Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Toepoke

The Last Man on the Moon

Recommended Posts

On 1/20/2017 at 4:17 AM, Toepoke said:

 The accident in Scotty's link was attributed to high winds, which wouldn't be a factor on the moon.

On May 6, 1968, more than a year before his moon landing, Neil Armstrong had a narrow escape in the lunar landing research vehicle (LLRV) at Ellington Air Force Base near Houston, as seen in this silent film clip. On a simulated lunar descent, leaking propellant caused a total failure of his flight controls and forced an ejection. His only injury was a hard tongue bite. In his Armstrong biography First Man, author James Hansen recounts how astronaut Alan Bean saw Armstrong that afternoon at his desk in the astronaut office. Bean then heard colleagues in the hall talking about the accident, and asked them, “When did this happen?” About an hour ago, they replied. Bean returned to Armstrong and said, “I just heard the funniest story!” Armstrong said, “What?” “I heard that you bailed out of the LLTV an hour ago.” “Yeah, I did,” replied Armstrong. “I lost control and had to bail out of the darn thing.” “I can’t think of another person,” Bean recalls, “let alone another astronaut, who would have just gone back to his office after ejecting a fraction of a second before getting killed.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/20/2017 at 2:34 AM, Huddersfield said:

I'm only responding from memory here so stand to be corrected but I thought only one of them crashed. And even if that number did crash, it would be more accurate to say they crashed 'eventually'. Armstrong completed numerous test flights in the landing simulators, at the end of which NASA had learned vast amounts about their performance, manoeuvrability, etc.

Three of the five vehicles were later destroyed in crashes at Houston - LLRV No. 1 in May 1968 and two LLTV's, in Dec. 1968 and Jan. 1971. 

The two accidents in 1968, before the first lunar landing, did not deter Apollo program managers who enthusiastically relied on the vehicles for simulation and training.

http://www.astronautix.com/a/apollollrv.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 20/01/2017 at 3:01 AM, Scotty CTA said:

In fact, 3 of the 4 Lunar Landing Test Vehicles were crashed BUT when they got 239,000 miles from earth, everything worked fine... the very first time!

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

The two accidents in 1968, before the first lunar landing, did not deter Apollo program managers who enthusiastically relied on the vehicles for simulation and training.

http://www.astronautix.com/a/apollollrv.html

 
 
 

Your link essentially proves the point I was trying to make. They had been used and tested and learned from, there was no first time lucky about it.

Short of taking you to the Moon, though, & showing you the evidence, I guess we'll end up stuck in the usual position. It is far easier to hypothesise that a historical incident didn't happen than it is to prove that it did. I am no scientist, but I am a trained historian, and without wanting to be personal I would suggest that the evidence for the Moon landings dwarfs that of other historical periods and stories that so many people allow to dominate their thinking and behaviour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said this before multiple times when this has cropped up. If anyone can come up with a convincing explanation of how the movement of dust was faked in the film from the moon, I'll be very surprised. It's never covered on any conspiracy website, basically because there isn't a way to do it except with the kind of cgi that's available now. Couldn't have been done in the sixties and seventies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

 On a simulated lunar descent, leaking propellant caused a total failure of his flight controls and forced an ejection. 

Fair enough I'd read differently but also worth noting that the LLRV had a very much more complex propulsion system than the Lunar Module, combining a jet engine with rockets to attempt to simulate on Earth the conditions of landing on the moon.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

No... I'm saying that I don't believe that man has ever or could ever travel that far.

I strongly recommend having a read at this excellent book (written by a Scotsman btw) to give you an insight into the incredible work that engineers put in to accomplish the goals of project Apollo...

https://haynes.com/en-gb/nasa-saturn-v-owners-workshop-manual

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

Or in the studio.

 

57 minutes ago, biffer said:

I've said this before multiple times when this has cropped up. If anyone can come up with a convincing explanation of how the movement of dust was faked in the film from the moon, I'll be very surprised. It's never covered on any conspiracy website, basically because there isn't a way to do it except with the kind of cgi that's available now. Couldn't have been done in the sixties and seventies.

Faking the moon landings in a 1960s studio would've been more unfeasible than actually going there....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Toepoke said:

 

Faking the moon landings in a 1960s studio would've been more unfeasible than actually going there....

 

The fact we are focusing on something that may or may not have happened half a century ago irks me somewhat.  If people were more engaged in the here and now .........

