They faked it ! The Moon Landing !!

then don't


then don't quote the post.


There are a few now.


Which does nothing to show NASA is a military organization.


And they matched the samples Apollo brought back. So what?



Funny you should say that when many hoax believers go the other way. Many claim it has been ignored (it hasn't) and we should continue to study it (we have). As for other things to do:
-build a colony and in the process learn lessons needed for a colony on Mars where help would not be so close
-mine He3 (eventually)
-build a radio telescope on the far side (shielded naturally from all the radio noise on Earth

I'm sure there are others but those are just off the top of my head.

Where can I find blue prints and design diagrams of the LM? Certainly, we can find such documents somewhere, correct? NASA.gov says vaguely anything other than superficial information about it, but certainly someone designed it and was subsequently awarded a Nobel Peace Prize or something, right? If anyone could point me towards more resources on this miraculous craft, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Is your keyboard missing any of these letters: 'g' 'o' 'l' 'e'?


You couldn't.
You haven't managed to find a single fact so far.
I doubt you could find your behind without directions.


You've never heard of Tom Kelly?

I've asked before, why do you believe that your 'opinion', the 'opinion' of a person WHO DOES NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT APOLLO, on Apollo has any merit?

At all?


Just pretending to say the magic word doesn't work wonders.



You are truely unable to tell facts from lies.

You CANNOT use a bare assertion as evidence of anything.
First PROOF it is a fact.


And nearly 50 years later nobody of the tens of thousands of people that would have been involved have tattled.
Strong evidence there isn't a secret.



You're welcome.

The magic word can work wonders.

@Halcyon:

"And nearly 50 years later nobody of the tens of thousands of people that would have been involved have tattled.
Strong evidence there isn't a secret."

Most may not have known if the project was compartmentalized.

Just playing devils advocate and being the contrarian's contrarian's contrarian.

For people with a genuine interest in such technical minutiae: [link to ntrs.nasa.gov] matchall

ETA: Apparently the NASA Technical Reports Server is down for a major upgrade.
About time.


Hoaxies keep failing at establishing an overwhelming motive for any country to pawn the crown jewels on a vanity project.


YOU accuse people of criminal wrongdoing and you REFUSE the burden of proof?

It really doesn't work like that in grown-up country.
Such childish attitudes, added to your ignorance, and total lack of logic, is the reason nobody in the real world takes you lot serious.
In 40+ years you haven't been able to produce a single piece of relevant evidence.
And then you whine, as if it's anybody else's fault you can't make your case.

Fools.


How is that relevant to the historicity of Apollo?


So?
We know Nazis can built rockets that work.
Ask any Londoner.

The people sending space craft to the Moon being evil is not evidence against them them doing it.
The construction of the Great Wall of China was ordered by one of the most evil persons in history.
It's real though.
The Moscow Metro system? - Stalin.
Shipping a 330 tonne monolith from Egypt to Rome? - Caligula.
History is full of these.


Apollo retrieved three metre long core samples and rather large rocks (including 'Big Muley').
The Soviets only retrieved scoops of regolith, 326 grammes of it.
No rocks.
And they were NOT the first. Their first successful lunar sample return mission was in September 1970.

Man! Can't you guys get anything right?


Take lots of pictures, video and film.
Place science packages, like ALSEP which transmitted gigabytes of data for many years or the LRRRs which of course are still operational.

You know, the usual.


Last Edited by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on 03/21/2013 11:54 AM

But it wasn't.

Just another hoaxie figment.

They can't wrap their heads around the fact that a ridiculously large number of people would have to be involved to successfully hoax Apollo, not some imaginary lunar landing programme, and keep it a secret for forever.
If it were possible at all, which I doubt.

pathetic how shills take all this so much personal
even more how they defend nazis and the politic of that time
trying only to offend others who don't bow to the fakery

no wonder that the 'small step for man' appeared nothing more than that - SMALL
have a nice time

Oh, so you are offended about having to bow to Nazis, you call other people desperate shills, but YOU aren't taking it "personally?"

Pot, kettle, ibid.

Then the engineers build equipment that works and is capable of getting to the Moon and back. So why not use it?

Manhattan Project was compartmentalized.

