Shocking New Evidence On 1969 Moon Landing

[robertodiaz123]

Re: 1969 Moon Landing

I think to take a lok to this palce could be helpful

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

Next the beginning
Fox TV and the Apollo Moon Hoax
(February 13, 2001)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Thursday, February 15th 2001 (and replayed on March 19), the Fox TV network aired a program called ``Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?'', hosted by X-Files actor Mitch Pileggi. The program was an hour long, and featured interviews with a series of people who believe that NASA faked the Apollo Moon landings in the 1960s and 1970s. The biggest voice in this is Bill Kaysing, who claims to have all sorts of hoax evidence, including pictures taken by the astronauts, engineering details, discussions of physics and even some testimony by astronauts themselves. The program's conclusion was that the whole thing was faked in the Nevada desert (in Area 51, of course!). According to them, NASA did not have the technical capability of going to the Moon, but pressure due to the Cold War with the Soviet Union forced them to fake it.

Sound ridiculous? Of course it does! It is. So let me get this straight right from the start: this program is an hour long piece of junk.

From the very first moment to the very last, the program is loaded with bad thinking, ridiculous suppositions and utterly wrong science. I was able to get a copy of the show in advance, and although I was expecting it to be bad, I was still surprised and how awful it was. I took four pages of notes. I won't subject you to all of that here; it would take hours to write. I'll only go over some of the major points of the show, and explain briefly why they are wrong. In the near future, hopefully by the end of the summer, I will have a much more detailed series of pages taking on each of the points made by the Hoax Believers (whom I will call HBs).

So let's take a look at the ``evidence'' brought out by the show. To make this easier, below is a table with links to the specific arguments.

........
:wave:

 

[Member2019]

You are asking me to disregard the findings of the official inquiries that were chaired by some very reputable people on the basis of what some person on a porn chat forum says? Come on man. Be realistic.

Dude, I will say this for the last time, I do NOT disregard the inquiries as they ARE.
What I disregard is the interpretations I've seen of them.

Based on what I have heard and read; the two shuttle disasters were avoidable.

And I said otherwise?
Both were avoidable -- had there been more attention to the MRs, the administrators would have given both the O-Ring sealant and CFC-less insulation far more concern when flags were raised.
Otherwise, it's the common reaction -- there are dozens of components that will supposively blow up the STS every mission, and at some point, you have to say the risk has been mitigated enough.

The inquiries (imo), in essence, said as much.
Do you have absolute proof - other then your word - that those two disasters were not avoidable - short of never flying the shuttles at all?

Yes! I have constantly said that NASA has FAILED to give MRs their due process!

In the days of Apollo, Gemini and Mercury -- programs that lasted less than 5 years, MRs were not important.
Suppliers didn't change parts -- let alone NASA typically had ALL the parts it needed for their duration.
With a 25+ year program, suppliers change, materials change, etc...
The STS is designed with an EXACT, 100,000 part BOM, and any deviation can have the GREATEST of consequences!

Over 25 yeras, you're going to have deviations!
Which means if a new sealant cannot stand sub-53 degree F temps, that's a MAJOR flag!
And if a new CFC-less insulation doesn't have the tensile strength of the insulation it replaces, that's a MAJOR flag!

Assuming you do not; I think I will stick with what the enquiries found.

Don't you mean you will continue to interpret the inquiries as you want to?

BTW What does MR mean?

Okay, please go back and re-read EVERY EARLIER POST of mine!
I have defined just about every acronym I have used!

If you are only now wondering what I mean by MR, then that's why you aren't getting a word I say!
The #1, overriding "conclusion" as of late on NASA -- for those who care, like engineers do -- is that NASA has NOT taken the Material Review (MR) process seriously.

