Yet another nail in the Apollo Hoax coffin

[Obviousman]

Apollo Hoaxers continue their retreat into denial as more evidence (as if there weren't enough already) as to the reality of the Apollo lunar landings is put forward:

http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/lroc-apollo-12-2-580x580.jpg

[Dave Rogers]

Nice. What's the source?

Dave

[McHrozni]

Considering how many nails is in that coffin already, the whole thing probably has more nails in it than everything else combined.

We should move to welds on the coffin.

Nicely done, though :)

McHrozni

[Obviousman]

Nice. What's the source?

Dave

Latest release of the LRO images, this time at 50 km altitude.

[Edx]

F-a-k-e

[Flaherty]

You can also seek the footprints from the landing to the equipment.

There isn't enough room for more nails in the hoax coffin. In fact, the grave has been paved over and a mall built on top of it.

[twinstead]

It appears the coffin is made out of nails

[plumjam]

Photoshop

[Trojan_Jockey]

Problem is, you can't use evidence to destroy a theory that says "all evidence that contradicts this theory is fake".

[Klimax]

Considering how many nails is in that coffin already, the whole thing probably has more nails in it than everything else combined.

We should move to welds on the coffin.

Nicely done, though :)

McHrozni

You want to weld something has been nailed into nothingness???

[Alferd_Packer]

Photoshop

Nailshop

[twinstead]

Nailshop

Ah, so that Vietnamese lady who does my sister's manicures are in on it. I KNEW it!

[Random]

You guys actually believe the moon is real? Its only bamboo scaffolding with a canvas cover. They ran out of money during construction so they only finished half of it, that's why its "tidal locked". If we never see the back half, we will never know the truth.

[McHrozni]

You want to weld something has been nailed into nothingness???

Why would that be a problem? There should still be some coffin there anyway.

McHrozni

[Obviousman]

The coffin is a hologram! You people are sheeple!

[BTMO]

I thought the reptoid aliens inhabited the moon, and the only reason we hadn't gone there was because we'd been told not to?

I have real trouble with mutually exclusive conspiracies.

[DavidJames]

F-a-k-eNo, the photo is real, but it a photo of some place near area 51

[twinstead]

I suspect in my children's lifetime at least Apollo 11's site will be a national monument with tours flying in from Earth. What's sad is that there are probably Apollo HBs who STILL will believe it never happened.

[fromdownunder]

I suspect in my children's lifetime at least Apollo 11's site will be a national monument with tours flying in from Earth. What's sad is that there are probably Apollo HBs who STILL will believe it never happened.

They will still only be going to the Nevada Desert, or it will be a Hologramic FAKE!!! After all, I have been to Disneyland, and been on Star Tours - I know it's fake. :D

Norm

[shemp]

I see Bigfoot in the photo.

[Dcdrac]

wow

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html

What more evidence is needed?

when the Chiense or Indians get there maybe they could be asked to take pictures for us

[SpitfireIX]

wow

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html

What more evidence is needed?

when the Chiense or Indians get there maybe they could be asked to take pictures for us


"NASA faked the images." :rolleyes:

"The hardware was planted by unmanned missions." :jaw-dropp

"These photos are clear evidence of an extraterrestrial civilization on the moon." :faint:

[Dcdrac]

"NASA faked the images." :rolleyes:

"The hardware was planted by unmanned missions." :jaw-dropp

"These photos are clear evidence of an extraterrestrial civilization on the moon." :faint:

oh yes I forgot we never went there did we.......it is beyond mere human abilites.........


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGNryrsT7OI

Nice one Spitfire....

[Redtail]

wow

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html

What more evidence is needed?

when the Chiense or Indians get there maybe they could be asked to take pictures for us

My hope is that the Chinese get there, land near Eagle, and one of them yells, " Hey! The conspiracy theories were right! This thing's made of cardboard!!! Look! You can see the footprints of the guy who set it up!"

[Jack by the hedge]

You want to weld something has been nailed into nothingness???

You can't weld wood. It's ready to be welded together when the whole thing is a solid mass of nails.

[Myron Proudfoot]

It appears the coffin is made out of nails

that's how it gets thru the Van Halen belt!

[Dcdrac]

The Smurfs did it they got to the moon first and with their co conspirators the muppets faked the human moon landings.....for various nefarious, evil, ill defined and thought out purposes linked to the supply of lizards

[MG1962]

Eugen Cernan was interviewed about these photos recently and the imaging team asked him if recalled which way the front tires were pointing when he parked the rover for the last time.

He said, "I think about 40 degrees to the left"

Their response "Yep that's right"

Ya gotta love technology

[JayUtah]

"NASA faked the images." :rolleyes:

"The hardware was planted by unmanned missions." :jaw-dropp

"These photos are clear evidence of an extraterrestrial civilization on the moon." :faint:

Indeed the Moon-related conspiracy theories are a mass of contradictions and speculations. You may recall the guy in the U.K., Cosmic Dave, who manages to advocate all of them simultaneously: i.e., the Apollo astronauts never went to the Moon -- but while they were there they found evidence of aliens.

In the manner of the ubiquitous goalpost-shifting, it's been fun to watch the conspiracy crowd say, "Why don't we just send a spacecraft to photograph the landing sites?" back when such a thing seemed improbable. Then when we send the requested spacecraft and it sends back the photos, they immediately cry, "Photoshopped!"

[Alferd_Packer]

The coffin has shattered from all the nails and this zombie thread has risen from the grave.

[twinstead]

The coffin has shattered from all the nails and this zombie thread has risen from the grave.

I suspect it might want to eat our brains

[Corsair 115]

I suspect it might want to eat our brains


Well, it already has eaten the brains of those who believe in the conspiracy theory that the lunar landings were faked.

[Anders Lindman]

Why is the ground around the descend stage so black? And in the closeup the ground is no longer black: http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/584395main_M168319885_LR.25cm_ap14_area.jpg

:confused:

[nomuse]

Why is the ground around the descend stage so black? And in the closeup the ground is no longer black: http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/584395main_M168319885_LR.25cm_ap14_area.jpg

:confused:

Wow.

Now I understand conspiracy believers even better.

[BaaBaa]

Why is the ground around the descend stage so black? And in the closeup the ground is no longer black: http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/584395main_M168319885_LR.25cm_ap14_area.jpg

:confused:

Jimminy frikkin' crickets....:covereyes

[FatFreddy88]

Those pictures of the alleged landing sites are fakeable so they aren't proof of anything and they don't make the mountain of hoax evidence go away.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4001964&postcount=1

Apollo was a hoax.

[threadworm]

Why is the ground around the descend stage so black? And in the closeup the ground is no longer black: http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/584395main_M168319885_LR.25cm_ap14_area.jpg

:confused:

It's not confusing.

There are two possiblities.

1) They are two different photographs taken under different lighting conditions or, more likely

2) The main photograph has had the contrast levels adjusted to enhance the darkened areas of disturbed ground. That is what the dark patches are - disturbed ground. You can very easily test this by using a photo editor (such as the free GIMP package, or photoshop) to select the enlarged inset and alter the levels in it to make it darker. it takes no time at all to reproduce exactly the effect in main picture.

And no, this does not mean NASA is faking anything.

[SpitfireIX]

Those pictures of the alleged landing sites are fakeable so they aren't proof of anything. . .


Do I win the million dollars?

. . . and they don't make the mountain of hoax evidence go away.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4001964&postcount=1


There is no mountain of hoax evidence; merely the ignorant expectations of conspiracists. All the assertions in the linked post have been debunked ad nauseam. So how about presenting some orginal claims, instead of just parroting those of others.

Apollo was a hoax.


No.

[Jack by the hedge]

The moon is fake. A fleet of black helicopters carry a huge cardboard cutout picture of a moon across the sky every night.

If you have any lingering questions about this undoubted truth, the answer is 'Photoshop, sheeple'.

Happy to help.

[JayUtah]

Why is the ground around the descend stage so black? And in the closeup the ground is no longer black: http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/584395main_M168319885_LR.25cm_ap14_area.jpg

:confused:

It's an artifact of how the different images in different bands are "stacked" and filtered to create a final image approximating visual photography. Space cameras do not operate the same way as ordinary cameras which capture a single image consisting of a broad band of visible wavelengths. Cameras intended for scientific use in space capture images only in a set of narrowly-defined wavelengths. This allows scientists to combine those wavelengths algebraically to make more detailed observations than would otherwise be available.

[JayUtah]

Those pictures of the alleged landing sites are fakeable...

Everything is fakable, therefore the standard of proof for fraud is not that something may possibly be faked, but that it actually was faked. No evidence has yet been presented to prove these images were falsified in any way.

Consider a witness in court who gives damning testimony. "But your Honor," says opposing counsel, "This witness could be lying!" Indeed she could be, but it's up to that counselor to prove the lie, not just raise the possibility.

You're describing what may be proven. You're not providing proof.

...so they aren't proof of anything

My point is that it was the evidence requested. "Show us photos of the landing sites, and we'll believe," said the hoax claimants all through the last decade. Well -- there are the photos of the landing sites. Predictably the hoax claimants have now shifted the goalposts in order to protect their beliefs from evidence.

...and they don't make the mountain of hoax evidence go away.

In my ten years of studying and writing about the Moon landing hoax theory, and of debating most of the principal authors of it, I find no evidence at all -- mountain or otherwise. What there is a mountain of is ignorant supposition and idle speculation, handed down as conspiracy lore among a small group of largely uninformed conspiracy enthusiasts.

Your link here
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4001964&postcount=1
is merely a compendium of that ignorance. I have debunked each of those claims a hundred times, but the hoax theorists have no interest in fact.

I note several links to Aulis. Are you aware that the authors responsible for Aulis have been invited by third parties several times to debate me in person, and to respond to demonstrations I have made on national and international television? Did you know that they have stubbornly refused all such opportunities? Did you know that they used to operate a web forum much like this one, but shut it down abruptly when I posted information that contradicted their claims? They're now essentially in hiding.

Apollo was a hoax.

Nope. Every single qualified expert in the world agrees that Apollo was real. The "hoax" is the notion that the authors and pundits you've naively linked to have any knowledge of what they're talking about and any willingness to defend their claims -- indeed usually no willingness at all even to leave the safety of YouTube.

I'll be happy to discuss any an all hoax claims with you, as long as they are your claims, and not just something you've uncritically parrotted from a web site or YouTube video. What say? Put your money where you mouth is?

[Erock]

Your link here
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4001964&postcount=1
is merely a compendium of that ignorance. I have debunked each of those claims a hundred times, but the hoax theorists have no interest in fact.

He was already taken to task and utterly destroyed on the political forum. He kept linking to it up to the point people started noticing his backside being handed to him;)

What say? Put your money where you mouth is?

I'm not sure you realise who this guy is, you may know him as Rocky or Cosmored where he appeared on the Apollohoax forum. Don't expect any cognitive discussion from him, he has a little flow chart of cut and paste posts for each response. He uses the word 'plausible' a lot when it is anything but.

