ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, July 09, 2019

Seems legit

The NASA story keeps getting more convoluted. The tapes that had been supposedly taped over have, to a certain extent, been located just in time for the 50th anniversary of the Moon landing.
On July 20, 1969, NASA put a man on the moon and captured it all on tape. In 1976, the space agency unknowingly sold those tapes of original footage from the Apollo 11 lunar mission to a lucky intern who held onto them for decades. He never even knew their contents.

Now, NASA's blunder will belong to the highest bidder: the three surviving videotapes of the seminal moment in space exploration are up for auction--at a starting bid of $700,000. According to Sotheby's, the tapes are worth up to $2 million. Bidding begins July 20, on the 50th anniversary of the moon landing.

The two-and-a-half hours of footage provide the sharpest image of the history-making mission ever recorded, from Neil Armstrong's first steps on the moon's surface to an interplanetary conversation. The tapes were sold by accident to NASA intern Gary George in 1976, who purchased the set unknowingly among 65 boxes of videotapes at a government surplus auction for $217.77.
And two weeks after NASA reacquires the tapes, they'll be "accidentally" taped over. Again.

Labels: ,

177 Comments:

Blogger Sillon July 09, 2019 5:35 AM  

And two weeks after NASA reacquires the tapes, they'll be "accidentally" taped over. Again.

This somehow made me chuckle hard, the punchline is that I don't know anymore if I should feel sad, or indifferent.

Blogger The Gaelic Lands July 09, 2019 5:39 AM  

The seminal work for me on the whole moon landing question is Jay Weidner's two DVD's on Stanley Kubrick.

Blogger Rocklea Marina July 09, 2019 5:42 AM  

According to Sotheby's, the tapes are worth up to $2 million.

Will that be in the same lot as the Brooklyn Bridge?

Blogger Matrick July 09, 2019 5:43 AM  

I'm not completely sure where I stand on the issue, but recently somebody here linked to a site that has some good analysis. This particular page provides what I think is 100% proof that an Apollo 17 image is a composite - a fake - and if one of the images (containing the flag) was produced on earth, then they all were, as there are visual consistencies with the flag across the set of images.

https://www.aulis.com/apollo_sky.htm

I'd appreciate it if anyone who scoffs at the idea that any Apollo missions were faked could debunk the analysis.

Blogger CoolHand July 09, 2019 5:56 AM  

I'm not going to spend a bunch of time trying to argue about this, I just want to point out that it wasn't just one event. It wasn't THE moon landing, it was SIX moon landings over the course of a few years.

It's not like every single tape of the dozens or hundreds of hours of video of these missions was all taped over or lost. The story you're talking about is that the original tapes of the FIRST landing were erased or lost, not every tape from every camera of every landing ever.

This is like conflating the fact that you couldn't build an F1 rocket engine in exactly the same way they did in the 60's today to mean that it's not possible to build a rocket engine that would match or exceed the F1 today.

It absolutely CAN be done (and IS in the process of being done, by more than one maker, right now), but they're not forming and welding the thrust nozzles from sheetmetal or manually spotting and drilling the fuel distribution plates on HBM's by hand, they're CNC machining that shit from solid (bar stock or forgings).

It's much easier to do it that way these days than how it was done in the 60's (CNC didn't even exist when the F1 was designed and fabricated).

The technology wasn't "lost", it became obsolete and was replaced by something better and more efficient.

Even if there was some fuckery about in the disposition of the original Apollo 11 tapes, their going missing does not also remove all the data (video and telemetry) from Apollos 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 from existence.

Again, not saying that the .gov isn't/doesn't lie, they obviously do, almost continuously. Just saying that this one incident does not a debunking of the moon landings make.

They're probably lying about the moon landings too, in some way or fashion, but this little glitch in the historical record is not the smoking gun a lot of people are playing it up as.

Blogger Harambe July 09, 2019 5:58 AM  

They taped over the parts where the Vril-powered flying saucers are visible in the background.

Blogger McChuck July 09, 2019 6:01 AM  

It's not malice. The admins really are that incompetent and short sighted.

They work for the government, you know.

Blogger McChuck July 09, 2019 6:04 AM  

Just because the Holocaust was faked doesn't mean the moon landing were.

Blogger Borsabil July 09, 2019 6:21 AM  

"The technology wasn't "lost", it became obsolete and was replaced by something better and more efficient."

A better and more efficient technology that in 50 years couldn't repeat the task the shitty old technology managed SIX times. Seriously?

I'm torn on this. I read the conspiracy theories and I read the debunkers, and I nod my head. But the fact is that this is the only time in modern history where we achieved something, interplanetary travel by human beings, and have been utterly unable to repeat it despite the advancements in materials and computers. It makes no sense. Every other leap in tech has been improved and built on except space travel, because it was all accidentally lost or just abandoned. Although I'm not sold on it being a fake I can for sure understand why others are.

Blogger Jack (LJCSOGHMOMAS) July 09, 2019 6:28 AM  

Two million for unused Kubrick footage? Man, he really is an esteemed director.

Blogger Lazarus July 09, 2019 6:29 AM  

Borsabil wrote:"The technology wasn't "lost", it became obsolete and was replaced by something better and more efficient."

A better and more efficient technology that in 50 years couldn't repeat the task the shitty old technology managed SIX times. Seriously?
But the fact is that this is the only time in modern history where we achieved something, interplanetary travel by human beings, and have been utterly unable to repeat it despite the advancements in materials and computers. It makes no sense. .


I find that more convincing than the shell game with tapes. That and Buzz Aldrin's reaction to Trump's SOTU speech where he said they were going back to the moon.

Blogger Mark Stoval July 09, 2019 6:33 AM  

"Every other leap in tech has been improved and built on except space travel, because it was all accidentally lost or just abandoned."

You don't need to think we lost the technology or that we never had it at all. There is another very good reason we stopped trying to go to the moon. Welfare.

The USA has wasted tremendous resources trying to make black people equal to white people in the USA. If I listed all the ways that we have tried to equalized the races this post would be just a wall of text and our kind host would be mad at me yet again.

I bet all here already know how much we lost in the vain attempt to change human nature.

That, and empire always destroys a nation. Always.

...
PS: the above does not argue for or against the validity of the original moon landing.

Blogger Stilicho July 09, 2019 6:35 AM  

This is getting ridiculous. NASA needs better liars...this is what comes of making Muslim outreach your number one priority...you can't even fake a mission or lie effectively any more.

Blogger Silent Draco July 09, 2019 6:38 AM  

Incompetence and short sighted, al right. Lost about 12 years of test data on videotape and 9 track tape because no one remembered to store it in controlled conditions. The tapes got baked ina metal building, in the desert.
Don't forget Congress' role in moving funds to important programs like gibz, not that 'unfair' icky space thing.

Blogger CoolHand July 09, 2019 6:38 AM  

@9 it has never been "can't", but rather "don't want to".

For whatever reason, after Apollo the official US position on space was "we don't see any reason to do anything useful there ever again", and this has been ruthlessly enforced until very recently.

NASA went the way of all bureaucracies in that it became about perpetuating itself and expanding it's budget to accomplish nothing whatever. That's not a lack of ability but rather a lack of desire to do anything useful.

The US gov't (congress and NASA) was aggressively against anything that might have driven our manned space tech forward, preferring to spend money on JPL designed and built robots (read that as, "gov't employee designed and built") that took eight to ten years to do what the Apollo contractors could have done in six or eight months.

Again, this was not due to lack of ability, but lack desire to do anything useful. The program existed to employ people for as long as possible, not to go anywhere or do anything useful, ergo doing a good and speedy job is antithetical to the program.

Do not conflate gov't enforced sloth and apathy for a lack of technical ability.

The technology has long existed, the money to manufacture it and desire to do so has not.

The only reason anything is moving forward on Orion at all now is because SpaceX is going to have a crew capable vehicle ready to fly this year or early next year, and for NASA/Boeing to have spend thirty times as much money and five times as long on their version and to have nothing to show for it would have been a pretty big scandal for them, so they had to actually accomplish something for a change.

Funny how they were suddenly able to finish up testing (that has been ongoing for something like eleven YEARS) and launch a test vehicle just a few months or maybe a year after SpaceX did it themselves, huh?

They've been killing time and cashing checks for the last ten years, doing nothing and hoping it continues on that way for another ten years. And it probably would have if not for SpaceX and their desire to actually accomplish something.

Blogger SciVo July 09, 2019 6:48 AM  

I favor the meta-hypothesis that whatever explanation is most Clown World is most likely to be true. So clearly, the moon landings were faked on a sound stage on our secret moon base, and then some of the fake footage was ruined by bureaucratic incompetence.

