the
center of mass. Thus pushing from "up" there would have _flipped_ the
LM during the final seconds of its landing!
Or so it seems to those versed in propulsion.
Not only do we have to suppose they caused the vetical motion, we also
have to suppose they stopped it! Either seems unlikely. There should
have been NO vertical motion on descent.
Lets go back to the three possible approaches. (The line drive, the
pop fly to center field and the tail of fire or straight down
approach, so common to SF fans.)
There is no problem understanding the straight down approach. It is
visualized on nearly every SF flick. The rocket comes down on a tail
of fire.
I shall argue this is the _most_ feasible path. The reason is it is
also the most fuel efficient descent.
To achieve it one merely breaks in orbit via a long slow burn
calculated to bring the LM to a point of rest a few thousand feet
_directly_ above the landing site.
To achieve this the LM's main thruster is aligned towards the line of
flight, not towards the surface of the moon. It is kept there by the
small thursters.
Once forward motion has been canceled, the LM can then be pitched over
by these same small azimuth thrusters and it then can "fall "towards
the moon with the main thruster below it.
The thruster can then be ignited to provide a low 1/6th g thrust and
in such a fashion as to hold the rate of descent to a minium.
What this maneuver does is burn most the fuel in orbit while reducing
the horizontal velocity zero.
If we had waited until the final seconds to reduce the horizontal
velocity, as a "glide path" does, we would expend far more fuel,
because we will have _gained_ horizontal velocity as the moon pulls us
closer and closer to the surface.
Worse we will have maintained the mass of the fuel. (They don't call
it a gravity well for nothing.)
So here is what should have happened. The LM should have left the CM
in "high" lunar orbit and burned on a high "glide path" so as to
"stop" directly above the landing site at a height of a mile or so.
(The closer the better, since momentum _increases_ via Newton's law
each second it falls.)
Having executed the pitch over, placing the rocket thruster below the
LM, where it is then pointed at the moon, the thruster is reignited as
it falls towards the landing site on a tail of fire.
This is a "controlled descent" which prevents any build up in speed as
the LM approaches the lunar surface. It thus settles to a soft
landing more or less directly below the point where it had reduced its
forward motion to zero.
We are aided in this by the slow rotation of the moon, which would be
essentially stationary for the few minutes of the landing.
If the breaking was "incomplete" some vertical motion would be
preserved and this _might_ account for the "glide path" approach seen
in the videos.
But this approach is _not_ likely to produce a glide path of three to
one. It is more likely to produce a fly ball to center field
approach, 3 feet down to 1foot horizontally.
Ideally it should be straight down, like a falling brick or a high
foul ball falling back to the catcher.
So I am at an impasse. I must have overlooked something. But what?
The fact that it was _never_ tested on earth does nothing to increase
my confidence level here.
So skeptics conjecture our intrepid astronauts, risking their lives
performing heroic feats, circumnavigated the moon. They took a lot of
pictures. At the appointed time they sent the LM, unmanned and under
their control or its autopilot , off to land on the moon.
Three out of the six LMs crashed (or four out of seven if the attempt
was first made with Apollo 10). In any case three made it. These
three are responsible for those laser reflectors, which many offer as
poof positive and we walked on the surface of the moon.
They are proof we soft-landed the reflectors, but nothing else.
The others produced the craters which are today being photographed.
If the moon rocks are from the moon, then these were collected
robotically and returned to the CM by a LM that made it back.
I might go out on a small limb here. Moon rocks have a slightly
different average composition than earth rocks. But this is an
average statement. There are some deposits on earth that are
more moon like and rocks taken from these regions might well pass
muster. We are, after all, supposedly from the same parent material.
Many earth rocks are formed out of the atmosphere. So NASA's
statement that moon rocks formed in "space" aren't like earth rocks
is false. They aren't like some earth rocks, but they are like
others.
Some minor points.
I agree no stars would appear in ETA pictures, Braeunig is right about
this. They do not, for example, appear in ETAs on the Shuttle.
Speaking of the Rover, Collier's film shows why it would not fit on
the Saturn.
Common sense tells us how nearly impossible it would be to put all
that equiptment on it after it was unloaded. It is difficult to do on
earth barehanded there it would be...well tough.
Moreover why wasn't the Rover designed to be "salvaged" by successive
crews? This would greatly reduce the payload and thus allow for more
instrumentation, including a larger Hubble like telescope to be
carried.
Braeunig does not deal with this at all.
Worse the pictures which show the earth and the moon, from the moon's
surface, are "impossible" shots. The earth should appear _several
times larger_ than the moon does, as seen from here, but it does not.
As Collier says, "they should have thought of that..."
Moreover on that short horizon, which Braeunig addresses, it would
appear even larger yet.
Again Braeunig does not deal with this.
I have "overriding" concerns about both the surface of the moon and
the way the astronauts traversed it.
I have taken geological field trips onto relatively fresh and thus
"unweathered" lava flows. It is very sharp stuff. It could easily
have punctured the suits.
Yet the astronauts moved fearlessly and one must say, recklessly, on
that unknown turf.
In the mountains, when I climb on unknown surfaces, particularly on
glacial ice, one must rope up, since at any time the surface might
open up.
On the unknown lunar surface, this might also have happened at any
time, yet the astronauts moved fearlessly on the surface....I don't
like it. I don't buy it.
And that crap about driving around on it I like even less..._anything_
could have happened.
And it would have happened in a hard vacuum, 250,000 from the nearest
aid station.
There is even footage of an astronaut using explosive charges right
at the edge of his feet.
I know the charges were light, but what if something was tossed out
and opened his suit?
I'm sorry I don't buy it.
I also agree with Collier that the Rover's dust trails seem to be
hitting a wall of air and aren't the kind we would expect in an
airless world.
Back to the LM. Recall there was no airlock. Which is why the cabin
would freeze when the door was opened. There were also no benches,
couches or beds. Where did the men sleep during rest periods,
particularly while on the moon?
In orbit they could "float." But not on the moon. Two men
standing shoulder to shoulder in a phone booth. You figure.
How did they sleep?
Braeunig claims the takeoff pictures were controlled from "Mission
Control." This seems difficult to believe. The LM left and thus took
with it its receiving equipment.
Let's say we wanted to set up a remote. We'd need to be able to send
and receive signals from it. So this remote station would requires a
sizable station left on the moon just for this purpose.
Because of the time lag, it would be difficult to control the camera
during lift off....so I have a problem here as well.
Not to mention the fact that the lift off is clearly faked in those
films.
Take a stop watch to it. The LM should slowly rise, just a its mother
ship does here. Not "bounce" into the sky. And no smoke.
Braeunig claims there are ETA pictures which show the two astronauts
egressing the LM and similar pictures in Houston which would prove the
two men could have put their suits on in the LM. But this does not
follow.
While I don't doubt the two men could enter the LM's deck with their
suits on, the question is how they closed the door and got them off.
There is also a problem as to how they got them on. Not the suits,
but the backpacks.
Braeunig's tale is that they could close the door after one of them
went out or came in and then the other could get past it and go out or
come in. While this may or may not work for egress, re-entry is
more difficult.
Here a suited astronaut would have to go in and then close the door
_after_ him. He could then move behind it and open it for his team
mate.
Astronaut two could then enter the flight deck, or cabin. However the
door could not then be closed with the second astronaut standing in
the way. It was about the size of a phone booth.
As Collier points out even NASA publications write that the small size
of the hatch caused trouble and had been "overlooked" during the
design phases.
Pace, _overlooked_ in a 30 billion dollar project? The door to the
moon was overlooked?
While putting on the backpacks would be difficult, consider taking
them off.
Were they 250o (F) above or below zero?
Either way an astronaut simply couldn't handle them once you were back
inside.
What about breathing in the dust?
The Collier film makes the problem clearer. His film makes it
certain the crew could _not_ backup inside the cabin due to
reinforcement rods and exposed lines.
Speaking of which. In the shadow with the cabin depressurized, the
temperature would have fallen to a minus 250o F during ETAs. So I
don't know how they reheated it. Bare hands would free solid if one
touched the wall surfaces. As Collier's film shows there were many
exposed cables and hydraulic lines or what look like hydraulic lines,
in there. So what happened to the fluid when it froze?
One of the pro NASA sites shows the men side my side in an artists
drawing, with lots of room. Its impossible of course. In order to
open the door, both men had to have on their backpacks and both
had to be pressurized. There simply wasn't enough room inside the
cabin for this. Two men can't get their packs on in my pickup cab,
which if anything is larger than the LM's cabin. Two men can
sleep in it. since it has seats and since its door open to the
outside, rather than towards the inside!
Now lets move to the "coverup."
The primary principles who know or knew about this could be limited to
the astronauts involved, the NASA guys who planned it and the
photographers. Even the backup crews would not need to know.
You didn't need to know until you were in the final hours of approach.
I can imagine them being told only then. This way if they were killed
during take off they would never have known. And being told out there
left them with no real choice.
On Apollo 10 the play would have been: shuttle around in the LM, then
attempt an _un- televised_ secret landing of the LM.
The orders would have been: if it fails we say nothing publically.
It will finish the program. So they test it and it fails. Now what to
do? We've already involved the crew in a public lie.
So NASA officials keep telling the crews they are going to the moon to
land...perhaps in hopes they will get killed on the pad. But a tape
is made to be played on approach to the moon for the Apollo Eleven
crew. On it the top man says, there is no chance we can land you
safely, we have devised a plan to make it appear that you will land
and return safely.
You are to land the LM on autopilot. If it blows up you are to say
nothing. If it lands successfully it will carry a laser beacon and
remote telemetry which will be of great value to mankind.
You will return to the earth and take the bows for having landed. And
you will say nothing.
You have now involved the three men in an international coverup and
they are not likely to squeak. NASA had overrides and could abort,
certainly shut down the communications.
I don't wish to be melodramatic here. These were military men. I was
SAC. I was given a .38 _every_ time I carried codes and keys or a
nuclear warhead. My standing orders were to _shoot_ any person in my
team who went nuts, _before_ I asked any questions.
My complement was told the same thing. As were the MCCCs. Both of
them were armed and they were told to shoot their buddy if he cracked.
They rotated teams so there would be no close ties.
I suspect Neil would have been given a similar order. That's what
commanders are for, issuing orders that kill their men, but accomplish
their superiors' objective. Right? These weren't civilians. They were
soldiers. The stakes were high.
Braeunig suggests thousands would have been involved in the secret,
but this is, as we can see quite ludicrous.
The circle would have been a few of Von Braun's top people, at least
one high ranking general, the astronauts and the film crew that
actually made the pictures. That's it.
I might point out that Braeunig betrays his true colors when he serves
as a NASA apologist for the avoidable tragedy that killed Gus Grissom
and his crew. Any fool knew that using an O2 atmosphere in training
simulations on the pad was an invitation to disaster.
At the very least it was negligent homicide on the part of NASA big
shots, at the worst it was to silence an unsurely Gus and teach the
rest their manners.
Indeed since the pictures remain a problem, it hints NASA relied on
"amateurs" or "in-house" talent that could be trusted. The original
group would have numbered under 50. That's 18 astronauts, three
cameramen, and five NASA types, a few Grumman people.
The simulator or stage set could be handled by anyone, and they would
just suppose it was for simulation.
The only persons who would really know would be the photographers who
shot these pictures. Indeed a ploy might have worked, here as well.
One designed to take the photographers out of the loop.
Suppose one of the principles explained to the film crew that the
purpose of taking these particular shots was to provide a "back up" in
case the camera's didn't work on the moon. "Because of the radiation
or temperatures" or with the obvious difficulty of operating the
cameras while in a spacesuit.
That would be a nice touch. They would later be told, if they asked,
that that eventuality had in fact happened.
So we have a few men, against 30 billion bucks. A secret inside a
secret. Headed by a Nazi, W. Von Braun.
It should, Art, sound familiar. Or at least sound quite sensible.
What skeptics want is a picture of Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Saturn or
Neptune or even of the earth taken from the lunar surface that shows
the stars.
The Hubble takes similar pictures from near earth orbit, so getting
one from the moon should have been easy pickings.
Without it, the moonwalk and Willy are on an equal level: public myths
unsupported by proof.
I wish it wasn't so....
John Baker
Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe
or e-mail me at: Mar...@localaccess.com
"The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood.
He who will be proved right in the end appears to be
wrong and harmful before it."
_Darkness at Noon_, Arthur Koestler
Druiddandy
if I or Roger S. had made it. It surfaces in the paragraph detailing Mr.
Braeunig's qualifications, he writes he is <self-taught in the principals [sic]
of Orbital Mechanics and Rocket Propulsion.>>>
Baker (a paragraph or so later): <<Not very many people would know of the
Neuendorffer
Well, Baker did admit that he makes "similar mistakes".
(Doesn't an Orbital Mechanic deal with an ellipse of principles?)
Art N.
Erik Nielsen
Nobody likes a one-sided lunatic.
One thing though... please don't use the word "skeptic" to describe
yourself. Your behavior is the antithesis of true skepticism (as
exemplified by such men as the late Carl Sagan and James Randi -- men
whose honesty and intelligence far outclasses your own.) Skeptics
debunk things because those things are untrue; you'll latch onto any
crackpot idea or bit of nonsense because it makes you feel superior to
the "normals", who go on believing the "common" theories despite the
fact that they have nothing to recommend them but all the evidence.
As always, it's a pleasure and a great source of amusement to see the
truly heroic heights you'll go to to avoid being right like everyone
else.
john_baker
Snared in my own trap....at least you read that far!! Actually I
thought it might make Robert feel better....we went to the same
school...
john
Neuendorffer
> I also want to say thanks to Art and Nicholas for the links to NASA's
> side of the story, particularly to on "Did We Land On The Moon? A
> Debunking of the Moon Hoax Theory," a useful site.
>
> It is a detailed 13 page essay, with lots of pictures and links.
>
> It was authorerd by a university trained engineer, Robert A. Braeunig.
>
> Braeunig operates the Website, *Rocket and Space Technology," and here
> is that link: http://users.commkey.net Braeunig/space/hoax.htm. He
> may be reached by E-mail at: Braeunig@commkey net)
> David boasts a degree in civil engineering from the University of
> Cincinnati in 1981. (About 35 years after I was there.)
Hoax advocate David Percy? (Drew Carey would be proud.)
> I have reviewed his remarks at length. I have also visited many of
> the Websites he cites and find NO poof of a manned landing upon and
> return from the surface of the moon.
It was not a *poof* of but "A Debunking of the Moon Hoax Theory".
> So I must confess, sadly, that I remain a reluctant skeptic. I'd
> hoped, on the basis of Art's and Nicholas's sentiments, that new
> evidence had turnned up.
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/apollo15_touchdown_photos_010427.html
> Just as I cann't prove the Stratford man didn't write Shakespeare, I
> can't prove we didn't walk on the moon. All I can do is point out
> that the NASA evidence isn't conclusive, as with the Stratfordian
> evidence.
Why fake it 6 times?
> Remember that I _witnessed_ the Saturn take offs, several from
> _inside_ the Kennedy Space Center, so I don't doubt that we took off.
I'm not sure we can trust your personal word on this, John.
> I don't even doubt we circumnavigated the moon, though there is plenty
> of pictorial and circumstantial evidence to doubt at least some of the
> flights, particularly Apollo 13. (Too darn odd that the trouble
> happened on mission 13 and the Collier analysis shows the films of
> it were shot in a simulator.)
Who could possibly question "the Collier analysis?"
> The most reasonable suspicison (there are many skeptics and many
> different opinions, some quite wild) is that we circumnavigated the
> moon and sent the LM or LEM down _unmanned_ on autopilot and thus,
> "faked" _only_ the moon walks.
We did this 6 times successfully & never even attempted it with humans?
> The motivation sprang from technical failures and problems, which
> included the fatal fire on 27 January 1967, which needlessly killed
> Lt. Col. Virgil I. Grissom, "Gus"and his crew (they shouldn't have
> been using oxygen during simulations) coupled with the lost of
> international prestige and, of course, _billions_ of dollars.
Thousands of people who put a lot of time & effort into the project
would have felt angry & betrayed.
> The deciding factor was, speculation runs, the failure to soft land
> the Lunar Module on the lunar surface during the Apollo 10 mission
> in July 1969. This failure left us with just five months to make
> good on Kennedy's challenge.
The "decade" didn't officially end until Dec. 31, 1970.
There was still plenty of time. . .but better to miss the decade than
risk the embarassment of a hoax being exposed by the Russians or one of
thousands of journalists.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Let's say we wanted to set up a remote. We'd need to be able to send
> and receive signals from it. So this remote station would requires a
> sizable station left on the moon just for this purpose.
Define sizable.
> Because of the time lag, it would be difficult to control the camera
> during lift off....so I have a problem here as well.
Perhaps they could forcast in advance where the LEM would be.
> Not to mention the fact that the lift off is clearly faked in those
> films.
> Take a stop watch to it. The LM should slowly rise, just a its mother
> ship does here. Not "bounce" into the sky.
It is simply that the mother ship, itself, is so large that it appears
to rise slowly. If you fast forward (by a factor ~ 7) a video of
a Saturn V launch then it should resemble a LEM "bounce" launch:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The 12' 4" LEM takes off with an acceleration of ~0.3 earth g;
it takes about 1.5 seconds for it to rise its own height.
The 363-foot mother ship with an acceleration of ~0.2 earth g;
it takes about 11 seconds for it to rise its own height.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> And no smoke.
<<The hoax advocates' claim that an exhaust plume should be visible is a
result of our observation of rocket launches on Earth. Rocket engines
typically use a fuel-rich propellant mixture, which results in
unoxidized fuel in the exhaust gas. This fuel reacts with oxygen in the
atmosphere to produce flame and smoke in the exhaust stream. In the
vacuum of space this secondary reaction is nonexistent. The Lunar Module
used a propellant mixture of Aerozine 50 and nitrogen tetroxide, which,
in the absence of atmospheric oxygen to react with, produces exhaust
gases that are nearly invisible.>>
> What skeptics want is a picture of Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Saturn or
> Neptune or even of the earth taken from the lunar surface that shows
> the stars.
This would be the easiest thing in the world to fake.
In reality, the lunar surface would have be greatly overexposed.
Art Neuendorffer
john_baker
wrote:
>Glad to see you've branched out into new realms of insanity, Johnny.
>Nobody likes a one-sided lunatic.
>
>One thing though... please don't use the word "skeptic" to describe
>yourself. Your behavior is the antithesis of true skepticism (as
>exemplified by such men as the late Carl Sagan and James Randi -- men
>whose honesty and intelligence far outclasses your own.)
Speaking of my old friend Car Sagan, consider tha Contract offers
precisely the reverse: there the crew went to the stars, but were not
believed...I think it was a cosmic allegory...
And you know that famous phrase of Sagan "out among the stars..."
that was lifted from my old neighbor Clifford D. Simak...
And most of Contact from Hoyle's A for Andromeda ....really a better
book that Contact....
And just for the record, Randi is someone I don't really know...I
don't think I've ever read anything my him. Sounds like I should
put him on my list.
Meanwhile keep the faith boy!!
john
>Skeptics
>debunk things because those things are untrue; you'll latch onto any
>crackpot idea or bit of nonsense because it makes you feel superior to
>the "normals", who go on believing the "common" theories despite the
>fact that they have nothing to recommend them but all the evidence.
>
Speak for yourself Eric...
>As always, it's a pleasure and a great source of amusement to see the
>truly heroic heights you'll go to to avoid being right like everyone
>else.
John Baker
john_baker
wrote:
I did, didn't I...and listen I wrote most of that for you. Talk me
out of it Art...I'd like to believe in it again...
john
john_baker
wrote:
Hi Art, Thanks for having a go at this for me.
>John, Baker wrote:
>
>> I also want to say thanks to Art and Nicholas for the links to NASA's
>> side of the story, particularly to on "Did We Land On The Moon? A
>> Debunking of the Moon Hoax Theory," a useful site.
>>
>> It is a detailed 13 page essay, with lots of pictures and links.
>>
>> It was authorerd by a university trained engineer, Robert A. Braeunig.
>>
>> Braeunig operates the Website, *Rocket and Space Technology," and here
>> is that link: http://users.commkey.net Braeunig/space/hoax.htm. He
>> may be reached by E-mail at: Braeunig@commkey net)
>
>> David boasts a degree in civil engineering from the University of
>> Cincinnati in 1981. (About 35 years after I was there.)
>
> Hoax advocate David Percy? (Drew Carey would be proud.)
Right you are Art, the essay isn't signed and I took it in my head it
was David Percy...who he lists at the end...and supposed they had the
same name...that thought rattled around in my head for the weekend...
and became a part of this reply...I thought I purged it when I figured
my mistake...but I missed this one...maybe more too...
>
>> I have reviewed his remarks at length. I have also visited many of
>> the Websites he cites and find NO poof of a manned landing upon and
>> return from the surface of the moon.
>
> It was not a *poof* of but "A Debunking of the Moon Hoax Theory".
>
>> So I must confess, sadly, that I remain a reluctant skeptic. I'd
>> hoped, on the basis of Art's and Nicholas's sentiments, that new
>> evidence had turnned up.
>
>http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/apollo15_touchdown_photos_010427.html
>
>> Just as I cann't prove the Stratford man didn't write Shakespeare, I
>> can't prove we didn't walk on the moon. All I can do is point out
>> that the NASA evidence isn't conclusive, as with the Stratfordian
>> evidence.
> Why fake it 6 times?
Becaus that was the plan...they would have looked bad if they
stopped...very bad...
>
>> Remember that I _witnessed_ the Saturn take offs, several from
>> _inside_ the Kennedy Space Center, so I don't doubt that we took off.
>
> I'm not sure we can trust your personal word on this, John.
I think on this one you better. I was there. For them all....over
and over....want me to send you a picture?
>
>> I don't even doubt we circumnavigated the moon, though there is plenty
>> of pictorial and circumstantial evidence to doubt at least some of the
>> flights, particularly Apollo 13. (Too darn odd that the trouble
>> happened on mission 13 and the Collier analysis shows the films of
>> it were shot in a simulator.)