[JayUtah]

I want to add that the link posted to Cosmored's post at spurstalk.com, to the supposed mountain of evidence for the Apollo, mentions me by name and makes several incorrect and misleading claims.

I am indeed the principal author of www.clavius.org. The spurstalk.com link to the David Icke forum that allegedly describes both my site and Bad Astronomy is a post written by Cosmored himself under the name DavidC. He wrote this after he was banned under both those aliases, both from the Bad Astronomy forum and also from the Apollohoax.net forum (which he mistakenly identifies as my site Clavius), for his abusive behavior. It does not discuss the my site at all, which is static content and not a web forum. In fact it is unlikely that Cosmored/DavidC has ever read my site.

Cosmored's spurstalk.com post goes on to link here (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446557/board/thread/133905495) to a debate at IMDb between me and Jarrah White. He asserts that Jarrah left that debate because the moderators were deleting his posts. In fact, the moderators deleted only one of his posts, which contained foul and abusive language.

Jarrah knows why the post was deleted; he posted a cleaned-up version of it later than day, but then tried to tell his fans that IMDb was preventing him from posting key evidence that would have proven his claim. Further, IMDb was Jarrah's choice of forum to debate in, not mind, and he explicitly agreed to be moderated there. He chose the venue and accepted the ground rules. His inability to follow them is his fault and his alone.

Jarrah debated for a considerable length of time after he was moderated, before finally resigning the debate. He resigned because he was losing badly the argument he had made regarding solar weather. It was becoming increasingly clear that he had incompetently misinterpreted the NOAA data (which Cosmored also alludes to in his post, when discussing Ralph Rene) and was being held accountable for it. His attempts to replay debunked arguments had failed, and his attempts to change the subject to Apollo 1 had failed. Further, he was also being held accountable to respond to an Australian poster's invitation to set up a panel of academics in Jarrah's area to endorse Jarrah's findings in person.

Cosmored's claim that I will debate only when there are moderators to "ride to [my] rescue" is false, misleading, and highly misrepresentative of the nature of the debates I participate in.

First, the claim pertains largely only to Jarrah White. As many here can attest, Jarrah has a reputation for foul-mouthed, abusive language when addressing me. At the Yahoo! groups forum where he first tried to engage me directly, several of the other posters tried to get him to calm down and clean up his language, but to no avail. He was promptly banned by the Yahoo! administrators -- for which he tried to blame me, even going so far as to accuse me of hacking his computer.

From then on, Jarrah has spent considerable time making YouTube videos that focus considerable attention on personal attacks against me and Dr. Phil Plait, the originator of Bad Astronomy. The comments that accompany these videos are largely a continuation of the vulgar personal insults that won Jarrah his original reputation. His approach to me has been described by others as a "sick obsession" and an "unhealthy fixation."

Hence when Jarrah contacted me by email to debate my correspondence with Astronaut-Scientist Brian O'Leary, I informed him that I do not debate in private (for the simple practical reason that I don't want to have to repeat myself a hundred times for every supplicant), and that if he in particular wanted to debate me directly, it would have to be under moderation that would enjoin him from relying upon his characteristically abusive language and personal attacks.

Ideally I would like him to debate at BAUT, where the moderation for conspiracy theories includes rules that require proponents to focus on the debate and evidence, rather than upon debate tactics. But few if any hoax proponents are willing to submit to that level of rigor, so I was happy with any program of moderation that would keep his vitriol in check. Jarrah chose IMDb, but was ultimately unable to control himself even by their liberal standards. JREF would also have been a suitable forum.

In no online forum where I debate do I have any authority to control who posts, what is posted, or what may be said to or about me. I post here, at BAUT, and at Apollhoax.net. None of the moderators at any of these places bow to my will. In fact, I explicitly linked to Apollohoax.net from Clavius.org precisely so that a third-party moderator would regulate the discussion of my site.

In contrast, Jarrah White rarely ventures outside his YouTube channel, where he continues the solar-weather debate in a one-sided fashion where he controls what is presented what is said in response, basking in the accolades of a small group of sycophantic followers who likewise rarely leave the channel. He remains entirely insulated from criticism.

I have entertained several third-party requests to present my views in public under my real identity. Those requests have come from the journal Science, The New York Times, The New York Times Magazine, The History Channel, National Geographic, The Ron Reagan Show, the Discovery Channel, and a host of skeptics organizations. In many or most of these cases, noted conspiracy theorists are also invited to present their views. Some agree, most don't. In a few cases, they demand exorbitant appearance fees.

I think it's clear who's trying to win the debate by controlling what is seen and heard.

[Jack by the hedge]

Don't expect any cognitive discussion from him, he has a little flow chart of cut and paste posts for each response.

I now have an image of an Apollo hoax call centre.

"Your call is important to us. Unlike facts, logic or consistency."

[JayUtah]

I'm not sure you realise who this guy is, you may know him as Rocky or Cosmored where he appeared on the Apollohoax forum.

FatFreddy88 = Cosmored = DavidC

Got it. Yeah, this whole orgy of self reference doesn't help his credibility. I quote myself a lot, but then it's clear I'm quoting myself.

Don't expect any cognitive discussion from him...

Don't worry, I don't.

[Craig4]

Those pictures of the alleged landing sites are fakeable so they aren't proof of anything and they don't make the mountain of hoax evidence go away.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4001964&postcount=1

Apollo was a hoax.

Prove the pictures are fake. Dazzle us with your photo interpreting skills.

[JayUtah]

Prove the pictures are fake. Dazzle us with your photo interpreting skills.

I've seen them. His photo interpretation skills are about as dazzling as a rice cake.

[NobbyNobbs]

Wait, so real astronauts flew a fake coffin made of nails to a moon made of plywood and took Photoshopped pictures of things that aren't there?

I'm a little confused.

[Anders Lindman]

Wait, so real astronauts flew a fake coffin made of nails to a moon made of plywood and took Photoshopped pictures of things that aren't there?

I'm a little confused.

The 'plywood' lunar lander was located in a film studio together with the 'real' astronauts posing in front of a Scotchlite front projection screen. The 'glass structures' on the moon Richard C. Hoagland has talked about is an effect of the Scotchlite screen: http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/a14glass.jpg

It's as simple as that.

[Corsair 115]

Well, it already has eaten the brains of those who believe in the conspiracy theory that the lunar landings were faked. Why is the ground around the descend stage so black? And in the closeup the ground is no longer black: http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/584395main_M168319885_LR.25cm_ap14_area.jpg

:confused: Those pictures of the alleged landing sites are fakeable so they aren't proof of anything and they don't make the mountain of hoax evidence go away.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4001964&postcount=1

Apollo was a hoax.


And right on cue those whose brains have been eaten by this particular conspiracy theory enter the fray to demonstrate just how much of their brains have been consumed by it...

[Sledge]

All you need to know about the Apollo hoax:
P6MOnehCOUw

[Anders Lindman]

All you need to know about the Apollo hoax:
P6MOnehCOUw

That's an ignorant video (or disinfo). The Apollo program was just a public front for the secret NRO who used Saturn V rockets to put satellites and possibly even weapons systems into space. Try to find detailed specifications of the Saturn V rocket. The most detailed information I have seen about the Saturn V dimensions are some crude diagrams.

[JayUtah]

Try to find detailed specifications of the Saturn V rocket.

I have.

The most detailed information I have seen about the Saturn V dimensions are some crude diagrams.

That's because your research skills are non-existent.

[Anders Lindman]

I have.



That's because your research skills are non-existent.

So, can you walk your talk and present some link to that information?

[JayUtah]

It's as simple as that.

Everything is simple to someone who can't bother with details like evidence. There are 20,000 still photographs from Apollo, 7,000 of them taken on the lunar surface. There are more than 30 hours of live video and 20 hours of 16mm film. I have yet to meet a single hoax theorist who has seen even a tiny fraction of them, much less has anything approaching a coherent explanation or evidence of forgery. Apollo hoax theorism is pure ignorant denial.

[Anders Lindman]

Is it a coincidence that the NRO used the name "Saturn" already in 1960?

See: http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/WS117L_Records/471.PDF

[Craig4]

So, can you walk your talk and present some link to that information?

You admit yourself that you don't research anything. Don't be silly. Everyone here knows how poor the quality of your work is. Why do you act as if your ideas have value?

[Craig4]

Please, go to the OP and show us why you know the photos are faked. Show your work. Explain it all to us in gross detail how you can tell the photos are fraudulent.

[Pantaz]

Try to find detailed specifications of the Saturn V rocket.

I have.

The most detailed information I have seen about the Saturn V dimensions are some crude diagrams.

That's because your research skills are non-existent.
Maybe someone should create a Wikipedia page... oh, look, there it is!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V

Of course, Wikipedia pages are notoriously short on references... but the Saturn V page seems to be pretty well covered (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V#References).

In fact, there appears to be a wealth of technical data available from links on the wiki page, especially the "Notes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V#Notes)" section.

[JayUtah]

So, can you walk your talk and present some link to that information?

Sure, as soon as someone wants to digitize about a million (literally) sheets of paper.

Most of the world's information is not online, Anders. I'm a professional engineer. I deal with these objects as real world objects, not just as pixels and end of a URL, as you seem to do.

So my colleague Chris asked my company to do some structural dynamics work for him, for his employment as a subcontractor of ATK. ATK is the current owner of the technology that once belonged to Thiokol, who did all the solid rocket motor work for the Saturn V -- the ullage motors and the LES motor. Chris is responsible for scaling up the Apollo CSM LES to work for the Orion spacecraft.

The very first thing I see when I go into his office is a full-size drawing of the original Apollo LES covering one wall, dating from the mid 1960s -- yellowing paper and faded India ink and all. The other thing I see is a jumble of J-size drawings of the inner assemblies, all original.

"Wow, where did you get these?" I asked.

"They're ours. Thiokol designed the original LES and these have been in our archives for decades," said Chris. I also know that much of the other assembly drawings from Boeing and McDonnell Douglas were microfilmed and placed in the National Archives. You can go see them there, but because they're in uncategorized storage it takes a bit of doing.

Fearing that the designs wouldn't scale up safely by just magnifying the dimensions of the original Saturn V LES, he wanted some sort of structural dynamics first-pass simulation run. That's what my company does, among other things, but we didn't get to a contract stage before the Orion was sidelined.

Do you realize there are two surviving Saturn Vs on public display? You want to sit on the couch and point and click your way to the semblance of knowledge. The rest of us get out and actually see and do the things you read about.

Ever see a J-size engineering drawing, Anders? It would make a nice bedspread. There are very few scanners that will accommodate it, and no one has the time, money, or inclination to do it.

If you absolutely must have a link, try this: http://www.apollosaturn.com/frame-mod.htm

This is a web site run by scale modelers as a reference for making Saturn V models. If you've never run across hard-core scale modelers, then I can't impress upon you their resourcefulness in finding materials, and their stickling for details.