Blogger One Deplorable DT July 09, 2019 7:08 AM  

The tapes that had been supposedly taped over have, to a certain extent, been located just in time for the 50th anniversary of the Moon landing.

Perhaps there were multiple copies? Perhaps in NASA's original findings "sold" was assumed to be the same as "taped over" since that's what a buyer would normally do? Perhaps both?

Keep in mind that these tapes everyone goes on about are nothing more than slightly higher resolution recordings of the analog video feed everyone saw and recorded around the world at the time it happened. NASA was in the position to record the original signal while everyone else recorded a slightly lower quality broadcast conversion (naturally with no telemetry).

We have THOUSANDS of 6x6 still film frames with resolution that utterly crushes any form of electronic video recording in 1969, and would crush DVD and Blu-Ray today. Those were not lost and were re-scanned to 4k, 6k, and 12k for public consumption not too long ago. As I recall the total film frame count for all of Apollo stands at roughly 14,500.

If we were talking about one video of one moon landing I might be inclined to think something was amiss. In light of the video and telemetry data from the other moon landings, and the much higher resolution film stills from all of them including Apollo 11, I'm inclined to think NASA really did just lose a set of tapes.

Sometimes the really boring explanation is actually the right one.

Blogger xevious2030 July 09, 2019 7:24 AM  

CoolHand, cutting out mission prep, which is on Earth, how many hours of mission are you talking about? Not total hours, maximum length of tape time for any single recording. That timeframe is what would need to be faked, repeatedly. Not arguing for real of fake, not well versed.

Blogger basementhomebrewer July 09, 2019 7:36 AM  

Big Bear is having some sort of impact. I understand that this year is the 50th so there are going to be more articles about the moon landing, but there has been a distinct uptick in articles throwing shade at moon landing "conspiracies" as well as new conspiracies emerging that appear to be attempts to muddy the waters.

That being said I really don't know what the truth is about all this. I tend to agree with Vox that what ever happened, it doesn't match the official story we are being told.

Blogger Zaklog the Great July 09, 2019 7:36 AM  

So are we going to crowdfund Big Bear bidding on these things? Come on. You know it would be hilarious.

Blogger Lushtree July 09, 2019 7:47 AM  

I tend to go with this strain of theory as well, if only because it is way more fun than either 'real' or 'all faked'.

Blogger Gregory the Great July 09, 2019 7:51 AM  

Could it be all the NASA money secretly goes to Antifa?

Blogger Nate July 09, 2019 8:07 AM  

no seriously gize we really did land on the moon. we just like... forgot how and stuff... oh and we can't rebuild the rocket motors that got us there because we don't have the tooling.. and like... you know... no one ever retools in 2019. There isn't a whole industry dedicated to it or anything.

Blogger One Deplorable DT July 09, 2019 8:15 AM  

@4 - I'd appreciate it if anyone who scoffs at the idea that any Apollo missions were faked could debunk the analysis.

No problem.

Claim #1: In addition to the necessity of having take this picture from an extremely low angle, the photographer would have had to lie on his back...

No he would not have. It was an 80mm MF lens which would equate roughly to 50mm full frame, 30mm APS-C, or 25mm in m43. Pick a camera in one of those formats along with the corresponding lens and see just how little adjustment you would need, at that distance with the camera at chest level, to get a composition like that. Bend your knees a bit and tilt the camera a bit and there you go.

Claim #2: If the brightness of this image increased in a graphics editor, strange angular ‘shadows’ appear around the astronaut (Fig.3)...Behind the astronaut the background is black, and behind the flag it is purple. What does this mean? It indicates that the astronaut and the flag were shot with different backgrounds.

Here is a link to the 4k scan available on Flickr. I tried shoving brightness to max in Photoshop. When that didn't produce anything like his image I pushed brightness further with a second adjustment using levels. My final result was brighter than his with more clipped highlights. But there are no angular shadows and there is no purple noise halo in that scan. The only variation in the background is quite obviously the result of flare off the spacesuit and flag. There is zero evidence of a composite image or of different backgrounds.

I would like to give the author the benefit of the doubt and chalk his results up to a bad or highly compressed digital file, which could explain purple noise like he claims to have found. But his angular shadows are fake as can be and have no innocent explanation. Which leads me to believe that he is a liar and a fraud.

Blogger Bernard Korzeniewicz July 09, 2019 8:17 AM  

@Nate - NASA flies to orbit on Russian engines. The USA really lost the technology.

Blogger Robert What? July 09, 2019 8:18 AM  

I think this comes down to what you believe. There does not seem to be conclusive evidence either way: that the moon landings were real or that they were faked. I choose to believe that they were real. But then I always was a hopeless romantic.

Blogger ADS July 09, 2019 8:19 AM  

"We can't make the engines anymore"

I'll repeat this as many times as I have to:

The F-1 rocket engines were built in another era of manufacturing. Back then, highly skilled craftsmen made the engines essentially by hand. Manually cranked milling machines and lathes were used to create components as described on hand-drafted, hand-lettered blueprints done on a wooden table with rulers, angle curve templates, and pencils. Sheet metal was formed on non automated equipment and laid out by hand and welded up into finished parts. Every mating part was hand finished and fitted due to the required precision being unobtainable on the machinery of the time. Each engine was unique and the parts were non interchangeable due to the hand fitting. The men who did these feats were incredibly skilled lifelong craftsmen.

All those men are dead or long retired. The blueprints, if they survive today at all, are preserved on microfilm only. The machines have been sold for scrap. The companies that produced the parts are disbanded or merged into other forms. Recreating the F-1 engine would essentially be starting over from scratch.

Ask yourself if Ford Motor Company could produce a Lincoln Model L in 2019 and you have a parallel situation.

Modern manufacturing is another world entirely. Parts and assemblies are made and tested virtually with 3d models in CAD/CAM software suites, with extensive Finite Element Analysis calculations which were impossible before cheap computing. The parts are made on highly accurate computer controlled machines that require programming. Modern metrology standards and design practice (look up Geometric Distancing and Tolerancing) combined with precision manufacturing tools obliviate the need for hand fitting craftsmen. As a previous poster mentioned, components that would have been formed with sheet metals and weldments are now machined from one solid billet. I have personally machined hydraulic cylinders for the landing gear of military airplanes out of billet titanium alloy in a 9-axis machining center.

We could absolutely design and make F-1 equivalent rockets again, but the cost would be staggering. We may as well develop new, better technologies and that is precisely what SpaceX et al have been doing.

Our retreat from the stars has always been about money, not ability. Boomers decided that infinity niggers and endless wars for israel were more important than pushing humanity into space.

Message will repeat every time someone claims we can't build a rocket engine anymore.

Blogger SouthRon July 09, 2019 8:20 AM  

Bull!

50 or even 30 year old pristine video or audio tape of any form does not exist. Any archivist knows this. The glue or binder breaks down over time releasing the magnetic particles from the tape. See, for example, this article written in 2003.

The author explains that the production process changed in the 70s leading to reels which absorbed water over time and that the water needs to be baked out. This does not mean older 1969 moon landing tapes would be immune to degradation. I saw and handle older drum storage media decades ago. It suffered from a dustoff problem where the binder would breakdown over time. The surface would be come dusty the magnetic particles would fall away.

NASA has done the impossible and conjured a unicorn. 30-50 year old pristine video tape does not exist.

Blogger Steb July 09, 2019 8:20 AM  

They thought they recorded over them because a budget shortage meant they couldn't afford new ones, but now they've found them among a bunch that they sold off for $211 at a surplus auction.

These two excuses can't exist on the same timeline.

It's on par with saying I couldn't call because I didn't have your number, and anyway, your line was always engaged.

Blogger Harambe July 09, 2019 8:21 AM  

On the one hand "hurr durr we lost the technology and we taped over that shit" is the weakest excuses I've ever heard, but on the other the difference between then and now is that back then NASA didn't care about diversity and inclusivity and fake global warming scares, so it's at least possible that they had better brainpower back then. Didn't they have some nazi scientists around?

Blogger Damelon Brinn July 09, 2019 8:24 AM  


For whatever reason, after Apollo the official US position on space was "we don't see any reason to do anything useful there ever again", and this has been ruthlessly enforced until very recently.


Which is the most ridiculous excuse ever. 99% of what the government funds isn't "useful" except to the people getting paid to do it. People who get paid to do scientific research think it's *always* useful because you're always gaining knowledge. They study cow farts, for cripes sake. And the idea that they exhausted the possibilities in 6 trips because there's nothing there is even more insane. We spend thousands of man-hours studying ordinary rocks right here on Earth. If you asked anyone at NASA, they could give you a long list of the studies and experiments they'd love to do if they could step through a door onto the Moon.

If they decided to stop going, it wasn't because they ran out of "useful" things to do there. There had to be a much better reason, namely that they can't go anymore. Either something stopped them or they never could.