>
> Who could possibly question "the Collier analysis?"
Well it shows Art tha the access hatch between the LM and the CM,
which in the LM is flush with the ceiling sticks down a foot in the
Apollo 13 films...NASA's films....so it has to be a simulator...one of
the boys puts his hand on that part of it and you can see it flex....
it simply isn't there in the real LM....
>
>> The most reasonable suspicison (there are many skeptics and many
>> different opinions, some quite wild) is that we circumnavigated the
>> moon and sent the LM or LEM down _unmanned_ on autopilot and thus,
>> "faked" _only_ the moon walks.
>
> We did this 6 times successfully & never even attempted it with humans?
Art...you aren't reading this closely. I'm suggesting that Apollo
10's LM crashed on the moon and three of the other ones as well, that
that's 4 failures to 3 successes....I'd be tempted...but then I wasn't
there...
>
>> The motivation sprang from technical failures and problems, which
>> included the fatal fire on 27 January 1967, which needlessly killed
>> Lt. Col. Virgil I. Grissom, "Gus"and his crew (they shouldn't have
>> been using oxygen during simulations) coupled with the lost of
>> international prestige and, of course, _billions_ of dollars.
>
> Thousands of people who put a lot of time & effort into the project
>would have felt angry & betrayed.
Yes, you're right here. But not if they never knew. I know lots of
these people and they do feel that way today..even the ones who
believe we landed...
>
>> The deciding factor was, speculation runs, the failure to soft land
>> the Lunar Module on the lunar surface during the Apollo 10 mission
>> in July 1969. This failure left us with just five months to make
>> good on Kennedy's challenge.
>
> The "decade" didn't officially end until Dec. 31, 1970.
A technical point well beyond NASA and the general public...
>
> There was still plenty of time. . .but better to miss the decade than
>risk the embarassment of a hoax being exposed by the Russians or one of
>thousands of journalists.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Let's say we wanted to set up a remote. We'd need to be able to send
>> and receive signals from it. So this remote station would requires a
>> sizable station left on the moon just for this purpose.
>
> Define sizable.
Suit case size in those days...plus the antenna on the Rover...but I
think we can see the Rover near the LM....
>
>> Because of the time lag, it would be difficult to control the camera
>> during lift off....so I have a problem here as well.
>
> Perhaps they could forcast in advance where the LEM would be.
Sure...or they could use a heat sensor and not control it from the
earth...right...that's what I'd do...
>
>> Not to mention the fact that the lift off is clearly faked in those
>> films.
>
>> Take a stop watch to it. The LM should slowly rise, just a its mother
>> ship does here. Not "bounce" into the sky.
>
> It is simply that the mother ship, itself, is so large that it appears
> to rise slowly. If you fast forward (by a factor ~ 7) a video of
> a Saturn V launch then it should resemble a LEM "bounce" launch:
No way. For the craft to lift off, the forces must ballance and it
takes a moment or two for the thruster to do that.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
> The 12' 4" LEM takes off with an acceleration of ~0.3 earth g;
> it takes about 1.5 seconds for it to rise its own height.
>
> The 363-foot mother ship with an acceleration of ~0.2 earth g;
> it takes about 11 seconds for it to rise its own height.
I'll time it tonight. My impression is that in jumped ten times its
height in less than a second....
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> And no smoke.
>
><<The hoax advocates' claim that an exhaust plume should be visible is a
>result of our observation of rocket launches on Earth. Rocket engines
>typically use a fuel-rich propellant mixture, which results in
>unoxidized fuel in the exhaust gas. This fuel reacts with oxygen in the
>atmosphere to produce flame and smoke in the exhaust stream. In the
>vacuum of space this secondary reaction is nonexistent. The Lunar Module
>used a propellant mixture of Aerozine 50 and nitrogen tetroxide, which,
>in the absence of atmospheric oxygen to react with, produces exhaust
>gases that are nearly invisible.>>
Its nice to say, but the mix is never quite perfect....
>
>> What skeptics want is a picture of Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Saturn or
>> Neptune or even of the earth taken from the lunar surface that shows
>> the stars.
>
> This would be the easiest thing in the world to fake.
Wrong Art. A picture of Jupiter against the fixed stars would be real
proof we went to the moon. Each star has its "signature" and we could
be quite sure that the planet was in fact in front or to the side of
that particular star...so you couldn't use a planetarium...so tell me
how it would be faked....
>
> In reality, the lunar surface would have be greatly overexposed.
Yes, but no problem. It wouldn't have to be greatly overexposed if
you used a dark rock as the foreground of the dark side of the LM....
Right?
In any case...I do hope we went there...you know I do right?
john baker
>
>Art Neuendorffer
Neuendorffer
> >> Just as I cann't prove the Stratford man didn't write Shakespeare, I
> >> can't prove we didn't walk on the moon. All I can do is point out
> >> that the NASA evidence isn't conclusive,
> > Why fake it 6 times?
>
> Becaus that was the plan...they would have looked bad if they
> stopped...very bad...
As I remember, few would have even noticed.
> >> I don't even doubt we circumnavigated the moon, though there is plenty
> >> of pictorial and circumstantial evidence to doubt at least some of the
> >> flights, particularly Apollo 13. (Too darn odd that the trouble
> >> happened on mission 13 and the Collier analysis shows the films of
> >> it were shot in a simulator.)
> >
> > Who could possibly question "the Collier analysis?"
>
> Well it shows Art tha the access hatch between the LM and the CM,
> which in the LM is flush with the ceiling sticks down a foot in the
> Apollo 13 films...NASA's films....so it has to be a simulator...one of
> the boys puts his hand on that part of it and you can see it flex....
> it simply isn't there in the real LM....
Who could possibly question "the Collier analysis?"
> >> The most reasonable suspicison (there are many skeptics and many
> >> different opinions, some quite wild) is that we circumnavigated the
> >> moon and sent the LM or LEM down _unmanned_ on autopilot and thus,
> >> "faked" _only_ the moon walks.
> >
> > We did this 6 times successfully & never even attempted it with humans?
>
> Art...you aren't reading this closely. I'm suggesting that Apollo
> 10's LM crashed on the moon and three of the other ones as well, that
> that's 4 failures to 3 successes....I'd be tempted...but then I wasn't
> there...
If only you had been there, John!
> >> The motivation sprang from technical failures and problems, which
> >> included the fatal fire on 27 January 1967, which needlessly killed
> >> Lt. Col. Virgil I. Grissom, "Gus"and his crew (they shouldn't have
> >> been using oxygen during simulations) coupled with the lost of
> >> international prestige and, of course, _billions_ of dollars.
> >
> > Thousands of people who put a lot of time & effort into the project
> >would have felt angry & betrayed.
>
> Yes, you're right here. But not if they never knew. I know lots of
> these people and they do feel that way today..even the ones who
> believe we landed...
Those people succeeded in landing 12 men on the moon and the public
& Congress said "good job, you're fired." Now their 'friend' Baker tells
them it was all a hoax. No wonder they feel angry & betrayed.
> >> The deciding factor was, speculation runs, the failure to soft land
> >> the Lunar Module on the lunar surface during the Apollo 10 mission
> >> in July 1969. This failure left us with just five months to make
> >> good on Kennedy's challenge.
> >
> > The "decade" didn't officially end until Dec. 31, 1970.
>
> A technical point well beyond NASA and the general public...
Sure, the public would be rioting in the streets.
> >> Because of the time lag, it would be difficult to control the camera
> >> during lift off....so I have a problem here as well.
> >
> > Perhaps they could forecast in advance where the LEM would be.
>
> Sure...or they could use a heat sensor and not control it from the
> earth...right...that's what I'd do...
I'd preprogram it using the dynamics.
> >> Not to mention the fact that the lift off is clearly faked in those
> >> films.
> >
> >> Take a stop watch to it. The LM should slowly rise, just a its mother
> >> ship does here. Not "bounce" into the sky.
> >
> > It is simply that the mother ship, itself, is so large that it appears
> > to rise slowly. If you fast forward (by a factor ~ 7) a video of
> > a Saturn V launch then it should resemble a LEM "bounce" launch:
>
> No way. For the craft to lift off, the forces must ballance
> and it takes a moment or two for the thruster to do that.
1.382 moments to be exact.
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > The 12' 4" LEM takes off with an acceleration of ~0.3 earth g;
> > it takes about 1.5 seconds for it to rise its own height.
> >
> > The 363-foot mother ship with an acceleration of ~0.2 earth g;
> > it takes about 11 seconds for it to rise its own height.
>
> I'll time it tonight. My impression is that in jumped ten times its
> height in less than a second....
Your impression is wrong.
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> And no smoke.
> >
> ><<The hoax advocates' claim that an exhaust plume should be visible is a
> >result of our observation of rocket launches on Earth. Rocket engines
> >typically use a fuel-rich propellant mixture, which results in
> >unoxidized fuel in the exhaust gas. This fuel reacts with oxygen in the
> >atmosphere to produce flame and smoke in the exhaust stream. In the
> >vacuum of space this secondary reaction is nonexistent. The Lunar Module
> >used a propellant mixture of Aerozine 50 and nitrogen tetroxide, which,
> >in the absence of atmospheric oxygen to react with, produces exhaust
> >gases that are nearly invisible.>>
>
> Its nice to say, but the mix is never quite perfect....
Is that so. . .
> >> What skeptics want is a picture of Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Saturn or
> >> Neptune or even of the earth taken from the lunar surface that shows
> >> the stars.
> >
> > This would be the easiest thing in the world to fake.
>
> Wrong Art. A picture of Jupiter against the fixed stars would be real
> proof we went to the moon. Each star has its "signature" and we could
> be quite sure that the planet was in fact in front or to the side of
> that particular star...so you couldn't use a planetarium...so tell me
> how it would be faked....
You have no idea how planetariums work.
> > In reality, the lunar surface would have to be greatly overexposed.
>
> Yes, but no problem. It wouldn't have to be greatly overexposed if
> you used a dark rock as the foreground of the dark side of the LM....
>
> Right?
No real shadows & no dark rocks, remember.
> In any case...I do hope we went there...you know I do right?
We didn't go there. Those brave astronauts you are defaming did.
Art
john_baker
wrote:
>
> No real shadows & no dark rocks, remember.
Art, You DIDN'T read my essay. There are dark rocks and real shadows
there...that's the PROBLEM. the men were well lit, but the rocks were
not.
>
>> In any case...I do hope we went there...you know I do right?
>
> We didn't go there. Those brave astronauts you are defaming did.
>
>Art
As for the way a planetarium works, I know it doesn't work by being
able to reproduce the "signiture" of the stars its displays. Red and
blue shits, the spectrographic qualities...I'd be happy with the
pictures I suggested...even the ones of the men holding up the earth
would be a big help...but nada....
Anyhow thanks for taking a gander at it, if you find any real evidence
that we landed, let me know ASAP...
And as far as preprograming the camera...I don't think they had much
of that sort of thing in 1969...worse those site claimed flat out that
it was controlled from the earth by "remote."
Through Parks?
john
Roundtable
> Did Shakespeare Walk on the Lunar Surface?
>
> I've expressed some reservations as to the factual nature of the moon
> landings and have taken a bit of friendly chiding for my iconoclastic
> opinions here on hlas, from the usual suspects.
Is there ANYTHING you believe in?
I think this is very sad.
On European TV they show in the morning hours (before dawn) the earth
as filmed from some space craft, calling it "Space Night" - and one
can see no stars here either, which was one of the points the
"skeptics" made about the moon landing...
Maybe you are trying to be the center of attention with headings you
know will get us all flustered and hot and bothered.
Maybe you are trying to "rub us the wrong way", by writing ever more
sensationalist stuff, National Enquirer-style, so as to get the HLAS
members buzzing and busy.
You seem sometimes to be like a schoolteacher in search of a
classroom, and at times I think it's good, making us write essays and
homework on "Lunch with Shakespeare" etc.
But this doubting EVERYTHING is not normal behaviour. A person cannot
live that way and stay healthy, happy and constructive.
Rountable
Neuendorffer
> > No real shadows & no dark rocks, remember.
John, Baker wrote:
> Art, You DIDN'T read my essay. There are dark rocks and real shadows
> there...that's the PROBLEM. the men were well lit, but the rocks were
> not.
Shadows on the ground or near the ground should be and are the darkest.
> As for the way a planetarium works, I know it doesn't work by being
> able to reproduce the "signiture" of the stars its displays. Red and
> blue shits, the spectrographic qualities...I'd be happy with the
> pictures I suggested...even the ones of the men holding up the earth
> would be a big help...but nada....
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Whyte wrote:
> New evidence which blows apart all my previous arguments:
> http://brainsluice.port5.com/moonlanding.html
-------------------------------------------------------------
<<Oh yes NASA, it's all very well adding stars on this picture
just to make us realise how wrong we have been. We are not
fooled so easily!
If we look a bit more closely, we spot the constellation of
Pegasus with the planet Saturn (marked S1) clearly visible in
the top left corner. Yet at the time of the mission, although
Saturn appeared to be near Pegasus from Earth, from the
Moon it would have appeared to be in a completely different
position (marked S2).
It is almost insulting to think that NASA could get away with
this obvious howler!>>
-------------------------------------------------------------
> Anyhow thanks for taking a gander at it, if you find any real evidence
> that we landed, let me know ASAP...
>
> And as far as preprograming the camera...I don't think they had much
> of that sort of thing in 1969...
They could remotely land on the moon but couldn't program a camera's
movements?
Art Neuendorffer
Hyperopic
>Did Shakespeare Walk on the Lunar Surface?
>
>I should begin by saying to those 12 brave men who ventured towards
>the moon on the Saturn launch vehicles and claim to have landed and
>walked upon its surface, that IF you did not actually walk on the
>surface of the moon, you are still my heroes.
If your allegations are true I think they ought to be horse-whipped.
Wasn't it the Nazis who made us think that "I was just following
orders" might not be a sufficient defense? You seem pretty down on
"Nazi" Von Braun.
>Since the previous Apollo 9 mission had already tested the LM in
>earth orbit and since it worked quite well there it would, obviously,
>work well in orbit around the moon, which has 1/6th or so of our
>gravitational pull...so it seems possible Apollo 10 had a _hidden_
>purpose: its reall purpose was to soft-land the LM on the lunar
>surface on autopilot. And bring it back up. Thus testing it.
>
>NASA hid this test from us by telling us they were merely testing the
>LM in lunar orbit...a nonsense test for the reasons mentioned above.
>
>When this off-camera test _failed_, theory goes, it was decided, with
>time running out, to fake the landings, for the safety of the crews.
You gripe elsewhere about the LEM never being tested on earth, which
you assert would have been easy. But here you complain that a single
flight in earth orbit was a sufficient test of the LEM. You think
*one* extended flight test near the moon was superfluous nonsense?
By the way, do you have any evidence for your implication that the LEM
ever had an autopilot system capable of carrying out the full
undocking/landing/departure/redocking sequence?
Your conspiracy theory has NASA planning shenanigans before anything
has gone wrong--if 10's LEM was intended to land by remote control,
why wouldn't NASA advertise that plan? What's your evidence that
anything unexpected happened during the LEM separation?
>What sort of proof are skeptics looking for?
>
>The cheapest and best would be original photographic negatives (or
>pictures made from them) of the planets taken from the surface of the
>moon.
>
>Young, during Apollo 16 is filmed setting up a telescope to take just
>such pictures, but no pictures have, according to skeptics, been
>produced.
>
>The pictures should have been prime objectives, as they constitute
>incontrovertible proof, since it would be a simple matter to prove
>from the "orientation" of the planets, to the the background of fixed
>stars, that the camera which took the picture was on the moon.
I frankly don't think it was a prime objective of the Apollo engineers
and mission planners to get to the moon *and prove it to your
satisfaction*. If such pictures existed, Collier would say they were
easy fakes (a few dots of light on a negative? Piece o' cake!) or
that they had been taken from the remote-controlled LEMs.
What's your source for the claim that the Apollo 16 mission included
"planetary proof photography"? If it's Collier's tape, have you
doublechecked the claim?
>A picture of one of the astronauts, for example, holding the earth in
>his hands, might also have worked, since it would have been difficult
>to fake.
>
>Such a "priceless" picture seems irresistible. So why wasn't it taken
>by _all_ the astronauts? Here budy, you do, then I'll do it. We can
>show them to our kids.
>
>So where are these pictures?
The "supposed" landing sites are well-known. Please calculate the
altitude of the Earth above the lunar horizon for each site.
Calculate the required position of the camera to produce your dream
shot (e.g. if the Earth is high in the sky, the camera must be low and
close to the astronaut being photographed). Is it easy to get a
camera attached to a spacesuit into that position?
>We'd also like a public admission from NASA that the photos released
>to the press were faked.
Reluctant skeptic, or militant disbeliever? You make the call!
>http://www.lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon.htm, see the first picture
>". If, in fact, the shadows were cast by different light sources,
>wouldn't each astronaut have two shadows, instead of just the one each
>we see here? Of course they would."
>
>_No they wouldn't._
What's your problem with the *reasons* and *examples* given at that
site?
>I also need to say that Mr. Braeunig's essay focuses on the Fox
>broadcast of February 15, 2001, which I have not seen.
>
>I suspect it wasn't investigative journalism at its best from
>BraeuniBraeunig's refutation of it.
>
>I point out, however, the question isn't whether or not the Fox
>special can be doubted or even critically answered, the quetion it is
>whether or not NASA can prove "we landed upon and returned from the
>moon," as Collier makes perfectly clear in his early documentary, "Was
>it Only A Paper Moon?"
>
>Braeunig does not mention this landmark documentary and investigation,
>which I would again urge all to see.
Why don't you send Braeunig the Collier tape and ask his opinion about
its factual quality vis-a-vis the Fox program? Do you see no
correspondences between points mentioned in the Fox rebuttals and
Collier's tape?
>However Mr. Braeunig and other NASA apologists have expended
>considerable time and energy trying to explain to skeptics why the
>LM's engine did NOT produce craters under the LM, since _no_ crater
>appears in any of the photos.
>
>Worse loose sand, almost directly under the rocket nozzle, look Neil's
>footprint for that unforgettable shot, "one small step for man, one
>giant step for mankind." A rather odd state of affairs, skeptics say.
>
>Take off would have left even less of a crater.
"Even less"?
You might try badastronomy.com for an interesting discussion of the
force exerted by the LEM's landing engine (it wasn't the "tail of
fire" you're so fond of mentioning), though I'm sure you'll pooh-pooh
it. Have you bothered to read any technical reports on the nature of
lunar soil? Did Collier do any experiments on exhaust-soil
interaction in a vacuum?
>Consider next Braeunig's analysis of the "luminosity" [~albedo] of the
>lunar surface. Braeunig undertook it to explain why the photographs
>evidence backlighting and multiple light sources. Braeunig misses the
>point that the there is "a real variation [in albedo] of 20%...[due
>to] the varying distance of the moon from the sun and the earth."
>(En.Brt.)
>
>This variation in brightness, so apparent to observers here on earth,
>is complicated "by the varying angle of incidence of the sun's light."
>However "the greatest cause of the relative faintness of the half moon
>must be the unevenness of the moon's surface so that an important
>fraction of the surface is [always] in shadow." Thus all of
>Braeunig's marvelous calculations prove superfluous.
I can't tell what argument you're trying to counter, or why you think
your quotes are relevant to it. But the albedo of the moon does not
vary with distance to sun or earth; it is a property of the surface
(taken as a whole). So you're misquoting the encyclopedia, and I
suspect you don't understand Braeunig's point. Can you clarify?
>Which brings us to another problem. In my opinion the landing tapes
>are fakes, not because of their cinematography defects, which are
>pronounced, but because the LM would not have been able to land as
>those tapes reportedly document.
>
>As to why, I have endeavored to make this explanation clear without
>the use of math or graphs so all might easily understand it.
Bad call, as the lack of math makes your argument deeply confusing.
>Here is the problem, the NASA pictures show the LM traveling
>_horizontally_ on its descent to the surface of the moon.
>
>However it was this _improper motion_ which first gave rise, to
>experts familiar with orbital mechanics and ballistics, to the
>possibility of a hoax. (Albeit after 30 years of being so hoodwinked
>we couldn't contemplate it objectively.)
>
>The motion may be seen in the NASA videos and is discussed in the
>Collier film. It is also backed up by the audio feed. This audio
>feed gives the rate of descent as "9 feet horizontally...3 feet
>vertically..."
>
>That's a perfect 3 to 1 "glide path."
>
>I shall demonstrate that such a path is, for all intents and purposes,
>impossible to imagine for the LM.
WHEN does this happen? HOW LONG does this happen? Does it happen at
separation from the command module? Let's think about it: Apollo was
in stable lunar orbit. I don't know what their altitude was, but
lunar orbital velocity near the surface ought to be (scribble scribble
scribble) about 1 mile per second. That's Apollo's horizontal
velocity: 5,280 feet per second. Yet the acceleration due to lunar
gravity is only about 5.5 ft per second per second. Clearly there was
no "3 to 1" glide path at the start of the descent--it's more like
2000 to 1.
(I will cheerfully accept corrections to my orbital velocities, but I
think I'm in the ballpark)
Obviously the LEM didn't skid across the Mare Tranquilitatis for a
mile upon landing. Therefore, the LEM had the ability to alter its
horizontal vector of motion. In fact the LEM doesn't appear to have
skidded much if at all, so the final path was nearly straight down--"0
to 1". Therefore, at some point the glide path must have been 3 to 1.
So what?
>First since the moon has no atmosphere, it is impossible to "glide" in
>it. It is also impossible to use what is called "atmospheric
>breaking" to produce a "glide path" or to slow the LM, as the Space
>Shuttle breaks.
>
>So this kind of "glide path" approach must be created with rocket
>propulsion or with preserved horizontal motion from orbit.