Because not only was that the fault of why the new CFC-less insulation flew, but it was ALSO why the original O-Rings failed due to changed sealant.
In both cases, it was EPA mandates that outlawed materials for environmental concerns.
In the case of the CFC-less foam, the EPA even granted NASA an exception to use CFC-based foam.
But beyond just the environmental-political non-sense NASA received on wanting to go back to CFCs, because the EPA banned any production in the commercial sector in 1987 -- which took effect in 1997 -- it was damn hard to find anyone who makes it!

Again, I have gone over this over and over and over again.
Do NOT respond to my comments *UNTIL* you go back and re-read my other posts that talk about what MRs are, how the STS is different than Apollo, Gemini and Mercury from an engineering cycle, etc...
Engineering processes and the engineering cycle has been refined over millenia -- and for damn good reasons.
Because when you violate engineering principles, you get bad results.

Much like NASA has with STS, because when you have a 25+ year project, you have to worry about a several orders of magnitude more than when you only have a sub-5 year project.
Especially when it comes to tested materials and their suppliers -- because they can and will change.
And that's not good when you've built an exacting project and resulting system that only allows for tested, re-tested, regression tested and integration test tolerances in an attempt to mitigate risk.

 

[McRocket]

Do you know what discoveries Hubble has resulted in?
Some pretty damn big ones -- like the fact that there is not going to be a "big crunch" at the end.

LOL. Oh yeah that's a big help. That should help the world. Hubble is a scientific toy imo. Bought at taxpayers expense. And these other things that will eventually come from it? My priority is with saving lives now. Not improving quality of life in a generation.

This is the type of tit-for-tat non-sense.

So now what I am saying is 'non-sense'. So be it. In terms of Africa. There are many, many AIDS patients in Africa that AID organizations would not have to deal with warlords to get drugs to if they had the drugs to give.

But can you honestly tell me that that the overall intentions and results of the actions of the United States has been worse than the overwhelming majority of those taken by other nations?

What do other nations have to do with the US? I am not talking about other nations. So your defense is that the U.S. is no worse then most other nations? I hope you never defend me at a murder trial.
'Your honour. Maybe my client did kill a few people. But so have many other people.'

And what would have happened to the coalition had the UN pushed for the ouster of Saddam Hussein?

I never typed that they should have overthrown him in '91.

We try to do the "right thing" and we often only delay on doing it with the best of intentions, but the worst of results.
Hindsight is everything.

If I thought these things the U.S. did were with the best of intentions; I would not be complaining about them nearly as much. I do not think that for the most part the U.S. did act with the best of intentions. Except for the interest groups and/or lobbyists they were trying to please.

What about the billions Iraq gave to France and Russia in 1994-1995, which led to the stalling of UN inspections due to their vetos on the Security Council?

I was typing about Israel and you go off on France and Russia?

Don't go there.
Everyone uses the Palestinians against everyone else.
Don't pick a side.

Please do not tell me what to do.

I do agree that the state of Israel shouldn't have been formed smack dab in the middle of the Palestinian homeland.
But that was something done 60 years ago -- largely because Europe did not want to take responsibility for helping them.
But that's 60 years ago -- and bitching and moaning about it now does nothing, and it's exactly the type of rhetoric I'd expect out of a Iranian leader.

I was typing about how the US should not have given/giving such massive aid to Israel and you answer that by talking about how Israel was formed. Can you please stick to the subject?

Be careful with your conclusions.
There is more to the Arab hate of the west than just Israel.
There are the British and other invasions of the late 19th and early 20th century, before even looking at the Crusades.
It's ironic some people call Iraq the "10th Crusade" while not giving the British a similar title for their conquests a century agao.
Talk about ignoring history!

Are you suggesting that 9/11 happened because the hyjackers wanted to avenge the Crusades? My information is that Bin Laden's main problem with America was how they help Israel at the Palestinians expense and that they were on sacred land during and after the Gulf War.
I am saying that if The United States had not helped Israel so much that 9/11 would not have happened. In my opinion.
And all I can say about Rwanda was the US could have stopped it - to a large extent - and did not. In fact, they pulled out. No offense. But I will take the word of Stephen Lewis that the US let them die over yours.