Blogger One Deplorable DT July 09, 2019 8:32 AM  

@23 - ...oh and we can't rebuild the rocket motors that got us there because we don't have the tooling...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BFR_(rocket)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System

Absent a major disruption (Great Depression II, World War III, Carrington event, etc) men are going to be back on the moon no later than 2026, assuming some delays. It wouldn't surprise me to see SpaceX land in 2023 after their #dearMoon lunar orbit using Starship which is an obvious Apollo 10 style dry run.

I look forward to people trying to explain away Elon Musk taking selfies near an Apollo landing site.

Blogger Damelon Brinn July 09, 2019 8:34 AM  

it's at least possible that they had better brainpower back then.

While this is true, it's true of every industry. The computer industry, for instance, has been vastly dumbed-down over the past 50 years. However, there are still some people innovating, and technological advances tend to be cumulative (until lost in a collapse), so you can now carry a computer around in your pocket that would have been considered a science-fiction supercomputer in 1970. Despite the blessings of diversity, NASA should be able to do everything it did before and more.

Buick doesn't build the 1970 Skylark anymore because styles changed, emissions regulations changed, mileage and comfort became more important, etc. But if you went to Buick engineers and said, "Can you build us a fleet of 1970 Skylarks? Here's a billion dollars," they'd say sure and retool a factory line to turn them out. They certainly wouldn't say it's impossible now.

Blogger Damelon Brinn July 09, 2019 8:36 AM  

men are going to be back on the moon no later than 2026

Glad to hear it. I was glad to hear it in 2000 when they said we were going back within a decade. Yeah, yeah, I know, Bush's wars got in the way. NASA's budget went to Iraq or something.

Blogger FrankNorman July 09, 2019 8:40 AM  

Well, my pet theory is that the moon landings were mostly real, though maaaybee not Apollo 11. (The whole silly "by the end of the 1960's deadline).
But the reason they lost the ability to do things like that is due to deliberate sabotage. This was during the Cold War, remember.

Blogger One Deplorable DT July 09, 2019 8:43 AM  

@34 - if it was just a presidential speech or even just NASA's project I would be skeptical. But SpaceX hits their targets. I have every confidence BFR/Starship will fly to the moon.

Blogger FrankNorman July 09, 2019 8:46 AM  

NASA's capabilities were deliberately gutted in the 1990's.

Blogger David Ray Milton July 09, 2019 8:55 AM  

How dare you go after NASA! How dare you! In our spare time, we were astronauts and I believe everything anyone ever tells me.

Blogger David Ray Milton July 09, 2019 8:59 AM  

@ADS

This is probably not the place you want to make claims about how willing you are to repeat yourself. A friendly hint. Just see Nate’s comments, take it rhetorically on the chin, and call it a day.

Blogger Brett baker July 09, 2019 9:07 AM  

Remember several years ago all the bitching that rocket fuel was going to give us cancer? Stuff like that, plus the "Great Society", is why there hasn't been serious talk about going back to the moon.
Until it looks like the Chinese are going to get there, and mine it.
"My brother's on Oxy,
but Chiang is on the moon!" as someone put it at Sailer's.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 09, 2019 9:08 AM  

From the realization that wherever physical wealth -- of any kind -- is stored up, parasites will appear to consume it all(this is straight out of Proverbs), it should be easy to see what would be expected.

What is done to prepare for winter? Storing up of food and fuels. What is space travel but an extraordinarily expensive preparation for a voluntary winter? The stores are massive, and consequently the entryism attempts by parasites will be vicious, the temptations to parasitism for those already inside lucrative, and thus the consumption of stores rapid when parasites penetrate and manifest.

"no seriously gize we really did land on the moon. we just like... forgot how and stuff... oh and we can't rebuild the rocket motors that got us there because we don't have the tooling.. and like... you know... no one ever retools in 2019. There isn't a whole industry dedicated to it or anything."

We've been over this all before, which you know perfectly well. Disingenuity does not suit you, and that amount of sarcasm is gay as hell.

"I think this comes down to what you believe. There does not seem to be conclusive evidence either way: that the moon landings were real or that they were faked."

From what I've seen, it would be more accurate to say that the vast majority of people find ways to believe whatever they want to believe regardless of evidence. The less stricture upon that area of thought, the more bizarre things will be believed in all directions.

In the end, it all comes down to who you trust to tell you the truth. A presumptive probability can and must be placed by every person upon everything they encounter about which they do not personally know. You pick who you think trustworthy and history rolls the dice, determines the outcome of the encounter. You adjust your perceptions of likelihood, and roll again.

The longer the duration to determine the outcome of faith, or the more rarified the sights that indicate truth, the easier it is to roam broad afield.

"50 or even 30 year old pristine video or audio tape of any form does not exist. Any archivist knows this. The glue or binder breaks down over time releasing the magnetic particles from the tape. See, for example, this article written in 2003."

I've got tapes ~40 years old from my parents. Degraded? Sure, somewhat, but nowhere near destroyed.

On top of that, try reading your own damn article next time. It's completely irrelevant to the original landing tapes.

Sure, magnetic tapes degrade over time. All storage media do, even stone tablets. Pristine? Definitely not. Sufficient fidelity? Entirely possible.

"These two excuses can't exist on the same timeline."

Be very happy that you've never had to deal intimately with a large supply chain. These both look like shitheads and ass-covering. Which shitheads and whose ass, those are the questions.

"Didn't they have some nazi scientists around?"

Yes, literally. NASA was one of the biggest employers of them.

"Which is the most ridiculous excuse ever. 99% of what the government funds isn't "useful" except to the people getting paid to do it."

Did they shut NASA down? You bet not. Parasite feeding program. Neat, simple, sucks as expected. What kind of clever parasite would allow resources to go somewhere that they have to be accounted for later?

"People who get paid to do scientific research think it's *always* useful because you're always gaining knowledge."

Not-so-coincidentally, also a massive parasite feeding program. See: research grants.

"If they decided to stop going, it wasn't because they ran out of "useful" things to do there. There had to be a much better reason, namely that they can't go anymore. Either something stopped them or they never could."

Parasitic load. Larger, less cohesive country. Rotted out nation. Parasite load increase.

Blogger Brett baker July 09, 2019 9:09 AM  

And SpaceX is using tech NASA proposed in the 60s, just never got the funds to really develop.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 09, 2019 9:14 AM  

My bad, not Proverbs.

Ecclesiastes 5:11, "When good things increase, the ones who consume them multiply; what, then, is the profit to the owner, except to gaze at them with his eyes?"

Blogger Brett baker July 09, 2019 9:15 AM  

Well, of course the Moon Nazis would allow a White South African to land on their turf.

Blogger 357Delta July 09, 2019 9:21 AM  

We went and landed, but they augmented the evidence with stage photos and videos for the public. So they faked the landing footage for TV but also landed.

Blogger furor kek tonicus ( all aboard the Askren hype train ) July 09, 2019 9:29 AM  

5. CoolHand July 09, 2019 5:56 AM
This is like conflating the fact that you couldn't build an F1 rocket engine in exactly the same way they did in the 60's today to mean that it's not possible to build a rocket engine that would match or exceed the F1 today.



the problem being, that this assertion comes from NASA ITSELF.

i am also quite incredulous that we are supposed to be unable to surpass the meticulous handcrafting of the 1950s and 60s. with CNC control, we can get aerospace production tolerances down into the thousandth of an inch production tolerances quite easily. which is something which isn't even possible by eye and hand.

BUT THAT'S THE NASA EXCUSE FOR NEVER HAVING BUILT A ROCKET ENGINE TO MATCH THE F1 IN ALL THE DECADES SINCE.

which raises the question;
why is NASA making such a stupid argument in the first place?

Blogger JAG July 09, 2019 9:34 AM  

The blueprints, if they survive today at all, are preserved on microfilm only. The machines have been sold for scrap. The companies that produced the parts are disbanded or merged into other forms. Recreating the F-1 engine would essentially be starting over from scratch.

If the blueprints are on microfilm, then it would not be difficult to program them into a 3D printer.

Blogger ADS July 09, 2019 9:35 AM  

@david ray milton

"Oh no, my retarded little theory is getting rectally ravaged by people with actual industry expertise! Better police his tone and tell him he lost - secret king wins again!"

Run along little gamma boy, men with knowledge are talking.

Blogger ADS July 09, 2019 9:39 AM  

JAG, are you trolling or just wallowing in dunning-kruger? Do you think 3d printers are magic boxes that print out rocket engines when shown a photograph?

Blogger David Ray Milton July 09, 2019 9:44 AM  

@ADS

Come on. You can project better than that. You only wrote three paragraphs! I want to hear more about your brilliant expertise. You did promised to repeat yourself until we all fell in line.