#namaste

@Toepoke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.michaelshermer.com/2001/06/foxs-flapdoodle/#more-12

The price of liberty is, in addition to eternal vigilance, eternal patience with the vacuous blather occasionally expressed from behind the shield of free speech. It is a cost worth bearing, but it does become exasperating, as when the Fox Broadcasting Company aired its highly advertised special “Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?” NASA, viewers were told, faked the Apollo missions on a movie set.

Such flummery should not warrant a response, but in a free society, skeptics are the watchdogs against irrationalism — the consumer advocates of ideas. Debunking is not simply the divestment of bunk; its utility is in offering a better alternative, along with a lesson on how thinking goes wrong. The Fox show is a case study, starting with its disclaimer: “The following program deals with a controversial subject. The theories expressed are not the only possible explanation. Viewers are invited to make a judgment based on all available information.” That information, of course, was not provided, so let’s refute Fox’s argument point by point in case the statistic at the top of the show — that 20 percent of Americans believe we never went to the moon — is accurate.

Claim: Shadows in the photographs taken on the moon reveal two sources of light. Given that the sun is the only source of light in the sky, the extra “fill” light must come from studio spotlights. Answer: Setting aside the inane assumption that NASA and its co-conspirators were too incogitant to have thought of this, there are actually three sources of light: the sun, the earth (reflecting the sun) and the moon itself, which acts as a powerful reflector, particularly when you are standing on it.

Claim: The American flag was observed “waving” in the airless environment of the moon. Answer: The flag waved only while the astronaut fiddled with it.

Claim: No blast crater is evident underneath the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM). Answer: The moon is covered by only a couple of inches of dust, beneath which is a solid surface that would not be affected by the blast of the engine.

Claim: When the top half of the LEM took off from the moon, there was no visible rocket exhaust. The LEM instead leaped off its base as though yanked up by cables. Answer: First, the footage clearly shows that there was quite a blast, as dust and other particles go flying. Second, without an oxygen-rich atmosphere, there is no fuel to generate a rocket-nozzle flame tail.

Claim: The LEM simulator used by astronauts for practice was obviously unstable — Neil Armstrong barely escaped with his life when his simulator crashed. The real LEM was much larger and heavier and thus impossible to land. Answer: Practice makes perfect, and these guys practiced. A bicycle is inherently unstable, too, until you learn to ride it. Also, the moon’s gravity is only one sixth that of the earth’s, so the LEM’s weight was less destabilizing.

Claim: No stars show in the sky in the photographs and films from the moon. Answer: Stars don’t routinely appear in photography shot on the earth, either. They are simply too faint. To shoot stars in the night sky, even on the moon, you need to use long exposures.

The no-moonie mongers go on and on in this vein, weaving narratives that include the “murder” of astronauts and pilots in accidents, including Gus Grissom in the Apollo 1 fire before he was about to go public with the hoax. Like most people with conspiracy theories, the landing naysayers have no positive supporting evidence, only allegations of cover-ups. I once asked G. Gordon Liddy (who should know) about conspiracies. He quoted Poor Richard’s Almanack: “Three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead.” To think that thousands of NASA scientists would keep their mouths shut for years is risible rubbish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael shermer, why do you keep citing this feckwit.

 

Research him and David Cole/Stein to see how he got into "skepticism" , by going round as a double act with holocaust denier/revisionist David Cole/Stein.

 

P.S. They went to the moon. The moon itself is interesting though, as it shouldn't really be there, a bit of a mystery.

Edited by phart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, phart said:

Michael shermer, why do you keep citing this feckwit.

 

Research him and David Cole/Stein to see how he got into "skepticism" , by going round as a double act with holocaust denier/revisionist David Cole/Stein.

 

 

He is a notable skeptic

Why do you keep suggesting he is a feckwit ?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/03/david-stein-cole-holocaust-revisionist

Responding to their claims does not make it a double act

Edited by Ally Bongo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

No... I'm saying that I don't believe that man has ever or could ever travel that far.

I've travelled a lot further than that in my car. Piece of piss.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

Why do you keep suggesting Shermer is a feckwit ?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/03/david-stein-cole-holocaust-revisionist

Responding to their claims does not make it a double act

As i said research it. Not look at a guardian article about the reappearance of the "republican party animal" David Cole/stein.