>
>Consequently the angle has to be precisely set up in orbit _far_ from
>the landing area and, worse yet, the LM would _gain_ speed as it
>approached, since the thruster could not be used for breaking without
>constantly pitching the craft. (A roll is to the side, a pitch, when
>extended, becomes a forward or backwards roll.) However it is
>accomplished, the rocket _must_ face the line of flight and the crew
>ends up facing in the other direction.
Why "precisely"? Why is "far" emphasized? What do you mean, "the LM
would _gain_ speed"? Why is that "worse"? Why is it bad that the
craft must be pitched? Why "must" the rocket "face the line of
flight"? Do you mean the rocket must be directly pointed into the
descent path? If so, you don't understand vectors of motion.
>So how do we set up such a path for the LM? The rocket motor or
>"thruster" of the LM is at the _bottom_. Such a motor, unlike a jet
>motor, which is horizontally aligned, will _not_ provide horizontal
>thrust, unless the craft is rolled on to its side, a maneuver which
>the NASA videos clearly shows. However it cannot land on its side, so
>it must be rolled back and this maneuver is _not_ shown.
This is crazy. If the LEM is tilted in the slightest degree, the main
engine's thrust will impart *some* horizontal motion. Do you agree
with that, or not?
>Most of these engines are "fixed", since the smallest movement causes
>huge torque problems and will change, if wrong in the slightest bit,
>the course of the craft.
>
>Course corrections are taken care of by alignment or azimuth thrusters
>which first point or position the craft in the right direction. Then,
>and only then, is the main thruster, fixed, ignited and allowed to
>burn.
Are you very certain that the main engine was "fixed"? Follow the
links at badastronomy.com for discussion of the engine's
"gimbaling"--it apparently could pivot within a small range, so it
could assist in orienting and maneuvering the craft. Your conception
that the attitude thrusters could not be used simultaneously with the
main thruster is novel. In your pickup do you never turn the wheels
while your foot is on the gas?
>These small thrusters cannot produce a horizontal thrust which could
>propel a massive craft horizontally while it "hovered" on its vertical
>thruster.
"Cannot" as in "it would violate Newton's laws"? Why not, is there
some mysterious friction involved?
>They work fine when the thruster is off because the pilot or autopilot
>can play them off against each other until the craft is perfectly
>aligned and then fire the main thruster.
Why does the main thruster inhibit the use of the stabilizers?
>But, and this is the problem, if they overcorrect _while_ the main
>motor is firing, the rocket can easily tear itself apart or veer off
>sharply to one side or the other.
The LEM was a flying box, not a pencil, so I don't think it would tear
itself apart. Why couldn't the autopilot throttle down the main
engine if it was a problem?
>Think about it this way, IF the landing thrust were perfectly balanced
>so the LM "sat" on a tail of fire above the lunar surface, propelling
>it sideways would be a bit like pushing a several ton machine over a
>sheet of ice. Possible but tricky.
>
>The estoppel here, and the signal to skeptics, is where the trusters
>were located.
>
>All pictures, design plans, etc, show they were well _above_ the
>center of mass. Thus pushing from "up" there would have _flipped_ the
>LM during the final seconds of its landing!
*Assuming* the facts to be as you state, I don't see that the
conclusion follows--unless they forgot to put on "off" switch on the
stabilizers. I'm really not sure what you think all this proves.
>Or so it seems to those versed in propulsion.
Who are they, please? Is the verdict unanimous?
>Not only do we have to suppose they caused the vetical motion, we also
>have to suppose they stopped it! Either seems unlikely. There should
>have been NO vertical motion on descent.
"No vertical motion on descent"??? When you write stuff as incoherent
as this it's impossible to argue with you.
>If we had waited until the final seconds to reduce the horizontal
>velocity, as a "glide path" does, we would expend far more fuel,
>because we will have _gained_ horizontal velocity as the moon pulls us
>closer and closer to the surface.
Whoa, I'm not following here...The moon's gravity is producing
HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION? Horizontal as in "at right angles to the
line between LEM and center of the moon"? If that's true, I'm tossing
Newton's Principia into the trash--it's wrong from start to finish!
>Having executed the pitch over, placing the rocket thruster below the
>LM, where it is then pointed at the moon, the thruster is reignited as
>it falls towards the landing site on a tail of fire.
>
>This is a "controlled descent" which prevents any build up in speed as
>the LM approaches the lunar surface. It thus settles to a soft
>landing more or less directly below the point where it had reduced its
>forward motion to zero.
And if that point happens to be a slope or a huge boulder, you're
screwed...unless you designed the LEM to allow for some horizontal
maneuvering.
>We are aided in this by the slow rotation of the moon, which would be
>essentially stationary for the few minutes of the landing.
(There's a hilarious book of cranky pseudoscience titled THE MOON HAS
NO ROTATION--check it out, it might change your mind)
>If the breaking was "incomplete" some vertical motion would be
>preserved and this _might_ account for the "glide path" approach seen
>in the videos.
It's BRAKING, dammit, BRAKING! And is it vertical, or horizontal?
>But this approach is _not_ likely to produce a glide path of three to
>one. It is more likely to produce a fly ball to center field
>approach, 3 feet down to 1foot horizontally.
>
>Ideally it should be straight down, like a falling brick or a high
>foul ball falling back to the catcher.
>
>So I am at an impasse. I must have overlooked something. But what?
To recap, you obsess about the "3 to 1" glide path without ever asking
yourself WHEN and for HOW LONG it applied. You construct a straw man
argument about the improbabilities of a particular descent path
without checking to see what the real descent path looked like. You
acknowledge that this landing was happening on the moon, but introduce
irrelevancies based on earthbound observations. You say things which
make me think you don't understand the basic physics of motion well.
You underestimate the abilities of the astronauts to control
three-dimensional motion.
You think it demonstrates some peculiar conspiracy--but how does the
conspiracy benefit from using a "wrong" landing trajectory? If NASA
wanted to make automated landings sound authentic, the simplest
procedure would be to read off the actual movement rates from the
unmanned LEM as it descended.
>If the moon rocks are from the moon, then these were collected
>robotically and returned to the CM by a LM that made it back.
Ah. After the failure of Apollo 10, NASA suddenly has to redesign the
LEM. Instead of a man-carrying vehicle, it has to be equipped with
robots that can deploy themselves, go out on the lunar surface, drop
laser reflectors and orient them to the Earth, position seismographs
and other instruments, pick up rocks, and return them to the upper
section of the LEM. And this was all done by your inner sanctum of
100--no, 50--conspirators, within a couple of months (Apollo 10 in
May, 11 in July). Damned clever, those Nazis.
>I might go out on a small limb here. Moon rocks have a slightly
>different average composition than earth rocks. But this is an
>average statement. There are some deposits on earth that are
>more moon like and rocks taken from these regions might well pass
>muster. We are, after all, supposedly from the same parent material.
>Many earth rocks are formed out of the atmosphere. So NASA's
>statement that moon rocks formed in "space" aren't like earth rocks
>is false. They aren't like some earth rocks, but they are like
>others.
The geologists who think the moon rocks are distinctive--are they
stupid, or are they in on the plot?
>Speaking of the Rover, Collier's film shows why it would not fit on
>the Saturn.
Why not?
>Moreover why wasn't the Rover designed to be "salvaged" by successive
>crews? This would greatly reduce the payload and thus allow for more
>instrumentation, including a larger Hubble like telescope to be
>carried.
Maybe they didn't want to revisit the same sites. Maybe in '69-'70
the problems of getting useful data from an unmanned telescope were
too expensive to solve. Maybe the idea of stowing a Hubble-like
telescope on the Apollo is just plain ludicrous.
>Worse the pictures which show the earth and the moon, from the moon's
>surface, are "impossible" shots. The earth should appear _several
>times larger_ than the moon does, as seen from here, but it does not.
>As Collier says, "they should have thought of that..."
What's your frame of reference for judging the relative size of the
Earth? Have you or Collier performed the angular size measurements?
Have you or Collier made pictures of the moon with an equivalent
camera for comparison? But what's the point--when the Earth was
proven to be the expected size, you'd just say the picture was brought
back from one of the remote control LEMs.
>I have "overriding" concerns about both the surface of the moon and
>the way the astronauts traversed it.
>
>I have taken geological field trips onto relatively fresh and thus
>"unweathered" lava flows. It is very sharp stuff. It could easily
>have punctured the suits.
>
>Yet the astronauts moved fearlessly and one must say, recklessly, on
>that unknown turf.
>
>In the mountains, when I climb on unknown surfaces, particularly on
>glacial ice, one must rope up, since at any time the surface might
>open up.
>
>On the unknown lunar surface, this might also have happened at any
>time, yet the astronauts moved fearlessly on the surface....I don't
>like it. I don't buy it.
I remember that in the early missions, the astronauts were annoyingly
cautious in their movements. As though they were playing it safe
until experience showed it was safe to loosen up.
Tranquility Base was geologically about as interesting as your local
cow pasture. Do you rope up to cross a field? Do you check your
front yard for crevasses each morning?
You've mentioned twice that the lunar surface should be "unweathered".
Where do suppose that dust came from? There are two or three forces
operating to erode the moon's surface--all very slow, but they have
had hundreds of millions of years to do their work: 1) fallback of
lunar debris from major meteor hits, 2) direct erosion from
micrometeorites, 3) solar wind has been proposed as a minor erosive
force.
>I also agree with Collier that the Rover's dust trails seem to be
>hitting a wall of air and aren't the kind we would expect in an
>airless world.
I don't suppose you or Collier have generated dust plumes in a vacuum
chamber to see what effects you can produce. If faked on Earth, how
did they get the dust to settle so quickly in our atmosphere?
>Back to the LM. Recall there was no airlock. Which is why the cabin
>would freeze when the door was opened. There were also no benches,
>couches or beds. Where did the men sleep during rest periods,
>particularly while on the moon?
>
>In orbit they could "float." But not on the moon. Two men
>standing shoulder to shoulder in a phone booth. You figure.
>How did they sleep?
With all your contacts, why don't you get in touch with an astronaut
and ask him real folksy-like "Hey, I'm doing a story about life on the
moon. How did you get any sleep up there?" It's like, research,
y'know.
>Braeunig claims the takeoff pictures were controlled from "Mission
>Control." This seems difficult to believe. The LM left and thus took
>with it its receiving equipment.
Please cite NASA docs showing the receiving equipment was in the
return module for the specified mission (recall the LEM base was still
on the moon, so maybe the equipment was there. Or the signal may have
been sent to Earth through the parabolic umbrellas you can see in some
photos). If the return module had the receiver, demonstrate either
that the transmitter range was insufficient to reach the return module
while it was near the lunar surface, or that the radio signal was too
directional to be oriented to the return module.
>Let's say we wanted to set up a remote. We'd need to be able to send
>and receive signals from it. So this remote station would requires a
>sizable station left on the moon just for this purpose.
>
>Because of the time lag, it would be difficult to control the camera
>during lift off....so I have a problem here as well.
We spent 30 billion dollars and couldn't get someone to work out the
equipment and timing for a lousy remote control shot?
>Not to mention the fact that the lift off is clearly faked in those
>films.
>
>Take a stop watch to it. The LM should slowly rise, just a its mother
>ship does here. Not "bounce" into the sky. And no smoke.
Since we expected the slow rise and the blast (I certainly did), why
didn't they show it? Why invite inquiry with this obvious fake? By
the way, have you worked out the thrust of the return module's
engine--how much acceleration OUGHT it to have produced?
If it's a fake, how was it done? Was this a full-size LEM mockup on a
sound stage? How'd they make it rise so fast and keep the ropes
invisible? Sounds like it would take a lot of stagehands to produce
that effect, but there were only 100--no, 50--in the inner sanctum.
>One of the pro NASA sites shows the men side my side in an artists
>drawing, with lots of room. Its impossible of course. In order to
>open the door, both men had to have on their backpacks and both
>had to be pressurized. There simply wasn't enough room inside the
>cabin for this. Two men can't get their packs on in my pickup cab,
>which if anything is larger than the LM's cabin. Two men can
>sleep in it. since it has seats and since its door open to the
>outside, rather than towards the inside!
Can two men stand upright in your pickup? Have you looked up anything
on the dimensions of the LEM cabin? Have you built a LEM mockup from
cardboard boxes to test your theory? Have you placed a phone booth
inside your pickup to test your alternate theory that the LEM was
phone-booth-sized?
>Braeunig's tale is that they could close the door after one of them
>went out or came in and then the other could get past it and go out or
>come in. While this may or may not work for egress, re-entry is
>more difficult.
>
>Here a suited astronaut would have to go in and then close the door
>_after_ him. He could then move behind it and open it for his team
>mate.
>
>Astronaut two could then enter the flight deck, or cabin. However the
>door could not then be closed with the second astronaut standing in
>the way. It was about the size of a phone booth.
You say they might have been able to get out...but you say it's
impossible they could have gotten in. If they couldn't close the door
with two inside, how could they open it with two inside? Again I
invite you to build a realistic cardboard model and try it yourself.
>While putting on the backpacks would be difficult, consider taking
>them off.
>
>Were they 250o (F) above or below zero?
>
>Either way an astronaut simply couldn't handle them once you were back
>inside.
>
>Speaking of which. In the shadow with the cabin depressurized, the
>temperature would have fallen to a minus 250o F during ETAs. So I
>don't know how they reheated it. Bare hands would free solid if one
>touched the wall surfaces. As Collier's film shows there were many
>exposed cables and hydraulic lines or what look like hydraulic lines,
>in there. So what happened to the fluid when it froze?
Please pull out the Britannica and browse through the articles on
heat, temperature and thermodynamics. Do you really think the
temperature of an object of several thousand kilograms is critically
affected by the loss of a few kilograms of air? Or do a science fair
experiment--suspend a thermometer in a bottle by a thread, and suck
out the air with a vacuum cleaner. Does the thermometer's level
plummet? (Hint: It doesn't. Why not? How does a thermos work?)
>Now lets move to the "coverup."
>
>I don't wish to be melodramatic here. These were military men. I was
>SAC. I was given a .38 _every_ time I carried codes and keys or a
>nuclear warhead. My standing orders were to _shoot_ any person in my
>team who went nuts, _before_ I asked any questions.
>
>My complement was told the same thing.
Good thing for you that you hadn't developed your lunar theories then.
>Braeunig suggests thousands would have been involved in the secret,
>but this is, as we can see quite ludicrous.
>
>The circle would have been a few of Von Braun's top people, at least
>one high ranking general, the astronauts and the film crew that
>actually made the pictures. That's it.
>
>I might point out that Braeunig betrays his true colors when he serves
>as a NASA apologist for the avoidable tragedy that killed Gus Grissom
>and his crew. Any fool knew that using an O2 atmosphere in training
>simulations on the pad was an invitation to disaster.
Braeunig sounds suspiciously like a NAZI name, doesn't it?
>Indeed since the pictures remain a problem, it hints NASA relied on
>"amateurs" or "in-house" talent that could be trusted. The original
>group would have numbered under 50. That's 18 astronauts, three
>cameramen, and five NASA types, a few Grumman people.
>
>The simulator or stage set could be handled by anyone, and they would
>just suppose it was for simulation.
Tell me again how they created convincing illusions of parallax on
that sound stage? Couldn't be an outdoor set, you'd never get the sky
so black and the hills so well lit, so it has to have been indoors.
But those distant hills really look like they're miles away--you can
see the nearer hills change their perspective as the astronauts take
pictures from different spots.
>So we have a few men, against 30 billion bucks. A secret inside a
>secret. Headed by a Nazi, W. Von Braun.
When you met him, did you trick him into clicking his heels by looking
over his shoulder and saying "Oh hello, mein Fuhrer!" (like James
Garner in the movie "36 Hours"). By the way, what exactly did Von
Braun head? I thought he was mostly in the rocket design business,
and you've personally attested that the Saturn V worked.
Nicholas Whyte
John Baker wrote in message news:<3bd6cf28...@News.localaccess.com>...
> The cheapest and best would be original photographic negatives (or
> pictures made from them) of the planets taken from the surface of the
> moon.
>
> Young, during Apollo 16 is filmed setting up a telescope to take just
> such pictures, but no pictures have, according to skeptics, been
> produced.
>
> The pictures should have been prime objectives, as they constitute
> incontrovertible proof, since it would be a simple matter to prove
> from the "orientation" of the planets, to the the background of fixed
> stars, that the camera which took the picture was on the moon.
That would be the UV telescope pictured at
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/tmp/1972-031C-10.html whose purpose was
not to take pictures of planets, but of "the geocorona, the earth's
atmosphere, the solar wind, various nebulae, the Milky Way, galactic
clusters and other galactic objects, intergalactic hydrogen, solar bow
cloud, the lunar atmosphere, and lunar volcanic gases (if any)." Its
results are described in further details at
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apollo16/A16_Experiments_UVC.html and
an image showing the earth's outermost atmosphere agains a background
of stars is visible here:
http://www.nasm.edu/galleries/attm/atmimages/corona.pic.f.jpg and
another one here: http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/AS16/10075873.jpg
. No doubt someone can track down exactly which stars are visible.
It is not at all a "simple matter to prove from the "orientation" of
the planets, to the the background of fixed stars, that the camera
which took the picture was on the moon". The shift in position of the
planets against the stellar background is not very big in the first
place; and in the second place any displacement will tend to be near
enough to the path of the planet in question that it wouldn't satisfy
your criteria.
Nicholas
Neuendorffer
John Baker wrote:
> I might point out that Braeunig betrays his true colors when he serves
> as a NASA apologist for the avoidable tragedy that killed Gus Grissom
> and his crew. Any fool knew that using an O2 atmosphere in training
> simulations on the pad was an invitation to disaster.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA has done a lot of equally stupid things; e.g.,
launching the Space Shuttle in freezing weather;
getting the Hubble focal length wrong;
forgetting to change from metric to English units, etc. etc.
Who were they trying to silence in those cases?
There were dozens of less messy ways to kill Grissom that
wouldn't hold up or even threaten the Apollo project.
Four astronauts died in T-38 trainer accidents alone:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct 31, 1964 Theodore Freeman 34, U.S. astronaut
Houston, Texas T-38 trainer
Killed while attempting to land at Ellington Air
Force Base following a proficiency flight. Struck
a snow goose which shattered the canopy and
debris entering both engines. He ejected but was
too low for his chute to fully deploy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 28, 1966 Elliot See Jr 39, U.S. astronaut
Charles Bassett II 35, U.S. astronaut
St. Louis, Missouri T-38 jet fighter
Killed during an instrument landing approach at
McDonnell Aircraft Corporation's plant. Came in
too low and slow, hit the afterburners and
crashed into the roof of a building.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct 5, 1967 Clifton Williams Jr. 35, astronaut
Near Tallahassee, Florida T-38 jet fighter
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec 8, 1967 Robert Lawrence 32, astronaut
Edwards Air Force Base, California F-104 Starfighter
Crashed while performing maneuver
--------------------------------------------------------------------
<<S. David Griggs, killed in the crash of a World War II vintage plane
while performing stunts;
Stephen D. Thorne: Died in a airplane accident near Sante Fe, Texas, on
May 24, 1986.
Brian Joseph James: Died in a training accident over the Potomac River
near Washington, DC, July 20, 1992.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles P. "Pete" Conrad, killed in a motorcycle accident in
California, July 8, 1999.
JIM LEHRER: Astronaut Charles Pete Conrad died yesterday
from injuries suffered in a motorcycle accident. Conrad commanded
the second Lunar landing in 1969 and became the third man to walk on
the Moon. He brought a boyish enthusiasm to that "Apollo 12" mission,
captured on this NASA videotape.
PETE CONRAD: I bet you when I get down to the bottom of the ladder, I
can see the Surveyor. Okay. Man, that may have been a small one for
Neil, but that's a long one for me. You'll never believe it. Guess what
I see sitting on the side of the crater? The old Surveyor, yes, sir.
(Laughter) Does that look neat? It can't be any further than 600 feet
from here. I have the decided impression I don't want to move too
rapidly but I can walk quite well.
ASTRONAUT: It seems a little weird. I'll tell you, I don't think you're
going to steam around here quite as fast as you thought you were.
PETE CONRAD: Hey, Al, you could work out here all day. Take your time.
Dum-dum-dum.
JIM LEHRER: Pete Conrad was 69 years old.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> At the very least it was negligent homicide on the part of NASA big
> shots, at the worst it was to silence an unsurely Gus and teach the
> rest their manners.
> Indeed since the pictures remain a problem, it hints NASA relied on
> "amateurs" or "in-house" talent that could be trusted. The original
> group would have numbered under 50. That's 18 astronauts, three
> cameramen, and five NASA types, a few Grumman people.
> The simulator or stage set could be handled by anyone,
> and they would just suppose it was for simulation.
> The only persons who would really know would be the photographers who
> shot these pictures. Indeed a ploy might have worked, here as well.
> One designed to take the photographers out of the loop.
> Suppose one of the principles explained to the film crew that the
> purpose of taking these particular shots was to provide a "back up" in
> case the camera's didn't work on the moon. "Because of the radiation
> or temperatures" or with the obvious difficulty of operating the
> cameras while in a spacesuit.
> That would be a nice touch. They would later be told, if they asked,
> that that eventuality had in fact happened.
> So we have a few men, against 30 billion bucks. A secret inside a
> secret. Headed by a Nazi, W. Von Braun.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wernher Von Braun by Tom Lehrer
Gather round while I sing you of Wernher von Braun
A man whose allegiance
Is ruled by expedience
Call him a Nazi, he won't even frown
"Ha, Nazi schmazi," says Wernher von Braun
Don't say that he's hypocritical
Say rather that he's apolitical
"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down
That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun
Some have harsh words for this man of renown
But some think our attitude
Should be one of gratitude
Like the widows and cripples in old London town
Who owe their large pensions to Wernher von Braun
You too may be a big hero
Once you've learned to count backwards to zero
"In German oder English I know how to count down
Und I'm learning Chinese," says Wernher von Braun
-----------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
john_baker
wrote:
>John Baker wrote in message news:<3bd6cf28...@News.localaccess.com>...
>> Did Shakespeare Walk on the Lunar Surface?