I've love to be the idealist you are -- I once was.
But at some point, you have to be a realist.
Especially when you are exposed to some very complex situations and decisions.

Understood. But you have no way of knowing what situations and decisions I have been 'exposed' to. Right is right. Wrong is wrong. Once you accept the compromising of what is right, then you allow yourself to except so many wrong things as a 'realistic' solution. It may help you and others sleep at night. But those that suffer because of people's compromises continue to suffer.
Maybe that is good enough for you and the masses. Not me.
No offense. But not me.

 

[Member2019]

I'm starting to wonder if all my babbling is only resulting in people making the same statements over and over again.
I'd like to think I took the time to not only cover physics and offer insight into how NASA has to operate, but I've admitted many failures and other issues.
I'm just a "realist" -- and that includes being critical of even people I work with and respect.
I don't take sides -- I only respect the realities of the physical and engineering cycle world.

 

[McRocket]

If you are only now wondering what I mean by MR, then that's why you aren't getting a word I say!
The #1, overriding "conclusion" as of late on NASA -- for those who care, like engineers do -- is that NASA has NOT taken the Material Review (MR) process seriously.

Actually, I assumed that is what it meant. I just had forgot the exact wording. And I was curious.
No, it doesn't change what you typed because I had assumed correctly what it meant.

I regret if you typed alot for nothing.

Sooo. You choose to interpret the findings one way. I choose another.

NASA could have saved themselves a whole lot of hassle if they had just said from Day 1 in the seventies; look, this thing is probably eventually gonna kill a bunch of astronauts. This whole thing is a crap shoot.
And of course if they had then the project would never have been funded. So they played down the risks - publically - to get the project off of the ground.
So they have no one to blame but themselves for the public blaming NASA (rightly or wrongly) for the shuttle disasters.
And since they DID play down the dangers of it publically; then I believe they should shoulder the responsibility. Not all of it. But most of it. And that is exactly what I believe I am doing.

 

[Member2019]

Actually, I assumed that is what it meant. I just had forgot the exact wording. And I was curious.
No, it doesn't change what you typed because I had assumed correctly what it meant.
I regret if you typed alot for nothing.

My only typing for nothing has been due to the fact that I don't want to put things in terms of blame or generic "NASA culture."
I want to be more specific, and that means breaking it down into the root causes that are resulting in the types of decisions being made.
The REAL inquiries have come to the same conclusions I have, the MR process is not appreciated for its real value in a program that lasts more than 5 years.
Had the MR process been taken seriously, both accidents would have likely been avoided, because the engineering concerns would have not been labeled as a "risk already mitigated."

 

[McRocket]

My only typing for nothing has been due to the fact that I don't want to put things in terms of blame or generic "NASA culture."
I want to be more specific, and that means breaking it down into the root causes that are resulting in the types of decisions being made.
The REAL inquiries have come to the same conclusions I have, the MR process is not appreciated for its real value in a program that lasts more than 5 years.
Had the MR process been taken seriously, both accidents would have likely been avoided, because the engineering concerns would have not been labeled as a "risk already mitigated."

Well, that is fine and dandy. And it is interesting what you have explained about certain processes. Really.
But all I care about here are the 14 dead astronauts - not that I am saying you do not. Not whether the MR process is appreciated or not. What's done is done. The shuttle fleet should be grounded.
OR, if it flies then everyone has to understand that it IS a crap shoot. And that people should expect deaths to occur (as you stated I think, sort of). Fact is, skydiving is safer then flying in a shuttle (or in any rocket to space) and the public MUST be made aware of that and not let NASA lobbyists diminish the risks so as to procure more and more money.
Tell it like it is. Always. That way when the next shuttle/rocket blows up; NASA can say; "I told you so.' And the blame will go somewhere else.

 

[Member2019]

Well, that is fine and dandy. And it is interesting what you have explained about certain processes. Really.
But all I care about here are the 14 dead astronauts - not that I am saying you do not. Not whether the MR process is appreciated or not. What's done is done. The shuttle fleet should be grounded.