Blogger ADS July 09, 2019 9:46 AM  

@furor kek tonicus
Don't conflate "cannot be done" and "cannot be done economically". If we set out to build a f-1 rocket today it would be better than the originals but come at a prohibitive cost. Hence companies like SpaceX using our modern design and manufacturing practices to make new, superior, reusable, and more economic engines instead of recreating an old design.

Blogger Nym Coy July 09, 2019 9:52 AM  

The taped over tapes were telemetry data but the tapes they're taking about now are video. Both can be true.

Blogger Sherlock July 09, 2019 9:52 AM  

Isn't NASA's core mission Muslim outreach?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 09, 2019 10:07 AM  

"If the blueprints are on microfilm, then it would not be difficult to program them into a 3D printer."

I don't think even the higher end hybrid sintering printers will print the type of alloys you're talking, so even if so, that's not going to help.

Blogger Nate July 09, 2019 10:07 AM  

"I look forward to people trying to explain away Elon Musk taking selfies near an Apollo landing site."

this is the dumbest comment I've seen since that dude was calling slavs trustworthy...

How exactly does a private corporation going to the moon today prove that a government agency did it 50 years ago?

I'm pretty confident we can do it now. I'm pretty confident we have the tech to make it happen.

I'm certain we did not have the tech 50 years ago. we didn't even have the tech to fake it well.

Blogger Nate July 09, 2019 10:09 AM  

"We've been over this all before, which you know perfectly well. Disingenuity does not suit you, and that amount of sarcasm is gay as hell."

sugar tits... me and 100 rednecks could recreate the Apollo program for about 150k in todays dollars.

But somehow it costs billions to get back to the moon.

But hey... you are free to keep your beloved delusions. I mean governments lying to their people? crazy talk. just crazy talk.

Blogger P Glenrothes July 09, 2019 10:10 AM  

I tend to discount the opinions of those who weren't around to witness events in real time as they happened. As with the JFK assassination, there is no shortage of so called experts willing to make a name for themselves by postulating some ex post facto theory. The end result is the truth of the matter is forever obscured.

Blogger Joe July 09, 2019 10:16 AM  

"On July 20, 1969, NASA put a man on the moon and captured it all on tape. In 1976, the space agency unknowingly sold those tapes of original footage from the Apollo 11 lunar mission to a lucky intern who held onto them for decades. He never even knew their contents."

This lie is even dumber than taping over them to save money.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 09, 2019 10:17 AM  

"But hey... you are free to keep your beloved delusions. I mean governments lying to their people? crazy talk. just crazy talk."

Retreating to rhetoric I see. How many times do I have to say that I don't care one way or the other, but I'm not going to let stupid shit fly either way if I can help it? What does it matter to me if we landed on the Moon? I'm not invested.

You know what you said, and you know how you designed it to imply other than what is accurate. Do we need to do a point by point?

Blogger Purge187 July 09, 2019 10:20 AM  

"They taped over the parts where the Vril-powered flying saucers are visible in the background."

All jesting aside, I recall reading somewhere that Armstrong said something to the effect of, "They're looking at me" not too long after he left the capsule.

Blogger Nostromo July 09, 2019 10:22 AM  

Here's what I know first hand. Parents took me to tour Cape Canaveral as a kid approx.50 years ago. We got to see everything. Went into the assembly building, etc. This spring I took my nephew to tour Cape Canaveral. It was on his bucket list. You wait in lines. Long Disney-esque lines, to see manikens, and plastic models (which you can buy in the gift shop for the cost of a small nation's yearly budget), along with a souvenir yee-shirt. We got to ride around the assembly building in a bus. Then you can watch a movie about Apollo 11. Then, they bus you back to the gift shop. The lines were a Beneton ad of POC's. I left with a burning hatred of the last 50 years of American beauracracy, but especially with the head bigger in charge, Obama.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 09, 2019 10:26 AM  

Pretty much any amount of "why can't we do X today for Y100$ when we could supposedly do it 50 years ago for Y5$ and I could crew up to do it myself for Y1$" can be answered by "increased parasite load".

Did we ever do it? Dunno, but there are definitely a crapton of parasite infesting NASA right flipping now.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 09, 2019 10:29 AM  

You're right about Musk though. It doesn't prove that it was done 50 years ago. At best it might disprove the people saying that it's outright impossible to do it period, which is a surprisingly large number.

Blogger Engineer-Poet July 09, 2019 10:34 AM  

@9

"A better and more efficient technology that in 50 years couldn't repeat the task the shitty old technology managed SIX times. Seriously?"

You're confusing "couldn't" with "didn't".  NASA launched the Voyager probes in 1977.  NASA launched Cassini and Galileo and New Horizons, to list a few.  There have been hundreds of commercial satellite launches.  All the launch vehicles were much newer and improved over the Saturn; look at the latest version of the Delta rocket for an example, and Falcon Heavy (63,800 kg to LEO) can loft more than 3x as much as a Saturn 1B (21000 kg to LEO).

Nobody put more men on the moon for one reason:  nobody was willing to pay for it to be done.  No bucks, no Buck Rogers.  They beat the Russians, left flags and footprints, and came home.

"Every other leap in tech has been improved and built on except space travel, because it was all accidentally lost or just abandoned."

Word I had is that the plans and tooling for the Saturn were destroyed to make certain that there was no competition for the next big money-pot project, the Space Shuttle.  And then Proxmire put milk price supports ahead of building an actual reusable spaceplane, with results we all know.  (A friend of mine at the time suggested T-shirts with Challenger's forked explosion cloud and the caption "BOYCOTT WISCONSIN CHEESE".)

Blogger Engineer-Poet July 09, 2019 10:36 AM  

@19 I have repeatedly e-mailed Big Bear to ask him what it would take to convince him that the moon landings were NOT faked.  He has not answered.

FWIW, ham radio operators reported picking up some of the CSM signals during the missions.  This was reported in QST, if memory serves.  It would have had to have been a mighty big conspiracy.

And OBTW... if someone could go back here and approve the comments I posted several days ago, I'd appreciate it.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 09, 2019 10:43 AM  

I expect Big Bear gets an unholy crapton of emails. Certain people will prioritize for what they feel they should reply to, but that line of thought goes away quickly with enough volume, to be replaced by "do I give a shit or not".

Don't take it personally, but he probably doesn't.

Blogger Engineer-Poet July 09, 2019 10:45 AM  

@66 If you don't care enough about a question of fact to look at evidence about it, do you hold knowledge or dogma?

Blogger Nate July 09, 2019 10:47 AM  

"Retreating to rhetoric I see. How many times do I have to say that I don't care one way or the other, but I'm not going to let stupid shit fly either way if I can help it? What does it matter to me if we landed on the Moon? I'm not invested."

yeah. ya are. ya always have been. The whole romanticized idea of it is a huge deal to you and pretty much every engineer alive between the ages of 43 and 80.

Your own words convict you. After all weren't you just the one saying that we have to decide who we will believe? we will decide who we will trust? And you are trusting a government to not lie to you. There is only a couple reasons for that. So yeah.. I am choosing to believe you are emotionally invested. because that is the more charitable option.



Blogger Nate July 09, 2019 10:48 AM  

" If you don't care enough about a question of fact to look at evidence about it, do you hold knowledge or dogma?"

evidence. ***chuckle***

Sweety… the evidence is what made us question the story in the first place.

Blogger Nate July 09, 2019 10:49 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger P Glenrothes July 09, 2019 10:53 AM  

Owen Benjamin cherry picks his facts and he cherry picks who he responds to.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 09, 2019 11:03 AM  

"yeah. ya are. ya always have been. The whole romanticized idea of it is a huge deal to you and pretty much every engineer alive between the ages of 43 and 80."

You just listed a whole lot of "not me". So that's misses numbers one, two, and three for your guesses.

"Your own words convict you. After all weren't you just the one saying that we have to decide who we will believe? we will decide who we will trust? And you are trusting a government to not lie to you."

Reading comprehension. You don't have it. Where, exactly, did I say that I think or believe we went to the moon? I call Moonies on their shit too.

I don't trust jack. I'm open to geocentricism and a low, physically solid firmament. Do I think them likely? No.

So, why do you feel the need to run with weak and inaccurate guesses about me for rhetorical purpose? I don't need free head rent from you, and I don't know you personally enough to know if I'd want it, not needing it.

"I am choosing to believe you are emotionally invested. because that is the more charitable option."

Because you assume that I work the way you do. Thanks for sharing.

Blogger The Lab Manager July 09, 2019 11:15 AM  

This is interesting news finding some old tapes. I guess to me one question is how each mission overall went off without a hitch. Launch from earth, travel to moon, land on moon, walk around on moon, launch from moon and meet up with capsule, back to earth. Quiet a few steps in there where something could go wrong even with the best training and intellect.

