Finally...Unequivocal Proof That the Apollo Moon Landings Were Staged on Earth

ugh why wrote:

mods can we finally kill this thread off already? just feeding the trolls and retards

I would say keep the thread going! These guys are pretty astute & insightful bringing a lot of evidence to the table. They've brought up good rebuttal, poked holes in NASA's "official science" of how the moon landings were accomplished and presented some questions that NASA has failed to address. They've opened my eyes and have made me rethink how I perceive the Apollo missions, and for that fact, the whole entire NASA space program back then.

Think about it: How did NASA go to the moon with such primitive technology back then? And yet the missions stopped dead in the tracks with Apollo 17 and 45+ yrs later we've never gone back...not even just once??? And here it's almost 2018, you'd think by now we would have a moon base research facility out there and be shuttling astronauts back & forth to the moon with fancy-spancy space planes or something. I wonder sometimes if we're incapable of leaving Earth orbit with a manned spacecraft with our present technology.

I think these guys have some insightful information - they sure can hold their own in this debate.

Nice try by the troll to post under another name that he's "starting to see the light".

It was YOU who attempted to ridicule us! It was YOU who stated unequivocably and VEHEMNTLY that there were NO BATTERIES; but instead only FUEL CELLS. I proved you dead wrong. (Given your would-be 100% asurety; there my following statement holds:

"It would seem we have still another case of outright lying by a NASA supporter!" (Btw, notice the words: "It would seem...")

As to me (whom you refer to as "Mr Nice Guy" - btw, I'd say that's true, my "middle name" is "TEAM-work"); IF you had not INSISTED with VEHEMENCE (lording over us "trolls" with supposed "facts" that turned out to be wholely inaccurate) that it was fuel cells and there were no batteries; I would have responded quite differently. We MUST keep in mind that there inevitably will be readers who will have read your (now-proven erroneous) attack on us and not see this subsequent correction on your part.

Along those lines, in view of your latest post which included, "... Sorry about the mixup. Googled too quickly. My bad."

Apology accepted (with honor - it is an honor to engage with someone who is willing to publicly admit to a mistake; particularly mistakes made in the high heat of ad-hominem reputation-trashing).

Likewise, your research into the exact number of batteries and their characteristics is appreciated. Thanx.

Returning to the matter at hand. My point back then, and now, is to question both:

a) Was there really enough available space to fit everything claimed (and necessary) onto that 8-foot diameter capsule; and

b) Was there enough battery-power (including a full set of back-ups in case of emergencies - there are ALWAYS emergencies).

Those questions/doubts still stand.

For example, returning to the diagrams (NASA diagrams by the way), given the overall 8-foot diameter, when we look at the "crew compartment" we see it is a very small part of that 8-foot diameter of space. There's supposed to be three fully-grown men (with bulky space suits & helmets (and I'd assume the PLSS back-packs in case of emergencies) and "facilities" for sleeping / sitting / working / eating / human-waste transfer, etc. etc) in that TINY space; and for extended numbers of days.

Have YOU examined the diagram and pondered upon the incredibly cramped quarters within it? We must remember that the overall capsule/LM was 8 feet across; and in the diagram, the "crew compartment" is a tiny part of that - meaning IF they were to fit in THERE; they must have been packed like sardines.

---

Pablo Novi a Troll?

Lastly, it has been continuously raised (as if it were an unpardonable flaw/"sin" in our approach to things, that we supposedly are pure trolls (i.e., neither interested in the truth itself; nor interested in engaging in principled debate.

Any honest observer of this thread can plainly see that I have both:

i) CONTENT: debated important aspects of the Apollo Mission (something that all would-be scientists and skeptics are expected to do, in ALL cases of important scientific public claims (particularly in cases of EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS - which the NASA Apollo claims are); and

ii) STYLE: I have refrained from any and all name-calling / ad-hominem attacks (even in the face of non-stop nasty / unprincipled treatment by "my" opponents); instead addressing things in a completely principled manner (trying as much as I can, to make as clear as possible both my points and what I believe to be the BEST points made by "my" opponents). I have responded IN DETAIL, with great patience and care AND RESPECT to you-all's points and arguments. (Heck, I've even suggested to the other key guy on "my/our" side, Legit Question, that he/she try to refrain from ad-hominems - a suggestion he took into good account).