It has been grounded for awhile now, or don't you follow the REAL news?
As I stated earlier, NASA has given into to the fact that no vehicle should launch parallel with its booster again -- just no way to guarantee safety.
There were 3 proposals for the immediate shuttle replacement, and it's now a combination of Boeing in Lockheed-Martin -- two existing USA (United Space Alliance) contractors.

OR, if it flies then everyone has to understand that it IS a crap shoot.
And that people should expect deaths to occur (as you stated I think, sort of).
Fact is, skydiving is safer then flying in a shuttle (or in any rocket to space)

No offense, but no shit.
If you just woke up to this, I'm sorry you've been so naive.
A parachutte is a damn simple system, and you have a backup one just in case.

and the public MUST be made aware of that

Again, no offense, but a lot of the public isn't interested in the realities of spaceflight.
Otherwise, you wouldn't have made the preceding 2 statements, let alone what I see all-the-time.
Engineers are tired of hearing over-simplifications that are just not factually true.
Like the lie that Hubble wasn't built with a parabolic mirror.

[ Hmm, let's see here, 3Gs during launch ... hmmm, did you ever think about why they can't build telescopes larger than a certain size -- i.e., "total mass" -- on earth?
What do you think happens to a mirror during launch during 3x that weight! ]

They just want to bitch about NASA and how the money could be better spent.
That goes for a lot of things.
So no matter how "honest" NASA is about things, people will go on believing what they want.

And engineers sometimes just have to stop and roll their eyes to get through it.
We don't like to belittle anyone, but sometimes only so much explaining will work for some people, and you have to forget about the rest.

and not let NASA lobbyists diminish the risks so as to procure more and more money.

When has NASA *EVER* "diminished the risks"?
NASA has ALWAYS put forth many things -- including the realities of maintaining a system over 25+ years.
Materials were changed, and that's why 14 astronauts are dead.

Ironically enough, the Shuttle Transport System (STS) has been a major engineering marvel, despite those 2 tragedies.

Tell it like it is. Always.

NASA always does.
Unfortunately, people don't really care to listen to the full story.

 

[McRocket]

It has been grounded for awhile now, or don't you follow the REAL news?

I meant for good.

Ironically enough, the Shuttle Transport System (STS) has been a major engineering marvel, despite those 2 tragedies.

Oh yeah. That will really be a comfort to those 14 fatherlaess/motherless families.

NASA always does.
Unfortunately, people don't really care to listen to the full story.

If NASA always did, then those 14 people would not be dead.
Look, it is NASA's and NASA's alone responsibility for the safety of the shuttle flights. When the shuttle does something sexy, they get credit for it.
When the shuttle blows up, they get blame for it. Exactly as it should be.

Let me make this clear.
I blame NASA more then any one else why those 14 people are dead. And you have provided me with absolutely no reason to change that opinion. So unless you have some other information other then what you have provided me with - then you are wasting your time.
I think you are/were too close to the situation to be unbiased. I believe you have lost objectivity on the situation.
So you are right and most of the free world AND the accident inquiries and their conclusions are wrong?
Yes, I DEFINITELY think that you are biased on this particular subject.
And I think you would do well to at least consider the possibility that this statement could be true.

Have a nice day.

 

[Member2019]

I meant for good.
Oh yeah. That will really be a comfort to those 14 fatherlaess/motherless families.
If NASA always did, then those 14 people would not be dead.
Look, it is NASA's and NASA's alone responsibility for the safety of the shuttle flights. When the shuttle does something sexy, they get credit for it.
When the shuttle blows up, they get blame for it. Exactly as it should be.
Let me make this clear.
I blame NASA more then any one else why those 14 people are dead. And you have provided me with absolutely no reason to change that opinion. So unless you have some other information other then what you have provided me with - then you are wasting your time.
I think you are/were too close to the situation to be unbiased. I believe you have lost objectivity on the situation.
So you are right and most of the free world AND the accident inquiries and their conclusions are wrong?
Yes, I DEFINITELY think that you are biased on this particular subject.
And I think you would do well to at least consider the possibility that this statement could be true.
Have a nice day.