[Anders Lindman]

Maybe someone should create a Wikipedia page... oh, look, there it is!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V

Of course, Wikipedia pages are notoriously short on references... but the Saturn V page seems to be pretty well covered (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V#References).

In fact, there appears to be a wealth of technical data available from links on the wiki page, especially the "Notes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V#Notes)" section.

That's one of those diagrams I meant! Look how crude it is. And among the references there will not be much more detailed diagrams if I remember correctly.

[SpitfireIX]

Is it a coincidence that the NRO used the name "Saturn" already in 1960?

See: http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/WS117L_Records/471.PDF


It's the same family of rockets as the ones used for Apollo, genius. :rolleyes:

[JayUtah]

Is it a coincidence that the NRO used the name "Saturn" already in 1960?

Wow, and the Romans were using it back in 0.

[Anders Lindman]

If you absolutely must have a link, try this: http://www.apollosaturn.com/frame-mod.htm


That's also the crude kind of diagrams, such as: http://www.apollosaturn.com/frame-mod.htm

Maybe you should ask the NRO for a more detailed specification of the Saturn V rocket. ;) (If that's declassified information yet.)

[Anders Lindman]

It's the same family of rockets as the ones used for Apollo, genius. :rolleyes:

Exactly. Was the Saturn V rocket in reality used for military purposes?

[JayUtah]

That's also the crude kind of diagrams, such as: http://www.apollosaturn.com/frame-mod.htm

Why do you take information only in URL form? What have you done to find Saturn V information besides idly search the web?

Maybe you should ask the NRO for a more detailed specification of the Saturn V rocket. ;)

I'm satisfied with my knowledge of the Saturn V. You're the one complaining about the alleged dearth of information, but I think we've determined that it's because you're lazy, not because the information can't be found.

[JayUtah]

Exactly. Was the Saturn V rocket in reality used for military purposes?

Was it?

[Erock]

That's also the crude kind of diagrams, such as: http://www.apollosaturn.com/frame-mod.htm

Maybe you should ask the NRO for a more detailed specification of the Saturn V rocket. ;) (If that's declassified information yet.)

Why do you want it? Gonna analyse it with your superior HB intellect?:rolleyes:

Here's one (http://jleslie48.com/0206pr/saturn5allclean2.jpg) from a simple search.

[Anders Lindman]

Was it?

Absolutely. I think. :confused: It would be fun to send an email to the NRO and ask them directly. :D And get a reply such as:

"Dear sir,

You are absolutely correct. Saturn V was a military project within the NRO that was also used in NASA's PR project Apollo.

Yours truly,

Agent Smith"

[JayUtah]

Anders, justify why these are too crude for you.

http://www.apollosaturn.com/modeling/sht1a.gif
http://www.apollosaturn.com/modeling/sht2a.gif
http://www.apollosaturn.com/modeling/sht3a.gif
http://www.apollosaturn.com/modeling/sht4a.gif

Please tell us what you're looking for. No handwaving -- remember, I'm an engineer; this is what I do.

[Anders Lindman]

Why do you want it? Gonna analyse it with your superior HB intellect?:rolleyes:

Here's one (http://jleslie48.com/0206pr/saturn5allclean2.jpg) from a simple search.

That's the other diagram I meant! I think. Compare the height specified in the Wikipedia article:

"Height 363.0 feet (110.6 m)" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V

With the height in the diagram you posted:

"4240.79 inches, 107.716 meters" -- http://jleslie48.com/0206pr/saturn5allclean2.jpg

Inconsistency!

[Anders Lindman]

Anders, justify why these are too crude for you.

http://www.apollosaturn.com/modeling/sht1a.gif
http://www.apollosaturn.com/modeling/sht2a.gif
http://www.apollosaturn.com/modeling/sht3a.gif
http://www.apollosaturn.com/modeling/sht4a.gif

Please tell us what you're looking for. No handwaving -- remember, I'm an engineer; this is what I do.

The resolution is so low I can't even read the text in those diagrams!

[Alareth]

So ... The Saturn V moon launches really we a cover to put the components of the death ray used to dustify the WTC into orbit?

[JayUtah]

The resolution is so low I can't even read the text in those diagrams!

They're thumbnails of paper copies you need to order. They're A- or B-size drawings. Even at this resolution I can tell that they're properly datumed and dimensioned.

[JayUtah]

Inconsistency!

Do you realize that no two Saturn V flight articles were exactly alike?

[Anders Lindman]

So ... The Saturn V moon launches really we a cover to put the components of the death ray used to dustify the WTC into orbit?

Ha! You mean like in Judy Wood's 9/11 theory. :D (I have seen claims that the reason for there being so little debris at Ground Zero was because the WTC towers were largely hollow!) But that's off topic so I will not go into that now.

[Anders Lindman]

Do you realize that no two Saturn V flight articles were exactly alike?

I didn't know that.

[Erock]

Do you realize that no two Saturn V flight articles were exactly alike?

That blueprint measures from the top of the engine fairing - on the left it shows the -3 metre 'discrepancy' with a minus figure(I think):D

The short inset on the right bottom shows the 363 feet as quoted by NASA and wiki.

[Garrison]

I think this will provide the level of detail Anders wants, and at a technical level appropriate to his skills:

Apollo 11 Manual (http://www.haynes.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10001&storeId=10001&productId=47367&langId=-1)

[Anders Lindman]

That blueprint measures from the top of the engine fairing - on the left it shows the -3 metre 'discrepancy' with a minus figure(I think):D

The short inset on the right bottom shows the 363 feet as quoted by NASA and wiki.

Ok, that's true. I missed that. Still, the diagrams are pretty crude imo.

[Craig4]

Ok, that's true. I missed that. Still, the diagrams are pretty crude imo.

So? No one cares what you think of the diagrams. Prove they are fraudulent.

[Anders Lindman]

So? No one cares what you think of the diagrams. Prove they are fraudulent.

I think they are real. But I believe that they are crude because it's not NASA but the NRO who has the original drawings of the Saturn V rocket, and it has been classified information (and perhaps still is even today).

[Garrison]

I think they are real. But I believe that they are crude because it's not NASA but the NRO who has the original drawings of the Saturn V rocket, and it has been classified information (and perhaps still is even today).

Except it's not, it's readily available knowledge, but you would probably have to extend your research beyond Google to find it.

[JayUtah]

Still, the diagrams are pretty crude imo.

Compared to ... ?

[JayUtah]

...it's not NASA but the NRO who has the original drawings of the Saturn V rocket

Did you read my post?

...and it has been classified information (and perhaps still is even today).

No, laziness on your part does not constitute evidence of classification.

[Garrison]

And of course there is plenty of information online but you'll have to do some reading instead of looking for pretty pictures:

SP-4206 Stages to Saturn (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4206/contents.htm)

[Anders Lindman]

Did you read my post?


Yes. And ignored. The drawings have too low resolutions for my taste.

[JayUtah]

Yes. And ignored.

Not that post. The post in which I reported seeing original Saturn V drawings not in the hands of some mythical shadowy organization.

The drawings have too low resolutions for my taste.

Did you read what I said about the drawings?

[Craig4]

Yes. And ignored. The drawings have too low resolutions for my taste.

As if that were somehow significant.

[Sledge]

That's an ignorant video (or disinfo). The Apollo program was just a public front for the secret NRO who used Saturn V rockets to put satellites and possibly even weapons systems into space. Try to find detailed specifications of the Saturn V rocket. The most detailed information I have seen about the Saturn V dimensions are some crude diagrams.

No.

[JayUtah]

... my taste.

Second time asking for your criteria.

[Anders Lindman]

Compared to ... ?

Compared to detailed schematics of for example the electric system, such as: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LMSysHandbk.pdf

[Alareth]

Second time asking for your criteria.

Anything you can provide that doesn't contradict his conspiracy claims.

[JayUtah]

Compared to detailed schematics ...

You realize those are systems-level block diagrams, not "detailed schematics?" Have you read the Saturn V Flight Manual?

As I said, find me someone willing to digitize about 1,000,000 drawings and documents up to J-size and larger, and you can have them in clickable form. If you are too lazy to look beyond clickables, then you're going to have to be content with clickables.

[Erock]

Yes. And ignored. The drawings have too low resolutions for my taste.

Ahhh, you see that's where you are going wrong. You're not supposed to eat them:D

[nomuse]

Is it a coincidence that the NRO used the name "Saturn" already in 1960?

See: http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/WS117L_Records/471.PDF

And the Romans used it before that. And Goya has a famous painting.
Your point?

Dangit, Jay.

[nomuse]

This whole "where are the drawings?" bugs me. I mean...if I had the most complete drawings ever made for a 1928 Theremin I'd be unable to build it; because the components specified were made in the Soviet Union in the 20's and are no longer widely available. Although the diagrams would presumably give the desired values and tolerances, the real components would have a measurable effect on the sound of the instrument.

In fact, newly made Theremins are the end result of both archeological engineering (trying to figure out what the originals did and how), and brand-new engineering that meets up with current parts stocks, desired musical effect, electrical and safety standards, RoHS, and so on.

The same would be true if there were a centralized collection of all paperwork used to construct the Saturn V. It would be incomplete -- because it was embedded in and references the experience and practices of the time. And it would be un-buildable as it stands -- not today, with different standards and practices.

And the same thing could be said of a 2012 Toyota Camry rolling off the assembly line as we speak.

[Anders Lindman]

And the Romans used it before that. And Goya has a famous painting.
Your point?

Dangit, Jay.

My point is that neither the Romans nor Goya were talking about rockets. ;)

[Anders Lindman]

Not that post. The post in which I reported seeing original Saturn V drawings not in the hands of some mythical shadowy organization.


Mythical organization? You seem to have missed this post: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8012122&postcount=56

[JayUtah]

This whole "where are the drawings?" bugs me.

It should. Most laymen have absolutely no idea what documentation exists for the design of a substantial piece of aerospace technology.

The same would be true if there were a centralized collection of all paperwork used to construct the Saturn V.

Which there isn't. This is another ignorance perpetuated by hoax theorists.

First, designs are proprietary. The manufacturer retains them in private archive and isn't required to disclose them publicly even when the customer is the government. This is to prevent a competitor from gaining access to trade secrets by means of a FOIA request. Nevertheless most if not all companies are willing to make their archives available for researchers.

Second, the design documents for any one component are held by the subcontractor for the component. Only a certain subset is required to be forwarded to the prime contractor as part of construction. That's why ATK has the drawings for the LES, even though someone else was the prime contractor for the whole vehicle. They inherited all that from Thiokol when they purchased the company. Similarly Pratt & Whitney is now the custodian of most of the design documents for the F-1 engine, having inherited it from Rocketdyne. Boeing has the original documents for the S-1C. IBM has the design documents for the IU.

All the drawings and documents that were required in the contract to be supplied to NASA were microfilmed and sent to the National Archives. The Archives has confirmed that they have them. However, the overwhelming majority of NA materials are not online.

Third, no one outside the industry has any indication how much documentation is originally available. Just the documents required to be supplied to NASA by the Saturn V contractors (not all that was produced and retained by the contractor) fills about two standard railway boxcars for each delivered flight article. Grumman produced about 4,000 drawings per week while designing only the lunar module.

It should also disturb you because Anders is doing his standard goalpost-shifting. Originally all he wanted was the dimensions.

That's an ignorant video (or disinfo). The Apollo program was just a public front for the secret NRO who used Saturn V rockets to put satellites and possibly even weapons systems into space. Try to find detailed specifications of the Saturn V rocket. The most detailed information I have seen about the Saturn V dimensions are some crude diagrams.

He is carefully ignoring the fact that detailed dimensioned drawings were provided. Instead he's trying now to up the ante and insinuating that if he can't be allowed to point and click to any arbitrary drawing of any arbitrary component at any arbitrary level of detail for the Saturn V, it must be some state secret.

What about it, Anders? Can you point and click your way to a detailed schematic for the fuse pin on the No. 1 engine of a Boeing 727-200? Is that also a state secret? How about a dimensioned drawing for the valve cowlings in a 1977 Ferrari 308 GTS?

[JayUtah]

My point is that neither the Romans nor Goya were talking about rockets. ;)

Your point was to attempt to connect the two unrelated usages of a common word in some conspiratorial fashion. You failed.

[JayUtah]

Mythical organization?

You ignored the point of my post. Third time telling you that I have seen original Saturn V drawings in possession of the original manufacturer. Please reconcile that with your claims and stop evading the point.

[Anders Lindman]

You ignored the point of my post. Third time telling you that I have seen original Saturn V drawings in possession of the original manufacturer. Please reconcile that with your claims and stop evading the point.

I thought you had understood by now that people can claim anything on Internet forums.

[Anders Lindman]

Your point was to attempt to connect the two unrelated usages of a common word in some conspiratorial fashion. You failed.

Unrelated? NRO rocket projects and NASA. Is that unrelated? :confused:

[Corsair 115]

Why do you take information only in URL form?.


It's because conspiracy theorists tend to be deathly afraid of libraries. And that's because libraries contain those dreaded things called books which upon their pages have printed information which reduces their conspiracy theories to tatters. So rather than be confronted by information that might destroy their beliefs, they simply avoid the library and those horrible, horrible books.

[SpitfireIX]

I thought you had understood by now that people can claim anything on Internet forums.


Are you accusing Jay of lying? Yes or no.

[sts60]

Try to find detailed specifications of the Saturn V rocket.
I have.
The most detailed information I have seen about the Saturn V dimensions are some crude diagrams.
That's because your research skills are non-existent.

No. That's because AL is not simply a lazy troll but a flat-out liar as well.

He made this same lazy, ignorant, and silly claim over on the "JFK, NASA, and the NRO" thread. I provided explicit dimensional and weight data (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7060133&postcount=57) published over eight years of the Saturn V program life, and called his attention to it. He simply pretended it never happened - after asking for it - and kept on repeating the same schtick despite repeated reminders that he had been provided the data.

Again: AL is a liar and a troll. Don't feed the troll.

[Obviousman]

Exactly. Was the Saturn V rocket in reality used for military purposes?

The original concept for the Saturn began life as a heavy lift vehicle for atomic weaponry, but that was quickly shelved as warhead weight reduced and lift capability improved. The concept was revived when the lunar mission came about.

[Obviousman]

He is carefully ignoring the fact that detailed dimensioned drawings were provided. Instead he's trying now to up the ante and insinuating that if he can't be allowed to point and click to any arbitrary drawing of any arbitrary component at any arbitrary level of detail for the Saturn V, it must be some state secret.

What about it, Anders? Can you point and click your way to a detailed schematic for the fuse pin on the No. 1 engine of a Boeing 727-200? Is that also a state secret? How about a dimensioned drawing for the valve cowlings in a 1977 Ferrari 308 GTS?

:talk008:

[theprestige]

Are you accusing Jay of lying? Yes or no.

To be fair, isn't it perfectly cromulent to point out that Jay is making an unsubstantiated claim?

[SpitfireIX]

To be fair, isn't it perfectly cromulent to point out that Jay is making an unsubstantiated claim?


No, because Jay is a highly respected authority on moon-hoax conspiracism and the Apollo program. In case you're unfamiliar, he's appeared in that capacity on Mythbusters and The National Geographic Channel, plus several times in the national print media. He's also an aerospace engineer. Besides me, you'll find at least half a dozen members here who've read thousands of his posts on BAUT and/or Apollohoax (PhantomWolf, Captain Swoop, sts60, R.A.F., Cl1mh4224rd, Obviousman, and twinstead, and those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head) who can attest to these facts. There's zero chance that Jay could be mistaken or exaggerating about having seen such plans, and every reason to believe that if he says he has, he has.

If this sounds like an appeal to authority argument, it is, but in this case it's a legitimate appeal to authority.

[Craig4]

So what about it there Anders? Were your errors corrected in another thread? You know they were what that makes you right?

[Pantaz]

That's one of those diagrams I meant! Look how crude it is. And among the references there will not be much more detailed diagrams if I remember correctly.

The Wikipedia page I linked has several photographs, but no technical drawings at all. Your proclaiming, "That's one of those diagrams", directly demonstrates that you are unwilling to use any of the resources we have offered. Therefore, you are intellectually dishonest, to put it kindly.

For those out there that actually have an interest in such things, you might enjoy browsing the "Saturn V Press Kit (http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/saturn_apollo/saturnv_press_kit.html)" (1967-68). It's presented as a series of PDFs with considerable detail about each rocket stage, info about the various design and test facilities, and many great photos of the constructions.

[JayUtah]

To be fair, isn't it perfectly cromulent to point out that Jay is making an unsubstantiated claim?

The eyewitness is the substantiation. This is my profession.

[JayUtah]

I thought you had understood by now that people can claim anything on Internet forums.

This is the third time you have called me a liar when I have countered your obnoxious claims with facts from my professional experience.

Prove that I am lying, or apologize.

[SUSpilot]

Do you realize that no two Saturn V flight articles were exactly alike?
For Anderson' benefit, a lot of things aren't exactly alike. I should know the number, but in production, Boeing is allowed several inches variance in the overall length of the 747, IIRC.

In the railroad business, two 80 car trains made up of 89' flat cars made by the same manufacturer, plus the same number of identical model locomotives will vary by a few feet. It happens...

[threadworm]

That's an ignorant video (or disinfo).

No, it's what we residents of Earth describe as 'humour', and the purpose of ths particular piece of humour is to mock ridiculous and unsubstantiated notions by pointing out at a basic level what the inconsistencies in them are.

Are you really really trying to claim that Mitchell & Webb are part of the conspiracy and produced that sketch to maintain the hoax? There's a whole new sketch right there...

[Anders Lindman]

This is the third time you have called me a liar when I have countered your obnoxious claims with facts from my professional experience.

Prove that I am lying, or apologize.

I did not say that you were a liar. I said that anyone can claim all sorts of things on an Internet forum.

Ok, let's say you are correct, then at what company/agency did you see those drawings firsthand?

[Anders Lindman]

No, it's what we residents of Earth describe as 'humour', and the purpose of ths particular piece of humour is to mock ridiculous and unsubstantiated notions by pointing out at a basic level what the inconsistencies in them are.

Are you really really trying to claim that Mitchell & Webb are part of the conspiracy and produced that sketch to maintain the hoax? There's a whole new sketch right there...

The video is trying to make the connection that if the Apollo missions really were a hoax then would they really have bothered creating real Saturn V rockets? That's an ignorant claim since the Saturn V rockets could have been a part of NROs' secret military space program.

[threadworm]

The video is trying to make the connection that if the Apollo missions really were a hoax then would they really have bothered creating real Saturn V rockets? That's an ignorant claim since the Saturn V rockets could have been a part of NROs' secret military space program.

Did you actually read my post? You obviously haven't heard of Mitchell & Webb. You should see the fun they have with the same sketch format about 9/11, Kennedy and Princess Diana. Try and develop a sense of humour.

"Could have" is not the same as "was". Simply stating something as a fact does not make it a fact.

You do not need a multi-stage rocket to launch a satellite.

[Anders Lindman]

Did you actually read my post? You obviously haven't heard of Mitchell & Webb. You should see the fun they have with the same sketch format about 9/11, Kennedy and Princess Diana. Try and develop a sense of humour.

"Could have" is not the same as "was". Simply stating something as a fact does not make it a fact.

You do not need a multi-stage rocket to launch a satellite.

"An upper stage is a mechanism, part of the launch vehicle system, that has no other purpose than to lift upwards something else - a spacecraft, satellite or another payload." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multistage_rocket

Again, the video tries to imply that the Apollo moon hoax is improbable because they would not have needed to built a real rocket to stage a moon hoax.

[Craig4]

So Anders, did you write your post about Saturn V rockets after STS 60 had corrected you previously?

[Anders Lindman]

So Anders, did you write your post about Saturn V rockets after STS 60 had corrected you previously?

These are hardly detailed schematics: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7060133&postcount=57

You follow?

[Craig4]

These are hardly detailed schematics: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7060133&postcount=57

You follow?

Explain.

[JayUtah]

I did not say that you were a liar. I said that anyone can claim all sorts of things on an Internet forum.

Are you saying I didn't see what I said I saw?

Ok, let's say you are correct, then at what company/agency did you see those drawings firsthand?

Discussed at length in the post itself. Quit stalling and either substantiate your claim or apologize for the insinuation.

[JayUtah]

The video is trying to make the connection...

The video is satire. Grow a sense of humor.

[JayUtah]

These are hardly detailed schematics: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7060133&postcount=57

You follow?

Proof that you don't know what you're asking for or talking about. A "schematic" shows the conceptual relationship among components. It does not show dimensions. Saying you want dimensions and asking for "detailed schematics" belies your ignorance. You are simply using technical-sounding language to give your uninformed claims an improper air of correctness.

In my expert professional opinion as an aerospace engineer, you have been given sufficient documentation for the dimensions of the Saturn V launch vehicle. You have also been given sufficient "schematics" to answer conceptual questions.

[FatFreddy88]

I'd like to hear Jay's analyses of these two anomalies.

The waving flag issue-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00

And this issue-

Collins' jacket corner bounces up and down the way it would in gravity when they were supposed to be halfway to the moon in this clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fqdB1b53jc
(00:52 time mark)

The movement is very different from the straps in this clip which is in zero-G.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ofwzby1c7o
(3:17 time mark)

This footage in zero-G shows jacket corners moving quite differently from the way Collins' jacket corner moved.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4

(edit to add)
The jacket corners in this clip move the way Collins' does.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTNGNW5Evs4

It looks like they faked some of the footage of the trip to the moon too.


Thirty one of my posts have been deleted from threads on this site. Whenever I start getting the upper hand in a debate, the next day I see that the posts in which I made my main points are gone. Now I only make one post every one or two days here so I won't be responding immediately.

I made a post on another thread to ask Jay to respond to this thread below but it got deleted so here it is again.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=125628

Let's see if it stays this time.

[sts60]

Explain.

Allow me: AL is lying - still. He claimed on the other thread that NASA could have arbitrarily changed the size of the Saturn V without anybody noticing. I did him the courtesy of providing reasonably detailed explanations, and I pointed out how absolutely ridiculous the claim was - the Saturn V dimensions could be observed by the public, as well as by tens of thousands of workers, and were consistent with data published over the life of the program. I provided numbers in a convenient tabular form (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7060133&postcount=57) with references, spanning from 1963 to 1971, over ten months ago, and called his attention to it multiple times.

AL's response was to pretend this information had never been provided. He explicity repeated this falsehood in this thread:
... Try to find detailed specifications of the Saturn V rocket. The most detailed information I have seen about the Saturn V dimensions are some crude diagrams.

I dropped him to the Ignore list a long time ago, as it was clear he would simply say any idiot thing to get attention from the grown-ups, but it was worth showing that post for demonstration purposes.

Again, AL is a troll and a liar. Don't feed the troll; don't indulge the liar.

[BaaBaa]

How about THIS Icke post, Mister 88?

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059060846&postcount=4

[JayUtah]

I'd like to hear Jay's analyses of these two anomalies.

I'd like you to address your misrepresentations I identified above regarding me.

[sts60]

Whenever I start getting the upper hand in a debate, the next day I see that the posts in which I made my main points are gone.

DavidC/rocky/cosmored/FF88, I think the idea of you "getting the upper hand in a debate" is very funny. Is that sort of like when you had to deny the South Atlantic Anomaly even existed, because it demonstrates the daily experience of satellite operators and ISS astronauts? (Rocky's response was to whine that not only was I lying, but so were all those scientists from the 21 countries I listed (http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=theories&thread=971&post=27587) which had conducted studies on the SAA.)

Or was that when you approvingly cited the fellow who denied that there were any images of stars from NASA spacecraft? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7445793&postcount=3533) That was... special. Your response was to deny that you'd even read that part. Look, all you are able to do, aside from claim everyone who disagrees with you is lying, is to regurgitate others' hoax claims. At least do that right.

DavidC/rocky/cosmored/FatFreddy88, here is a direct question: Do you really think you will ever convince anyone? Let alone those of us who actually do this for a living? Seriously.

[Craig4]

Prove the pictures are fake. Dazzle us with your photo interpreting skills.

Fat Freddy, are you going to impress us with your explanation as to why the photo was faked or not?

[threadworm]

"An upper stage is a mechanism, part of the launch vehicle system, that has no other purpose than to lift upwards something else - a spacecraft, satellite or another payload." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multistage_rocket

Again, the video tries to imply that the Apollo moon hoax is improbable because they would not have needed to built a real rocket to stage a moon hoax.

Actually the video is implying that conspiracy theories are stupid and built on logic that doesn't actually make sense. You really are arguing that Mitchell & Webb are part of the conspiracy aren't you.

If they didn't need to build a real rocket to stage a moon hoax isn't a bit odd that they actually did? And launched it. With people on board. Who went to the moon.

[R.A.F.]

Collins' jacket corner bounces up and down the way it would in gravity...

...and your evidence for this is, what?



It looks like they faked some of the footage of the trip to the moon too.

Why should we care what it "looks like" to you??


Thirty one of my posts have been deleted from threads on this site.

Sounds like a mod is doing something right...I may rethink my participation here.


Whenever I start getting the upper hand in a debate, the next day I see that the posts in which I made my main points are gone. Now I only make one post every one or two days here so I won't be responding immediately.

So "if only" your "arguments" were left on the board, everyone would agree with you?


That's an excuse, not a reason.


I made a post...

Sorry., I see the name David Icky, and I don't bother looking further....

[Anders Lindman]

Allow me: AL is lying - still. He claimed on the other thread that NASA could have arbitrarily changed the size of the Saturn V without anybody noticing.

Ha! Wrong. Because I checked it a bit closer and the Saturn V rocket, including the building it was housed in, were the sizes claimed. So if you read the entire threads about that you will see that I changed my mind about that theory. (And the initial theory was that Saturn V was smaller than they claimed, not that they changed the size of it.)

[R.A.F.]

Prove that I am lying, or apologize.

I doubt he will do either...


One thing "telling" about internet forums, you can evaluate the character of a poster by their actions, (or inactions).




So what's your "excuse" for not responding to Jay's post, anders??

[Anders Lindman]

I doubt he will do either...


One thing "telling" about internet forums, you can evaluate the character of a poster by their actions, (or inactions).




So what's your "excuse" for not responding to Jay's post, anders??

I have already replied to that. See: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8013811&postcount=118

[nomuse]

I'd like to hear Jay's analyses of these two anomalies.

The waving flag issue-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00

And this issue-

Collins' jacket corner bounces up and down the way it would in gravity when they were supposed to be halfway to the moon in this clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fqdB1b53jc
(00:52 time mark)

The movement is very different from the straps in this clip which is in zero-G.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ofwzby1c7o
(3:17 time mark)

This footage in zero-G shows jacket corners moving quite differently from the way Collins' jacket corner moved.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4

(edit to add)
The jacket corners in this clip move the way Collins' does.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTNGNW5Evs4

It looks like they faked some of the footage of the trip to the moon too.


Thirty one of my posts have been deleted from threads on this site. Whenever I start getting the upper hand in a debate, the next day I see that the posts in which I made my main points are gone. Now I only make one post every one or two days here so I won't be responding immediately.

I made a post on another thread to ask Jay to respond to this thread below but it got deleted so here it is again.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=125628

Let's see if it stays this time.

I can answer this (and several very similar claims).

Apollo Deniers are poor observers.

There's a moment in the musical "Sweeney Todd" when Anthony is asked for the exact hair color of the girl he has admired from afar, as part of a plan to pose as wig-makers and thus extricate her from Bedlam. "Yellow," he declares in blind confidence.

Sweeney gives him a pitying look. "Not exact enough," he says. "There's blonde, and saffron, cornsilk...."

In a great many claims similar to that above, the Apollo Denier believes they have, based on long observation, a very good idea of how things move in real life. They have, however, no experience in animation or in any other field that would actually justify this confidence.

The actual movements of the real world are not those of the denier's untrained, unexamined expectations. The ruler they attempt to hold up to the Apollo record in order to find the latter false is as twisted as the reflection in a funhouse mirror.

[Jack by the hedge]

The video is trying to make the connection that if the Apollo missions really were a hoax then would they really have bothered creating real Saturn V rockets? That's an ignorant claim since the Saturn V rockets could have been a part of NROs' secret military space program.
Are you actually reduced to arguing with comedians now? Is arguing about anything with actual evidence so hard that you can only nitpick jokes? Even then, it's pitifully weak to argue that a pair of satirists are 'ignorant' merely because they don't know about one of your entirely unevidenced personal fantasies.

[R.A.F.]

I have already replied to that.

Yes...anyone can post anything to the internet...


Jay is a recognized authority regarding Apollo. His "word" is beyond reproach...and if/when he makes a mistake, he owns it.


On the other hand...You have been caught in numerous errors that you stubbornly refuse to resolve...

You strongly imply that Jay is a liar, then "run away" when confronted.

...and finally, your misunderstand on things, scientific/space related does not inspire any confidence whatsoever that you are a person worth listening to.

[JayUtah]

Ha! Wrong. Because I checked...

You claimed in this thread that reliable information regarding the Saturn V dimensions was impossible to find. You were wrong, and you knew you were wrong when you said that.

Further, you moved the goalpost and said that what you wanted was, vaguely speaking, "detailed schematics." You have yet to elaborate on what you think those are, and why you think they are relevant to the validity of the Saturn V.

I have further asked you whether you have read the Saturn V Flight Manual, and you have not answered.

[JayUtah]

I have already replied to that. See: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8013811&postcount=118

That was not a sufficient answer. Please address this post immediately.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=8014347#post8014347

[Anders Lindman]

You claimed in this thread that reliable information regarding the Saturn V dimensions was impossible to find.

No. Check again.

[Mudcat]

That's the other diagram I meant! I think. Compare the height specified in the Wikipedia article:

"Height 363.0 feet (110.6 m)" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V

With the height in the diagram you posted:

"4240.79 inches, 107.716 meters" -- http://jleslie48.com/0206pr/saturn5allclean2.jpg

Inconsistency!

What's inconsistent about it? Inches and meters are two different units of measurement, and both are actively used.

1 inch x 2.540 x 10-2 = 1 meter

[Anders Lindman]

That was not a sufficient answer. Please address this post immediately.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=8014347#post8014347

You guys got a blind spot or something? I have already replied to that. See: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8014583&postcount=138

[Anders Lindman]

What's inconsistent about it? Inches and meters are two different units of measurement, and both are actively used.

See: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8012305&postcount=80

[JayUtah]

No. Check again.

Already checked.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=8012809#post8012809

[JayUtah]

You guys got a blind spot or something? I have already replied to that. See: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8014583&postcount=138

No you did not. You did not answer my followup question in this post.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=8014347#post8014347

Third time asking. Please answer my follow up question immediately.

[R.A.F.]

anders, why do you make claims, and then refuse to "back up" those claims?


Perhaps you should stop that....it makes you look foolish.

[JayUtah]

See: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8012305&postcount=80

That post merely expresses the denial you are being asked to justify. Please acknowledge that you have been supplied with ample evidence from several different sources regarding the dimensions of the Saturn V, and that you received much of that information before asking again here for it.

[Mudcat]

For Anderson' benefit, a lot of things aren't exactly alike. I should know the number, but in production, Boeing is allowed several inches variance in the overall length of the 747, IIRC.

Not according to the TCDS, but that doesn't mean anything as that could be covered under a STC somewhere, which are harder to search.

[Craig4]

You guys got a blind spot or something? I have already replied to that. See: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8014583&postcount=138

You replied but your response wasn't good enough. Do as you're told and respond in a meaningful way.

[Anders Lindman]

No you did not. You did not answer my followup question in this post.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=8014347#post8014347

Third time asking. Please answer my follow up question immediately.

Oh. I missed that. I guess I'm the one with a blind spot. :o Sorry about that.

But again: At what company/agency did you see the drawings? That would help me better estimate the truthfulness in what you claim.

[Mudcat]

See: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8012305&postcount=80

They were built with their mission in mind, so there were some variation in their specific dimensions. Still, don't see the problem here.

[Anders Lindman]

Already checked.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=8012809#post8012809

I meant dimensions for components and detailed things like that. Detailed schematics.

[Mudcat]

Oh. I missed that. I guess I'm the one with a blind spot. :o Sorry about that.

But again: At what company/agency did you see the drawings? That would help me better estimate the truthfulness in what you claim.

Not only do you not answer the question, you ask an unrelated and completely pointless question.

[JayUtah]

Oh. I missed that.

Yes you did, along with a lot of other stuff. Your inattention grows tedious.

I guess I'm the one with a blind spot. :o Sorry about that.

I will accept your apology when you answer my question. Fourth time asking.