And this is how it works in the real world; EVERYONE on the project knew there was a secret. Heck, be kind of hard to not notice when you are behind barbed wire being guarded by the Army!

They also knew who knew the secret; the top brains went into rooms no-one else went into, and the memos they produced had higher security stamps.

And the basic nature of the project was clear to most inside it; it was a weapon, it was nuclear. Again, hard to cover those aspects up. The basic SCIENCE was known to many outside the project; enough that SF writers were talking about it, and the spies from several countries were interested in it (one of which already had a Project of their own).

And it was onion-skin; not a single dead zone somewhere in the heart of the project where all the secrets were stowed, but increasing levels of security, generally vertical. You might be able to do a lot of the electronics of the Trinity shoot without needing to ever see the Device in person, but to work on the actual firing circuits you needed to know as much about the physical arrangement inside the casing as the guys who designed the thing.

And the technical secrets that were being most protected were small but significant engineering details. Many of which were leaked even before the first shoot! But they were made possible by the rings of ever-increasing information control and security.


I defy you to find any person at any level in Grumman or stitching the seams on pressure suits or leveling a pad or sitting in a tracking station that knew "Don't go into Room 112, don't ask questions about Document A4, and Doctor Goldfoot knows things he isn't telling anyone but his closest associates."

To compartmentalize Apollo in the same way, you'd need the same vertical security in every aspect of the project.



Of course hoaxies don't see anything wrong with this. Their idea of a job is clerk at Wallmart's. The idea of knowing anything about the corporate descision-making process that changes the price structure or the layout of the aisles is completely alien. Heck, the idea of CARING about it is alien. To them, a job is something you clock into, put as little attention as possible into, and forget instantly the moment you put on your own coat to go home.

They can't conceive of the mindset of a young, challenge-hungry engineer who got a crack at working at the biggest thing since the Pyramids. They can't conceive why the idea that such a person could be told, "You don't need to know what the widget is for, just build it to these specs" is ludicrous.

OTHER THAN SUPERFICIAL INFO???????

WT did I just hear you say NASA is in no way a Milittary agency?????

So quick to discredit yourself today! well done!

11 YEARS and EVERYONE KNOWS 911 was BS!

44 YEARS and EVERYONE KNOWS the Moon Landing was BS!

Unlike most, I don't believe everything returned from a Google search. I know you'd like that, cause than I'd believe we landed a friggin man on the moon now wouldn't I. I went to NASA.gov and scrubbed through that site for any bit of information that was more than superficial in nature regarding the LM. Instead I found a maze of disorganized information. If I came here posting facts from an invalid source, you'd be all over that like white on rice. I politely asked for pointers to resources of the LM. Capable payloads, dimensions for cargo, yet, true to form, the NASA site is a maze of everything but things like this.

Are you suggesting that the LM designs were substituted for toilet paper at the NASA headquarters? Wouldn't surprise me with all of the original moon footage that was lost and subsequently taped over. That's analogous to Thomas Jefferson accidentally writing over the Constitution. NASA can put a man on the moon, but can't safeguard the original footage of it.

OK. Thanks. Appreciate the sliver of information in your adhom sandwich. Perhaps, if you're so kind, you could point me towards a resource that has information about him prior the year 2000? Call me sceptical, but I find it suspicious that this guy appears in zero newspaper articles during that period of time when we defied a 0.0017 chance of landing a man on the moon in a lander he supposedly designed.

OK, let's discuss this. The closest, supposedly reachable, celestial body which could yield mountains of information about outer space and NASA picks up, packs up, and decides to head to Mars instead. Really? Seems to me, corporately thinking of course, that the most cost effective study would be right here on our "reachable" moon. Huge craters that would yield many objects to study. These objects could then be continuously returned to earth for hands on physical analysis. Yet, where are all of these yields? Well, NASA prefers distant study and video....much more beneficial.

Best answer to the question I posed even though you only cite one example. Being that the Apollo and Manhatten Project were similar in scale; but not as you say structure, you are on point.

I for one believe that we landed on the moon six times, but am encouraging folks to make good arguments like you have. If deniers can make better arguments and refer to better evidence I am all ears. Until then my position has been made clear.