>>
>> I've expressed some reservations as to the factual nature of the moon
>> landings and have taken a bit of friendly chiding for my iconoclastic
>> opinions here on hlas, from the usual suspects.
>
>Is there ANYTHING you believe in?
yes. god. I believe she is black.
I also believe in the Tooth Fairy and Peter Rabbit.
>
>I think this is very sad.
>
>On European TV they show in the morning hours (before dawn) the earth
>as filmed from some space craft, calling it "Space Night" - and one
>can see no stars here either, which was one of the points the
>"skeptics" made about the moon landing...
But not me...if you read my essay you'll see that.
>
>Maybe you are trying to be the center of attention with headings you
>know will get us all flustered and hot and bothered.
No dear...I _hate_ not believing in this. I believed in it for 30
years. It was only after considering the Collier film and thinking
about it that I switched over. I sincerely wish I still believed.
>Maybe you are trying to "rub us the wrong way", by writing ever more
>sensationalist stuff, National Enquirer-style, so as to get the HLAS
>members buzzing and busy.
>
>You seem sometimes to be like a schoolteacher in search of a
>classroom, and at times I think it's good, making us write essays and
>homework on "Lunch with Shakespeare" etc.
Sadly there is truth here...I tend to want readers to think....
>
>But this doubting EVERYTHING is not normal behaviour. A person cannot
>live that way and stay healthy, happy and constructive.
Want to bet?
>
>Rountable
john_baker
Hyper...
Thanks for looking at this. I'll do my best.
>On Wed, 24 Oct 2001 14:38:58 GMT, John Baker wrote:
>
>>Did Shakespeare Walk on the Lunar Surface?
>>
>>I should begin by saying to those 12 brave men who ventured towards
>>the moon on the Saturn launch vehicles and claim to have landed and
>>walked upon its surface, that IF you did not actually walk on the
>>surface of the moon, you are still my heroes.
>
>If your allegations are true I think they ought to be horse-whipped.
>Wasn't it the Nazis who made us think that "I was just following
>orders" might not be a sufficient defense? You seem pretty down on
>"Nazi" Von Braun.
I liked Von Braun...I greatly respect his work and intelligence. But
it is important to recall that he was the head of this project and
that it was he who gave us the V2 and the "blitz..."
Now your question on the the "I was just following orders..." This
was a legal order. It wasn't agains the War Crimes Act...it was a
matter of national importance that is and was a "grey" area.
I myself would be tempted.
>
>>Since the previous Apollo 9 mission had already tested the LM in
>>earth orbit and since it worked quite well there it would, obviously,
>>work well in orbit around the moon, which has 1/6th or so of our
>>gravitational pull...so it seems possible Apollo 10 had a _hidden_
>>purpose: its reall purpose was to soft-land the LM on the lunar
>>surface on autopilot. And bring it back up. Thus testing it.
>>
>>NASA hid this test from us by telling us they were merely testing the
>>LM in lunar orbit...a nonsense test for the reasons mentioned above.
>>
>>When this off-camera test _failed_, theory goes, it was decided, with
>>time running out, to fake the landings, for the safety of the crews.
>
>You gripe elsewhere about the LEM never being tested on earth, which
>you assert would have been easy. But here you complain that a single
>flight in earth orbit was a sufficient test of the LEM. You think
>*one* extended flight test near the moon was superfluous nonsense?
I think what I have said. Should I say it again? The fact it flew in
earth orbit means it would fly in lunar obit. What wasn't tested was
the landing and take-off.
I've suggested these should have been tested by autopilot. Doesn't
this make SENSE?
>
>By the way, do you have any evidence for your implication that the LEM
>ever had an autopilot system capable of carrying out the full
>undocking/landing/departure/redocking sequence?
Sure. That's what all that instrumentation was for. Docking wouldn't
be required.
>
>Your conspiracy theory has NASA planning shenanigans before anything
>has gone wrong--if 10's LEM was intended to land by remote control,
>why wouldn't NASA advertise that plan? What's your evidence that
>anything unexpected happened during the LEM separation?
Because IF it failed on TV they'd just look like fools. Holding back
isn't a crime.
>
>>What sort of proof are skeptics looking for?
>>
>>The cheapest and best would be original photographic negatives (or
>>pictures made from them) of the planets taken from the surface of the
>>moon.
>>
>>Young, during Apollo 16 is filmed setting up a telescope to take just
>>such pictures, but no pictures have, according to skeptics, been
>>produced.
>>
>>The pictures should have been prime objectives, as they constitute
>>incontrovertible proof, since it would be a simple matter to prove
>>from the "orientation" of the planets, to the the background of fixed
>>stars, that the camera which took the picture was on the moon.
>
>I frankly don't think it was a prime objective of the Apollo engineers
>and mission planners to get to the moon *and prove it to your
>satisfaction*. If such pictures existed, Collier would say they were
>easy fakes (a few dots of light on a negative? Piece o' cake!) or
>that they had been taken from the remote-controlled LEMs.
Beyond the technology of the time. Proof of the lunar landings would
be
fairly easy to envision. I have offered several sorts. They are
lacking.
See the film. Think about the size of the LM and sleeping in it.
Think about
dancing around on the surface of that object in a suit that any tear
would kill...
>
>What's your source for the claim that the Apollo 16 mission included
>"planetary proof photography"? If it's Collier's tape, have you
>doublechecked the claim?
It's a NASA film that Collier shows. It shows him setting up the
camera under the
shadow of the LM...
>
>>A picture of one of the astronauts, for example, holding the earth in
>>his hands, might also have worked, since it would have been difficult
>>to fake.
>>
>>Such a "priceless" picture seems irresistible. So why wasn't it taken
>>by _all_ the astronauts? Here budy, you do, then I'll do it. We can
>>show them to our kids.
>>
>>So where are these pictures?
>
>The "supposed" landing sites are well-known. Please calculate the
>altitude of the Earth above the lunar horizon for each site.
>Calculate the required position of the camera to produce your dream
>shot (e.g. if the Earth is high in the sky, the camera must be low and
>close to the astronaut being photographed). Is it easy to get a
>camera attached to a spacesuit into that position?
No...you do this. If I were there, I'd lay on my back to get that
shot and so
would Neil and John Young....
>
>>We'd also like a public admission from NASA that the photos released
>>to the press were faked.
>
>Reluctant skeptic, or militant disbeliever? You make the call!
>
>>http://www.lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon.htm, see the first picture
>>". If, in fact, the shadows were cast by different light sources,
>>wouldn't each astronaut have two shadows, instead of just the one each
>>we see here? Of course they would."
>>
>>_No they wouldn't._
>
>What's your problem with the *reasons* and *examples* given at that
>site?
I've just pointed out that flood lights don't leave double shadows.
I've also pointed out
that even NASA claims there is no crater under the LM so there can be
no crater in those
new photos... and I have answer the lighting questions: the moon rocks
are dark...its just
the crew that isn't....very odd....
>
>>I also need to say that Mr. Braeunig's essay focuses on the Fox
>>broadcast of February 15, 2001, which I have not seen.
>>
>>I suspect it wasn't investigative journalism at its best from
>>Braeunig's refutation of it.
>>
>>I point out, however, the question isn't whether or not the Fox
>>special can be doubted or even critically answered, the question it is
>>whether or not NASA can prove "we landed upon and returned from the
>>moon," as Collier makes perfectly clear in his early documentary, "Was
>>it Only A Paper Moon?"
>>
>>Braeunig does not mention this landmark documentary and investigation,
>>which I would again urge all to see.
>
>Why don't you send Braeunig the Collier tape and ask his opinion about
>its factual quality vis-a-vis the Fox program? Do you see no
>correspondences between points mentioned in the Fox rebuttals and
>Collier's tape?
>
>>However Mr. Braeunig and other NASA apologists have expended
>>considerable time and energy trying to explain to skeptics why the
>>LM's engine did NOT produce craters under the LM, since _no_ crater
>>appears in any of the photos.
>>
>>Worse loose sand, almost directly under the rocket nozzle, look Neil's
>>footprint for that unforgettable shot, "one small step for man, one
>>giant step for mankind." A rather odd state of affairs, skeptics say.
>>
>>Take off would have left even less of a crater.
>
>"Even less"?
>
>You might try badastronomy.com for an interesting discussion of the
>force exerted by the LEM's landing engine (it wasn't the "tail of
>fire" you're so fond of mentioning), though I'm sure you'll pooh-pooh
>it. Have you bothered to read any technical reports on the nature of
>lunar soil? Did Collier do any experiments on exhaust-soil
>interaction in a vacuum?
Its not a major point, but I'll check out that site.
>
>>Consider next Braeunig's analysis of the "luminosity" [~albedo] of the
>>lunar surface. Braeunig undertook it to explain why the photographs
>>evidence backlighting and multiple light sources. Braeunig misses the
>>point that the there is "a real variation [in albedo] of 20%...[due
>>to] the varying distance of the moon from the sun and the earth."
>>(En.Brt.)
>>
>>This variation in brightness, so apparent to observers here on earth,
>>is complicated "by the varying angle of incidence of the sun's light."
>>However "the greatest cause of the relative faintness of the half moon
>>must be the unevenness of the moon's surface so that an important
>>fraction of the surface is [always] in shadow." Thus all of
>>Braeunig's marvelous calculations prove superfluous.
>
>I can't tell what argument you're trying to counter, or why you think
>your quotes are relevant to it. But the albedo of the moon does not
>vary with distance to sun or earth; it is a property of the surface
>(taken as a whole). So you're misquoting the encyclopedia, and I
>suspect you don't understand Braeunig's point. Can you clarify?
I did clarify it. It does vary by the "unevenness of the moon's
surface."
But the killer is that moon rocks that were not the focus of the
pictures
show very dark shadows...are you missing this point?
>
>>Which brings us to another problem. In my opinion the landing tapes
>>are fakes, not because of their cinematography defects, which are
>>pronounced, but because the LM would not have been able to land as
>>those tapes reportedly document.
>>
>>As to why, I have endeavored to make this explanation clear without
>>the use of math or graphs so all might easily understand it.
>
>Bad call, as the lack of math makes your argument deeply confusing.
I thought so too, but then we have others to worry about.
>
>>Here is the problem, the NASA pictures show the LM traveling
>>_horizontally_ on its descent to the surface of the moon.
>>
>>However it was this _improper motion_ which first gave rise, to
>>experts familiar with orbital mechanics and ballistics, to the
>>possibility of a hoax. (Albeit after 30 years of being so hoodwinked
>>we couldn't contemplate it objectively.)
>>
>>The motion may be seen in the NASA videos and is discussed in the
>>Collier film. It is also backed up by the audio feed. This audio
>>feed gives the rate of descent as "9 feet horizontally...3 feet
>>vertically..."
>>
>>That's a perfect 3 to 1 "glide path."
>>
>>I shall demonstrate that such a path is, for all intents and purposes,
>>impossible to imagine for the LM.
>
>WHEN does this happen? HOW LONG does this happen? Does it happen at
>separation from the command module? Let's think about it: Apollo was
>in stable lunar orbit. I don't know what their altitude was, but
>lunar orbital velocity near the surface ought to be (scribble scribble
>scribble) about 1 mile per second. That's Apollo's horizontal
>velocity: 5,280 feet per second. Yet the acceleration due to lunar
>gravity is only about 5.5 ft per second per second. Clearly there was
>no "3 to 1" glide path at the start of the descent--it's more like
>2000 to 1.
>
>(I will cheerfully accept corrections to my orbital velocities, but I
>think I'm in the ballpark)
I'm with you here....
>
>Obviously the LEM didn't skid across the Mare Tranquilitatis for a
>mile upon landing. Therefore, the LEM had the ability to alter its
>horizontal vector of motion. In fact the LEM doesn't appear to have
>skidded much if at all, so the final path was nearly straight down--"0
>to 1". Therefore, at some point the glide path must have been 3 to 1.
>So what?
The LEM only has one rocket capable of altering its horizontal
vector...that's
the problem...
>
>>First since the moon has no atmosphere, it is impossible to "glide" in
>>it. It is also impossible to use what is called "atmospheric
>>breaking" to produce a "glide path" or to slow the LM, as the Space
>>Shuttle breaks.
>>
>>So this kind of "glide path" approach must be created with rocket
>>propulsion or with preserved horizontal motion from orbit.
>>
>>Consequently the angle has to be precisely set up in orbit _far_ from
>>the landing area and, worse yet, the LM would _gain_ speed as it
>>approached, since the thruster could not be used for breaking without
>>constantly pitching the craft. (A roll is to the side, a pitch, when
>>extended, becomes a forward or backwards roll.) However it is
>>accomplished, the rocket _must_ face the line of flight and the crew
>>ends up facing in the other direction.
>
>Why "precisely"? Why is "far" emphasized? What do you mean, "the LM
>would _gain_ speed"? Why is that "worse"? Why is it bad that the
>craft must be pitched? Why "must" the rocket "face the line of
>flight"? Do you mean the rocket must be directly pointed into the
>descent path? If so, you don't understand vectors of motion.
I do understand Newton's first law of motion, the motor to break a
motion must
point directly at the vector of travel...you know this...
>
>>So how do we set up such a path for the LM? The rocket motor or
>>"thruster" of the LM is at the _bottom_. Such a motor, unlike a jet
>>motor, which is horizontally aligned, will _not_ provide horizontal
>>thrust, unless the craft is rolled on to its side, a maneuver which
>>the NASA videos clearly shows. However it cannot land on its side, so
>>it must be rolled back and this maneuver is _not_ shown.
>
>This is crazy. If the LEM is tilted in the slightest degree, the main
>engine's thrust will impart *some* horizontal motion. Do you agree
>with that, or not?
Of course it will then twist the LEM and its 10,000 lbs of thrust will
tear it apart...its
a tricky move...have you see those rockets lean off to the side on
take off and the engine
go up through the craft? It will. You need to keep it aligned.
Trickly.
>
>>Most of these engines are "fixed", since the smallest movement causes
>>huge torque problems and will change, if wrong in the slightest bit,
>>the course of the craft.
>>
>>Course corrections are taken care of by alignment or azimuth thrusters
>>which first point or position the craft in the right direction. Then,
>>and only then, is the main thruster, fixed, ignited and allowed to
>>burn.
>
>Are you very certain that the main engine was "fixed"? Follow the
>links at badastronomy.com for discussion of the engine's
>"gimbaling"--it apparently could pivot within a small range, so it
>could assist in orienting and maneuvering the craft. Your conception
>that the attitude thrusters could not be used simultaneously with the
>main thruster is novel. In your pickup do you never turn the wheels
>while your foot is on the gas?
My wheels are Below the center of MASS, these thrusters were well
above it.
Very tricky stuff. Too much thrust and the thing flips...You know
this...
>
>>These small thrusters cannot produce a horizontal thrust which could
>>propel a massive craft horizontally while it "hovered" on its vertical
>>thruster.
>
>"Cannot" as in "it would violate Newton's laws"? Why not, is there
>some mysterious friction involved?
Come on...I've qualified this...I'm concerned about rolling the LEM
over...as
well as using these small thrusters for propulsion....
>
>>They work fine when the thruster is off because the pilot or autopilot
>>can play them off against each other until the craft is perfectly
>>aligned and then fire the main thruster.
>
>Why does the main thruster inhibit the use of the stabilizers?
Because if they do over correct then the main thruster sends the LEM
off on
another path....or tears it up...best to get it right then burn...
>
>>But, and this is the problem, if they overcorrect _while_ the main
>>motor is firing, the rocket can easily tear itself apart or veer off
>>sharply to one side or the other.
>
>The LEM was a flying box, not a pencil, so I don't think it would tear
>itself apart. Why couldn't the autopilot throttle down the main
>engine if it was a problem?
It happens too quickly...but you may be right...and I may be
wrong...but
it wasn't tested...
>
>>Think about it this way, IF the landing thrust were perfectly balanced
>>so the LM "sat" on a tail of fire above the lunar surface, propelling
>>it sideways would be a bit like pushing a several ton machine over a
>>sheet of ice. Possible but tricky.
>>
>>The estoppel here, and the signal to skeptics, is where the trusters
>>were located.
>>
>>All pictures, design plans, etc, show they were well _above_ the
>>center of mass. Thus pushing from "up" there would have _flipped_ the
>>LM during the final seconds of its landing!
>
>*Assuming* the facts to be as you state, I don't see that the
>conclusion follows--unless they forgot to put on "off" switch on the
>stabilizers. I'm really not sure what you think all this proves.
Keep working on it...we're close here.
>
>>Or so it seems to those versed in propulsion.
>
>Who are they, please? Is the verdict unanimous?
I have no idea about this...you seem to disagree...that's ok...but you
can at least
see the concerns....I hope...
>
>>Not only do we have to suppose they caused the vertical motion, we also
>>have to suppose they stopped it! Either seems unlikely. There should
>>have been NO vertical motion on descent.
>
>"No vertical motion on descent"??? When you write stuff as incoherent
>as this it's impossible to argue with you.
Shit...did I say "vertical"?!!! Crap...make that "horizontal"....!!!!!
>
>>If we had waited until the final seconds to reduce the horizontal
>>velocity, as a "glide path" does, we would expend far more fuel,
>>because we will have _gained_ horizontal velocity as the moon pulls us
>>closer and closer to the surface.
See I got it right here....
>
>Whoa, I'm not following here...The moon's gravity is producing
>HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION? Horizontal as in "at right angles to the
>line between LEM and center of the moon"? If that's true, I'm tossing
>Newton's Principia into the trash--it's wrong from start to finish!
An object rolling down an inclined plane will pick up speed the
further it rolls right?
So Horizontal acceleration is increased by gravity. Keep Netwon...we
still need him.
>
>>Having executed the pitch over, placing the rocket thruster below the
>>LM, where it is then pointed at the moon, the thruster is reignited as
>>it falls towards the landing site on a tail of fire.
>>
>>This is a "controlled descent" which prevents any build up in speed as
>>the LM approaches the lunar surface. It thus settles to a soft
>>landing more or less directly below the point where it had reduced its
>>forward motion to zero.
>
>And if that point happens to be a slope or a huge boulder, you're
>screwed...unless you designed the LEM to allow for some horizontal
>maneuvering.
True enough. But three to one?
>
>>We are aided in this by the slow rotation of the moon, which would be
>>essentially stationary for the few minutes of the landing.
>
>(There's a hilarious book of cranky pseudoscience titled THE MOON HAS
>NO ROTATION--check it out, it might change your mind)
may be, but I doubt it...it rotates once on every rotation of the
earth, which is why the
same side always faces us right...so its rotation is much slower than
the earth's...
We agree here....right...
>
>>If the breaking was "incomplete" some vertical motion would be
>>preserved and this _might_ account for the "glide path" approach seen
>>in the videos.
>
>It's BRAKING, dammit, BRAKING!
A perfect example of the problem that plague's my life...both words
sound the same right? Like principle and principal...I'll try to keep
them
straight from now on...at least for today...people with my condition
don't notice
the difference between those words...we "read" them as the same words,
just
as Robert was reading "principals" as "principles." Sorry...
>nd is it vertical, or horizontal?
>
>>But this approach is _not_ likely to produce a glide path of three to
>>one. It is more likely to produce a fly ball to center field
>>approach, 3 feet down to 1foot horizontally.
>>
>>Ideally it should be straight down, like a falling brick or a high
>>foul ball falling back to the catcher.
>>
>>So I am at an impasse. I must have overlooked something. But what?
>
>To recap, you obsess about the "3 to 1" glide path without ever asking
>yourself WHEN and for HOW LONG it applied. You construct a straw man
>argument about the improbabilities of a particular descent path
>without checking to see what the real descent path looked like. You
>acknowledge that this landing was happening on the moon, but introduce
>irrelevancies based on earthbound observations. You say things which
>make me think you don't understand the basic physics of motion well.
>You underestimate the abilities of the astronauts to control
>three-dimensional motion.
All quite possible. But also quite wrong. I think we can all see
that the
best approach would be to BRAKE in orbit and drop in. Some horizontal
motion would be nice to have...because of those rocks, right. For
that
we need a real Lander...a rocket that will hover and fly sideways over
the
surface of the moon.
Recall the LEM was NEVER tested to do this and there is at least a
case
that it couldn't do this.
That's all I'm saying here.
Have you ever landed a VTOL aircraft...a jet...not a chopper? It's a
whole
new ball game for a pilot. Tricky stuff at best. And it was NEVER
tested in
this mode.
Think about it.
>
>You think it demonstrates some peculiar conspiracy--but how does the
>conspiracy benefit from using a "wrong" landing trajectory? If NASA
>wanted to make automated landings sound authentic, the simplest
>procedure would be to read off the actual movement rates from the
>unmanned LEM as it descended.
Another theory....want to publish?
>
>>If the moon rocks are from the moon, then these were collected
>>robotically and returned to the CM by a LM that made it back.
>
>Ah. After the failure of Apollo 10, NASA suddenly has to redesign the
>LEM. Instead of a man-carrying vehicle, it has to be equipped with
>robots that can deploy themselves, go out on the lunar surface, drop
>laser reflectors and orient them to the Earth, position seismographs
>and other instruments, pick up rocks, and return them to the upper
>section of the LEM. And this was all done by your inner sanctum of
>100--no, 50--conspirators, within a couple of months (Apollo 10 in
>May, 11 in July). Damned clever, those Nazis.
Ok. One at a time. Most of these "experiments" were NASA projects on
the boards at the time. Your list makes it look longer. But lets
take the laser
reflectors they are the most difficult. They would have to be
aligned. But
recall that NASA says they controlled the cameras from earth so no
problem
here.
But your point is better taken as this: if they could land the LEM,
even three times
out of six or seven attempts, why not go with the men....
It might be that landing was possible but returning wasn't....
It might be that there never was a plan to land the LEMs with men in
them...
The secret in the secret....Collier, who is dead, seems to suggest
this when he points out that the man who designed the LEM or the men
and women who designed it are not in the hall of flight...
I don't have all the answers...I just wish we had those photos....