Every "troll" I've ever experienced does NOT behave like this, in the least. While, in this particular thread, those who oppose "my" positions HAVE non-stop resorted to ad-hominems, and any number of other unprincipled attacks.

"I'm Starting To See The Light", thanx for the compliments, encouragement; and especially, for your stance that this thread should be allowed to continue.

A few thoughts for you and everyone,

1) I have repeatedly said that I am NOT 100% sure that NASA faked the Moon Landings (I certainly would NOT LITERALLY stake my life on it! Frankly, I would MUCH rather be proven wrong and return to the belief I originally had almost 50 years ago, believing that humans really did land on the Moon and were returned safely from there.)

2) I HAVE done extensive research (both starting years before now and during this actual debate - to try to respond specifically to any number of points made by both my/our opposition and by people "on our side");

3) I HAVE written a whole series of very-long posts - which takes considerable amounts of time (that could easily be "invested" elsewhere); and, under the assumption that my questions are at least valid questions - I've ORGANIZED my thinking so that others can have the best chance to see what are my main points - that too takes additional effort - trying to ensure that one's presentation/posts are well-organized.

conversely,

4) I've refrained from any and all: ad-hominens, anger, ridicule, exaggeration, impatience and the focusing of my attention on minor points (as opposed to on major ones).

5) If PROVEN WRONG, I'll IMMEDIATELY not only admit that I was wrong; but do an in-depth analysis of both HOW I was wrong and WHY I was wrong (what weaknesses in me led me to my erroneous thinking) (Imo, in-depth analysis of one's own mistakes is an important tool for both those who have made the mistakes and for those who have been on the "receiving end" of those mistakes.

----

THE LUNAR LANDING MODULE JUST DOES N-O-T LOOK LIKE A STATE-OF-THE-ART PIECE OF EQUIPMENT!

btw, have YOU had the opportunity to look at the NASA photo of the Lunar Module (both upper and lower parts) as found about 1/3rd of the way down this page:

http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-2/

(It's the last photo before the cut-away diagrams of the two stages.)

I emphasize that photo because it is DIRECT EVIDENCE and, perhaps, THE #1 "EXHIBIT". The question being, could that thing REALLY have made that half-MILLION MILE round-trip (thru the violence of ascent and descent thru Earth's thick and turbulent atmosphere; thru the radiational bath of ascent and descent thru Earth's Van Allen Radiation Belts (PLUS the Solar Flare PEAK; PLUS the remnants of the additional US-MADE radiation ring from its nuke-bomb attempt to disrupt those Belts); thru the radiation, there and back, between the Earth and Moon; thru the radiation ON the Moon; thru the inevitable (micro-)meteorite hits it MUST have been subjected to; thru the temperature EXTREMES; thru the experience of being dropped from 2 feet onto the Lunar surface; even thru the repeated openings and closings of the hatches/doors; and thru any accidental blows from astronaut elbows/hands/feet, etc?

Speaking of the Earth-Moon Distance:

Given that virtually none of the readers of this thread would be familiar with my RUNNING EXPERIENCE (THE reason I originally joined LR); perhaps I'd be remiss if I didn't mention, on a runners' forum, that between 1978 and 2015, I ran (overwhelmingly cross-country and mountainous terrain) more than the Earth-Moon distance ... i.e., I ran: 262,200+ miles (or the equivalent of over 10,000 separate marathons of 26.21875 miles each). My average daily distance was a bit over 21 miles (during those almost 4 decades; and I had about 3,000 runs of at least a marathon-distance each.