Blogger Patrick Kelly July 09, 2019 11:25 AM  

CoolHand wrote:... It wasn't THE moon landing, it was SIX moon landings over the course of a few years.
...
Even if there was some fuckery about in the disposition of the original Apollo 11 tapes, their going missing does not also remove all the data (video and telemetry) from Apollos 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 from existence.

Again, not saying that the .gov isn't/doesn't lie, they obviously do, almost continuously. Just saying that this one incident does not a debunking of the moon landings make....



Yep


...

This is like conflating the fact that you couldn't build an F1 rocket engine in exactly the same way they did in the 60's today to mean that it's not possible to build a rocket engine that would match or exceed the F1 today.

It absolutely CAN be done ...


Has not != cannot.

After reading and watching videos of the debunking and counter-debunking over the last 20 years I find the counter-debunkers "yes, NASA did land astronauts on the moon" more convincing.

Where there is smoke, there is fire, but sometimes it's just the neighbor's BBQ burning hot dogs. Doesn't mean the whole meal was ruined.

Don't care about convincing Ilk or Bears. Most of the time I do find the larping and trolling to be entertaining.

Blogger Patrick Kelly July 09, 2019 11:26 AM  

"how each mission overall went off without a hitch."

Did you sleep through Apollo 13?

Blogger NO GOOGLES July 09, 2019 11:28 AM  

@73
So you forgot Apollo 13 or what? Also there were times where things went wrong in other missions - but they had contingencies to deal with them.

Also losing/selling the tapes of one of the biggest moments in human history sounds EXACTLY like something the US government would do. The problem I have with the whole "moon landing was faked" theory is just that it assumes a massive level of competence from the government that they are wholly incapable of. Most conspiracies that turn out to be true involve a relatively small number of people who could really blow the whole thing open and they generally don't have a huge number of moving parts.

Either way whether we actually walked on the moon or not has basically zero effect on my daily life so it's just too low on the list for me to care about. Even if we didn't - oh well, the government lied about something else. Huge surprise.

Blogger gwood July 09, 2019 11:30 AM  

Why would anyone build a Saturn 5 type moon rocket today? We have a working space station. The moon mission would launch from there.

Blogger PM July 09, 2019 11:31 AM  

@ADS #27
Slightly tangential, but the factors outlined in this American Conservative article about the difficulties facing the US military as a consequence of the financialisation of high-tech manufacturing would also seem to feed into this issue: lack of interest, lack of resources and lack of profit, along with "lost" or outsourced technology:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/americas-monopoly-crisis-hits-the-military/

Blogger Mark Stoval July 09, 2019 11:39 AM  

@27


"As of 2014, U.S. taxpayers have spent $22 trillion on Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusting for inflation, that's three times more than was spent on all military wars since the American Revolution. ..." ~~ Walter Williams

I have to say, that the generation that gave you the 1960s political lunacy was the "greatest" generation so called. But even that is unfair to my mother's generation in a way even though she voted JKF/LBJ in 1960. The evil and expense of trying to make Africans equal to Whites started long before even the '60s.

The costs of egalitarianism and empire combined were too much to bear and explore space also.

So please, try to remember that our ancient enemy has been working at our destruction for a long, long time.


...
PS: the Articles of Confederation was much better than the US Constitution.

Blogger justaguy July 09, 2019 11:39 AM  

Engineer Poet has it right-- we haven't gone to the moon because there is no reason to! We have advanced significantly in materials science/engineering. Materials are the limiting factors in jet/rocket engines and we have made advances not even thought of back in the 1960s with composites. Yes we can go to the moon, some lime-light-seeking billionaire will probably do it right behind the Chinese. The Chinese will think getting there will say that they have arrived.

What we determined is that space exploration has not yielded any concrete results yet and exploring the moon wasn't likely to ever yield anything useful. The gravity well drives the price of escaping too high, and the hostile environment makes it too costly to do anything meaningful (industry/production-wise) anyplace other than earthbound. NASA's budget was cut and most exploration stopped because the money was being wasted on idiot-designed things like the space shuttle.

Blogger Crew July 09, 2019 11:43 AM  

we haven't gone to the moon because there is no reason to

We haven't built supercomputers because there is no reason to.

Blogger chronoblip July 09, 2019 11:48 AM  

The moon landing conspiracy is to engineering as free trade is to economics as civic nationalism is to politics.

"Disprove these claims I found convincing" is just nerd sniping, as folks who cite external sources in such a manner were not likely convinced by any dialectic, but in order to appear more intelligent they'll petition for dialectic responses as if they were.

This is why commenters will, despite having been "proved wrong" on a prior thread, re-enter a new thread on the same topic right back where they started, because the dialectic responses were irrelevant, but the requester can't directly admit that without losing face.

The dialectic responders care as much about the rhetorical requester saving face as the rhetorical requester cares about the facts and data offered by the dialectic responders.

A nasty cycle which perpetuates unnecessary divisiveness among people who are already being divided so they can be more easily conquered.

Blogger Mark Stoval July 09, 2019 11:51 AM  

@56 Nate

"sugar tits... me and 100 rednecks could recreate the Apollo program for about 150k in todays dollars."

I believe that. Especially if some of those rednecks are hillbilly rednecks. We get shit done.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 09, 2019 12:03 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Balam July 09, 2019 12:14 PM  

justaguy wrote:we haven't gone to the moon because there is no reason to!
...
What we determined is that space exploration has not yielded any concrete results yet and exploring the moon wasn't likely to ever yield anything useful. The gravity well drives the price of escaping too high, and the hostile environment makes it too costly to do anything meaningful (industry/production-wise) anyplace other than earthbound.


We're talking about the US government here, when has 'wasn't likely to ever yield anything useful' ever been a limiting factor for anything they have done? In one breath the government is an incompetent entity that overwrites tapes and can't figure out how to rebuild rockets it already built, and in the next it's a Machiavellian savant who ruthlessly culls projects based on rate of return and future projections to the level that NASA didn't yield enough percentage points to be deigned worthy of investment. The US government has spent more money on stupider things, the argument that they rationally decided the rate of return wasn't worth it is not sound.

Blogger Noah B. July 09, 2019 12:19 PM  

Moonies probably believe that Gus Grissom's death was an accident.

Blogger Damelon Brinn July 09, 2019 12:21 PM  

From what I've seen, it would be more accurate to say that the vast majority of people find ways to believe whatever they want to believe regardless of evidence.

That's true. I'd say at least 90% of the people I see arguing both sides of this haven't actually researched it and are just repeating what they've heard from the side they like. It shows because they repeat factoids and claims that my own research showed are false or misstated compared to the real arguments that side makes, and they always repeat them the same way. (Again, on both sides of it.) That's why I don't bother to get into serious arguments about it anymore, and mostly just poke fun.

However, I'm a former firm believer in the landings who is now a skeptic, so I know there are people who honestly do look at it and are willing to follow the evidence where it leads. Those are the only people worth talking to.

I hope we did/can go to space and visit other heavenly bodies. I'd like to see humanity start to colonize Mars in my lifetime. I have Robert Zubrin's book that lays out a relatively low-cost program to get there and get started using 1990s or earlier technology, so it seems completely doable. However, it depends on a bunch of things we think we know because of Apollo actually being true. If those things aren't true, then who knows whether Mars is even possible. (By the way, I'm talking about things like radiation levels and the dangers of micrometeorites, not flat earth stuff.) So it would be nice if we could settle the question of whether/how much NASA has been bullshitting us about space travel, before Nate's rednecks build a rocket and take off for Mars. If we need to start over with fewer assumptions because NASA was lying about some things, so be it, but we need to know.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 09, 2019 12:28 PM  

"That's true. I'd say at least 90% of the people I see arguing both sides of this haven't actually researched it and are just repeating what they've heard from the side they like."

We need this on repeat after every single comment in one of these threads.

"So it would be nice if we could settle the question of whether/how much NASA has been bullshitting us about space travel, before Nate's rednecks build a rocket and take off for Mars. If we need to start over with fewer assumptions because NASA was lying about some things, so be it, but we need to know."

If Nate said he was putting together a crew to build that redneck rocket I'd be signed up for it, right after I made sure the claim was made by him rather than the alcohol inside of him.

Blogger Rough Carrigan July 09, 2019 12:49 PM  

I read Zubrin's book. It's pretty interesting. His ideas for creating an atmosphere on Mars are clever. The problem is that Mars doesn't have a magnetic field like the earth so it would get stripped away. It wouldn't work.

Regarding NASA, nobody's mentioning one of the biggest inconsistencies with the official story. Watch the press conference with the 3 astronauts when they first meet the press after completing the greatest achievement in human history. Look at their faces. Listen to their voices. Look at their body language. Is any of it consistent with guys who did anything, never mind just completed the most amazing accomplishment in human history?