>
>>I might go out on a small limb here. Moon rocks have a slightly
>>different average composition than earth rocks. But this is an
>>average statement. There are some deposits on earth that are
>>more moon like and rocks taken from these regions might well pass
>>muster. We are, after all, supposedly from the same parent material.
>>Many earth rocks are formed out of the atmosphere. So NASA's
>>statement that moon rocks formed in "space" aren't like earth rocks
>>is false. They aren't like some earth rocks, but they are like
>>others.
>
>The geologists who think the moon rocks are distinctive--are they
>stupid, or are they in on the plot?
I've made my point. Let start over here. How many pounds of moon
rocks did we have
before the LEMS landed? If they landed. Many meteorites weigh tons.
I've seen them and
I have also seen moon rocks. I couldn't tell the difference and the
samples are in labs around the word so we don't know if they came from
the same parent rocks or not. One about the size of
an MG would be more than enough to prove us with real fake rocks....
I would suppose that having different landing sites was a design to
give us rocks from different
formations...But I am very familiar with the Eocene lava fields here
in the NW they are "lunar" in proportions, thousands of feet
thick...you could land out there hundreds of miles apart and still get
the "same" rocks. I pointed out the NASA letter doesn't
help...claiming lunar rocks were formed without oxygen...big
deal...I've rocks here that were formed without oxygen....
>
>>Speaking of the Rover, Collier's film shows why it would not fit on
>>the Saturn.
>
>Why not?
Look, I've got your interest. Just see the film...your library will
have a copy...
>
>>Moreover why wasn't the Rover designed to be "salvaged" by successive
>>crews? This would greatly reduce the payload and thus allow for more
>>instrumentation, including a larger Hubble like telescope to be
>>carried.
>
>Maybe they didn't want to revisit the same sites. Maybe in '69-'70
>the problems of getting useful data from an unmanned telescope were
>too expensive to solve. Maybe the idea of stowing a Hubble-like
>telescope on the Apollo is just plain ludicrous.
This is true. I well know the technology of the 70s wasn't up to
Hubble like
standards...but we could have done something good with that extra
weight and
with an optical scope...
>
>>Worse the pictures which show the earth and the moon, from the moon's
>>surface, are "impossible" shots. The earth should appear _several
>>times larger_ than the moon does, as seen from here, but it does not.
>>As Collier says, "they should have thought of that..."
>
>What's your frame of reference for judging the relative size of the
>Earth? Have you or Collier performed the angular size measurements?
>Have you or Collier made pictures of the moon with an equivalent
>camera for comparison? But what's the point--when the Earth was
>proven to be the expected size, you'd just say the picture was brought
>back from one of the remote control LEMs.
Not if the men were holding it in their hands!!!
Collier has NASA pictures that show the earth to be moon sized...and
that's wrong.
He says "they should have thought of that..." And he's right...
>
>>I have "overriding" concerns about both the surface of the moon and
>>the way the astronauts traversed it.
>>
>>I have taken geological field trips onto relatively fresh and thus
>>"unweathered" lava flows. It is very sharp stuff. It could easily
>>have punctured the suits.
>>
>>Yet the astronauts moved fearlessly and one must say, recklessly, on
>>that unknown turf.
>>
>>In the mountains, when I climb on unknown surfaces, particularly on
>>glacial ice, one must rope up, since at any time the surface might
>>open up.
>>
>>On the unknown lunar surface, this might also have happened at any
>>time, yet the astronauts moved fearlessly on the surface....I don't
>>like it. I don't buy it.
>
>I remember that in the early missions, the astronauts were annoyingly
>cautious in their movements. As though they were playing it safe
>until experience showed it was safe to loosen up.
Right you are. But this experience would be limited to the turf
traveled.
Not to just anywhere....think about it...its another point....
>
>Tranquility Base was geologically about as interesting as your local
>cow pasture. Do you rope up to cross a field? Do you check your
>front yard for crevasses each morning?
A good point...like the lava fields here. But again my point is they
are in a hard
vacuum and the temperatures are deadly and _every_ rock was sharp.
I'm serious
about taking filed trips into fresh lava...its razor sharp. So my
concerns are real.
>
>You've mentioned twice that the lunar surface should be "unweathered".
>Where do suppose that dust came from? There are two or three forces
>operating to erode the moon's surface--all very slow, but they have
>had hundreds of millions of years to do their work: 1) fallback of
>lunar debris from major meteor hits, 2) direct erosion from
>micrometeorites, 3) solar wind has been proposed as a minor erosive
>force.
Right you are. But I'm speaking of another process. The "rounding"
of rocks.
These processes don't do that. Do they? Water does that. Tumbling
does that.
And if we'd found a weathered rock on the moon it would have been
front page
news...
Just go down to your geology lab and get a sample fresh lava...look at
it, touch it...you'll
know what I'm talking about..touch it hard and you'll cut yourself.
Take that obviously weathered rock with what looks like a Roman
numeral C on it...why
wasn't it picked up and brought home?!!!!!
>
>>I also agree with Collier that the Rover's dust trails seem to be
>>hitting a wall of air and aren't the kind we would expect in an
>>airless world.
>
>I don't suppose you or Collier have generated dust plumes in a vacuum
>chamber to see what effects you can produce. If faked on Earth, how
>did they get the dust to settle so quickly in our atmosphere?
It didn't settle that quickly. I have filmed my dune buggy under what
appears to be
very similar conditions and it looks nearly the same...again I wish it
didn't. But we
don't have a large vacuum chamber....just look at the film...you'll
like it...what you
will see is that the sand does not travel in an arc (ark?) And thus
can be seen to hit
a "wall of atmosphere" just as it does here on earth. As Collier
points out "this is my proof you never went to the moon...those plumes
should have traveled in an arc..."
>
>>Back to the LM. Recall there was no airlock. Which is why the cabin
>>would freeze when the door was opened. There were also no benches,
>>couches or beds. Where did the men sleep during rest periods,
>>particularly while on the moon?
>>
>>In orbit they could "float." But not on the moon. Two men
>>standing shoulder to shoulder in a phone booth. You figure.
>>How did they sleep?
>
>With all your contacts, why don't you get in touch with an astronaut
>and ask him real folksy-like "Hey, I'm doing a story about life on the
>moon. How did you get any sleep up there?" It's like, research,
>y'know.
A good idea...I think I'll do that...like I've been saying...I want to
believe in
this one....
>
>>Braeunig claims the takeoff pictures were controlled from "Mission
>>Control." This seems difficult to believe. The LM left and thus took
>>with it its receiving equipment.
>
>Please cite NASA docs showing the receiving equipment was in the
>return module for the specified mission (recall the LEM base was still
>on the moon, so maybe the equipment was there. Or the signal may have
>been sent to Earth through the parabolic umbrellas you can see in some
>photos). If the return module had the receiver, demonstrate either
>that the transmitter range was insufficient to reach the return module
>while it was near the lunar surface, or that the radio signal was too
>directional to be oriented to the return module.
Its possible...I don't doubt they could have filmed this by
remote...but it wasn't
simple.
I should say there is that film of them coming down into the crater
together...towards the
camera when the angle changes and the focus changes...who set up that
camera?...the Rover
was up on top...there are no prints showing they came down and set up
the camera...
>
>>Let's say we wanted to set up a remote. We'd need to be able to send
>>and receive signals from it. So this remote station would requires a
>>sizable station left on the moon just for this purpose.
>>
>>Because of the time lag, it would be difficult to control the camera
>>during lift off....so I have a problem here as well.
>
>We spent 30 billion dollars and couldn't get someone to work out the
>equipment and timing for a lousy remote control shot?
Sure we could...but what I'm saying is that we didn't for the first
takes offs and then
we did for the others...it shows poor planning...if nothing else...
>
>>Not to mention the fact that the lift off is clearly faked in those
>>films.
>>
>>Take a stop watch to it. The LM should slowly rise, just a its mother
>>ship does here. Not "bounce" into the sky. And no smoke.
>
>Since we expected the slow rise and the blast (I certainly did), why
>didn't they show it? Why invite inquiry with this obvious fake? By
>the way, have you worked out the thrust of the return module's
>engine--how much acceleration OUGHT it to have produced?
Good questions. I've suggested the faked films were in house and thus
a bit
more amateurish than they would have been if a big film studio did it.
Just remember the hoax, IF it was a hoax, worked. I bought it. You
bought it.
We all bought it. So it wasn't badly done by any means.
>
>If it's a fake, how was it done? Was this a full-size LEM mockup on a
>sound stage? How'd they make it rise so fast and keep the ropes
>invisible? Sounds like it would take a lot of stagehands to produce
>that effect, but there were only 100--no, 50--in the inner sanctum.
More good questions. I've looked now at NASA's films over and over
and they don't look
like full sized models to me. Just take a good look at the LM coming
in to the CM. A
model can move to the side faster than a full sized craft does...it
has a "jerky" motion.
You can spot it even on the good Dreamworks models....and I think if
you look at these
films again you will see it. I wish I didn't..but I do. And the take
off models are small
sized...very jerky. Part of it is the size. An ocean liner that is
moving just a foot a minute doesn't look like it is moving at all.
The LM on approach to the CM "jumps" to side. And
giggles.
>
>>One of the pro NASA sites shows the men side my side in an artists
>>drawing, with lots of room. Its impossible of course. In order to
>>open the door, both men had to have on their backpacks and both
>>had to be pressurized. There simply wasn't enough room inside the
>>cabin for this. Two men can't get their packs on in my pickup cab,
>>which if anything is larger than the LM's cabin. Two men can
>>sleep in it. since it has seats and since its door open to the
>>outside, rather than towards the inside!
>
>Can two men stand upright in your pickup? Have you looked up anything
>on the dimensions of the LEM cabin? Have you built a LEM mockup from
>cardboard boxes to test your theory? Have you placed a phone booth
>inside your pickup to test your alternate theory that the LEM was
>phone-booth-sized?
Yes I have build a plywood box the size of the LEM and no I cannot
pack
up in it when there are two of us in it...its one of my big
problems...see the Collier
film...you'll see that NASA is still covering this up...all they would
have to do
is drag a couple of packs in and do it...but they aren't...Why?
>
>>Braeunig's tale is that they could close the door after one of them
>>went out or came in and then the other could get past it and go out or
>>come in. While this may or may not work for egress, re-entry is
>>more difficult.
>>
>>Here a suited astronaut would have to go in and then close the door
>>_after_ him. He could then move behind it and open it for his team
>>mate.
>>
>>Astronaut two could then enter the flight deck, or cabin. However the
>>door could not then be closed with the second astronaut standing in
>>the way. It was about the size of a phone booth.
>
>You say they might have been able to get out...but you say it's
>impossible they could have gotten in.
Did I say impossible...remember I'm the guy who said "breaking" for
"braking"....
> If they couldn't close the door
>with two inside, how could they open it with two inside?
Maybe they chinned up into the hatchway above...
>Again I
>invite you to build a realistic cardboard model and try it yourself.
Again I did. That's the problem.
>
>>While putting on the backpacks would be difficult, consider taking
>>them off.
>>
>>Were they 250o (F) above or below zero?
>>
>>Either way an astronaut simply couldn't handle them once you were back
>>inside.
>>
>>Speaking of which. In the shadow with the cabin depressurized, the
>>temperature would have fallen to a minus 250o F during ETAs. So I
>>don't know how they reheated it. Bare hands would free solid if one
>>touched the wall surfaces. As Collier's film shows there were many
>>exposed cables and hydraulic lines or what look like hydraulic lines,
>>in there. So what happened to the fluid when it froze?
>
>Please pull out the Britannica and browse through the articles on
>heat, temperature and thermodynamics. Do you really think the
>temperature of an object of several thousand kilograms is critically
>affected by the loss of a few kilograms of air? Or do a science fair
>experiment--suspend a thermometer in a bottle by a thread, and suck
>out the air with a vacuum cleaner. Does the thermometer's level
>plummet? (Hint: It doesn't. Why not? How does a thermos work?)
Ok. Ok. I know all this. But the entire craft was cold. Or hot.
And it was just the cabin
that had room temperature in it. I do think the exposed surfaces in
the dark and in
the vacuum would cool off quickly. When you see the Collier film
you'll see these
exposed lines and surfaces. They'd cool off during ETAs.
But the backpacks are more of a problem, right. They are either 250
above or 250 below and
they are massive and would have been either like big blocks of ice or
red shot stones....
Either way would be trouble...
>
>>Now lets move to the "coverup."
>>
>>I don't wish to be melodramatic here. These were military men. I was
>>SAC. I was given a .38 _every_ time I carried codes and keys or a
>>nuclear warhead. My standing orders were to _shoot_ any person in my
>>team who went nuts, _before_ I asked any questions.
>>
>>My complement was told the same thing.
>
>Good thing for you that you hadn't developed your lunar theories then.
>
Right you are!!!! And my Willy stuff too!!!!!! I love it....the
freedom of thought!
>>Braeunig suggests thousands would have been involved in the secret,
>>but this is, as we can see quite ludicrous.
>>
>>The circle would have been a few of Von Braun's top people, at least
>>one high ranking general, the astronauts and the film crew that
>>actually made the pictures. That's it.
>>
>>I might point out that Braeunig betrays his true colors when he serves
>>as a NASA apologist for the avoidable tragedy that killed Gus Grissom
>>and his crew. Any fool knew that using an O2 atmosphere in training
>>simulations on the pad was an invitation to disaster.
>
>Braeunig sounds suspiciously like a NAZI name, doesn't it?
Not to me, but then I have a tin ear...
>
>>Indeed since the pictures remain a problem, it hints NASA relied on
>>"amateurs" or "in-house" talent that could be trusted. The original
>>group would have numbered under 50. That's 18 astronauts, three
>>cameramen, and five NASA types, a few Grumman people.
>>
>>The simulator or stage set could be handled by anyone, and they would
>>just suppose it was for simulation.
>
>Tell me again how they created convincing illusions of parallax on
>that sound stage? Couldn't be an outdoor set, you'd never get the sky
>so black and the hills so well lit, so it has to have been indoors.
>But those distant hills really look like they're miles away--you can
>see the nearer hills change their perspective as the astronauts take
>pictures from different spots.
I have a link to a site that shows a lack of parallax for the
hills...worse it shows a jump in
them that suggests that the background was faked...so there
must be some questions here...I'll get it and send it along ASAP....
>
>>So we have a few men, against 30 billion bucks. A secret inside a
>>secret. Headed by a Nazi, W. Von Braun.
>
>When you met him, did you trick him into clicking his heels by looking
>over his shoulder and saying "Oh hello, mein Fuhrer!" (like James
>Garner in the movie "36 Hours").
Remember Dr. Strangelove? And that arm that kept trying to do the
salute?!!!
Naaa....he was just a nice guy. Very bright. I have a friend who
worked there, a Boeing engineer.
His job was a particular pump. Must have been five hundred of them in
the rocket. He was having the dickens of a time with something when
Von Braun walked by one morning and looked down at his desk..."having
problems..." "Yes..." "Vell lets see...a vath we can figure out..."
And in a few minutes he solved the problem. Trimbly said he was
familiar with the entire
system....hard to believe given the size...but possible.
> By the way, what exactly did Von
>Braun head? I thought he was mostly in the rocket design business,
>and you've personally attested that the Saturn V worked.
Yes it did!!!! What a machine!!! Those night shots. For
what...fifty miles the night became the day. You should have been
there to see it!!!!
>
But faking the landing would have been tempting...like I've been
saying I'm not firm on this
stuff...but I can see why there are doubts...that's all...
I could even say that VB was out of the loop if you'd like. Here's
what I'm saying. When we
have a real secret, the loop is small. And it is possible that VB and
Nixon weren't in it. Regan
like to be out of it. Right? If I have a point here it is simply
that the circle was small, if it was
a hoax. Its not like all of NASA knew it.
A question. If you were Neil and your commander called you in at the
last moment and said.
Hyper...we've got a real problem here. We can fake the landings and
keep the public trust or
we can loose your lives and end the public trust....what do you want
to do here?
There guys weren't war criminals. What would you do?
Would you have the courage to attempt it?
Suppose you did, but you Commander said the order has come down that
we are not to attempt it, because if we do and IF we fail on TV we'll
loose the program....so I'm ordering you to fake it.
Now you either resign your commission or you go along with it.
I'm not suggesting that Neil would have been killed if he resigned.
I've signed the same agreement with the Feds that Neil signed. I
cannot speak of certain things and I haven't been killed.
So Neil and the others could have walked...but they couldn't have
talked
Shit, what a spot to be in.
Have you read Back Cloud or A for Andromeda....you could make trouble
by anonymous tips to the media...but these guys were not trouble
making types...not the breaking type....look at that
Hyper...I got it right! Your capitols helped!!
John
ps: I know that's "capitals" not "capitols" but I couldn't resist it.
john_baker
nichol...@hotmail.com (Nicholas Whyte) wrote:
I'll vist those links with relish..do they show the surface of the
moon in the foreground or is the scope pointed up? If it is pointed
up does it work during the day or do they have to use it only during
the night?
You don't need to answer...I'll visit the sites...
>
>It is not at all a "simple matter to prove from the "orientation" of
>the planets, to the the background of fixed stars, that the camera
>which took the picture was on the moon". The shift in position of the
>planets against the stellar background is not very big in the first
>place; and in the second place any displacement will tend to be near
>enough to the path of the planet in question that it wouldn't satisfy
>your criteria.
>
on alignment of the planets..you may be right, but you may also
be wrong, the moon is a quarter of a million miles away from the earth
and its quite possible that distance would not be in the line of
sight, but off to the side...where it would make a difference....
>Nicholas
john_baker
wrote:
Did I write "shits" for "shifts"? Remember I can't quite see the
difference when I look at this thing....I have to blow it up to make
it large enough for me to see the missing "f" ...sorry about that....
>> Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>> > No real shadows & no dark rocks, remember.
>
>John, Baker wrote:
>
>> Art, You DIDN'T read my essay. There are dark rocks and real shadows
>> there...that's the PROBLEM. the men were well lit, but the rocks were
>> not.
>
> Shadows on the ground or near the ground should be and are the darkest.
Not in the moon rock pictures. I'll send you a link and you can see
what I mean...they are dark right at the bottom...as expected.
If they had a suitcase full of equipment they could...but not inside
the camera the way we do today...that's my point...
>
>Art Neuendorffer
john_baker
wrote:
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>John Baker wrote:
>
>> I might point out that Braeunig betrays his true colors when he serves
>> as a NASA apologist for the avoidable tragedy that killed Gus Grissom
>> and his crew. Any fool knew that using an O2 atmosphere in training
>> simulations on the pad was an invitation to disaster.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>NASA has done a lot of equally stupid things; e.g.,
using miles and not km in the Mars landing programs...
>
> launching the Space Shuttle in freezing weather;
> getting the Hubble focal length wrong;
> forgetting to change from metric to English units, etc. etc.
>
> Who were they trying to silence in those cases?
Fineman?
>
> There were dozens of less messy ways to kill Grissom that
> wouldn't hold up or even threaten the Apollo project.
Look I don't buy they were trying to kill Grissom...I've said that
in the text...it looks like a stupid accident to me...
See that's what I said...I really shouldn't have tossed this fig to
the wild guys...I'm with you Art, if you wanted to kill them you'd do
it somewhere else...makes sense to me....
I'm offered a "theory" that suggests they had no intention to fake
the landings until 1969 when they failed to land the LM on auto..Gus
died back in 1967....
I like it.
Neuendorffer
>
> Look I don't buy they were trying to kill Grissom...I've said that
> in the text...it looks like a stupid accident to me...
I take a lot of crap from Dave Webb insinuating that if I believe in
some conspiracy theories then I must believe in *all* conspiracy
theories (e.g., little green men, etc.). This is ridiculous
(Stratfordian 'scholars' are no 'scholars' and they are certainly no
scientists) but your moon theory suggestions don't help the situation. I
have great respect for modern science & technology especially the basic
scientific concepts that one should always question & test the accepted
dogma. This is totally compatible with my anti-Stratfordian stance.
However, there is 'no beef' behind the moon walk hoax people. The hoax
advocates were *completely* trumped by Braeunig's explanations; yet, you
continue on as if this was not the case. Why?
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <3BD98C43...@erols.com>, Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com>
(ph...@errors.comedy) wrote:
> John, Baker wrote:
> >
> > Look I don't buy they were trying to kill Grissom...I've said that
> > in the text...it looks like a stupid accident to me...
> I take a lot of crap from Dave Webb insinuating that if I believe in
> some conspiracy theories then I must believe in *all* conspiracy
> theories (e.g., little green men, etc.).
Well, Art, you *did* post a bunch of farcical conspiracy-theoretic
nonsense (see
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=brotherblue+free+freemasonry+group:hu
manities.lit.authors.*+author:neuendorffer&hl=en&scoring=d&rnum=3&selm=3
5B9114C.5F0D%40erols.com>)
from the Brotherblue site, a site that went on at great length about
space aliens from seVERal different solar systems, and even identified
twelve U. S. Senators as space aliens -- and now you're implying that
you don't believe in "little green men"?
Besides, Art, maybe Baker believes in little green men. Indeed, the
number of anti-Stratfordians who are taken in by various nutcase
conspiracy theories is truly remarkable. Our own Mr. Streitz has
informed us that AIDS is "a hoax." Then there's Raeto West's web site,
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/littleton/>, a compendium of some of the
most bizarre lunatic fringe conspiracy theories extant, including
holocaust revisionism, suspicions that modern physics is "a fraud,"
etc. (There's even a link, not yet working, to "NASA: Astronomical
Lunacy [Astronauts?]" -- when it's finished, it might well appeal to
Baker.) Of course, Lord Burford's fulminations about British
soVEReignty being surrendered and his theories about the lost tribes
have been discussed here before. The Kennedy assassination, too, is a
perennial favorite, and it has been raised in this forum by seVERal
anti-Stratfordians. The less said about Sobran's conspiracy theories,
the better. There are many *hilariously* funny Oxfordian conspiracy
theories, ranging from the "Super Oxford theory" through the "P.T.
theory" to the "Super D.T. theory." Stephanie Caruana has expressed an
interest in conspiracy-theoretic scenarios outside the realm of
Shakespeare authorship. Most partisans of Marlowe must perforce
embrace a conspiracy theory. There's even a guy in this newsgroup who
believes that a Templar/Rosicrucian/Masonic/Priory of Sion conspiracy
is responsible for the Shakespeare canon, and that the conspiracy still
flourishes -- indeed, he even hallucinates the contemporary existence
of an organized "Goon Squad" branch of the conspiracy!