You honestly haven't heard a word I said.
I'm not going to talk to you on this matter again, because anything I say, you ignore, demonize and/or take as you wish.
The 14 dead astronaunts are the responsibility of anyone who has ever been associated with the program, period.
But far worse is the fact that people are interested in blame, instead of resolutions for the engineering cycle that will prevent future deaths.
The same people bitching the loudest, are the ones who don't want NASA to get the money anyway.
They are also the same ones bitching about NASA using environmentally unfriendly chemicals and countless other things.

 

[Sweeper]

I'm no consiracy theorist, but I know damn well we didn't land on no moon in 1969.

 

[McRocket]

You honestly haven't heard a word I said.
I'm not going to talk to you on this matter again, because anything I say, you ignore, demonize and/or take as you wish.
The 14 dead astronaunts are the responsibility of anyone who has ever been associated with the program, period.
But far worse is the fact that people are interested in blame, instead of resolutions for the engineering cycle that will prevent future deaths.
The same people bitching the loudest, are the ones who don't want NASA to get the money anyway.
They are also the same ones bitching about NASA using environmentally unfriendly chemicals and countless other things.

So you wish to end the debate because I am not listening? Which is obviously an exaggeration. Or that I am demonizing NASA. I do not recall mentioning the devil.
Look. The enquiries said it was mostly NASA's fault. That is good enough for me. Period.
And I really think you are going to have to have a thicker skin if you are going to debate with people.
I have not ignored your info. I read it and I feel it is not relavent to this particular conversation - interesting though it maybe.
The board made it's findings. They know more then me. ANd I assume more then you. SO I will take their word for it.
Why is that so impossible (seemingly) for you to understand or accept.
BTW, you never commented about my 2/2 comments. In case you did not notice.

Well, have a nice night.

 

[Sweeper]

People, people.... it's not about NASA being dishonest.

America as a country at the time, just didn't want to be upstaged by the Russians. This is my opinion/theory: The Russians were extremely close to landing on the moon, and with the whole Cold War thing goin on America had to scramble and get there first. And if they weren't going to actually do it, they'd fake it and fool every TV watching american at the time... and at the time People actually believed EVERYTHING they saw on TV. So it was staged, and the whole world was fooled. Of course, eventually America actually did land on the moon, but not for years after 1969.

 

[McRocket]

Sorry. The Prof and I have gotten WAY of topic. We were discussing the shuttle program and world affairs.

We should have pm'd each other on it.

My apologies.

 

[Sweeper]

lol.... I was doing my best to bring the thread back... heh heh

 

[Member2019]

Sorry. The Prof and I have gotten WAY of topic. We were discussing the shuttle program

I think most people's opinions on STS or various Mars observers are driving much of the doubts about the Saturn-V/Apollo program.

and world affairs.

Well, that was my tangent, and I'll take responsibility on it.

We should have pm'd each other on it.
My apologies.

I think STS was relevant in this thread, because the doubts are related.
But yeah, the other stuff I introduced and we ran with were not.

 

[Member2019]

Re: Moon landings a hoax?

I'd like to point out that you have never been to Luna, so how do you know?

What am I EXPLAINING HERE? I'm explaining basic, CLASSICAL (Newtonian-era -- 18-19th century) PHYSICS. I am taking each piece of "evidence" mentioned here from the movie and explaining why they go AGAINST basic, classical physics.

If I just wanted to say we've landed on the Moon since I've worked for NASA so shut-the-fuck up, then that would have taken me FAR LESS TIME AND EFFORT. But instead of getting into the greater debate of whether the US landed on the moon or not, I thought I'd explain why the video was INCORRECT on many basic, classical physics concepts.