For the year 2006, I switched from running to cycling and pedaled 6 hours a day, at elevation and often then going further up mountain passes. (I don't include that year of CYCLING in my RUNNING totals).

My Best Times:

Quarter Mile: 66 seconds (unofficial)

Mile: 5:18 (uphill mile early in my best Marathon)

10K: 5:33 pace

Half-Marathon: (5:38 pace; 51st place (exact same time as 50th place; in a high-quality field of thousands; Coronado Half-Marathon, 1981)

Marathon: 2:39:04 (16th place, one second behind 13th place; Heart of San Diego Marathon, 1981)

Longest Runs:

7 hours (approx 62 Km on my 62nd birthday at 10,000+ average feet)

48 miles (6 hours; on my 48th birthday)

301 miles in one week (43 miles a day for the week of my 43rd birtday; including a 3 hour / sub-7-minute pace marathon in the middle of a 43 mile run, that Sunday)

Currently:

Last two years, starting 3 months after a massive heart-attack (they run heavily in my family), 2.5 hours daily on an exercycle.

Pablo Novi wrote:

have YOU had the opportunity to look at the NASA photo of the Lunar Module

..

THE #1 "EXHIBIT". The question being, could that thing REALLY have made that half-MILLION MILE round-trip (thru the violence of ascent and descent thru Earth's thick and turbulent atmosphere

I have to stop you right there, the lunar module never made any descent through Earth's thick and turbulent atmosphere. It was discarded prior to re-entry.

in-descent exposure wrote:

Pablo Novi wrote:

have YOU had the opportunity to look at the NASA photo of the Lunar Module

..

THE #1 "EXHIBIT". The question being, could that thing REALLY have made that half-MILLION MILE round-trip (thru the violence of ascent and descent thru Earth's thick and turbulent atmosphere

I have to stop you right there, the lunar module never made any descent through Earth's thick and turbulent atmosphere. It was discarded prior to re-entry.

Right, they guy really doesn't know what he is talking about. The LM was designed for 2 people because one guy always stayed in lunar orbit in the CSM, but he keeps talking about how there isn't space for 3. Plus, yes, the LM never went back to Earth. Only on #13 did three use the LM as a life boat and they had to cram in there and borrow CO filters from the CSM to survive. Only the CM (capsule) ever reentered Earth atmosphere.

It's just not worth arguing each of his points, because even basic stuff gets completely wrong.

I know, right wrote:

Right, they guy really doesn't know what he is talking about. The LM was designed for 2 people because one guy always stayed in lunar orbit in the CSM, but he keeps talking about how there isn't space for 3. Plus, yes, the LM never went back to Earth. Only on #13 did three use the LM as a life boat and they had to cram in there and borrow CO filters from the CSM to survive. Only the CM (capsule) ever reentered Earth atmosphere.

It's just not worth arguing each of his points, because even basic stuff gets completely wrong.

The LM on 13 did burn up in the atmosphere since it was used right up until prior to re-entry, a couple of others ended up in similar fate. Most of them were released early and ended up crashing into the Moon itself and one is still out there orbiting around the Sun. None were intended to make re-entry so I have no idea why he thought they were.

I provided a video that outlines specific aspects of the crew cabin on the LEM. (At the 5 min mark): "The skin of the crew cabin was very thin. That was all done because of weight savings. Weight was a critical item that always had to be considered in anything that you did." - Harold Loden, Apollo 11 Mission Controller

"If you really took your finger & poked hard at it, you could poke right through the outer skin of the spacecraft. It was about the thickness of 2 layers of aluminum foil, but it's the kind of thing that you're reasonably cautious that, uh, you didn't jab any pointed objects through..." - Northrop Grumman Engineer

"The skin, the aluminum alloy skin of the crew compartment was about .0012 of an inch thick. That's equivalent to about 3 layers of Reynolds wrap that you can find in your kitchen." - Northrop Grumman Engineer

Alan Bean was also interviewed and explained the scenario of what would happen if the Lunar Module were to lose climate control. The return trip from the moon is ALWAYS in sunlight. The temperature inside would go up to 250 F (more than enough to boil water). His explanation contradicts Lovell's account.