> This is ridiculous
> (Stratfordian 'scholars' are no 'scholars' and they are certainly no
> scientists) but your moon theory suggestions don't help the situation.
What are you talking about, Art? Baker's paranoid and farcically
uninformed suspicions are *perfectly normal* among anti-Stratfordians,
as the partial list above makes abundantly clear.
> I
> have great respect for modern science & technology especially the basic
> scientific concepts that one should always question & test the accepted
> dogma. This is totally compatible with my anti-Stratfordian stance.
> However, there is 'no beef'
"No beef"? Not even an OX? How about some BACON, then?
> behind the moon walk hoax people. The hoax
> advocates were *completely* trumped by Braeunig's explanations; yet, you
> continue on as if this was not the case. Why?
The Oxfordian advocates of a Shakespeare authorship hoax are
*completely* trumped by the explanations at
<http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com/>
and elsewhere, yet you continue on as if this were not the case. Why?
David Webb
MakBane
a goddamned idiot. The same may also be said of people who deny the fact that
JFK was assassinated by conspiracy. Are you not aware that even the United
States House of Representatives concluded in the late 1970s that there had been
a conspiracy? That is one of two official positions taken by our government
(the other being a fraud foisted upon a grieving nation by LBJ, Earl Warren,
and Arlen Specter, et al). With so many other examples to use in condescending
to your opponents, I wonder why you should return so often to an invalid one.
Toby Petzold
American
Neuendorffer
> > The [moon landing] hoax advocates were
> > *completely* trumped by Braeunig's explanations;
> > yet, you continue on as if this was not the case. Why?
"David L. Webb" wrote:
> The Oxfordian advocates of a Shakespeare authorship hoax
> are *completely* trumped by the explanations at
>
> <http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com/>
>
> and elsewhere,
There are admittedly a few dozen weaknesses in Oxfordian logic which
Ross, Kathman & Matus do well to ferret out. This usually involves
dropping 'class A' evidence for Oxford [e.g., the Bulbeck crest] to the
level of 'class B or C' while still remaining quite valid evidence
[e.g., the Bulbeck crest may well have been created after the fact in
order to honor Shakespeare/Lord Bulbeck]. In contrast, Braeunig
generally transformed hoax 'evidence' [no stars or dark shadows] into
strong anti-hoax evidence and he covered all the bases. Strats barely
scratch the surface in addressing the hundreds of relevant points
brought up in Oxford's favor. (Matus' book is quite thin and contains
mostly irrelevant information vis-a-vis authorship.)
The Islamic burka has been around at least twice as long as
Stratfordianism but they deserve equal respect.
> yet you continue on as if this were not the case. Why?
Like any good scientist I do my own search for evidence.
That evidence invariably points to Oxford, as well.
Art
john_baker
Its because if its his opinion its ok, but it its not its nuts....a
simple form of bimodal illogic often relied upon by those who think
Lolita was a nice girl....and her Author a Saint.
>Toby Petzold
>American
john_baker
wrote:
A good question Art. But I have answered that Braeuning's points
don't do it for me.
Its not that I buy into all the crazy stuff. I'm just saying that the
case seems to be an open one. And he went down in flames on
several important points...
There are questions. Real questions. Take a gander at those rocks in
the pictures...they are dark and the men aren't.
Where is the picture of them holding the earth in their hands?
Why does both Braeuning and NASA both tell us the lunar surface
wouldn't allow for a "crater" under the LM and then turn around and
cite as proof of the landings images of craters taken by the Hubble?
I'm going to visit those sites that Nicholas found for the scope that
John Young took up there...maybe I'll come back in to the fold.
But consider this:
Security matters in the federal government are compartmentalized.
Information from one agency flows to another agency through top
managers. The flow is controlled by bureaucrats and intelligence
people. The means that parts of the federal government don't
know what other parts are doing. Files are routinely destroyed,
for security purposes, and people retire and die. The United
States government does not know parts of its own history.
The knowledge remains hidden in pockets.
Richard Preston
My "hunch" here is based on three things, that governments and
those in power do kill and lie to stay in power; a broad personal
experience in dangerous environments and a similar personal
experience in how men change when exposed to such dangers.
I don't detect that change in these 12 and indeed your history
of what has happened to them since then, does nothing to
help me out here.
Moreover, the 12 men aside, I don't see the anticipated change in
the 12 men who remained behind in the CM while the LM was gone.
These 12 men were alone as no 12 men have ever been before in
the history of the race and it seems not to have marked them at all.
Its odd, Art...that's all.
I wish we had been asking for proof at the time. Then we'd have it.
I guess I think its our duty to ask. And we failed.
I know I failed.
I was nothing but a true believer in this at the time and for the
better part of 30 years.
See the Collier film. Think about it.
I think the question is open.
john
Neuendorffer
> > I take a lot of crap from Dave Webb insinuating that if I believe in
> >some conspiracy theories then I must believe in *all* conspiracy
> >theories (e.g., little green men, etc.). This is ridiculous
> >(Stratfordian 'scholars' are no 'scholars' and they are certainly no
> >scientists) but your moon theory suggestions don't help the situation. I
> >have great respect for modern science & technology especially the basic
> >scientific concepts that one should always question & test the accepted
> >dogma. This is totally compatible with my anti-Stratfordian stance.
> >However, there is 'no beef' behind the moon walk hoax people. The hoax
> >advocates were *completely* trumped by Braeunig's explanations; yet, you
> >continue on as if this was not the case. Why?
John, Baker wrote:
> A good question Art. But I have answered that Braeunig's points
> don't do it for me.
>
> Its not that I buy into all the crazy stuff. I'm just saying that the
> case seems to be an open one. And he went down in flames on
> several important points...
> There are questions. Real questions. Take a gander at those rocks in
> the pictures...they are dark and the men aren't.
The men have a whole broad field of bright moonscape to illuminate
them.
The low wide moon rocks and their adjacent broad ground shadows
'see' little of the bright moonscape. Perhaps, the most illumination
these darker shadows receive is from off the astronauts themselves.
If you have a picture of a tall rock that has a dark shadow then
that might be interesting.
> Where is the picture of them holding the earth in their hands?
???
> Why does both Braeuning and NASA both tell us the lunar surface
> wouldn't allow for a "crater" under the LM and then turn around and
> cite as proof of the landings images of craters taken by the Hubble?
1) It is a Clementine probe moon satellite picture
2) It is a discoloration of the surface (not a crater) and
3) It was probably mostly generated during take-off.
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/apollo15_touchdown_photos_010427.html
> I'm going to visit those sites that Nicholas found for the scope that
> John Young took up there...maybe I'll come back in to the fold.
>
> But consider this:
>
> Security matters in the federal government are compartmentalized.
> Information from one agency flows to another agency through top
> managers. The flow is controlled by bureaucrats and intelligence
> people. The means that parts of the federal government don't
> know what other parts are doing. Files are routinely destroyed,
> for security purposes, and people retire and die. The United
> States government does not know parts of its own history.
> The knowledge remains hidden in pockets.
>
> Richard Preston
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/vwoolf.htm
<<After final attack of mental illness Woolf loaded her pockets with
stones and drowned herself in the River Ouse near her Sussex home on
March 28, 1941. On her note to her husband she wrote: "I have a feeling
I shall go mad. I cannot go on longer in these terrible times. I hear
voices and cannot concentrate on my work. I have fought against it but
cannot fight any longer. I owe all my happiness to you but cannot go on
and spoil your life." Her suicide has colored interpretations of her
works, which have been read perhaps too straightly as explorations of
her own traumas.>>
http://www.lang.nagoya-u.ac.jp/~matsuoka/EG-Charlotte-12.html#XVI
<<I have heard, from one who attended Branwell in his last illness, that
he resolved on standing up to die. He had repeatedly said, that as long
as there was life there was strength of will to do what it chose ; and
when the last agony came on, he insisted on assuming the position just
mentioned. I have previously stated, that when his fatal attack came on,
his pockets were found filled with old letters from the woman to whom he
was attached. He died she lives still,--in May Fair. The Eumenides, I
suppose, went out of existence at the time when the wail was heard,
"Great Pan is dead." I think we could better have spared him than
those awful Sisters who sting dead conscience into life.>>
---------------------------------------------------------------
> My "hunch" here is based on three things, that governments and
> those in power do kill and lie to stay in power;
They lie a lot and are, perhaps, too willing to put others in harm's
way but that's about it.
> a broad personal
> experience in dangerous environments and a similar personal
> experience in how men change when exposed to such dangers.
>
> I don't detect that change in these 12 and indeed your history
> of what has happened to them since then, does nothing to
> help me out here.
Thank you, Dr. Freud.
> Moreover, the 12 men aside, I don't see the anticipated change in
> the 12 men who remained behind in the CM while the LM was gone.
> These 12 men were alone as no 12 men have ever been before in
> the history of the race and it seems not to have marked them at all.
If it was *12* men then they had someone to talk too!
> Its odd, Art...that's all.
>
> I wish we had been asking for proof at the time. Then we'd have it.
>
> I guess I think its our duty to ask. And we failed.
>
> I know I failed.
Yes, you did, John.
> I was nothing but a true believer in this at the time and for the
> better part of 30 years.
>
> See the Collier film.
Bud Collier's _Beat the Clock_? One of my favorites!
Art Neuendorffer
john_baker
wrote:
I do...I'll post it here or get you a link to it on one of their
sites...
>
>> Where is the picture of them holding the earth in their hands?
>
> ???
I've suggested that such a picture would be irresistible and good
proof but we don't see it...Should have seen 24 of them...I'd think
all of them would have taken it...
>
>> Why does both Braeuning and NASA both tell us the lunar surface
>> wouldn't allow for a "crater" under the LM and then turn around and
>> cite as proof of the landings images of craters taken by the Hubble?
>
> 1) It is a Clementine probe moon satellite picture
> 2) It is a discoloration of the surface (not a crater) and
> 3) It was probably mostly generated during take-off.
Why? We've been told the fuel burned exceptionally clear and this
is why it didn't have a plume...now we're being told it discolored the
surface, but only on take off..I'd think the thrust on takeoff should
not have been to much more than on landing...they can pick up
speed as they go...
And consider that "glide path" the video and the audio document...
that should have left an pointing stain that runs towards the landing
point...right?
>
>http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/apollo15_touchdown_photos_010427.html
>
>> I'm going to visit those sites that Nicholas found for the scope that
>> John Young took up there...maybe I'll come back in to the fold.
>>
>> But consider this:
>>
>> Security matters in the federal government are compartmentalized.
>> Information from one agency flows to another agency through top
>> managers. The flow is controlled by bureaucrats and intelligence
>> people. The means that parts of the federal government don't
>> know what other parts are doing. Files are routinely destroyed,
>> for security purposes, and people retire and die. The United
>> States government does not know parts of its own history.
>> The knowledge remains hidden in pockets.
>>
>> Richard Preston
>--------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, Art this is a real point and your two points below don't seem to
be...do you deny that the government works as Preston describes
it?
Tell that to the Jews or to the men slaughtered after Japan offered to
quit about the same time the Germans did....
>
>> a broad personal
>> experience in dangerous environments and a similar personal
>> experience in how men change when exposed to such dangers.
>>
>> I don't detect that change in these 12 and indeed your history
>> of what has happened to them since then, does nothing to
>> help me out here.
>
> Thank you, Dr. Freud.
Ok...but you get my point right?
>
>> Moreover, the 12 men aside, I don't see the anticipated change in
>> the 12 men who remained behind in the CM while the LM was gone.
>> These 12 men were alone as no 12 men have ever been before in
>> the history of the race and it seems not to have marked them at all.
>
> If it was *12* men then they had someone to talk too!
True! I don't think the problem was as real for the two men on the
moon, as they guy left behind in the CM...remember it was frequently
out of radio contact with both the earth and the moon...
>
>> Its odd, Art...that's all.
>>
>> I wish we had been asking for proof at the time. Then we'd have it.
>>
>> I guess I think its our duty to ask. And we failed.
>>
>> I know I failed.
>
> Yes, you did, John.
>
>> I was nothing but a true believer in this at the time and for the
>> better part of 30 years.
>>
>> See the Collier film.
>
> Bud Collier's _Beat the Clock_? One of my favorites!
NO!!! James Collier's Was it Only A Paper Moon...
>
>Art Neuendorffer
Neuendorffer
> > The low wide moon rocks and their adjacent broad ground shadows
> >'see' little of the bright moonscape. Perhaps, the most illumination
> >these darker shadows receive is from off the astronauts themselves.
> >
> > If you have a picture of a tall rock that has a dark shadow then
> >that might be interesting.
John, Baker wrote:
> I do...I'll post it here or get you a link to it on one of their
> sites...
Fair enough.
> >> Where is the picture of them holding the earth in their hands?
> >
> > ???
>
> I've suggested that such a picture would be irresistible and good
> proof but we don't see it...Should have seen 24 of them...I'd think
> all of them would have taken it...
While the sun rises & sets the position of the earth is fixed. The
only way to take this would be to have the astronaut very close so he
could reach up to a very small earth - one or the other would not be in
focus.
> >> Why does both Braeuning and NASA both tell us the lunar surface
> >> wouldn't allow for a "crater" under the LM and then turn around and
> >> cite as proof of the landings images of craters taken by the Hubble?
> >
> > 1) It is a Clementine probe moon satellite picture
> > 2) It is a discoloration of the surface (not a crater) and
> > 3) It was probably mostly generated during take-off.
>
> Why? We've been told the fuel burned exceptionally clear and this
> is why it didn't have a plume...now we're being told it discolored the
> surface,
A thin dust layer was removed over a wide area (leaving no crater).
> but only on take off..I'd think the thrust on takeoff should
> not have been to much more than on landing...they can pick up
> speed as they go...
Take off was ~ 3 lunar g's (your 'bounce' effect).
Landing was ~ 1 lunar g.
> And consider that "glide path" the video and the audio document...
> that should have left an pointing stain that runs towards the landing
> point...right?
The LEM went straight up. By the time it turned it's exhaust would
have no effect on the surface.
> >http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/apollo15_touchdown_photos_010427.html
> >
> >> I'm going to visit those sites that Nicholas found for the scope that
> >> John Young took up there...maybe I'll come back in to the fold.
> >>
> >> But consider this:
> >>
> >> Security matters in the federal government are compartmentalized.
> >> Information from one agency flows to another agency through top
> >> managers. The flow is controlled by bureaucrats and intelligence
> >> people. The means that parts of the federal government don't
> >> know what other parts are doing. Files are routinely destroyed,
> >> for security purposes, and people retire and die. The United
> >> States government does not know parts of its own history.
> >> The knowledge remains hidden in pockets.
> >>
> >> Richard Preston
> >--------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Ok, Art this is a real point and your two points below don't seem to
> be...do you deny that the government works as Preston describes
> it?
No.
> >> My "hunch" here is based on three things, that governments and
> >> those in power do kill and lie to stay in power;
> >
> > They lie a lot and are, perhaps, too willing to put others in harm's
> >way but that's about it.
>
> Tell that to the Jews or to the men slaughtered after Japan offered to
> quit about the same time the Germans did....
You tell them, John.
> >> a broad personal
> >> experience in dangerous environments and a similar personal
> >> experience in how men change when exposed to such dangers.
> >>
> >> I don't detect that change in these 12 and indeed your history
> >> of what has happened to them since then, does nothing to
> >> help me out here.
> >
> > Thank you, Dr. Freud.
>
> Ok...but you get my point right?
If those 12 were faking it then they deserve an Oscar.
> >> Moreover, the 12 men aside, I don't see the anticipated change in
> >> the 12 men who remained behind in the CM while the LM was gone.
> >> These 12 men were alone as no 12 men have ever been before in
> >> the history of the race and it seems not to have marked them at all.
> >
> > If it was *12* men then they had someone to talk too!
>
> True! I don't think the problem was as real for the two men on the
> moon, as they guy left behind in the CM...remember it was frequently
> out of radio contact with both the earth and the moon...
But you said "12 men who remained behind in the CM".
> >> See the Collier film.
> >
> > Bud Collier's _Beat the Clock_? One of my favorites!
> NO!!! James Collier's Was it Only A Paper Moon...
Any relation to Bud?
Art
john_baker
wrote:
>> Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>> > The low wide moon rocks and their adjacent broad ground shadows
>> >'see' little of the bright moonscape. Perhaps, the most illumination
>> >these darker shadows receive is from off the astronauts themselves.
>> >
>> > If you have a picture of a tall rock that has a dark shadow then
>> >that might be interesting.
>
>John, Baker wrote:
>
>> I do...I'll post it here or get you a link to it on one of their
>> sites...
>
> Fair enough.
>
>> >> Where is the picture of them holding the earth in their hands?
>> >
>> > ???
>>
>> I've suggested that such a picture would be irresistible and good
>> proof but we don't see it...Should have seen 24 of them...I'd think
>> all of them would have taken it...
>
> While the sun rises & sets the position of the earth is fixed. The
>only way to take this would be to have the astronaut very close so he
>could reach up to a very small earth - one or the other would not be in
>focus.
?? at F22 its all in focus...and the earth would be 6 or 7 times
larger than the full moon looks in the noon time sky here on earth
right?
>
>> >> Why does both Braeuning and NASA both tell us the lunar surface
>> >> wouldn't allow for a "crater" under the LM and then turn around and
>> >> cite as proof of the landings images of craters taken by the Hubble?
>> >
>> > 1) It is a Clementine probe moon satellite picture
>> > 2) It is a discoloration of the surface (not a crater) and
>> > 3) It was probably mostly generated during take-off.
>>
>> Why? We've been told the fuel burned exceptionally clear and this
>> is why it didn't have a plume...now we're being told it discolored the
>> surface,
>
> A thin dust layer was removed over a wide area (leaving no crater).
>
>> but only on take off..I'd think the thrust on takeoff should
>> not have been to much more than on landing...they can pick up
>> speed as they go...
>
> Take off was ~ 3 lunar g's (your 'bounce' effect).
>
> Landing was ~ 1 lunar g.
>
>> And consider that "glide path" the video and the audio document...
>> that should have left an pointing stain that runs towards the landing
>> point...right?
>
> The LEM went straight up. By the time it turned it's exhaust would
>have no effect on the surface.
But not on landing....and help me on the 3 lunar g's. Why not take
off at 1.2 lgs and poor the coals to it as you began to rise, since
the ship would become lighter as the fuel was used up...
Not me, I'm a German...
>
>> >> a broad personal
>> >> experience in dangerous environments and a similar personal
>> >> experience in how men change when exposed to such dangers.
>> >>
>> >> I don't detect that change in these 12 and indeed your history
>> >> of what has happened to them since then, does nothing to
>> >> help me out here.
>> >
>> > Thank you, Dr. Freud.
>>
>> Ok...but you get my point right?
>
> If those 12 were faking it then they deserve an Oscar.
Yes...
>
>> >> Moreover, the 12 men aside, I don't see the anticipated change in
>> >> the 12 men who remained behind in the CM while the LM was gone.
>> >> These 12 men were alone as no 12 men have ever been before in
>> >> the history of the race and it seems not to have marked them at all.
>> >
>> > If it was *12* men then they had someone to talk too!
>>
>> True! I don't think the problem was as real for the two men on the
>> moon, as they guy left behind in the CM...remember it was frequently
>> out of radio contact with both the earth and the moon...
>
> But you said "12 men who remained behind in the CM".
Ok, got me there, if I said that, only six remained behind in the
CM...seven counting Apollo 10...and he stayed in sight of the LM,
I think...
>
>> >> See the Collier film.
>> >
>> > Bud Collier's _Beat the Clock_? One of my favorites!
>> NO!!! James Collier's Was it Only A Paper Moon...
>
> Any relation to Bud?
Yes. He was his grandfather....
>
>Art
Neuendorffer
> >> I've suggested that such a picture would be irresistible and good
> >> proof but we don't see it...Should have seen 24 of them...I'd think
> >> all of them would have taken it...
> Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com> wrote:
> > While the sun rises & sets the position of the earth is fixed. The
> >only way to take this would be to have the astronaut very close so he
> >could reach up to a very small earth - one or the other would not be in
> >focus.
>
> ?? at F22 its all in focus...and the earth would be 6 or 7 times
> larger than the full moon looks in the noon time sky here on earth
> right?
I don't care how many times larger than a full moon - the earth would
be so high in the sky that the camera would have to be right up
underneath the astronaut. That astronaut would, therefore, look huge in
comparison. (Can't we just send you a picture of some tourist holding up
the leaning tower of Pisa if this sort of charade impresses you so
much?)
> >> Why? We've been told the fuel burned exceptionally clear and this
> >> is why it didn't have a plume...now we're being told it discolored the
> >> surface,
> >
> > A thin dust layer was removed over a wide area (leaving no crater).
> >
> >> but only on take off..I'd think the thrust on takeoff should
> >> not have been to much more than on landing...they can pick up
> >> speed as they go...
> >
> > Take off was ~ 3 lunar g's (your 'bounce' effect).
> >
> > Landing was ~ 1 lunar g.
> >
> >> And consider that "glide path" the video and the audio document...
> >> that should have left an pointing stain that runs towards the landing
> >> point...right?
> >
> > The LEM went straight up. By the time it turned it's exhaust would
> >have no effect on the surface.
>
> But not on landing....and help me on the 3 lunar g's. Why not take
> off at 1.2 lgs and poor the coals to it as you began to rise, since
> the ship would become lighter as the fuel was used up...