Most people who have not studied physics have understandings that are of the classic, Greek philosopher Aristolte. He was one of the great Greek observers. Of course, his observations were based on many assumptions -- things not understood in his time. The lack of technology to create vacuum chambers. The lack of understanding forces of gravity, the concept of momentum, etc...

Now I HAVE worked with vacuum chambers, designed and tested various components used in NASA vehicles (although typically they were for more military applications) under space-like conditions, and been directly involved with tracking military and NASA systems in outer space (including in the actual facilities). I've also learned from many people who worked with some of the "old rocket scientists" who worked on Apollo, Gemini and even Mercury.

But no, I have not gone to outer space myself. I have not been in a spacesuit with 5psi and out in space to see if it is truly a vacuum. I have not had the opportunity to pilot a spacecraft in space to see if the ACS/RCS (attitude/roll control system) and other Newtonian physics occurs as Newton stated. But I can EXPLAIN EVERYTHING that happens, and DISPROVE MOST EVERYTHING in that video with physics.

About the only thing I am NOT disagreeing with is the quality of video. Why? Because the ABILITY TO FAKE VIDEO will ALWAYS outstrip and outlead the ABILITY TO VERIFY VIDEO -- at least to the common eye without the ORIGINAL video materials. And especially today, with everything being digitally recorded and edited, it's virtually IMPOSSIBLE to verify authenticity. I have ADMITTED THIS!

But even beyond that, I'm NOT asking you to believe me. I'm asking you to go to SOMEONE ELSE, someone YOU TRUST that is knowledgeable of orbital mechanics and other space-flight physics, and ASK THEM if the video is correct or what I say is correct. We ALL have our areas of expertise. And right now, I'm telling you that video is like the accountant who is misusing my ignorance of the tax code against me.

 

[woosydoosy]

Its probably not a hoax. Although I remember see that show and I remember something about mutliple shadow and lighting which lead to the thought of a hoax. Thats the only one that is strange to me. Only thing I can think of is that light bends around objects.

 

[Member2019]

Its probably not a hoax. Although I remember see that show and I remember something about mutliple shadow and lighting which lead to the thought of a hoax. Thats the only one that is strange to me. Only thing I can think of is that light bends around objects.

As I explained in my posts:

1. You have highly reflective mylar covering the LIM, the rover, etc... You'll note some of the reflections seem to go of in 4-8 directions, much like the imperfect square/octaganal shape of the LIM.

2. The 70% water Earth is pretty damn reflective onto the moon's surface, and seems almost like a "second sun" because of such reflectivity

Mylar is used in many applications, from protection and shielding in general aerospace to hundreds of tiny pieces giving off more light than the re-entry vehicle of a ballistic missle. I.e., we use mylar on targets in missile defense to try to "fool" the tracking systems -- and boy do those tiny ballons show up much brighter than the actual re-entry warhead from hundreds of miles away.

 

[surfergeneral]

People, people.... it's not about NASA being dishonest.

America as a country at the time, just didn't want to be upstaged by the Russians. This is my opinion/theory: The Russians were extremely close to landing on the moon, and with the whole Cold War thing goin on America had to scramble and get there first. And if they weren't going to actually do it, they'd fake it and fool every TV watching american at the time... and at the time People actually believed EVERYTHING they saw on TV. So it was staged, and the whole world was fooled. Of course, eventually America actually did land on the moon, but not for years after 1969.

LOL! What an absolutely brilliant post. :1orglaugh

Sweeper do you actually believe that its possible to get literally thousands of people involved in a fake up moon landing, because I'm afraid this is what you are insinuating with your post above. It takes thousands of staff and thousands of hours work just to put a spacecraft into orbit, but then to actually land it on the moon and return it......far too many people involved I'm afraid.

Your argument is lame at best with absolutely zero foundation. Myself, MCRocket and the Prof have provided enough evidence why they landed on the moon but so far the only evidence you have provided is your statement above.

Let me guess.......you failed your debate classes? :1orglaugh

The General.