Are you saying that I did not see what I said I saw -- original drawings of portions of the Saturn V launch vehicle?

But again: At what company/agency did you see the drawings?

And again: covered at length in my post on the subject and in several subsequent posts. You are clearly not reading my posts, and you have the temerity to try to accuse me of lying. I will not indulge your laziness and inattention.

Now quit stalling.

[Garrison]

Oh. I missed that. I guess I'm the one with a blind spot. :o Sorry about that.

But again: At what company/agency did you see the drawings? That would help me better estimate the truthfulness in what you claim.

In what way? If JayUtah, who has the credentials to judge such things, says he saw authentic, credible, detailed technical drawings for the Saturn V on what basis can you, who has zero knowledge or expertise, question his statement?

[JayUtah]

I meant dimensions for components and detailed things like that.

Why do you need those? What would that tell you about the validity of the Saturn V design?

Detailed schematics.

Asked and answered. Schematics do not provide dimensions -- explicitly so. You have no idea what you're asking for. Your request is irrational.

[Anders Lindman]

They were built with their mission in mind, so there were some variation in their specific dimensions. Still, don't see the problem here.

No problem with that. It's the lack of detailed specifications of Saturn V I find suspicious. For example, are there any detailed schematics for specific Saturn V components?

Here are such detailed schematics for the lunar module: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720018196_1972018196.pdf

[Anders Lindman]

In what way? If JayUtah, who has the credentials to judge such things, says he saw authentic, credible, detailed technical drawings for the Saturn V on what basis can you, who has zero knowledge or expertise, question his statement?

Because I'm curious about if JayUtah saw those drawings at some company/agency that can be traced directly to the NRO.

[JayUtah]

No problem with that. It's the lack of detailed specifications of Saturn V I find suspicious.

It's only suspicious if you have failed to find any after a diligent, appropriate search. Idle Googling does not establish that they are suspiciously absent. I have asked you what else you've done to find that information, and you have declined to answer. This indicates that you know we would disapprove of the answer, suggesting that you have done little more than a cursory web search.

For example, are there any detailed schematics for specific Saturn V components?

Yes, in the Saturn V Flight Manual. I've asked you twice previously if you have read this, and you have failed to answer. You are being evasive.

[Mudcat]

No problem with that. It's the lack of detailed specifications of Saturn V I find suspicious. For example, are there any detailed schematics for specific Saturn V components?

Here are such detailed schematics for the lunar module: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720018196_1972018196.pdf

A point of comparison, here's a TCDS (http://www.easa.europa.eu/certification/type-certificates/docs/aircrafts/EASA-TCDS-A.196_(IM)_Boeing_747-09-15122011.pdf) for a Boeing 747, notice a distinct lack of 'detailed schematics' for it's components in the TCDS. Your argument is invalid.

[JayUtah]

Because I'm curious about if JayUtah saw those drawings at some company/agency that can be traced directly to the NRO.

I am not interested in your idle, ill-founded speculation. I have clearly stated that I saw the drawings in the hands of the private company that designed that portion of the Saturn V, and that this company is well known in the aerospace industry and well known to have designed the portions claimed.

Please stop stalling and answer my question.

Are you saying I did not see the drawings I say I saw? Fifth time asking. Next time I have to repeat the question, you will be reported to a moderator for making personal accusations against a JREF member.

[tsig]

The video is trying to make the connection that if the Apollo missions really were a hoax then would they really have bothered creating real Saturn V rockets? That's an ignorant claim since the Saturn V rockets could have been a part of NROs' secret military space program.

The secret military program that even you know about.

[Garrison]

Because I'm curious about if JayUtah saw those drawings at some company/agency that can be traced directly to the NRO.

An irrelevance unless you think everyone who has seen those diagrams over the years was an employee of the NRO. Your argument is that they've hidden details of the Saturn V, that clearly isn't so, it is simply that you have failed to do the proper research needed to find them.

[Garrison]

The secret military program that even you know about.

Yes, another of those deep dark secrets that is apparently known to every CT on the planet.

[Mudcat]

Yes, in the Saturn V Flight Manual. I've asked you twice previously if you have read this, and you have failed to answer. You are being evasive.

Saw it on at least eight file sharing sites, and on Wikipedia. Using a simple Google search. So much for 'Top Secret'.

[Anders Lindman]

I am not interested in your idle, ill-founded speculation. I have clearly stated that I saw the drawings in the hands of the private company that designed that portion of the Saturn V, and that this company is well known in the aerospace industry and well known to have designed the portions claimed.

Please stop stalling and answer my question.

Are you saying I did not see the drawings I say I saw? Fifth time asking. Next time I have to repeat the question, you will be reported to a moderator for making personal accusations against a JREF member.

Ah, Boeing I take it. Or some company like that. I don't know if you are telling the truth or not. I'm skeptical, but I really don't know.

[Anders Lindman]

The secret military program that even you know about.

No, it has been declassified: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8012122&postcount=56

We have to consider the time context here. The NRO was a secret agency during the 60s, but not today.

[Garrison]

Ah, Boeing I take it. Or some company like that. I don't know if you are telling the truth or not. I'm skeptical, but I really don't know.

You are most assuredly not skeptical as that would imply you are basing your views on the evidence when it is quite clear that you are doing the opposite; casting aspersions on the evidence and testimony so you can cling to your failed theory.

[Garrison]

No, it has been declassified: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8012122&postcount=56

We have to consider the time context here. The NRO was a secret agency during the 60s, but not today.

No we do not. This what you claimed(my bold):

I think they are real. But I believe that they are crude because it's not NASA but the NRO who has the original drawings of the Saturn V rocket, and it has been classified information (and perhaps still is even today).

Every part of that has been shown to be false, so ' the time context' is irrelevant.

[Craig4]

No, it has been declassified: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8012122&postcount=56

We have to consider the time context here. The NRO was a secret agency during the 60s, but not today.

Evidence, it's something that happens to other people.

[Mudcat]

I'm skeptical, but I really don't know.

No, your'e not skeptical. Yes, you really don't know.

Why embarrass yourself so?

[twinstead]

How anybody can be "skeptical" of an event as documented as the Apollo missions is flabbergasting to me

[Anders Lindman]

No we do not. This what you claimed(my bold):



Every part of that has been shown to be false, so ' the time context' is irrelevant.

My theory is that the Saturn V rocket was an NRO project and that some of the information about it is still classified even though the NRO itself and some of its information has been declassified. The Apollo program was just a public front I believe for making even the hippies accept a massive space budget of which most of it went to military space projects.

[Mudcat]

How anybody can be "skeptical" of an event as documented as the Apollo missions is flabbergasting to me

The far reaching scope of the Apollo missions are evidentially too much for certain small minds to grasp, perhaps.


My theory is that the Saturn V rocket was an NRO project and that some of the information about it is still classified even though the NRO itself and some of its information has been declassified. The Apollo program was just a public front I believe for making even the hippies accept a massive space budget of which most of it went to military space projects.
I rest my case.

[JayUtah]

Ah, Boeing I take it.

No.

Or some company like that.

Discussed at length elsewhere.

I don't know if you are telling the truth or not. I'm skeptical, but I really don't know.

I still don't have my answer. Are you accusing me of lying? Yes or no.

[JayUtah]

My theory is that the Saturn V rocket was an NRO project...

I have personal information to the contrary. Your only response to that is to make a veiled accusation saying I am lying. You are utterly disconnected from reality.

[Anders Lindman]

I still don't have my answer. Are you accusing me of lying? Yes or no.

How could I be accusing you of lying when I wrote: "I don't know if you are telling the truth or not. I'm skeptical, but I really don't know."

When I say I don't know then that is the same as NOT accusing you of being a liar. Being skeptical means not knowing.

[Mudcat]

How could I be accusing you of lying when I wrote: "I don't know if you are telling the truth or not. I'm skeptical, but I really don't know."

When I say I don't know then that is the same as NOT accusing you of being a liar. Being skeptical means not knowing.

You lack conviction, if you believe him to be a liar that say it straight up and ask for evidence. He'll post it, he's not that thin-skinned.

[tsig]

Oh. I missed that. I guess I'm the one with a blind spot. :o Sorry about that.

But again: At what company/agency did you see the drawings? That would help me better estimate the truthfulness in what you claim.


How?

[Erock]

How about THIS Icke post, Mister 88?

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059060846&postcount=4

If you think that shows his tendency to spam, watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn41RM-x4wA), and this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYLwKqPn-YU). Made me chuckle.

Cosmorock C 88 doesn't do debates. He asks the same questions over and over, with his own unique brand of ignorance. If you give him a reply, he will just go to his little cut and paste file and give the same vague response. I cite this blog below, which I understand is compiled from replies given to his standard spam post from the political forum.

Click here (http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/06/apollo-11-michael-collins-jacket.html) to see him taken to pieces.

[Anders Lindman]

How?

Because if I can connect the company with the NRO, then that supports my theory. AND, since my theory is not the official story then I will be more inclined to believe the claim.

[R.A.F.]

My theory is that the Saturn V rocket was an NRO project and that some of the information about it is still classified even though the NRO itself and some of its information has been declassified. The Apollo program was just a public front I believe for making even the hippies accept a massive space budget of which most of it went to military space projects.

Do you know what a theory is, anders? What a theory is NOT is wild speculation. Theories are based on evidence, not ignorant "musings".

[sts60]

Ha! Wrong. Because I checked...
You claimed in this thread that reliable information regarding the Saturn V dimensions was impossible to find. You were wrong, and you knew you were wrong when you said that.

Just for the hell of it, I unhid and viewed the post quoted by Jay. Not only is AL still lying, he's now lying about lying (metalying?).

First, he repeated the lie about "not finding" specifications in a thread long after the one in which they had already been handed to him (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7060133&postcount=57).

Second, he claims to have recanted his "theory", but in the very next post after the detailed list of references to Saturn V dimensions over an eight-year period, he claimed that the rocket was either larger or smaller or perhaps didn't exist at all. Nowhere else in that thread, nor in any other location of which I am aware, did he actually admit his gross error and abide by that admission. Instead, he keeps making long-de bunked, ignorant claims and pretending not to see answers, or pretending to acknowledge them only to go right back to the same idiotic claims, or to answer something other than what he was asked. He is a troll, pure and simple, and will continue to do just enough to keep the grown-ups giving him the attention he craves.

He is also a liar, but he is an inept and transparent liar for the same reason Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea/etc. is such a bad liar: he never knows when to stop talking, so he invariably winds up accidentally calling attention to his own lies, as he did here.

It's enough to have demonstrated clearly not his manifest trolling but to have documented once more his ongoing dishonesty. As with the other dishonest Apollo troll on this board, I see no reason to respond further to anything of AL's even quoted by other posters. I recommend you do the same. Don't feed the troll; don't indulge the liar.

[Anders Lindman]

You lack conviction, if you believe him to be a liar that say it straight up and ask for evidence. He'll post it, he's not that thin-skinned.