For the same reason the LEM doesn't take off at 1 lg (rocket power)
and just sit there burning up fuel while going nowhere.
> >> >> My "hunch" here is based on three things, that governments and
> >> >> those in power do kill and lie to stay in power;
> >> >
> >> > They lie a lot and are, perhaps, too willing to put others in harm's
> >> >way but that's about it.
> >>
> >> Tell that to the Jews or to the men slaughtered after Japan offered to
> >> quit about the same time the Germans did....
> >
> > You tell them, John.
>
> Not me, I'm a German...
And I'm not?
> > If those 12 were faking it then they deserve an Oscar.
>
> Yes...
> >
> >> True! I don't think the problem was as real for the two men on the
> >> moon, as they guy left behind in the CM...remember it was frequently
> >> out of radio contact with both the earth and the moon...
> >
> > But you said "12 men who remained behind in the CM".
>
> Ok, got me there, if I said that, only six remained behind in the
> CM...seven counting Apollo 10...and he stayed in sight of the LM,
> I think...
If the NASA technicians in charge of the hoax were as sloppy as you
they would have been discovered years ago.
> >> >> See the Collier film.
> >> >
> >> > Bud Collier's _Beat the Clock_? One of my favorites!
> >> NO!!! James Collier's Was it Only A Paper Moon...
> >
> > Any relation to Bud?
>
> Yes. He was his grandfather....
No kidding?
Art N.
john_baker
wrote:
>> >John, Baker wrote:
>
>> >> I've suggested that such a picture would be irresistible and good
>> >> proof but we don't see it...Should have seen 24 of them...I'd think
>> >> all of them would have taken it...
>
>> Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>> > While the sun rises & sets the position of the earth is fixed. The
>> >only way to take this would be to have the astronaut very close so he
>> >could reach up to a very small earth - one or the other would not be in
>> >focus.
>>
>> ?? at F22 its all in focus...and the earth would be 6 or 7 times
>> larger than the full moon looks in the noon time sky here on earth
>> right?
>
> I don't care how many times larger than a full moon - the earth would
>be so high in the sky that the camera would have to be right up
>underneath the astronaut. That astronaut would, therefore, look huge in
>comparison. (Can't we just send you a picture of some tourist holding up
>the leaning tower of Pisa if this sort of charade impresses you so
>much?)
Ok...here are the links and my remarks, I'll also follow along and
answer yours below:
Art,
This is complicated. But go to this site:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/iangoddard/moon01.htm
Now look at the first NASA picture and then the two "experiment"
pictures below. Notice that the lander leg is lit in the first shot,
but it is not lit in the NASA picture. Only the astronaut is lit.
Look closely at his legs. The lower parts. They too are lit.
Now go to this site:
http://www.lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon.htm
Go about 3/4 of the way down to two side by side pictures. One is of
a tall rock
with the earth hanging above it, the other if of the LEM taken from
the CM with the earth in the background.
Notice that the tall rock is very dark at the top.
Notice the relative size of the earth. Very moon like. Theory holds
that it should appear in any photograph several times larger than the
moon does. The lunar diameter is 0.27227 so the earth should appear
3 times larger than the moon.
Just below these pictures are takeoff pictures. Notice there is no
scaring or discoloring of the lunar surface and no crater.
>
>> >> Why? We've been told the fuel burned exceptionally clear and this
>> >> is why it didn't have a plume...now we're being told it discolored the
>> >> surface,
>> >
>> > A thin dust layer was removed over a wide area (leaving no crater).
>> >
>> >> but only on take off..I'd think the thrust on takeoff should
>> >> not have been to much more than on landing...they can pick up
>> >> speed as they go...
>> >
>> > Take off was ~ 3 lunar g's (your 'bounce' effect).
>> >
>> > Landing was ~ 1 lunar g.
>> >
>> >> And consider that "glide path" the video and the audio document...
>> >> that should have left an pointing stain that runs towards the landing
>> >> point...right?
>> >
>> > The LEM went straight up. By the time it turned it's exhaust would
>> >have no effect on the surface.
>>
>> But not on landing....and help me on the 3 lunar g's. Why not take
>> off at 1.2 lgs and poor the coals to it as you began to rise, since
>> the ship would become lighter as the fuel was used up...
>
> For the same reason the LEM doesn't take off at 1 lg (rocket power)
>and just sit there burning up fuel while going nowhere.
I'm not suggesting that it hovers...
>
>> >> >> My "hunch" here is based on three things, that governments and
>> >> >> those in power do kill and lie to stay in power;
>> >> >
>> >> > They lie a lot and are, perhaps, too willing to put others in harm's
>> >> >way but that's about it.
>> >>
>> >> Tell that to the Jews or to the men slaughtered after Japan offered to
>> >> quit about the same time the Germans did....
>> >
>> > You tell them, John.
>>
>> Not me, I'm a German...
>
> And I'm not?
I thought Art was for Artistic....or Autistic...
>
>> > If those 12 were faking it then they deserve an Oscar.
>>
>> Yes...
>> >
>> >> True! I don't think the problem was as real for the two men on the
>> >> moon, as they guy left behind in the CM...remember it was frequently
>> >> out of radio contact with both the earth and the moon...
>> >
>> > But you said "12 men who remained behind in the CM".
>>
>> Ok, got me there, if I said that, only six remained behind in the
>> CM...seven counting Apollo 10...and he stayed in sight of the LM,
>> I think...
>
> If the NASA technicians in charge of the hoax were as sloppy as you
>they would have been discovered years ago.
Yes that's my point. The entire world was taken in by the magnitude
of the hoax, if it was a hoax, and we forgot to ask these questions
then...I know I wasn't asking them...
When you go to this second site, you'll see a _sketch_ of the men at
the control panel of the LEM its BS...they were touching and crammed
into on both sides...you have to take the time to see the Collier film
Art, you'll enjoy it even if you disagree with it...imagine two men
shoulder to shoulder in a phone booth.
>
>> >> >> See the Collier film.
>> >> >
>> >> > Bud Collier's _Beat the Clock_? One of my favorites!
>> >> NO!!! James Collier's Was it Only A Paper Moon...
>> >
>> > Any relation to Bud?
>>
>> Yes. He was his grandfather....
>
> No kidding?
Let me think about that one...
>
>Art N.
john_baker
http://www.lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon.htm
Has a good picture of who I think is Buz Aldrin coming out of the LEM.
It is just below the drawing of the men in the LEM.
Look at how it is back lit!!! Notice that the undersides of his legs
are lit. Notice also that _under_ both of his legs is a platform!! So
reflected light from the surface cannot bounce off and cause this
effect., as it would be blocked by the platform.
Notice too that the upper surface of the platform seems to be lit.
Notice how dark the shadows are in the gold foil. They should all be
reflecting the bright lunar surface...if that's the light
source....and notice also the shadows under the LEM to the right of
Buz. They show bounced light, but are still much darker than Buz.
Buz is lit. Look at his feet.
Look right above Buz. Those as shadows on the top of the hatch, which
should be dark, but they are his shadows! Here is a guy in the shade
on the moon who is himself casting a shadow!
Baker
KQKnave
>
>Notice the relative size of the earth. Very moon like. Theory holds
>that it should appear in any photograph several times larger than the
>moon does. The lunar diameter is 0.27227 so the earth should appear
>3 times larger than the moon.
>
Nonsense. The moon appears much larger to us when it is
closer to the horizon, an optical illusion caused by the proximity
of trees and houses on the horizon. The apparent size of
any heavenly object is going to be perceived relative to its
proximity to the horizon, and the size of that horizon, on here
and on the moon.
Jim
Neuendorffer
> >
> >> > While the sun rises & sets the position of the earth is fixed. The
> >> >only way to take this would be to have the astronaut very close so he
> >> >could reach up to a very small earth - one or the other would not be in
> >> >focus.
> >John, Baker wrote:
> >> ?? at F22 its all in focus...and the earth would be 6 or 7 times
> >> larger than the full moon looks in the noon time sky here on earth
> >> right?
> Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't care how many times larger than a full moon - the earth would
> >be so high in the sky that the camera would have to be right up
> >underneath the astronaut. That astronaut would, therefore, look huge in
> >comparison. (Can't we just send you a picture of some tourist holding up
> >the leaning tower of Pisa if this sort of charade impresses you so
> >much?)
John, Baker wrote:
>
> This is complicated. But go to this site:
>
> http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/iangoddard/moon01.htm
Excellent site!
> Now look at the first NASA picture and then the two "experiment"
> pictures below. Notice that the lander leg is lit in the first shot,
> but it is not lit in the NASA picture. Only the astronaut is lit.
> Look closely at his legs. The lower parts. They too are lit.
I don't notice any discrepancy that can't be explained from the fact
that the model experiment (with no earthshine among other things) is far
from a perfect representation of the truth.
> Now go to this site:
>
> http://www.lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon.htm
>
> Go about 3/4 of the way down to two side by side pictures. One is of
> a tall rock with the earth hanging above it, the other if of the LEM
> taken from the CM with the earth in the background.
>
> Notice that the tall rock is very dark at the top.
Your f22 stop (to put everything in focus)
plus a short time exposure and no earthshine.
Note that the lunar surface in the background is also gray.
Compare with an overexposed/white lunar surface as in:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/iangoddard/moon01.htm
> Notice the relative size of the earth. Very moon like. Theory holds
> that it should appear in any photograph several times larger than the
> moon does. The lunar diameter is 0.27227 so the earth should appear
> 3 times larger than the moon.
The earth looks pretty big to me.
> Just below these pictures are takeoff pictures. Notice there is no
> scaring or discoloring of the lunar surface and no crater.
The Clementine discoloration took place over an extensive area and
can be compared to undiscolored regions in the most effective
wavelengths of light.
> >> But not on landing....and help me on the 3 lunar g's. Why not take
> >> off at 1.2 lgs and poor the coals to it as you began to rise, since
> >> the ship would become lighter as the fuel was used up...
> >
> > For the same reason the LEM doesn't take off at 1 lg (rocket power)
> >and just sit there burning up fuel while going nowhere.
>
> I'm not suggesting that it hovers...
But a slow acceleration is little better than hovering.
> > If the NASA technicians in charge of the hoax were as sloppy as you
> >they would have been discovered years ago.
>
> Yes that's my point. The entire world was taken in by the magnitude
> of the hoax, if it was a hoax, and we forgot to ask these questions
> then...I know I wasn't asking them...
If it was a hoax then they sure have fooled me.
Art
john_baker
wrote:
Art,
Now go to this site and look at the first picture. See the two
shadows. These guys claim that a double light source would leave
two shadows for each man...but not if they were using spot lights.
But more important look at the man in the front with the very short
shadow...they claim this is due to the fact the surface wasn't flat,
but to take that long shadow in back and make it that short, the
hill would have to be nearly as high as the man...and you could
see such a hill.
Think about it.
>>http://www.lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon.htm
>
>
> If it was a hoax then they sure have fooled me.
>
>Art
And me too for 30 years!!!
John Baker
Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe
john_baker
BS.
I know all about the illusion caused by the moon on
the horizon...but the moon is three times _smaller_ than the earth,
Jim. So the earth should be _three times larger_ when seen from
the surface of the moon.
For example the actual size of the moon is about a degree or two, one
or two fingers at arm's length will block it out. But from the moon
the earth should be 3 to 6 degrees of the sky..or three to six
fingers.
If the guys at NASA are as wrong footed as you are about this it
is no marvel they got this wrong!
Explain to me again why you think the Earth should be the same
apparent size as the moon....
As a matter of fact because of the horizon paradox ot illusion the
earth should be about 18 times larger, since the horizon on the moon
is many times smaller than it is on earth!
Think about it Jim.
john
John
Roundtable
I went to this site and I found proof against the Moon Hoax story.
But you see what you want to see.
Maybe you are like Fox Mulder, only your poster on the wall reads:
"I WANT TO DISBELIEVE".
Roundtable
Neuendorffer
>
> Ok Art, this same site:
>
> http://www.lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon.htm
>
> Has a good picture of who I think is Buz Aldrin coming out of the LEM.
> It is just below the drawing of the men in the LEM.
>
> Look at how it is back lit!!!
By the surrounding lunar surface (beyond the LEM's shadow).
Virtually everything in the photo is backlit the same and therefore
is equally as bright.
> Notice that the undersides of his legs
> are lit. Notice also that _under_ both of his legs is a platform!! So
> reflected light from the surface cannot bounce off and cause this
> effect., as it would be blocked by the platform.
If Buzz could turn around and sit up on the platform shouldn't he be
able to see a panorama of bright moonscape? It is that moonscape that is
illuminating him in the photo.
> Notice too that the upper surface of the platform seems to be lit.
The edge is lit.
> Notice how dark the shadows are in the gold foil. They should all be
> reflecting the bright lunar surface...
They alternately mirror reflect the bright lunar surface or dark
space.
> if that's the light
> source....and notice also the shadows under the LEM to the right of
> Buz. They show bounced light, but are still much darker than Buz.
> Buz is lit. Look at his feet.
There does seem to be more contrast on the two perpendicular surfaces
to Buz's immediate right than I might have expected but I don't have
enough information to give an opinion on this one way or the other.
> Look right above Buz. Those as shadows on the top of the hatch, which
> should be dark, but they are his shadows!
They are his reflection.
Art N
Neuendorffer
> Art,
>
> Now go to this site and look at the first picture. See the two
> shadows. These guys claim that a double light source would leave
> two shadows for each man...but not if they were using spot lights.
>
> But more important look at the man in the front with the very short
> shadow...they claim this is due to the fact the surface wasn't flat,
> but to take that long shadow in back and make it that short, the
> hill would have to be nearly as high as the man...and you could
> see such a hill.
Nearly as high as the man!! Could such hills exist?
Wasn't Apollo 17 selected specifically for interesting terrain?
<<This one is usually based on images like the one above (taken from an
Apollo 17 TV transmission), that seem to show the shadows of the
astronauts coming from different lighting sources. However, a logical
approach to this problem reveals that there is nothing at all mysterious
about either the shadows or the light sources. If, in fact, the shadows
were cast by different light sources, wouldn't each astronaut have two
shadows, instead of just the one each we see here? Of course they would.
Yet, in the images that the "Moon Hoaxers" cite, there is consistently
only one shadow being cast, indicating that the Sun is (as it should be)
the dominant light source.>>
> Think about it.
I'm a smart guy, John. I don't have to think about it for long.
Art Neuendorffer
john_baker
wrote:
ce.
>
>> if that's the light
>> source....and notice also the shadows under the LEM to the right of
>> Buz. They show bounced light, but are still much darker than Buz.
>> Buz is lit. Look at his feet.
>
> There does seem to be more contrast on the two perpendicular surfaces
>to Buz's immediate right than I might have expected but I don't have
>enough information to give an opinion on this one way or the other.
>
>> Look right above Buz. Those as shadows on the top of the hatch, which
>> should be dark, but they are his shadows!
>
> They are his reflection.
No...they are darker than the rest, so they have to be shadow...I'm
looking at the wedged shape thing that is larger near the hatch
and gets smaller the further in we go...
I agree that the foil may be reflecting the blackness of space of of
the surface ..but not all of them can be pointing up out...
I'm not sure what to make of the door way...we know the hatch opened
_inwards_ so what are these things? It looks like a hatch above and
an first platform below and then another platform a few inches below
that...his knees seem to be up against it and the side curtains....
Notice how tight that backpack seems to fit the hatchway....
in the Collier film (Bub's grandfather) you'll see Grauman didn't seem
to know how big the packs were and designed the door, foolishly,
to open inwards....
Look very carefully at the undersurface of the deck his legs are on.
See how dark they are...they should be at least as lit as his legs...
As you have noticed the edge is lit...that's because a light source is
hiting it from Above....
That same light source appears to have hit the three struts off to the
right, see they are dark on the bottom and on the back, but not on
the face and tops...
We know this is the dark side of the LEM beause at the bottom of
the ladder was a pool of darkness....Neil was standing in it when he
came down...
And check out that "blue haze" what the hell is that?
The O2 from the cabin should have vanished tone and tint...it
looks like refracted light in air...what do you make of it...
john
>
>Art N
john_baker
wrote:
You have to learn to read more carefully and to question what you
read.
At that site, in the picture of the two men with the two shadows of
_different_ lengths and going in two _different_ directions, they
claim that if there were two light sources there would be two
shadows...but this is the purpose of a spot light...the beam is narrow
and does not leave two shadows....also if the surface was causing the
lead man's shadow to be shorter, because there was a hill in front of
him, the hill would need to be nearly as tall as him...and you can see
that it is just a small rise on the lip of this "crater" they are
walking around.
By the way there were only two men up there. Who was taking
these pictures?
Remember I don't want to believe we didn't go to the moon. I want to
believe we went. I believed it for 30 years. Now I just want some
soild facts...
Not BS like that....
And the same goes for Willy....
john
Hyperopic
>I know all about the illusion caused by the moon on
>the horizon...but the moon is three times _smaller_ than the earth,
>Jim. So the earth should be _three times larger_ when seen from
>the surface of the moon.
>
>For example the actual size of the moon is about a degree or two, one
>or two fingers at arm's length will block it out. But from the moon
>the earth should be 3 to 6 degrees of the sky..or three to six
>fingers.
From the Earth the moon subtends 0.5 degrees, so from the moon the
Earth subtends 1.8 degrees. My thumb is 0.75 inches across, so at
arm's length (24 inches from my eye) it also subtends 1.8 degrees. On
the moon, I could cover up the Earth by poking just my thumb at it!
Six fingers would be wild overkill.
Your overestimate of the moon's apparent size is very common, and is
an excellent warning against arguments unsupported by measurements.
Most humans are very bad at judging angular size when there is no
familiar object at a known distance available for comparison.
Which is why I asked whether Collier had measured anything, or whether
he just made an assertion based on "common knowledge." Sorry, our
library system has not seen fit to buy his tape so I can't check
myself.
>Explain to me again why you think the Earth should be the same
>apparent size as the moon....
I don't think anyone has said that.
john_baker
wrote:
Art!!!
I've already noted that this quote shows the writer to be mistaken.
No two light sources don't mean two shadows. Not if they are
spots. Are you missing this point?
Now take a look at the surface in front of the man on our left,
notice the shadow is half the lenght of the other's. To do this
you must have twice the surface areas...and it is clear from
the picture there isn't twice the surface area, i.e., a hill nearly
as high as the man....
Now go back and look at the one of Buz crawling out of the LEM
look to the top right just above his right shoulder on the surface of
the LEM is that a shadow? It has the shape of a triangle...similar
to the shadow above him...
john
N
john_baker
>On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 21:07:10 GMT, John Baker wrote:
>
>>I know all about the illusion caused by the moon on
>>the horizon...but the moon is three times _smaller_ than the earth,
>>Jim. So the earth should be _three times larger_ when seen from
>>the surface of the moon.
>>
>>For example the actual size of the moon is about a degree or two, one
>>or two fingers at arm's length will block it out. But from the moon
>>the earth should be 3 to 6 degrees of the sky..or three to six
>>fingers.
>
>From the Earth the moon subtends 0.5 degrees, so from the moon the
>Earth subtends 1.8 degrees. My thumb is 0.75 inches across, so at
>arm's length (24 inches from my eye) it also subtends 1.8 degrees.
Looks as if you've been measuring this...it depends on the length of
one's arm and size of one's finger. I said about....
My poiint is that the moon is much smaller than the earth and we are
very well trained in looking at it from here...the earth from there
would be judged accordingly.
You aren't trying to tell me that if you were on the moon looking at
the earth that you would "think" it was "about the same size"....I
don't buy this Hyper, I think you'd see it as much larger.
The picture I have suggested you see shows the earth near the
horizon...and it looks about the size of the moon from the earth when
it is well above the horizon...did you look at the pictures?
Thanks for check on the Collier film...you library can get it on
loan....
john
>On
>the moon, I could cover up the Earth by poking just my thumb at it!
>Six fingers would be wild overkill.
>
>Your overestimate of the moon's apparent size is very common, and is
>an excellent warning against arguments unsupported by measurements.
>Most humans are very bad at judging angular size when there is no
>familiar object at a known distance available for comparison.
>
>Which is why I asked whether Collier had measured anything, or whether
>he just made an assertion based on "common knowledge." Sorry, our
>library system has not seen fit to buy his tape so I can't check
>myself.
>
>>Explain to me again why you think the Earth should be the same
>>apparent size as the moon....
>
>I don't think anyone has said that.
>
>
John Baker
Hyperopic
>>From the Earth the moon subtends 0.5 degrees, so from the moon the
>>Earth subtends 1.8 degrees. My thumb is 0.75 inches across, so at
>>arm's length (24 inches from my eye) it also subtends 1.8 degrees.
>
>Looks as if you've been measuring this...it depends on the length of
>one's arm and size of one's finger. I said about....
Yes, I did measure for accuracy, but every amateur astronomer learns
that "finger at arm's length" is a fair approximation of 1 degree. I
hear that some unscrupulous people use it as a bar wager--you get a
sucker to bet that his fingertip won't cover the moon.
>My poiint is that the moon is much smaller than the earth and we are
>very well trained in looking at it from here...the earth from there
>would be judged accordingly.
>
>You aren't trying to tell me that if you were on the moon looking at
>the earth that you would "think" it was "about the same size"....I
>don't buy this Hyper, I think you'd see it as much larger.
>
>The picture I have suggested you see shows the earth near the
>horizon...and it looks about the size of the moon from the earth when
>it is well above the horizon...did you look at the pictures?
Yes, the Earth would appear larger, but my point is that neither would
be large in an absolute sense, and unless they were both visible at
the same time, it would be hard for most people to make an accurate
judgment of their relative sizes.
So when you say a picture of the earth "looks about the size of the
moon" I know you're mistaken because you aren't working within a
familiar frame of reference--we don't know from experience how the
lunar horizon ought to look, and more importantly we have no idea what
magnification has been applied to the negative.
By the way, there's a good site regarding the technique of the lunar
landing at www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Cockpit/1556/apollognc.html
Hyperopic
>Now go to this site and look at the first picture. See the two
>shadows. These guys claim that a double light source would leave
>two shadows for each man...but not if they were using spot lights.
