View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby ProfWag » 15 Jun 2013, 18:20

SydneyPSIder wrote:
Apollo 1 was an early prototype which didn't get off the ground, although it was a few short years til the end of the decade in the timeline demanded by the politicians. It also demonstrated egregious errors in design where 1) a pure oxygen environment was attempted as a shortcut to keep the astronauts alive in a low pressure capsule to the moon, which was a mistake, where 2) materials in the module were not proofed against fire, and 3) the hatch was extremely difficult to open from the outside in that model, whereas a replacement hatch was available or being completed which allowed easy opening. (Note that there must have been a temptation with low pressure requirements -- 20% of atmospheric pressure at sea level -- due to structural and weight considerations to instead just fake the missions instead of forcing astronauts to travel through space under those conditions for such a long time.)

Sooooooo, the way I interpret your statement is that NASA learned something from the fatal Apollo 1 mission. That statement doesn't support a moon hoax theory, it supports the notion that they learned something and improved the program.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54






Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby ProfWag » 15 Jun 2013, 18:37

SydneyPSIder wrote:
Low likelihood when compared with all other engineering programs of a similar nature -- e.g. the space shuttle program, and the very many US rocket failures throughout the 50s and 60s using similar technology of the day. Look today also for a comparison with the rate of failure of military hardware in the field -- helicopter and plane crashes even when well serviced.

I searched for the rate of failure of military hardware and couldn't find anything related. Do you have a reference I could search for this? I know there are plane crashes that happen all the time. I also know that automobiles have a failure rate, yet I see a lot of them driving around all the time.
Do you happen to know anything about the SR71 program? That was a well advanced program for the time that began in the '50s and yet it continued well into the '90s. It, too, had a high failure rate (about 33% actually) yet it was a program that people continued to fly. It was also a "secret" program that was able to stay classified for only about 2 years--supporting the notion that such classified programs are extremely difficult to keep under wraps.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby ProfWag » 15 Jun 2013, 18:53

SydneyPSIder wrote:
You should also read about, for instance, Richard Branson's many life-endangering engineering failures on his various adventures such as ballooning at altitude through the gulf stream, despite the best and most professional preparation -- exploding bolts going off early, or not at all, etc. Engineering failures are a huge, expected and accepted part of engineering practice in this space. The chances of all the software on a primitive computer working perfectly and properly without bugs, of being able to land the LEM by eye on the moon with a single central rocket, are very low. There is no evidence a LEM is even able to land and take off again in any environment, that has never been demonstrated to us on earth, it's nowhere on video, it only seemed to work the first time it was attempted live on the moon! I think the deception should be obvious.

Yet Richard Branson lived to tell about his adventures. Also, that has nothing to do with the Apollo missions. As previously mentioned, Apollo missions experienced many failures, yet they improved the program each time, learning from their mistakes.
As for your comment about there not being a video of the LEM being tested on earth, well, I'm not really sure how to answer that. I could mention that the gravity on earth is 6 times greater on earth than on the moon so testing it in earth atmosphere with the same configuration as it would have been on the moon could not have been possible, but surely someone as smart as yourself or Jarrah would have figured that out by now. So no, the deception is only obvious to someone who won't think critically about the Apollo missions. (By the way, it was tested on earth, but the LEM had to be built much bigger to account for the difference in gravity...)
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby ProfWag » 15 Jun 2013, 19:07

SydneyPSIder wrote:Of course they can be compared, for the reasons given in 1. They have very very similar missions in terms of physics, engineering and preparation. The fact that you can even attempt to make this assertion proves you're either pissing about here, or you are just not qualified to discuss the topic, to be honest, and that either way I'm wasting my time with this. Really? was half right, the questions here don't really deserve an answer. A 4 year old knows better than to make a claim like that. I mean, a 4 year old would think you are taking the piss with an adult assertion like that, it's beyond juvenile and bloody-minded. Please, someone, explain the physics of space missions, pressurised capsules, calculation of trajectories and take-offs and the design of rockets to profwag, who claims to be an engineering genius in military circles.

No, they are not "very similar missions." A rocket that launches through earth's atmosphere and then is designed to "fall" to the moon and also have several stages of un-reusable parts is completely different than what is essentially an airplane designed to orbit no higher than 600 miles. They are as different as night and day. Additionally, for you to continue with accusing me of having an intelligence of less than a 4-year old is what is an obvious ad hominem attack and we all know what that means when people have to resort to such tactics to support their argument.
I believe I've answered enough of your counter-argument to allow a casual reader to formulate their own opinions on the nature of the discussion.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby SydneyPSIder » 15 Jun 2013, 21:04

ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:Of course they can be compared, for the reasons given in 1. They have very very similar missions in terms of physics, engineering and preparation. The fact that you can even attempt to make this assertion proves you're either pissing about here, or you are just not qualified to discuss the topic, to be honest, and that either way I'm wasting my time with this. Really? was half right, the questions here don't really deserve an answer. A 4 year old knows better than to make a claim like that. I mean, a 4 year old would think you are taking the piss with an adult assertion like that, it's beyond juvenile and bloody-minded. Please, someone, explain the physics of space missions, pressurised capsules, calculation of trajectories and take-offs and the design of rockets to profwag, who claims to be an engineering genius in military circles.

No, they are not "very similar missions." A rocket that launches through earth's atmosphere and then is designed to "fall" to the moon and also have several stages of un-reusable parts is completely different than what is essentially an airplane designed to orbit no higher than 600 miles. They are as different as night and day. Additionally, for you to continue with accusing me of having an intelligence of less than a 4-year old is what is an obvious ad hominem attack and we all know what that means when people have to resort to such tactics to support their argument.
I believe I've answered enough of your counter-argument to allow a casual reader to formulate their own opinions on the nature of the discussion.

yeah, right. so there's no resemblance in terms of both being rockets, both supposedly being manned with all that entails -- pressurisation, shielding, electronic comms, etc etc? OK, profwag, if you say so, but I would have argued that was a stupid assertion WHEN I WAS 4.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby SydneyPSIder » 03 Oct 2013, 17:02

ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:
Low likelihood when compared with all other engineering programs of a similar nature -- e.g. the space shuttle program, and the very many US rocket failures throughout the 50s and 60s using similar technology of the day. Look today also for a comparison with the rate of failure of military hardware in the field -- helicopter and plane crashes even when well serviced.

I searched for the rate of failure of military hardware and couldn't find anything related. Do you have a reference I could search for this? I know there are plane crashes that happen all the time. I also know that automobiles have a failure rate, yet I see a lot of them driving around all the time.
Do you happen to know anything about the SR71 program? That was a well advanced program for the time that began in the '50s and yet it continued well into the '90s. It, too, had a high failure rate (about 33% actually) yet it was a program that people continued to fly. It was also a "secret" program that was able to stay classified for only about 2 years--supporting the notion that such classified programs are extremely difficult to keep under wraps.

um, aren't you making my point for me? how did 6/6 very difficult missions succeed without any failures? the only supposed 'mishap' was Apollo 13 - 'the right stuff' - with a supposed oxygen tank rupture. although I think the whole thing was faked, maybe they were in orbit (only) and had a real failure, or the whole thing was concocted and they were still on the ground, to be dropped out of a C4 plane at the end. one of the astronauts had a lie in their book about 'looking down' on a particular moon site, when in fact it would have been in complete darkness at the time.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Previous

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron