How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

[Arouet]

You think it's significant that we haven't returned to the moon?

[Arouet]

Misha - could you pick one from the list that you find particularly relevant for me to look into? If the only strong ones involve pictures or videos I guess I'll go with that, but if there's a strong one that doesn't that'd be better.

I'd like to go into a topic but I don't want to do all the work and then be told that I went after low hanging fruit again!

[Misha]

[Arouet]

Ok, I give up. It's fine to be careful not to lose the forrest for the trees, but if you don't take a close look at the trees from time to time you can't really be sure how robust your forrest really is.

[ProfWag]

Syd, back on page 2, you listed several things about the moon hoax. I've copied and answered the first 5 if you care to assist with my questions.

1.- low likelihood of 6 successful missions without significant mission-compromising life-endangering engineering failure somewhere along the line, not just a fender coming off ferchrissakes

Obviously you forgot Apollo 1 where astronauts got killed. You also forgot Apollo 13 where they didn’t make it to the moon. Also, low likelihood is misleading. Low likelihood in whom’s opinion?

2- comparison with space shuttle deaths using 80s/90s technology only going into low earth orbit

You cannot compare the two. They have two completely different missions, so it's like comparing the SR71 with technology of an A-10. However, if you insist on going there, Space shuttle success rate was 133 out of 135 or 98% whereas Apollo was 15 for 17 or 89%.

3- all real manned space efforts since then by any country have only gone into low earth orbit
Again, so what? Why go back to the moon? We’ve already been there and now other countries are sending up crafts to research, but with modern technology, humans are not necessary for the U.S. so why risk something that’s not needed? Similarly, Russia has not been there. If we did not go, why did they stop their program? Do you have a reference where Russia states they do not believe it is possible for humans to go to the moon? It appears we do have technology to send humans to Mars and we may send them their within a decade or so by a non-NASA organization.

4- likelihood of achieving successful 'flipping' of modules in space on the way out and re-docking after leaving the moon's surface 6 times over is very low; likelihood of missing rendezvous between LEM and command module high

Again, likelihood by whom’s standard? What do you think the likelihood is and how did you come up with that conclusion? It’s a statistic, but I’m not good with stats. Are you?

5- unnatural physics demonstrated in the docking maneouvre video which suggests it's a fake with models being pivoted
Could you be more specific? What unnatural physics? Also, if you say it suggests it’s fake, does that mean it is or it is not? Do you have strong evidence it is? If so, what is it?

[really?]

[SydneyPSIder]

[NinjaPuppy]

[SydneyPSIder]

[SydneyPSIder]

Here's an example:



Footage from 3:26 gets interesting. Physics impossibility is at 4:04 -- a large craft in space simply cannot decelerate to 0 m/s in almost zero time in the way shown -- these are models being rotated on pivots, whether life sized or smaller, possibly using blue screen technology with the fake moon backdrop being superimposed. Further, there are no visible exhausts from any rocket in executing the perfect manoeuvres.

If you don't understand the physics of acceleration and deceleration, the physics and engineering in rates of change of velocity, please don't make an ass out of yourself here with silly replies. Let's talk about the third and fourth derivatives of rate of change of displacement in engineering, i.e. acceleration/deceleration and 'jerk'.

Also note our Russian friends are extremely quizzical in this video, they seem to be on to it now. Can anyone read Russian and translate?

[SydneyPSIder]

[SydneyPSIder]

[Arouet]

[Arouet]

[SydneyPSIder]