Or do they look like three guys feeling very uncomfortable because they're lying?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 09, 2019 12:59 PM  

"Regarding NASA, nobody's mentioning one of the biggest inconsistencies with the official story."

That was actually Big Bear's favorite, probably because it's also his strongest.

They look uncomfortable, for which there are multiple possible reasons, and multiple possible lies as well.

Blogger Patrick Kelly July 09, 2019 1:03 PM  

"If Nate said he was putting together a crew to build that redneck rocket I'd be signed up for it, right after I made sure the claim was made by him rather than the alcohol inside of him."

Nate will never admit a bunch of damn yankees did anything rednecks and whiskey can't do better together.

Also, any national football championship not won by AL was faked.

Blogger pyrrhus July 09, 2019 1:04 PM  

@2 <The seminal work for me on the whole moon landing question is Jay Weidner's two DVD's on Stanley Kubrick.

Yes, they were on Gaia, and totally convincing that the moon walk shown on TV was a front projection sewing together of studeo and real shots. Mandatory viewing IMO....

Blogger CoolHand July 09, 2019 1:06 PM  

@18

A11 was on the surface of the moon for ~22hrs, with 2.5hrs of that spent walking around outside the vehicle.

A12 was on the surface for ~32hrs, with ~7hrs of that spent on EVA.

A14 was on the surface for ~35hrs, with ~14.5rs of that spent on EVA.

A15 was on the surface for ~67hrs, with ~18.5hrs of that spent on EVA. This was the first mission with a rover.

A16 was on the surface for ~71hrs, with ~20hrs of that spent on EVA.

A17 was on the surface for ~75hrs, with ~22hrs of that spent on EVA.

So, counting just the EVA's, there'd be ~84.5hrs of film, per man (crew of two on the surface).

You've also got to remember that for each hour of actual person time outside there would have been many multiples of film hours because there were many cameras mounted all over the men and equipment, and that they'd have video/film and telemetry from every camera mounted on every device for every moment the vehicle was on the surface, even when the astronuts were inside taking a dump or sleeping.

I would not be surprised at all to have it tally up as several hundred hours of footage, with a great lot of it being boring as hell.

Blogger pyrrhus July 09, 2019 1:07 PM  

It's telling also that Jay Weidner got demonitized by Youtube...

Blogger Patrick Kelly July 09, 2019 1:08 PM  

Noah B. wrote:Moonies probably believe that Gus Grissom's death was an accident.

Nah, he retired to some exotic island beach with Koresh, JFK, Elvis and McCain.

Blogger Nate July 09, 2019 1:10 PM  

"If we need to start over with fewer assumptions because NASA was lying about some things, so be it, but we need to know."

this. very much this. I don't get the claims that going to the moon is impossible. just knowing that someone thinks that is enough to convince me that we will one day do it. That's how human beings work after all.

Blogger Sherlock July 09, 2019 1:12 PM  

Appalachian ("Apple At Chan!") Ingenuity!

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 09, 2019 1:14 PM  

Matrick wrote:I'd appreciate it if anyone who scoffs at the idea that any Apollo missions were faked could debunk the analysis.
A batch of bald assertions not backed up by any analysis at all. E.G., the photograph wouldnto have had to be taken "with the astronaut lying on his back." That's simply false. He knows this ans spends some time talking around it as if it's up to me to prove to him. Another example, the differential blackness of the background is neither strange nor unepected. It's caused by how light bounces around inside a film camera. Now look at the shape he proposes for the astronaut piece of the "composited" picture. No one would cut out the bizarre lobed shape he proposes. No one.

Blogger Nate July 09, 2019 1:20 PM  

"Nate will never admit a bunch of damn yankees did anything rednecks and whiskey can't do better together."

bzzzt… Huntsville and Houston there sugar britches.

Blogger Thor July 09, 2019 1:20 PM  

After 74 or more comments, I'm not sure anyone will see this, but...

What did I personally witness, so know is true:
- I saw Apollo 17 launch - it was real (and unforgettable).
- I saw Falcon Heavy launch - no where near as impressive EXCEPT for booster landings (equally unforgettable).
- I've studied as much of the archive footage of the landings and moon walks (watched most of these on TV either live or when shown later that night by the networks) and there are plenty of mishaps and miscues that could be scripted but were they.
- I've witnessed at least 50 years of government shennanigans which make it easy not to believe almost any or all "official" reports. But that doesn't mean D-day, Hiroshima, or our country's independence didn't happen. All great achievements IMHO.
- I've witnessed a few major events which spurred nationalist pride (9-11, 1980 Olympic Hockey, Lunar Landings) and I've witnessed the almost immediate, insidious, and incessant campaigns to tarnish those events to erode that pride by non-nationalists (in their various forms).
- Jesus commanded us to love one another, assuming all or most commenting are christians.

And my conclusions:
- It's possible the lunar landings were fakes, but unlikely. The preponderance of evidence seems to support it.
- A lot of great comments and thought are in these comments as well as demeaming rhetoric. Not opposed to either, just think the energy can be harnessed better.
- There is a lot of absolutism in the comments such as; if one picture was faked then all pictures were faked. This type of comment is not a proof, nor is it helpful. A better comment would have been, If one picture is faked, then maybe all of them were.
- As Trump's drive for national pride in America increases so do the efforts of the globalists to quell them. What better opportunity than with casting doubt on the landings on the 50th anniversary and prompting the nationalists to argue with each other? Seems pretty easy to do using our own prejudices against us. Oh the human condition.

Blogger Nate July 09, 2019 1:21 PM  

"If Nate said he was putting together a crew to build that redneck rocket I'd be signed up for it,"

if you ever get a call from Astrosmith that starts off with "You're not gonna believe this.. but..." you'll know it is going down. He's the first guy I'd call to make it happen.

Blogger CoolHand July 09, 2019 1:23 PM  

@46

Because they pissed all the money they had for design and manufacture away on making sure they had enough darkies and whamens working there on endless and unusable "research".

As has been said above, and as I tried to say myself (although I obviously didn't state it clearly enough), NASA is making lame excuses because their real reasons for not doing anything useful for the last fifty years would enrage nearly anyone who saw it.

We stopped going to the stars so that NASA could be turned into a diversity make-work bureau and all the real money diverted to gibs and graft.

In other words, it was gutted and destroyed by leftists, just like every other good and useful thing our society used to have.

And that reality is why NASA and everyone in the gov't lies like a dog about why we stopped going to space in any meaningful way, because the truth would cause too much of a stink.

Same reason they lie about most things, because if we knew the truth we'd hang them all from lamp posts and stop lights.

Blogger pyrrhus July 09, 2019 1:26 PM  

<Message will repeat every time someone claims we can't build a rocket engine anymore.

As someone memorably wrote, the space program was "remnants of the Old Confederacy riding rockets designed and built by remnants of Nazi Germany..The reusable rocket booster was designed and built by a remnant of Apartheid...After this, there will be no more because America is a communist country, and communists are too stupid for such things."

Blogger Patrick Kelly July 09, 2019 1:30 PM  

Nate wrote:"Nate will never admit a bunch of damn yankees did anything rednecks and whiskey can't do better together."

bzzzt… Huntsville and Houston there sugar britches.



So did they actually do it, or just a bunch of drunk redneck fakers?

Blogger pyrrhus July 09, 2019 1:31 PM  

Without Operation Paperclip, the American space program, and the Saturn V, would not have existed...

Blogger JaimeInTexas July 09, 2019 2:04 PM  

@77. gwood

You still got to put into orbit the hardware and all the fuel needed to get to the Moon ... and back.

It was stupid to get into a race to the Moon by killing the X program, specifically the X-15. IIRC, officially the X-15 did not go into space. Unofficially it may have; we may have had reusable space transport sooner.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 09, 2019 2:06 PM  

NAZIS WENT TO THE MOON AND SET UP PERMANENT BASES. SO WHEN THEY WENT TO WORK FOR NAZA, THEY SABOTAGED THE PROJECT TO KEEP US FROM DISCOVERING THEIR SECRET MOON NAZI MOON BASES.
THAT'S WHY THEY HAD TO FAKE THE MOON LANDINGS.

Blogger Scott July 09, 2019 2:33 PM  

If we went to the moon, why are people defending the landings so doggedly?

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Blogger It July 09, 2019 2:40 PM  

The thing that made me question the moon landing was the distances and speeds involved. ~240,000 miles to the moon, while the launch platform (Earth) is moving in a curved orbit around the sun at 66,600 MPH or whatever. The rocket losing Earth's velocity as it leaves Earth's gravitational field, etc. You'd think the rocket would just as likely end up flying aimlessly into space, and the fact that nobody had done this before means the exact behavior of a spaceship in reality, as opposed to in movies, would be completely unpredictable. The idea of even being able to HIT the moon, let alone safely land three men on it, seemed completely ridiculous.