For instance you can hear the tapes from back then which Cole secretly made where they colluded to be on shows, cause Shermer was desperate to get on TV.

or you could google their two names and pick out the first article that maintains your world view and consider it "researched".

So about 2 hours of audio and a book to read, to get the gist of it. :) takes a bit longer than 5-10 mins.

Shermer tried to have the book not published.

Neufeld1.jpg

Neufeld2.jpg

Edited by phart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, phart said:

As i said research it. Not look at a guardian article about the reappearance of the "republican party animal" David Cole/stein.

For instance you can hear the tapes from back then which Cole secretly made where they colluded to be on shows, cause Shermer was desperate to get on TV.

or you could google their two names and pick out the first article that maintains your world view and consider it "researched".

So about 2 hours of audio and a book to read, to get the gist of it. :) takes a bit longer than 5-10 mins.

How does disagreement become collusion FFS and why on earth would you be so quick to believe anything from Cole/Stein as gospel

Edited by Ally Bongo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ally Bongo said:

How does disagreement become collusion FFS

Well i'd rather you went and researched it rather than i spoon fed it to you by typing it all out. You need to read more than the first thing that serves your bias.

Hard to paraphrase hours of audio and a book you understand?

Edited by phart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically Cole was getting death threats so he recorded (illegally) all his calls, and some of them are calls from Shermer who saw Cole as his chance of getting onto TV by "debunking" the holocaust denier and contacted him so they could work together.

 

This was back in the early 90's, Cole faked his death and became a part organiser for republicans and after he got exposed wrote a book for money and had all these recorded calls that he made, it's all in the book, the calls are online or were anyway, the book ended up getting published etc etc.

Edited by phart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spoon fed ?

You are coming across as quite the knowall

I watched the Donahue show ages ago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, phart said:

Basically Cole was getting death threats so he recorded (illegally) all his calls, and some of them are calls from Shermer who saw Cole as his chance of getting onto TV by "debunking" the holocaust denier and contacted him so they could work together.

I was under the impression Cole got death threats after the Donahue show and had to go into hiding - after appearing with Shermer

As i said - why are you so quick to believe Cole ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ally Bongo said:

Spoon fed ?

You are coming across as quite the knowall

I watched the Donahue show ages ago

Donahue show has nothing to do with it, it all came out in 2014 when Cole/Stein had to write a book as he was skint and outed as a holocaust denier (A jewish one)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

I was under the impression Cole got death threats after the Donahue show and had to go into hiding - after appearing with Shermer

As i said - why are you so quick to believe Cole ?

I don't believe him, i listened to the tapes and found out for myself.

cole-and-shermer.jpg

Edited by phart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“So what’s a knowledgeable but disgraced Holocaust revisionist to do? Play both sides. And make some decent scratch. I created two pseudonyms – one to sell books and videos to Holocaust studies departments around the world, and one to sell books and videos to revisionists.”

– David Cole, Republican Party Animal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

“So what’s a knowledgeable but disgraced Holocaust revisionist to do? Play both sides. And make some decent scratch. I created two pseudonyms – one to sell books and videos to Holocaust studies departments around the world, and one to sell books and videos to revisionists.”

– David Cole, Republican Party Animal

Aye after he faked his death he made mainstream holocaust content and sold it and also sold his other work.

You need to read everything to get context, not google till you find something you think preserves your worldview and post it, that's in his book, should read it.

This is a textbook case of confirmation bias. You can't consume the source material in just a few minutes. It's hours of audio and a whole book. So you're just looking to falsify rather than understand what happened. 

Anyway my Auntie up with her Scottish Terriers so going to go and keep them amused. I'm too busy to type out reams and reams of stuff.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, phart said:

Aye after he faked his death he made mainstream holocaust content and sold it and also sold his other work.

You need to read everything to get context, not google till you find something you think preserves your worldview and post it, that's in his book, should read it.

This is a textbook case of confirmation bias. You can't consume the source material in just a few minutes. It's hours of audio and a whole book. So you're just looking to falsify rather than understand what happened. 

Anyway my Auntie up with her Scottish Terriers so going to go and keep them amused. I'm too busy to type out reams and reams of stuff.

 

Alternatively you cannot dismiss all of Shermer's work as unreliable because of this one time association with someone as deplorable as Cole. 

I hope you get nipped a few times

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×