No. When I say that I don't know then that is NOT the same as accusing someone of being a liar.

[R.A.F.]

I don't know if you are telling the truth or not.

What is it about the term, recognized authority that you fail to understand??


Do you have actual doubts regarding Jay's veracity?...what do you base that doubt on??....be specific.

[Anders Lindman]

... he claims to have recanted his "theory", but in the very next post after the detailed list of references to Saturn V dimensions over an eight-year period, he claimed that the rocket was either larger or smaller or perhaps didn't exist at all.

Absolutely not. You are wrong about that.

[Anders Lindman]

What is it about the term, recognized authority that you fail to understand??


Do you have actual doubts regarding Jay's veracity?...what do you base that doubt on??....be specific.

I don't trust anybody. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[Garrison]

My theory is that the Saturn V rocket was an NRO project and that some of the information about it is still classified even though the NRO itself and some of its information has been declassified.


Which is exactly the same claim I quoted and which has been shown to be wrong in every detail.


The Apollo program was just a public front I believe for making even the hippies accept a massive space budget of which most of it went to military space projects.

And belief is all you have, the available evidence says otherwise, your claim to being 'skeptical' is also shown to be false.

[Garrison]

I don't trust anybody. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

In other word you simply choose to dismiss anything or anyone that contradicts your belief, and then wonder why no one in this thread is taking your claims seriously.

[R.A.F.]

Because if I can connect the company with the NRO, then that supports my theory.

So you "know" what conclusion you "want" to reach before investigating?


...since my theory is not the official story then I will be more inclined to believe the claim.

So, basically, anything that "could" be a conspiracy, you are more inclined to believe.


You are a credulous believer....which is about the worse "insult" I can imagine...

[R.A.F.]

I don't trust anybody.

Unless they are advocating a non-evidenced claim...then you instantly believe.


Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Cute...but I'm not going to allow you to "dodge" the question.



If you can't explain in clear english why you doubt Jay, then your opinion regarding Jay is less than worthless.


"I don't trust anybody", simply won't cut it...not if we are to discuss this topic rationally.

[Anders Lindman]

In other word you simply choose to dismiss anything or anyone that contradicts your belief, and then wonder why no one in this thread is taking your claims seriously.

I will change my mind if I find information that clearly shows that Saturn V was only used for moon missions. By 'clearly' I mean information I can connect with other facts in a kind of cross correlation.

Actually, if NASA produced detailed schematics of Saturn V then that would still not convince me when I think about it. So it's probably better to look for other things than going on about some schematics.

Ok, I will drop the Saturn V schematics issue (it's almost kind of off topic for this thread anyway).

[R.A.F.]

I will change my mind if I find information that clearly shows that Saturn V was only used for moon missions.

Irrelevent...no one here is interested in standing science "on it's ear" to prove you wrong....that's not how science "works".


The Apollo missions are established historical fact. If you disagree for whatever reason, the burden of proof is ON YOU to prove the missions didn't happen.


Aside...why is it that at one time or another, almost every Hoax believer tries to shift the burden of proof? Don't they realize what an OBVIOUS "dodge" it is???

[R.A.F.]

...I will drop the Saturn V schematics issue...


There was no "issue"...except perhaps your inability to admit error.

[Garrison]

I will change my mind if I find information that clearly shows that Saturn V was only used for moon missions. By 'clearly' I mean information I can connect with other facts in a kind of cross correlation.

Firstly it's down to you to show there was some sort of conspiracy in the face of all the available evidence. Secondly you've demonstrated that no information would be good enough, you will simply choose to believe what you want to believe.

Actually, if NASA produced detailed schematics of Saturn V then that would still not convince me when I think about it. So it's probably better to look for other things than going on about some schematics.

A perfect illustration of the above. Face with evidence you can't refute you simply decide it's irrelevant.

Ok, I will drop the Saturn V schematics issue (it's almost kind of off topic for this thread anyway).

Or in other word you realize you've been completely discredited on this topic so you are going to run away, and without withdrawing your claim about JayUtah's veracity?

[JayUtah]

I don't trust anybody. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

You implicitly trust your conspiracy theorists, and you are effectively calling me a liar. I find that highly despicable.

[R.A.F.]

If NASA produced detailed schematics of Saturn V then that would still not convince me when I think about it. So it's probably better to look for other things than going on about some schematics.


I usually ask, "what would it take to convince you that you are wrong". Do you realize you just admitted that NO EVIDENCE would convince you??


You are the definition of closed-minded, yet you question the veracity of others??


Wow...just wow....

[Anders Lindman]

You implicitly trust your conspiracy theorists, and you are effectively calling me a liar. I find that highly despicable.

I only trust information that I can get verify for myself. In the past I trusted second hand information much more, especially mainstream information.

[JayUtah]

I will change my mind if I find information that clearly shows that Saturn V was only used for moon missions.

Using the "prove a negative" rule, you have the burden to prove the Saturn V was used for something else, if that's what you believe or claim.

By 'clearly' I mean information I can connect with other facts in a kind of cross correlation.

This is your euphemism for wild conspiracy-related speculation. That's not acceptable.

Actually, if NASA produced detailed schematics of Saturn V...

1. You keep using the word "schematics" wrong.

2. You have been directed to a wealth of information which you simply disregard.

3. NASA doesn't produce the design documents.

You really have no clue what you're talking about. You're just making random requests to make it seem like you're conscientiously skeptical.

...then that would still not convince me when I think about it.

Translation: I'm shifting the goalposts now that what I said was impossible to produce has been produced.

So it's probably better to look for other things than going on about some schematics.

This is tantamount to saying the conclusion remains the same, but you're going to backfill a different line of reasoning to lead to it. Your arguments are always so very transparent.

Ok, I will drop the Saturn V schematics issue (it's almost kind of off topic for this thread anyway).

You don't get to decide thread topics. You made a claim. The claim was refuted. And you refuse to take responsibility for your error.

[JayUtah]

I only trust information that I can get verify for myself. In the past I trusted second hand information much more, especially mainstream information.

Nonsense. You post wild speculation from conspiracy web sites and expect us to take it seriously.

Apologize for calling me a liar.

[R.A.F.]

I only trust information that I can get verify for myself.


With your highly skilled investigative "abilities"?


Ha ha ha ha ha....it is to laugh.....tell us all another "whopper".

[Anders Lindman]

I usually ask, "what would it take to convince you that you are wrong". Do you realize you just admitted that NO EVIDENCE would convince you??


You are the definition of closed-minded, yet you question the veracity of others??


Wow...just wow....

Hmm... Yeah, there could be fakery all the way. If for example the Japanese space agency went to the moon and took closeup pictures of the Apollo landing sites I STILL would be skeptical about that information, especially since pictures can so easily be computer generated these days. Tricky. Frustrating! :mad:

BUT, one interesting thing is that the ground around the descend stage looks so black: http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/584395main_M168319885_LR.25cm_ap14_area.jpg

Someone said it was because of how the image is not an ordinary photo. Maybe, but it could also be NASA indirectly saying that the image is fake.

[Anders Lindman]

Nonsense. You post wild speculation from conspiracy web sites and expect us to take it seriously.

Apologize for calling me a liar.

I post speculations yes, but to test them! And for the umpteenth time, no I did not call you a liar.

[R.A.F.]

Someone said...


Oh, please...just stop...

[R.A.F.]

And for the umpteenth time, no I did not call you a liar.

Then explain why you would doubt what Jay has to say.


I will present this as many times as it take to get a rational response out of you....and I have nothing but time...


I post speculations yes, but to test them!

Irrelevent...your "tests" have failed miserably, yet you continue to believe non-evidenced claims without reason.

[Mudcat]

Hmm... Yeah, there could be fakery all the way. If for example the Japanese space agency went to the moon and took closeup pictures of the Apollo landing sites I STILL would be skeptical about that information, especially since pictures can so easily be computer generated these days. Tricky. Frustrating! :mad:Actually, detecting photoshopped images are relatively easy.

BUT, one interesting thing is that the ground around the descend stage looks so black.That is the result of the photographic technology used in space and some one enhancing the photo for public release.

[JayUtah]

I post speculations yes, but to test them!

No, you post them when asked for evidence.

And for the umpteenth time, no I did not call you a liar.

Then why can't you reconcile my personal observations with your theory?

[JayUtah]

BUT, one interesting thing is that the ground around the descend stage looks so black: http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/584395main_M168319885_LR.25cm_ap14_area.jpg

Asked and answered, and ignored by you.

Someone said it was because of how the image is not an ordinary photo. Maybe, but it could also be NASA indirectly saying that the image is fake.

No, it's as I said. It doesn't take much effort to research stacked images in scientific photography. Your laziness does not constitute grounds for doubt.

[Anders Lindman]

Actually, detecting photoshopped images are relatively easy.

That is the result of the photographic technology used in space and some one enhancing the photo for public release.

Maybe it's still possible to detect computer generated pictures, but the technology is fast becoming very convincing-looking. These Transformers cars don't look totally convincing but still pretty good CGI: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnWC0tFXtcw

[Anders Lindman]

Then why can't you reconcile my personal observations with your theory?

Because as I said before, I don't trust anybody.

[Garrison]

Maybe it's still possible to detect computer generated pictures, but the technology is fast becoming very convincing-looking. These Transformers cars don't look totally convincing but still pretty good CGI: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnWC0tFXtcw

Shame it didn't exist in the 60's and 60's when the pictures of Apollo were printed in actual books and magazines, many of which survive to this day. Again you make your claims and completely ignore the evidence that refutes them.

[JayUtah]

Because as I said before, I don't trust anybody.

So you reconcile your desired belief with my personal observation by saying that my observation must be the thing that's false. How is that not accusing me of lying?

[Garrison]

Because as I said before, I don't trust anybody.

Again not so, your posts have made it abundantly clear that you will believe anyone who puts forward a conspiracy theory without hesitation.

[Anders Lindman]

Shame it didn't exist in the 60's and 60's when the pictures of Apollo were printed in actual books and magazines, many of which survive to this day. Again you make your claims and completely ignore the evidence that refutes them.

Fakery was possible even back in the 60s. See: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8011965&postcount=49

[Anders Lindman]

So you reconcile your desired belief with my personal observation by saying that my observation must be the thing that's false. How is that not accusing me of lying?

Wrong. I haven't said that.

[Erock]

Maybe it's still possible to detect computer generated pictures, but the technology is fast becoming very convincing-looking. These Transformers cars don't look totally convincing but still pretty good CGI: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnWC0tFXtcw

That is THE most ridiculous thing I think you've posted. They are real cars in that video.

You are just trolling or have the cognitive reasoning of a jellyfish.

[threadworm]

Hmm... Yeah, there could be fakery all the way. If for example the Japanese space agency went to the moon and took closeup pictures of the Apollo landing sites I STILL would be skeptical about that information, especially since pictures can so easily be computer generated these days. Tricky. Frustrating! :mad:

BUT, one interesting thing is that the ground around the descend stage looks so black: http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/584395main_M168319885_LR.25cm_ap14_area.jpg

Someone said it was because of how the image is not an ordinary photo. Maybe, but it could also be NASA indirectly saying that the image is fake.