So I looked into the evidence that man had gone to the moon, or even into space at all. A bunch of obviously fake photos and videos. An awkward press conference, the only one ever done, where the astronauts didn't seem entirely sure if they'd seen any stars. Now we have Buzz's face during that SOTU, and Don Pettit assuring us he'd go back in a nanosecond.

Blogger Eduardo July 09, 2019 2:44 PM  

Funny how the 4k scan has... Wet stars ;-)

Blogger Rhys July 09, 2019 2:47 PM  

See, we definitely went to the moon.

The real conspiracy is that people CLAIM we didn't obviously that's fishy.

Get out of here with muh preponderance of anecdotes.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 09, 2019 2:54 PM  

It wrote:he fact that nobody had done this before means the exact behavior of a spaceship in reality, as opposed to in movies, would be completely unpredictable.
Orbital mechanics has been a well-defined area of physics since Galileo. It's absolutely deterministic. That's how NASA landed a probe on a freaking comet.
Whatever else is sketchy about the moon landings, you picked the one area that is abolutely 200% uncontestably believable. Congratulations.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 09, 2019 2:56 PM  

Scott wrote:If we went to the moon, why are people defending the landings so doggedly?
If we didn't go to the moon, why are people attacking the landings so doggedly?

Blogger It July 09, 2019 3:03 PM  

@112

You and your people can't even define what gravity is or provide substantive evidence that the Earth is moving at all to this day, and when backed into a corner on this by the weight of the scientific evidence that was piling up circa 1900, Einstein made relativity which is a repudiation of the idea the Earth's motion could even be observed and therefore verified scientifically, which on the face of it is a ridiculous cop out. That theory has since been shown to be internally contradictory as well as contradicted by the advances in quantum mechanics, which field has had a profound effect on technological progress since its discovery, while astronomy has produced nothing of practical benefit to anyone in history.

And then you want to tell me that we understood orbital mechanics without having had the opportunity to physically interact with them before this hypothetical journey into what had up to that point been a hypothetical place, outer space? Are you this ignorant?

Blogger Matrick July 09, 2019 3:28 PM  

One Deplorable DT said:

"No problem etc."

Ok, you've convinced me. That appeared to me like the best evidence of fakery, but you debunked it to my satisfaction. Thank you.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 09, 2019 3:34 PM  

It wrote:And then you want to tell me that we understood orbital mechanics without having had the opportunity to physically interact with them before this hypothetical journey into what had up to that point been a hypothetical place, outer space? Are you this ignorant?
What is Newton's first law of motion? Do you even know?
Isaac Newton could have calculated the trajectories of the Moon vehicles, knowing nothing more than their mass and thrust, 400 years ago. The fact that you don't understand this and are confused by it doesn't make it impossible, it merely marks you as stupid. Literally, dumber than a cat, who relies on these calculations implicitly when jumping to the window sill. In fact theya re the exact same calculations made to shoot a basketball, or a cannon. The only differences being the continuing thrust of a rocket engine, as opposed to initial impulse of a basketball or artillery round, and the lack of air drag in space.
The math doesn't require any experience with a specific object, either planetary or mechanical. The only way Relativity comes into it is the requirement that the bodies all work within the same inertial frame of reference (look it up), which is easily true within a single planetary system. Quantum mechanics doesn't come into it at all, as the entire process operates at the macro, not the nano, scale.

In short words so you will understand, you're so stupid you should just stop talking.

Blogger One Deplorable DT July 09, 2019 3:43 PM  

@55 - this is the dumbest comment I've seen since that dude was calling slavs trustworthy...

How exactly does a private corporation going to the moon today prove that a government agency did it 50 years ago?


Elon Musk taking a selfie near an Apollo site implies the Apollo equipment would be visible in the background behind him. If you say "here's a selfie of me at the Grand Canyon" people expect something of the Grand Canyon to be visible behind you.

For the record: SpaceX has not announced a lunar landing mission much less one near an Apollo site with Elon Musk as a passenger. That's speculation on my part, but not an unreasonable speculation given the announced #dearMoon project to orbit the moon using BFR as the launch vehicle and Starship as the spacecraft. Starship is perfectly capable of landing and taking back off from the moon so the next step after orbiting the moon (like Apollo 10) is to land on it.

@114 - You and your people can't even define what gravity is...

You do not have to understand why a physical phenomenon occurs to predict its occurrence, especially when we're talking about phenomenon with the repeatable consistency of the fundamental forces.

...or provide substantive evidence that the Earth is moving at all to this day...

Stellar aberration, stellar parallax, and Doppler effect. Look them up.

@115 - You're welcome.

Blogger OvergrownHobbit July 09, 2019 3:47 PM  

Time for a game of Shibumi.

Blogger Nate July 09, 2019 3:57 PM  

"So did they actually do it, or just a bunch of drunk redneck fakers?"

no. I do not believe they did it. but it is silly to say that it was a yankee operation. it was not.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 09, 2019 4:02 PM  

Nate wrote:but it is silly to say that it was a yankee operation. it was not.
It was a German operation.

Blogger Mr. Bee July 09, 2019 4:24 PM  

As someone who actually worked on Apollo and worked with NASA, I'm disappointed to hear this stupidity being spread about by Vox. It's apparent he's mutated into a cult leader and for whatever reason, thinning out his followers so only the most gullible and subsequently most malleable remain. Adieu.

Blogger It July 09, 2019 4:31 PM  

@116

You're completely ignorant of the history of these questions and of the nature of science as well it seems.

Blogger It July 09, 2019 4:33 PM  

@117

I said substantive evidence.

You can't prove that any of those things occur because the Earth is stationary and the stars moving, the Earth moving but the stars stationary, or everything is moving.

Blogger Uncle John's Band July 09, 2019 4:45 PM  

"As someone who actually worked on Apollo and worked with NASA, I'm disappointed to hear this stupidity being spread about by Vox. It's apparent he's mutated into a cult leader and for whatever reason, thinning out his followers so only the most gullible and subsequently most malleable remain. Adieu."

Tips fedora. Flounces out.

Blogger Eduardo July 09, 2019 4:56 PM  

But, Are we cool looking cultists with robes and hoods or are we zombie-like saying: "Imhotep, Imhotep..." ???

Blogger Engineer-Poet July 09, 2019 4:58 PM  

@75

"Did you sleep through Apollo 13?"

They slept through the Apollo 201 fire as well.  Gus Grissom, Roger Chaffee and Ed White burned to death.  The entire CM was re-engineered before more manned launches were done, and new materials like "beta cloth" were invented to eliminate flammables.

Maybe the problem was that they didn't hire Nazis to design the CM.  Real Nazi rocket scientists would have had experience with things like the Me 163 and know just how dangerous powerful oxidizers are.

Blogger Engineer-Poet July 09, 2019 4:59 PM  

@90

"They look uncomfortable, for which there are multiple possible reasons, and multiple possible lies as well."

Since nobody will go back to the July 1 thread on this subject and approve my comment, I'll just repost it here (link goes to the week-ago thread):

@ 16  There is a very obvious explanation for that "bizarre" behavior.  You can see much the same thing when non-actors try to read prepared statements for the camera.  Most of them come across very stiff.

Test pilots may have massive egos, but they are non-actors.

The obvious explanation is that the NASA press flacks didn't like Armstrong's delivery so they stage-managed it to the Nth degree.  You can see Armstrong's fixed stare during the whole clip.  What was he staring at?  A prompter, with the prepared statement scrolling at a rate controlled by one of those press flacks.  He couldn't read it off any faster than they let him.

Maybe you have the experience to carry something like this off, but chances are you'd probably come across pretty un-natural too if you couldn't even speak at your usual pace.

Blogger One Deplorable DT July 09, 2019 5:08 PM  

@122 - You're completely ignorant of the history of these questions and of the nature of science as well it seems.

You are describing yourself, not Snidely Whiplash.

@123 - You can't prove that any of those things occur because the Earth is stationary and the stars moving, the Earth moving but the stars stationary, or everything is moving.

From the viewpoint of relativity you could propose that Earth is stationary and everything else is moving. You'll have a hell of a time working out the math so everything fits, but you can try.

Apply Occam's Razor to your observations and you'll quickly conclude that the Earth is in motion.

Blogger One Deplorable DT July 09, 2019 5:15 PM  

@127 - well put. Some people are naturals in front of the camera. Others have done it so much that they have become natural. Most people freeze like a deer in the headlights.

Pick a few famous YouTubers and compare their earliest work to today. The difference is often jarring.