Let's summarize, the documentary states that the Apollo 13 crew were really cold in a 35F environment despite being in direct sunlight. The aluminum foil was so thin, that you could poke a finger or accidentally jab an elbow through it. So, these guys could have died instantly if that happened and they didn't wear their spacesuits, really?? So, these 3 crew members flew 3 days protected by 2-3 layers of Reynolds wrap??

Wow, that 1960's technology was amazing huh? Ok, if you folks want to believe in that fairytale, good luck with that. Video posted below....

Sloppiness on my part. My apologies to one and all.

Regardless, that the Lunar Module went thru everything but the re-entry process does not detract significantly from the rest of my dozens and dozens of points.

"It's just not worth arguing each of his points, because even basic stuff gets completely wrong."

In a whole series of usually super-long posts in which I've addressed dozens and dozens of aspects of the Apollo Missions, that I got a FEW details wrong - can't lead to either of the above claims.

Troll ain't fooling me wrote:

Nice try by the troll to post under another name that he's "starting to see the light".

Again, I don't play that game. Please join the discussion if you have any arguments to make. Thank you.

- I was not VEHEMENT - I did say "fuel cells", but did not say "NO BATTERIES" - I have not resorted to ad hominem, nor called you a troll - I don't ridicule you, but your ideas and arguments and expectations about a manned moon mission You say you are well researched, thanks to a lengthy decades long research for the truth. You said "many" batteries "primary and backup" -- unless you consider six "many", this exaggeration is wrong. "moondoggie" (Dave McGowen) is particularly wrong on this point. He admits not being a rocket scientist, and proves it several times with wrong expectations. You also said zero on the ascent module, showing you didn't know there were two. It just took me just a few minutes (well, and two tries) to "research" how many batteries were on the ascent and descent modules. You said three men in the lunar module. Without any research, I already thought there were only two, and I see others have already confirmed it. The lunar module was designed for a 2 man, 2 day mission. Then they went back to the command module. You say the lunar module ascends through the earth's atmosphere. On the way up, it is inside a rocket. It took me a few minutes to find this image, showing the "service/command module", the "lunar module", protected by a rocket fairing during the ascent through earth's atmosphere:https://history.nasa.gov/diagrams/ad012.gif or a real photo from astronauts in the command module before extraction from the third stage of the rocket (Apollo 9):https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AS09-19-2919_The_lunar_module_awaits_extraction_from_Apollo_9%27s_S-IVB_stage.jpg The lunar module was only designed to descend and ascend from a moon with no atmosphere, in 1/6th the gravitational pull -- aluminum sheets, and foil thin insulation are sufficient for that, no matter what it looks like. A few pages ago, the LM was 12 feet in diameter, now you say 8 feet. In fact it is 4 meters by 4.3 meters by 2.8 meters. The answers are: a) yes, for 4m by 4.3m by 2.8m. No doubt making efficient use of a constrained space was a major challenge, and required trade-offs and ingenuity. b) yes. There was enough power for 48 hours, more for later missions; there were no backups for emergencies, but likely some power margin and some contingency procedures in case of failures.

Here's what seems to me to be another worthy in-depth analysis of Apollo, called, "The Myth of Apollo".

btw, I didn't say that NASA HAD many batteries; but that it SHOULD have had many batteries.

The list of batteries you dug up MAY accurately reflect how many batteries NASA CLAIMED to have; but, again, this does not answer at all the question of, to be completely safe (against all significant dangers of failure) how many batteries SHOULD NASA have had - and, naturally, why neither their diagrams nor your list from from shows nearly that many.