Last Edited by thomowen20 on 03/17/2013 04:01 PM

It's next to impossibe to keep it a secret that there is a secret.



You're only telling us what we already know, you suck at doing research.
People with genuine astronautics questions, but have trouble finding the information they need, go to one of the many astronautics forums.
And ask nicely...

I see no reason to do the homework for somebody who spouted his accusations about Apollo BEFORE studying Apollo.
People who do that are not truth seekers, they are propagandists.

Nobody needs to proof you are wrong, YOU need to proof you are RIGHT.
Your feeble attempts so far indicate you don't have what it takes.



We are defending the historical and scientific record.
Whether or not is was the right thing to do is a whole other debate.
Feel free to start that thread, I have some opinions on that.

You have yet to explain which laws of physics makes it impossible for Nazis to land a man on the Moon and return him safely.


PROOF it was fakery.

Such a simple challenge but you keep equivocating.
If it is so obvious it should be really simple for you to PROOF is was.
Yelling "Thems were all Nazis!!11!OMFG!!" isn't proof that they didn't land a man on the Moon and returned him safely.



NASA was established by Act of Congress as a civilian agency of the U.S. federal government.
The US has the MILITARY as its military.
A military that has its own space programme, a vast black budget, and no need for NASA, which compared to the DOD, gets treated as an ugly stepchild by the budget commissions in Washington.


So you are now going the present us with the evidence that NASA is a military agency?
For some reason all the others that made that claim forgot to do so.


We are not interested in your religious creed.
We are interested in your evidence.

Don't you think it would be very embarrassing if it turned out only the Apollo Nutters presented actual verifiable factual evidence in this thread?
So far the hoaxies have only presented the same ol' same ol' easily debunkable lies, and political slogans.
Not a single statement that was and true and relevant.

You really don't know anything do you. NASA has had more technology transfer than any other agency. All of the data are online. You continue to make unfounded claims. How sad you are.

HAHAHA YOU FAIL

Here lemme fix that for you, " Is your keyboard missing any of these letters: 'g' 'o' 'o' 'g' 'l' 'e'

You're BS

Why do you continue with a red herring. There is absolutlely nothing that can be seen from the Moon that can be seen from Earth orbit. Apollo was not about astronomy. It was a cold war demonstration of power with the secondary goal of studying the Moon's GEOLOGY. Can you look up the word GEOLOGY and figure out what that means? It isn't astronomy.

Duh, notice that the g and o are repeated. You do not need a seperate key for each time you type a g or an o. Take out the duplicates you get g o l and e. No wonder you have so much trouble, you can't even figure out how a keyboard works.

Then PROVE it is military. Go ahead. I dare you.

You didn't answer the question.

How cute that you don't realize the g and o are repeated!

Don't forget: Everyone knows that Nibiru is hiding near the sun, oh wait...

Your dodging the point about the void in historical record regarding one Mr. Tom Kelly is duly noted. Man defies a .0017 set of odds by designing a craft supposedly landed on the moon and zippidy doo dah day finally writes a book about it 30+ years after the fact.

Are you retarded or something. Taking objects from craters on the moon and returning them for study is an act consistent with Geology numb skull. But, to understate the astrological possibilities from the moon mission is asinine. Both would be valuable studies on a true moon mission.

This thread has devolved into a muddy quagmire. If the personal attacks continue, I'll try out the report abuse tab a few times...

Now back to the subject at hand. I have a couple questions for the Hoaxers in reference to the OP's video:

1) As there is no ambient air through which sound may propagate, the rush of exhaust products through the throat of the engine would produce some flow noise that would be transmitted through the engine mounts to the frame of the spacecraft. It wouldn't produce a SUSTAINED 140 dB necessarily produce audible sounds in the cabin, would it?

2) Can someone cite a source indicating that there was 140 dB sustained in the lander during descent?

3) Even if it was noisy a sensitive pick up right at the mouth could work. How do you think shuttle astronauts and fighter pilots communicate? I'm thinking signal clear up at the receiving end may help as well.

Let me know if I am not considering something. BE POLITE!!!

You said "mountains of information about outer space" Duh! not "mountains of information about the Moon". Maybe you should read what you write.