I wonder whether spots can really be that tightly focused. If they
can, why isn't the soil in the focused area brighter than the soil
unlit by the spots? What is illuminating the soil outside the spots,
and why isn't that light source casting a shadow? If there are spots
(whether fixed or being panned to follow the astronauts), the
astronaut shadows should change significantly when the astronauts move
short distances--they'll either step out of the spot focus, or move to
where both are lit by one spot but only one is lit by the other spot.
Why hasn't anyone shown that discrepancy?
Gerald Pearson & Sue Sarlette
You might be interested in this message that was posted to
sci.astro.amateur:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archaeologists in Portugal today discovered documentation proving that
there never was a trip to the "New World" by Christopher Columbus.
The entire "trip" was the fabrication of several writers in the palace
of Queen Isabella, apparently designed to distract the populace from
problems in the government.
Many scholars have long contended that the entire Columbus trip was a
hoax. It's well known that the earth is flat and any attempt to travel
to China by heading west would be doomed to failure as the boat fell
off the edge of the earth. Others have shown that there is no way a
boat using technology from the late 1400s could possibly have survived
such a long trip. "The waves would have destroyed a wooden vessel!"
states one scholar.
All information relating to the mythical countries of Canada, USA,
Mexico, Brazil, and others were created by the governments of England,
England, Spain, and Portugal, respectively.
A source for the Queen stated "I'm glad the hoax has been uncovered. I
mean, why didn't people catch on when we did that whole "Watergate"
story arc with Richard Nixon? After that, things kept getting sillier,
with a klutz, a peanut farmer, a senile actor, the head of the CIA, a
complete slut, and then the CIA-led takeover of the election of the
son of the head of the CIA becoming president. It just kept getting
sillier and sillier. I guess we all wanted to get caught. I'm glad the
hoax is over with."
Filming for the scenes in the USA was done in Penemunde, Germany,
except for the California scenes, which were entirely CGI.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Sarlette
Thomas C Lay
: John,
: You might be interested in this message that was posted to
: sci.astro.amateur:
: --------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Archaeologists in Portugal today discovered documentation proving that
: there never was a trip to the "New World" by Christopher Columbus.
: The entire "trip" was the fabrication of several writers in the palace
: of Queen Isabella, apparently designed to distract the populace from
: problems in the government.
: Many scholars have long contended that the entire Columbus trip was a
: hoax. It's well known that the earth is flat and any attempt to travel
: to China by heading west would be doomed to failure as the boat fell
: off the edge of the earth. Others have shown that there is no way a
: boat using technology from the late 1400s could possibly have survived
: such a long trip. "The waves would have destroyed a wooden vessel!"
: states one scholar.
: All information relating to the mythical countries of Canada, USA,
: Mexico, Brazil, and others were created by the governments of England,
: England, Spain, and Portugal, respectively.
: A source for the Queen stated "I'm glad the hoax has been uncovered. I
: mean, why didn't people catch on when we did that whole "Watergate"
: story arc with Richard Nixon? After that, things kept getting sillier,
Was it Arlo Guthrie who said that he gave up doing satire after they gave
the Nobel Peace Prize to Henry Kissinger because there was no way he
could top that?
Tom
: with a klutz, a peanut farmer, a senile actor, the head of the CIA, a
Erik Nielsen
I believe Tom Lehrer said something to that effect. I don't recall
whether that was the particular incident, though.
David Kathman
It was indeed Tom Lehrer, and it was indeed Henry Kissinger winning the
Nobel Peace Prize. At least, I was told this story by somebody who
teaches with Lehrer at UC Santa Cruz. I recall seeing an online
chat with Lehrer in which somebody asked him about that story,
and he said something to the effect that he probably said something
like that once, but it wasn't just one thing that made him give up
writing new songs.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
john_baker
I'll check it out....and take a good close look at those pictures of
the small moon sized earth....
baker
john_baker
<sueg...@muscanet.com> wrote:
>John,
>
>You might be interested in this message that was posted to
>sci.astro.amateur:. I guess we all wanted to get caught. I'm glad the
>hoax is over with."
>
me too...
>Filming for the scenes in the USA was done in Penemunde, Germany,
>except for the California scenes, which were entirely CGI.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Sue Sarlette
John Baker
john_baker
Dave,
I think you and I and the rest of hlas should have lunch
on the moon with CC. Who pays?
john
john_baker
Some good questions here. But you must see my point abut the size of
the first man's shadow. It is half the size of the secons man's. For
this to happen the landscape must rise nearly the hight of the man
and this would leave a clear curve to the rise and we can see from
this picture no curve....
As for the other questions, I'd say the set so was well lit that it
makes it difficult to see the spot...they'd use a "soft-spot," no pun
intended, here.
Just take a good look at a pay the next time you go. When the set is
lit you never see their shadows even though they are in the floods or
spots all the time...you only see that cone of light when the set
isn't lit...
john
Charles Maitland
Fyodor
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:43:55 GMT, Hyperopic wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 20:59:12 GMT, John Baker wrote:
> >
> >>Now go to this site and look at the first picture. See the two
> >>shadows. These guys claim that a double light source would leave
> >>two shadows for each man...but not if they were using spot lights.
> >
> >I wonder whether spots can really be that tightly focused. If they
> >can, why isn't the soil in the focused area brighter than the soil
> >unlit by the spots? What is illuminating the soil outside the spots,
> >and why isn't that light source casting a shadow? If there are spots
> >(whether fixed or being panned to follow the astronauts), the
> >astronaut shadows should change significantly when the astronauts move
> >short distances--they'll either step out of the spot focus, or move to
> >where both are lit by one spot but only one is lit by the other spot.
> >Why hasn't anyone shown that discrepancy?
> >
> >
>
>
> Some good questions here. But you must see my point abut the size of
> the first man's shadow. It is half the size of the secons man's. For
> this to happen the landscape must rise nearly the hight of the man
> and this would leave a clear curve to the rise and we can see from
> this picture no curve....
It looks like a rise to me, curve or no curve. You have strange
ideas about what "must be".
>
> As for the other questions, I'd say the set so was well lit that it
> makes it difficult to see the spot...they'd use a "soft-spot," no pun
> intended, here.
>
> Just take a good look at a pay the next time you go. When the set is
> lit you never see their shadows even though they are in the floods or
> spots all the time...you only see that cone of light when the set
> isn't lit...
I don't suppose it has occurred to you that photos on a website are
hardly primary evidence for anything? I don't see anything unusual
on the web site, but even if there were, doctoring photos is easy.
Fyodor
Hermione Summerfresh
Have you considered a psychiatrist? A person who posts under
multiple pseudonyms, writes a bloated web site full of misinformation
about Marlowe and Shakespeare, and posts about a supposed moon landing
hoax in a Shakespeare newsgroup might just be seriously ill.
john_baker
wrote:
>John Baker wrote in message news:<3be2171e...@News.localaccess.com>...
>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:43:55 GMT, Hyperopic wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 20:59:12 GMT, John Baker wrote:
>> >
>> >>Now go to this site and look at the first picture. See the two
>> >>shadows. These guys claim that a double light source would leave
>> >>two shadows for each man...but not if they were using spot lights.
>> >
>> >I wonder whether spots can really be that tightly focused. If they
>> >can, why isn't the soil in the focused area brighter than the soil
>> >unlit by the spots? What is illuminating the soil outside the spots,
>> >and why isn't that light source casting a shadow? If there are spots
>> >(whether fixed or being panned to follow the astronauts), the
>> >astronaut shadows should change significantly when the astronauts move
>> >short distances--they'll either step out of the spot focus, or move to
>> >where both are lit by one spot but only one is lit by the other spot.
>> >Why hasn't anyone shown that discrepancy?
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> Some good questions here. But you must see my point abut the size of
>> the first man's shadow. It is half the size of the secons man's. For
>> this to happen the landscape must rise nearly the hight of the man
>> and this would leave a clear curve to the rise and we can see from
>> this picture no curve....
>
>It looks like a rise to me, curve or no curve. You have strange
>ideas about what "must be".
>
Looks like a rise to me to, but a very, very small one. You tell me
what has happened to the lenght of his shadow...my impression is
that for the shadow to be that short, the surface distance of the
"rise" _must_ make up for the missing lenght...how do you figure it?
>>
>> As for the other questions, I'd say the set so was well lit that it
>> makes it difficult to see the spot...they'd use a "soft-spot," no pun
>> intended, here.
>>
>> Just take a good look at a pay the next time you go. When the set is
>> lit you never see their shadows even though they are in the floods or
>> spots all the time...you only see that cone of light when the set
>> isn't lit...
>
>I don't suppose it has occurred to you that photos on a website are
>hardly primary evidence for anything? I don't see anything unusual
>on the web site, but even if there were, doctoring photos is easy.
These are NASA photos. Not doctored unless NASA did it.
In any case the same applies to NASA right? All I'm suggesting is
that the moon landings should be an open question until NASA comes
up with something more like proof.
>
>
>Fyodor
john_baker
Summerfresh) wrote:
Who would that person be?
john_baker
Maitland) wrote:
>Jo
>>
>Is this really a Shakespeare newsgroup?
A good question. But I began this thread by pointing
out the similarities between this and the belief in Willy.
None of us went to the moon, we just either believe
12 men did or we don't.
None of us wrote Shakespeare. We either believe he
did or we don't.
Just skip this header if you don't enjoy thinking about
this off topic subject...
I don't like it either...it just caught my attention when
a listener to one of my talk shows gave me Collier's
tape a couple of years ago...
john
KQKnave
>>I don't suppose it has occurred to you that photos on a website are
>>hardly primary evidence for anything? I don't see anything unusual
>>on the web site, but even if there were, doctoring photos is easy.
>
>These are NASA photos. Not doctored unless NASA did it.
How do you know that? Is it your website?
>In any case the same applies to NASA right? All I'm suggesting is
>that the moon landings should be an open question until NASA comes
>up with something more like proof.
NASA has provided proof in the form of numerous eyewitness accounts
and rocks brought back from the moon which have been analyzed by
scientists from all over the world.
Jim
KQKnave
>>Have you considered a psychiatrist? A person who posts under
>>multiple pseudonyms, writes a bloated web site full of misinformation
>>about Marlowe and Shakespeare, and posts about a supposed moon landing
>>hoax in a Shakespeare newsgroup might just be seriously ill.
>
>
>Who would that person be?
>
Sounds like you, baker. Here are just some of the pseudonyms
you've posted under:
Arbella Stuart (Arbella...@my-deja.com)
Bacon (ba...@my-deja.com)
John Padden (john_pa...@hotmail.com)
Telemachos <son_of_...@hotmail.com)
elizabe...@mail.com (google)
elizabe...@boldplanet.com
Alcibiades <son_of_...@hotmail.com
john_the-baker <john_th...@my-deja.com>
Prospero <pros...@my-deja.com>
Ophelia <Oph...@my-deja.com>
Shimur Taniyama <Shimur_...@my-deja.com>
Shylock <shy...@my-deja.com>
Skylock <Sky...@my-deja.com>
Socrates/Falstaff <Socrates/Fals...@my-deja.com>
Alkibiades <Alkib...@my-deja.com>
John_...@my-deja.com
Alcibiades...@my-deja.com
Alckibiades <>
Ebenezer (Eben...@my-deja.com)
Alcibiades [no email at all]
baker_ne...@my-deja.com
Alcibiades@
Alcib...@my-deja.com
Alkibiades (brot...@aol.com),
alkibia...@my-deja.com,
ba...@my-deja.com,
John Baker (mar...@localaccess.com),
Alcibiades(kot...@hotmail.com)
jo...@my-deja.com
john_...@my-deja.com
Jim
john_baker
>In article <3be2c6fa...@News.localaccess.com>, John Baker writes:
>
>>>I don't suppose it has occurred to you that photos on a website are
>>>hardly primary evidence for anything? I don't see anything unusual
>>>on the web site, but even if there were, doctoring photos is easy.
>>
>>These are NASA photos. Not doctored unless NASA did it.
>
>How do you know that? Is it your website?
>
>>In any case the same applies to NASA right? All I'm suggesting is
>>that the moon landings should be an open question until NASA comes
>>up with something more like proof.
>
>NASA has provided proof in the form of numerous eyewitness accounts
You mean people who saw these men land and walk on the moon, other
than the 12 to claim to have done it? Who are these people?
>and rocks brought back from the moon which have been analyzed by
>scientists from all over the world.
Jim since the moon is much smaller than the earth and has no
atmosphere, when it is hit by a meteorite surface rocks are toss off
at speeds over escape velocity...since we are the big
neighbor these rocks find their way to earth and some of them land
here as moon meteorites.
One about the size of an M.G., and Austin or a Miada would provide
_more_ than enough real moon rocks for all those guys looking at the
ones NASA claims were picked up by our boys.
So. We are just asking for real proof.
There should have been lots of it, but there isn't.
See the Collier film.
john
>
>
>
>
>Jim
john_baker
>In article <3be2c7d3...@News.localaccess.com>, John Baker writes:
>
>>>Have you considered a psychiatrist? A person who posts under
>>>multiple pseudonyms, writes a bloated web site full of misinformation
>>>about Marlowe and Shakespeare, and posts about a supposed moon landing
>>>hoax in a Shakespeare newsgroup might just be seriously ill.
>>
>>
>>Who would that person be?
>>
>
>Sounds like you, baker. Here are just some of the pseudonyms
>you've posted under:
Jim you are a sick, sick guy.
As I've said, I've always signed _all_ of my posts.
All of them are _automatically_ signed.
So if you think I'm these other persons, you are the lunatic, not
me, brother.
john
John Baker
Hermione Summerfresh
> On 1 Nov 2001 20:52:54 -0800, Charles_...@hotmail.com (Charles
> Maitland) wrote:
>
> >Jo
> >>
> >Is this really a Shakespeare newsgroup?
>
> A good question. But I began this thread by pointing
> out the similarities between this and the belief in Willy.
>
> None of us went to the moon, we just either believe
> 12 men did or we don't.
It seems to me that the issue is whether or not you believe the
eyewitness testimony of those twelve men, the 6 men who
were in the command module, and all the scientists who worked
on the project and analyzed the moon rocks.
>
> None of us wrote Shakespeare. We either believe he
> did or we don't.
No, it's a question of whether or not you believe the
eyewitness testimony, as above. I suppose a willingness
to believe in outlandish conspiracy theories involving
faked deaths has something to do with it as well.
>
> Just skip this header if you don't enjoy thinking about
> this off topic subject...
Ok, I'll do that.
john_baker
Summerfresh) wrote:
>John Baker wrote in message news:<3be2ccda...@News.localaccess.com>...
>> On 1 Nov 2001 20:52:54 -0800, Charles_...@hotmail.com (Charles
>> Maitland) wrote:
>>
>> >Jo
>> >>
>> >Is this really a Shakespeare newsgroup?
>>
>> A good question. But I began this thread by pointing
>> out the similarities between this and the belief in Willy.
>>
>> None of us went to the moon, we just either believe
>> 12 men did or we don't.
>
>It seems to me that the issue is whether or not you believe the
>eyewitness testimony of those twelve men, the 6 men who
>were in the command module, and all the scientists who worked
>on the project and analyzed the moon rocks.
>
You might suppose it so. But I've shown you that we have moon rocks
on the earth and no geologist can tell whether they got here via the
CM or a meteorite....not if we take the insides of it.
As for the 18 witnesses...I cited the Bible and the Book of Mormon
on that front. What we want is evidence...not witnesses...
>>
>> None of us wrote Shakespeare. We either believe he
>> did or we don't.
>
>No, it's a question of whether or not you believe the
>eyewitness testimony, as above. I suppose a willingness
>to believe in outlandish conspiracy theories involving
>faked deaths has something to do with it as well.
>
Faked deaths are quite common.
>>
>> Just skip this header if you don't enjoy thinking about
>> this off topic subject...
>
>Ok, I'll do that.
Good.
Me too.
Charles Maitland
> On 3 Nov 2001 23:53:03 -0800, hermione...@hotmail.com (Hermione
> Summerfresh) wrote:
>
> >John Baker wrote in message news:<3be2ccda...@News.localaccess.com>...
> >> On 1 Nov 2001 20:52:54 -0800, Charles_...@hotmail.com (Charles
> >> Maitland) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Jo
> >> >>
> >> >Is this really a Shakespeare newsgroup?
> >>
> >> A good question. But I began this thread by pointing
> >> out the similarities between this and the belief in Willy.
> >>
> >> None of us went to the moon, we just either believe
> >> 12 men did or we don't.
> >
> >It seems to me that the issue is whether or not you believe the
> >eyewitness testimony of those twelve men, the 6 men who
> >were in the command module, and all the scientists who worked
> >on the project and analyzed the moon rocks.
> >
>
> You might suppose it so. But I've shown you that we have moon rocks
> on the earth and no geologist can tell whether they got here via the
> CM or a meteorite....not if we take the insides of it.
That's false. Moon rocks blasted off the surface of the moon have to
pass through our atmosphere, where they get burned up. They have a fire-
heated outer surface, which distinguishes them from rocks brought
to earth directly from the surface of the moon.
>
> As for the 18 witnesses...I cited the Bible and the Book of Mormon
> on that front. What we want is evidence...not witnesses...
Witnesses are evidence. Many witnesses are even better.
>
>
> >>
> >> None of us wrote Shakespeare. We either believe he
> >> did or we don't.
> >
> >No, it's a question of whether or not you believe the
> >eyewitness testimony, as above. I suppose a willingness
> >to believe in outlandish conspiracy theories involving
> >faked deaths has something to do with it as well.
> >
>
> Faked deaths are quite common.
They are? Can you name any that are known for a fact?
john_baker
Maitland) wrote:
>John Baker wrote in message news:<3be573a8...@News.localaccess.com>...
>> On 3 Nov 2001 23:53:03 -0800, hermione...@hotmail.com (Hermione
>> Summerfresh) wrote:
>>
>> >John Baker wrote in message news:<3be2ccda...@News.localaccess.com>...
>> >> On 1 Nov 2001 20:52:54 -0800, Charles_...@hotmail.com (Charles
>> >> Maitland) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Jo
>> >> >>
>> >> >Is this really a Shakespeare newsgroup?
>> >>
>> >> A good question. But I began this thread by pointing
>> >> out the similarities between this and the belief in Willy.
>> >>
>> >> None of us went to the moon, we just either believe
>> >> 12 men did or we don't.
>> >
>> >It seems to me that the issue is whether or not you believe the
>> >eyewitness testimony of those twelve men, the 6 men who
>> >were in the command module, and all the scientists who worked
>> >on the project and analyzed the moon rocks.
>> >
>>
>> You might suppose it so. But I've shown you that we have moon rocks
>> on the earth and no geologist can tell whether they got here via the
>> CM or a meteorite....not if we take the insides of it.
>
>That's false. Moon rocks blasted off the surface of the moon have to
>pass through our atmosphere, where they get burned up. They have a fire-
>heated outer surface, which distinguishes them from rocks brought
>to earth directly from the surface of the moon.
>
You missed the fine print, Charles, I know what you write is correct,
so I've already mentioned that the samples have to come from the
_inside_ of those meteorites. Worse yet 800 pounds of moon rocks
only proves that at least one of the LEM's landed and was able to
collect them on auto....
>>
>> As for the 18 witnesses...I cited the Bible and the Book of Mormon
>> on that front. What we want is evidence...not witnesses...
>
>Witnesses are evidence. Many witnesses are even better.
Wrong. Many witnesses may claim that O.J. killed his ex-wife.
But if the was somewhere else, didn't have a motive, etc., etc., it
doesn't matter what the witnesses claim.
Consider Willy, in the lack of witness evidence, what are the
connections to the works?
>
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> None of us wrote Shakespeare. We either believe he
>> >> did or we don't.
>> >
>> >No, it's a question of whether or not you believe the
>> >eyewitness testimony, as above. I suppose a willingness
>> >to believe in outlandish conspiracy theories involving
>> >faked deaths has something to do with it as well.
>> >
>>
>> Faked deaths are quite common.
>
>They are? Can you name any that are known for a fact?
Peter Farey has a long list on his website check it out.
I've known of two in my community.
Three if you count me among the dead...
john
Kalin MacGruder
But they didn't come from inside the meteorites, they came from
the moon! The surface of the moon has intense bombardment from
ultraviolet rays, solar wind, gamma ray particles, isotopes of
elements with non-earthlike abundance etc and they
alter the surface of the rock in a unique way that could not be
duplicated on earth. Passage through the earth's atmosphere
would obliterate that, and you can't fake a surface like that
by coring out a sample of a meteorite.
> >>
> >> As for the 18 witnesses...I cited the Bible and the Book of Mormon
> >> on that front. What we want is evidence...not witnesses...
> >
> >Witnesses are evidence. Many witnesses are even better.
>
> Wrong. Many witnesses may claim that O.J. killed his ex-wife.
> But if the was somewhere else, didn't have a motive, etc., etc., it
> doesn't matter what the witnesses claim.
But the witnesses will provided a coherent and self-consistent
picture of what happened if they really witnessed the crime. It
is not possible for thousands of witnesses to produce the same
story.
>
> Consider Willy, in the lack of witness evidence, what are the
> connections to the works?
There is quite a bit of evidence for Shakespeare. I don't believe
he wrote the plays, but I think Sir Philip Sidney is a much better
candidate. There is at least clear-cut evidence for his life, unlike
Marlowe, for whom almost no evidence exists. I think it's very funny
that you don't believe in the moon landings but you do believe that
a man named Marlowe existed, when there is a million times more evidence
that the moon landings took place but basically no consistent evidence
tying Marlowe (Marley, Morley) to the plays he was credited with long
after his death. There is nothing in the works of "Marlowe", whoever he
was, like Sidney's obvious first draft of King Lear in his "Paphlagonian
Unkind King", or Sidney's rather obvious prequel to "Shakespeare's Sonnets"
in the sonnet sequence his sister published under his own name.
Kalin