YOU say the NASA "diagrams are not comprehensive" - whatever, right? Regardless of how "comprehensive", they DO show the batteries on the lower, descent stage; isn't it reasonable to assume that IF there were batteries on the ascent stage, they'd show them too? (Why include them in one and not include them in the other? Makes no sense to me.)

One can make arguments that sound factually sound, but hold now water. Follow any defense attorney and you get the drift.

One of the main reasons that no more moon explorations was money, another was, what was the point, it was done, there was no gold up there other than chunks of moon, so why spend millions for no return.

All these speculators and nay sayers are pretentious and filled with half truths, in my opinion. Just look at Trump and his sociopathic behavior and you get an idea of how posters here operate.

Sorry but none of these "didn't happen" arguments are worth 2 cents in my book. Nothing they say convinces me there was a conspiracy. I watched it on TV, and read all the stories. these conspiracy ideas have come about because people have too much time on their hands with nothing to do.

Here's the deal with these two conspiracy theorists.

Pablo is not a troll, but he is blinded by his disdain for America. He is a self professeded anti-capitalist, 911 "truther" who doesn't believe anything official put out by the US government. So, he believes any internet posted nonsense that supports his anti US views.

Legit Question is a troll. Why argue with someone who has no concept of gravity and thinks a plane flying straight would continue to fly horizontal and leave Earth's atmosphere. No one is so stupid to believe that, so he is a troll.

This whole thread is a waste of time. These two idiots have no credibility.

Pablo Novi wrote:

Sloppiness on my part. My apologies to one and all.

Then I’ll leave you to your sloppy research and find something practical to do, like polish the interior of my dishwasher. Have a good day.

justthefacts wrote:

One can make arguments that sound factually sound, but hold now water. Follow any defense attorney and you get the drift.

One of the main reasons that no more moon explorations was money, another was, what was the point, it was done, there was no gold up there other than chunks of moon, so why spend millions for no return.

All these speculators and nay sayers are pretentious and filled with half truths, in my opinion. Just look at Trump and his sociopathic behavior and you get an idea of how posters here operate.

Sorry but none of these "didn't happen" arguments are worth 2 cents in my book. Nothing they say convinces me there was a conspiracy. I watched it on TV, and read all the stories. these conspiracy ideas have come about because people have too much time on their hands with nothing to do.

As I previously mentioned, these two posters are very astute and far from this ridiculous ad naseum "troll" name calling. They've provided some very insightful information that has influenced my perception of the Apollo missions. They certainly have poked plenty of holes in NASA's "official science" of how the moon landings were accomplished.

One of the primary aspects that I think is compelling is that we have never gone back...period. Think about this: 6 successful Apollo missions (with one "successful failure") between 1969 & 1972 with the primitive technology back then. With the exception of A13, these missions became as routine as transatlantic flights these days. Then in 72, the missions come to a screeching halt and we have NEVER gone back in 45 years! ? I would think with today's technology compared to the 60s, NASA could shuttle astronauts back & forth in space planes or something with the greatest of ease. Supposedly, the smartphone I'm typing this post on is more powerful than any of NASA computers back then. Also, Russia has never made any attempt to go to the moon. I would think that a successful moon landing would be an important objective for Putin to keep up with the U.S. in space technology.

And consider in 2019 the 50th anniversary of the so-called first moon landing with be upon us and you'd think NASA would want to commemorate this historic accomplishment by sending another mission to the moon. But when July, 2019 arrives there will be no moon landing and we'll only be left watching documentary after documentary of A11 on the history channels.

You mention the money issue - I don't buy that as a logical reason for not going back. With today's military black budgets near a trillion dollars by some estimates, what's several billion dollars for a few more moon missions - a drop in the bucket the way Congress spends money these days. And the incentive would be to establish a moon base research facility and an oribiting space station and so on (there are scientific research facilities in the God-awful Antarctica).

We may have never been able to, and still can't, leave Earth orbit with a manned spacecraft. If we could, WHY HAVEN'T WE GONE BACK IN 45 YEARS? ?