Or it could be that the photograph was taken of the Apollo 14 landing site.

JayUtah gave an explanation based on how the photographs were taken. 'Stacking' images is a standard technique in astronomy. Look it up, that way you will have found the information yourself.

I explained to you that the darkened areas were disturbed ground, and also how you could reproduce the effect exactly, As you only accept evidence you can find yourself, why don't you try what I suggested. Here's my attempt at it:

http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/4582/apollo14.jpg

The overall image was done to show the trails. The enlarged inset to show the LM. It's very simple.

If you will only accept your own research, why are you asking people you disagree with questions whose answers you won't believe?

[Mudcat]

Maybe it's still possible to detect computer generated pictures, but the technology is fast becoming very convincing-looking. These Transformers cars don't look totally convincing but still pretty good CGI: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnWC0tFXtcw

Hilighted the bit that's important here. The fact is don't matter how good the technology gets it's always possible to determine a fake from the real McCoy even if it's not easy. And a little nitpick, the Transorfmers were hardly good CGI.

[Anders Lindman]

That is THE most ridiculous thing I think you've posted. They are real cars in that video.

You are just trolling or have the cognitive reasoning of a jellyfish.

Hilighted the bit that's important here. The fact is don't matter how good the technology gets it's always possible to determine a fake from the real McCoy even if it's not easy. And a little nitpick, the Transorfmers were hardly good CGI.

You guys/gals will have to battle this one out. ;):D

[Garrison]

Fakery was possible even back in the 60s. See: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8011965&postcount=49

Quoting your own post that references a long discredited CT is not really supporting your argument. And again those photos match with all the other imaging of the Apollo sites done since but again you reject that because you don't want to abandon your belief.

[Anders Lindman]

Or it could be that the photograph was taken of the Apollo 14 landing site.

JayUtah gave an explanation based on how the photographs were taken. 'Stacking' images is a standard technique in astronomy. Look it up, that way you will have found the information yourself.

I explained to you that the darkened areas were disturbed ground, and also how you could reproduce the effect exactly, As you only accept evidence you can find yourself, why don't you try what I suggested. Here's my attempt at it:

http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/4582/apollo14.jpg

The overall image was done to show the trails. The enlarged inset to show the LM. It's very simple.

If you will only accept your own research, why are you asking people you disagree with questions whose answers you won't believe?

Compare your enlargement with this: http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/584395main_M168319885_LR.25cm_ap14_area.jpg

Notice that the NASA version has the same kind of reflections on the descend stage WITHOUT the black area around it. Looks suspicious to me.

[Garrison]

Compare your enlargement with this: http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/584395main_M168319885_LR.25cm_ap14_area.jpg

Notice that the NASA version has the same kind of reflections on the descend stage WITHOUT the black area around it. Looks suspicious to me.

And you have what skills in photo analysis exactly?

[Jack by the hedge]

Fakery was possible even back in the 60s. See: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8011965&postcount=49

Here's a better quality version of that picture:

http://www.apolloarchive.com/apg_thumbnail.php?ptr=236&imageID=AS14-66-9301

What fakery are we supposed to see exactly?

[R.A.F.]

Because as I said before, I don't trust anybody.

Except the woo "peddlers"....because you are nothing but a credulous believer, and obviously so.

[threadworm]

Compare your enlargement with this: http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/584395main_M168319885_LR.25cm_ap14_area.jpg

Notice that the NASA version has the same kind of reflections on the descend stage WITHOUT the black area around it. Looks suspicious to me.

Dear sweet baby Jesus.

The enlarged area in the photo I posted was adjusted BY ME in the way I described in my first response to your post. It is the same photograph you posted, but I have shown you very simply why the dark areas are dark.

[R.A.F.]

Looks suspicious to me.

Do you understand that your uninformed opinion is worthless?...do you understand that what it "looks like" to you is completely irrelevent?


What you are posting are "arguments from ignorance".

[SUSpilot]

Not according to the TCDS, but that doesn't mean anything as that could be covered under a STC somewhere, which are harder to search.

That makes more sense. I'd heard that from a friend at Boeing (St. Louis, not Seattle/Renton/Everett), that there was some tolerance in the fuselage length on the order of a couple of inches, but I don't have it sourced directly, so I'll assume I'm wrong on that one.

[Anders Lindman]

Here's a better quality version of that picture:

http://www.apolloarchive.com/apg_thumbnail.php?ptr=236&imageID=AS14-66-9301

What fakery are we supposed to see exactly?

Richard Hoagland enhanced the background: http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon8/Dark_Mission/001.png

From: http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/02files/Moon_Images_A21.html

He claimed that the structures seen in the black sky are glass buildings. I think it's simply an effect of the raster in the Scotchlite front projection screen background.

[Anders Lindman]

Dear sweet baby Jesus.

The enlarged area in the photo I posted was adjusted BY ME in the way I described in my first response to your post. It is the same photograph you posted, but I have shown you very simply why the dark areas are dark.

Yes, I know. What I meant was, compare with the original closeup by NASA: http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/584395main_M168319885_LR.25cm_ap14_area.jpg

Notice that the ground in the closeup is not black, yet the reflections in the descend stage is similar to your closeup with black background. This I said looks suspicious to me.

[Anders Lindman]

Do you understand that your uninformed opinion is worthless?...do you understand that what it "looks like" to you is completely irrelevent?


What you are posting are "arguments from ignorance".

Then explain how the ground can be so different between the original picture and the closeup in the same image (black ground in the original and no black ground in the closeup):
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/584395main_M168319885_LR.25cm_ap14_area.jpg

[Mudcat]

That makes more sense. I'd heard that from a friend at Boeing (St. Louis, not Seattle/Renton/Everett), that there was some tolerance in the fuselage length on the order of a couple of inches, but I don't have it sourced directly, so I'll assume I'm wrong on that one.

You're likely not wrong, sounds like an issue where they needed to comply with an AD or they issued a STC to me.

[JayUtah]

Wrong. I haven't said that.

When I posted the story initially, your knee-jerk reaction was to say that anyone can claim anything on the internet. How does that not equate to a statement of disbelief?

[JayUtah]

Then explain how...

Already explained. You just deny the explanation.

[Sherman Bay]

Why is the ground around the descend stage so black? And in the closeup the ground is no longer black: http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/584395main_M168319885_LR.25cm_ap14_area.jpg

:confused:I give up. Why do you think that is the case?

[JayUtah]

This I said looks suspicious to me.

How does your ignorance of stacked images and filtration techniques constitute a suspicion?

[Anders Lindman]

When I posted the story initially, your knee-jerk reaction was to say that anyone can claim anything on the internet. How does that not equate to a statement of disbelief?

If you by disbelief mean I'm certain that you are lying, then that's not what I said. I'm NOT certain that you are lying AND I'm NOT certain that you are telling the truth. This is my final word on this.

[Anders Lindman]

Already explained. You just deny the explanation.

So you mean DIFFERENT stacking techniques have been used for the original image and the closeup in the same image?

Compare the ground in the original image with the ground in the closeup in the same image: http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/584395main_M168319885_LR.25cm_ap14_area.jpg

[defaultdotxbe]

That's the other diagram I meant! I think. Compare the height specified in the Wikipedia article:

"Height 363.0 feet (110.6 m)" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V

With the height in the diagram you posted:

"4240.79 inches, 107.716 meters" -- http://jleslie48.com/0206pr/saturn5allclean2.jpg

Inconsistency!
the wikipedia article later states the height is 111m. since its internally inconsistent maybe it shouldnt be used as a source?

[Anders Lindman]

the wikipedia article later states the height is 111m. since its internally inconsistent maybe it shouldnt be used as a source?

Rounding 110.6 m to zero decimals results in 111 m. So that's ok.

[R.A.F.]

If you by disbelief mean I'm certain that you are lying, then that's not what I said. I'm NOT certain that you are lying AND I'm NOT certain that you are telling the truth.


That is not what you posted. Jay stated proven fact, and you posted that anyone could post anything on the internet.

Tell us why you would post something that can be so easily misinterpreted.



This is my final word on this.

Sorry, but you don't get to decide what is talked about. Get your own BB if you want to make demands like that.


Why can't you simply apologise??

[JayUtah]

If you by disbelief mean I'm certain that you are lying, then that's not what I said. I'm NOT certain that you are lying AND I'm NOT certain that you are telling the truth. This is my final word on this.

Your constant equivocation doesn't impress me. It may be your final word on the subject, but it is not mine. I have personal knowledge from my professional experience that disputes your claim. I've asked you to reconcile that knowledge with your claim, and your only response is to cast doubt on my knowledge -- without even knowing the basis of it. At no point have you considered the possibility that your belief is wrong.

Therefore I conclude that your reconciliation is to favor your predetermined belief and call the witness a liar. As happened the last time you accused me of lying, you won't take responsibility for your accusation and you won't reconsider your belief. That's the extremity of intellectual cowardice.

If you are not accusing me of lying, then you should explicitly retract the insinuation and apologize. If you will not, then I assume you're standing firm on the accusation and simply don't want to be held accountable for it.

[threadworm]

Yes, I know. What I meant was, compare with the original closeup by NASA: http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/584395main_M168319885_LR.25cm_ap14_area.jpg

Notice that the ground in the closeup is not black, yet the reflections in the descend stage is similar to your closeup with black background. This I said looks suspicious to me.

They are the same photograph, treated differently. That is why the LM has similar reflections in it. It is the same LM. In one image the dark has been turned up to show the tracks and disturbed ground. In the other the intention is to show the LM in more detail. This was explained to you several posts ago.

[R.A.F.]

Rounding 110.6 m to zero decimals results in 111 m. So that's ok.

Yeah...it only took you about 4 hours to "figure" that out...


So much for your investigative "abilities".

[JayUtah]

So you mean DIFFERENT stacking techniques have been used for the original image and the closeup in the same image?

No.

Compare the ground in the original image with the ground in the closeup in the same image: http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/584395main_M168319885_LR.25cm_ap14_area.jpg

I'm fully aware of the comparison. I have explained why they appear different. You either don't wish to understand the explanation, or you don't wish to acknowledge that there is one.

[Anders Lindman]

They are the same photograph, treated differently. That is why the LM has similar reflections in it. It is the same LM. In one image the dark has been turned up to show the tracks and disturbed ground. In the other the intention is to show the LM in more detail. This was explained to you several posts ago.

You mean like boosting the contrast in the original while not boosting it in the closeup section. Tricky. Yeah, that could work. I tried it myself just now and the ground became black similar to the original, except the rest of the background became very while, but ok, they could have used some more 'clever' image contrast enhancement. That would explain it I guess.

[Anders Lindman]

Yeah...it only took you about 4 hours to "figure" that out...


So much for your investigative "abilities".

No, the other diagram said 107 meters something, and the tricky thing is that on the other side on the bottom they had -3 (minus three) meters indicated.