I never thought much of the press conference clips pointed to by conspiracy theorists, especially since the astronauts loosened up as the conference went on (thinking of the longer one with the star question). They behaved very much like I would expect pilots to behave when thrust into the limelight.

Blogger Roddie Piper July 09, 2019 5:16 PM  

One of the "recommended" links when I started Firefox today was an article about the 50th anniversary of the Stonewall riots, evidently a more important event than Apollo 11. You gotta admit it was a more accurate foreshadowing of life in 21st-century America.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 09, 2019 5:55 PM  

One Deplorable DT wrote:From the viewpoint of relativity you could propose that Earth is stationary and everything else is moving. You'll have a hell of a time working out the math so everything fits, but you can try.
The Earth doesn't move, within it's inertial frame of reference. That's what these geostationary flat-Earth Downs victims don't understand. By changing the inertial frame of reference, you take a different view of the relationship of the bodies to each other. The basic point is that there is no universal location, only a position in relation to other things.

By choosing the correct frame of reference, you can, for instance, treat the Earth as a stationary body for the purpose of calculating a moon shot. You can change frames at the gravitational equilibrium to the lunar gravitational frame of reference, to calculate the lunar orbit and descent. Once landed, you are using the lunar surface frame, but once you lift off, you again begin using the lunar gravitational frame, switching back to Earth's frame at the gravitational equilibrium, and finally, moving back to the Earth surface frame at some point in descent.

Choosing the correct frame of reference is natural when you think about it. Every parachutist does it twice on every jump. Every skate punk does it every time he steps off his board, every skier when he uses a ski lift. You change frame every time you step on or off an escalator.

Blogger stevo July 09, 2019 6:42 PM  

I wonder what the hell NASA has been spending their massive budget on for all these years

Blogger Nate July 09, 2019 6:43 PM  

"As someone who actually worked on Apollo and worked with NASA, I'm disappointed to hear this stupidity being spread about by Vox. It's apparent he's mutated into a cult leader and for whatever reason, thinning out his followers so only the most gullible and subsequently most malleable remain. Adieu."

Vox has been writing about his moon landing skepticism since 2003.

Mongoloids.. everywhere.

Blogger stevo July 09, 2019 7:15 PM  

Maybe it's just the 50th coming up, but I have noticed that since Owen questioned the moon landing there seems to be a lot of stuff coming out to shore up the original narrative.

Blogger Scott July 09, 2019 7:26 PM  

Snidely, do you deny that NASA faked press photos of astronauts in space, which they have since admitted?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 09, 2019 7:40 PM  

"or everything is moving."

Congratulations 'tard. You just got to where we all started at, more or less. See: Reference frame.

"As someone who actually worked on Apollo and worked with NASA, I'm disappointed to hear this stupidity being spread about by Vox. It's apparent he's mutated into a cult leader and for whatever reason, thinning out his followers so only the most gullible and subsequently most malleable remain. Adieu."

I can't find a perspective from which to do anything other than insult you, so auf weidersehen and you get yourself off of NASA's apron strings, soytoy.

Blogger Sicilian switchblade July 09, 2019 7:53 PM  

There is a better chance that we went to the moon using sorcery and stargates than having used that ridiculous looking "spacecraft" they say got the astronauts there and back. It really does look like some meth addict got ahold of a rivet gun and a pile of scrap and went to work.

The only thing I can be sure of, is the official story isnt true.

Blogger Engineer-Poet July 09, 2019 8:03 PM  

Since nobody else will probably see the late-posted comments in the old thread, I am renewing the offer I made to Stilicho (and anyone else interested):

"Btw how much of the fuel used by Saturn 5 would be needed to move that mass 250k miles and then to establish return orbit?"

You can calculate this yourself if you can properly apply the rocket equation (which is very simple but not intuitively obvious).  The only problem is digging up the numbers to put into it, and getting used to doing things "backwards".  Most of this is not difficult so much as tedious....

If you would like to take a walk through these numbers, I can use a break from my current analysis project anyway and would be happy to host the discussion at The Ergosphere, ergosphere.blogspot.com.  Drop me an e-mail, address is in the right sidebar.

Blogger Engineer-Poet July 09, 2019 8:16 PM  

"There is a better chance that we went to the moon using sorcery and stargates than having used that ridiculous looking "spacecraft" they say got the astronauts there and back."

You seem to have this idea that a "spaceship" has to look like something from a 50's SF magazine cover.  Something that never has to fly in an atmosphere can throw aerodynamics away and be designed for things like, I dunno, stability when landing on uncertain surfaces?  There just might be circumstances where that is important.  And why build to withstand 1 G when you're on a planetoid with gravity of just 1/6 G?

There was one more piece of evidence that we did go to the moon.  The LEM ascent stages were discarded in lunar orbit; they did not come back.  For quite a few years they were still in orbit and presumably could have been detected by radar or maybe even good telescopes, but the lunar mascons perturb orbits and they have all crashed into the moon now.

Blogger Sicilian switchblade July 09, 2019 8:32 PM  

From a fabrication standpoint the "spacecraft" looks like it's made of construction paper and foil wrapper. The panels are wavy and rippled the "rivets" are not even symmetrically spaced. It's difficult to imagine this joke of a craft being the crown jewel of engineering in the 20th century.

A quick look at NASA's official photos of the lunar lander show what appears to be a ladder foil taped to one of the "landing gear." NASA and other gov. agencies lie so often and so poorly I take nothing they say at face value anymore.

I could be mistaken. I'm not married to the idea that it was all faked, but the whole thing really smells like bullcrap.

Blogger It July 09, 2019 8:36 PM  

@128

Sure, but as a proponent of relativity you concede my point. There's no way to scientifically demonstrate that the Earth is moving within the framework of the theory, and you are willing to challenge non-motion of the Earth based on your mathematical framework, not observation. The prediction within the theory is that in every regard the Earth would have the appearance of non-motion to any observational means of investigating the question. As such to claim the Earth is moving is not a scientific statement within the framework of the theory. It is a philosophical one based on an (internally contradictory) mathematical framework.

So here's the question for someone like yourself who is an expert on the history of the science on this question. Why did physics reject the observational science up to that time that points to the Earth being stationary in an absolute sense for a relativistic philosophical framework which says the Earth is moving but can equally validly be interpreted to be stationary, just as it appears to be and behaves in every way? Is there a scientific reason for this, or did they just not want to consider that the Earth is stationary for philosophical reasons?

Blogger Jez July 09, 2019 9:42 PM  

Some commenters would be well-advised to consider that a demonstrable lack of knowledge and understanding of even the basic physical and engineering concepts involved in the moon program might, *just might,* leave them in a very poor position to judge the achievements therein. It's hard to imagine the obstinate pig-headedness required to believe that, despite lacking the knowledge and understanding, you *know better* than the tens of thousands of physicists, engineers, pilots, and technicians who were "fooled" into "thinking it was real."

It's like trying to explain that novels *really* exist to people who haven't yet wrapped their heads around writing *as a concept;* let alone mastered any form of it.

Blogger One Deplorable DT July 09, 2019 9:47 PM  

@141 - So here's the question for someone like yourself who is an expert on the history of the science on this question. Why did physics reject the observational science up to that time that points to the Earth being stationary in an absolute sense...

That's not what observations pointed to, unless you're limiting yourself to the caveman observation of "I don't feel like I'm moving on the ground but the heavenly bodies are moving...hmmm...everything must revolve around me." Observations pointed to an Earth in motion. Relativity, in revealing that "...there is no universal location, only a position in relation to other things (thanks @131 Snidely) made it possible to treat Earth as the stationary center. But only if you concede that there is no "absolute sense" about it. It's just as valid to treat it as being in motion, and the math is far simpler when you do.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 09, 2019 10:19 PM  

Look you moron, first you have to define what you mean by "move". It doesn't mean what you evidently think.

With no fixed inertial frame, motion can only have meaning in terms of the relative motion of multiple bodies in relation to each other. In that case, the motion of any body is only expressable as a vector in relation to the frame.
To say the Earth is moving or not moving without that context is as meaningless as saying you are taller.

BUT every inertial frame of reference is part of a larger frame. The Earth's gravitational frame and the Moon's frame combine to create an inertial frame for the Earth-Moon Binary. If either body is moving in relation to the other, then both bodies are moving in relation to each other and the larger frame. As the Earth and the Moon both rotate around a point somewhere below the surface of the Earth.
Until you can properly define motion, you're a particularly dull-witted ape defending a concept he doesn't understand against answers he also doesn't understand by invoking his own emotional reactions as proof of ... something or other.

Blogger sammibandit July 09, 2019 10:24 PM  

It's hard to imagine the obstinate pig-headedness required to believe that, despite lacking the knowledge and understanding, you *know better* than the tens of thousands of physicists, engineers, pilots, and technicians who were "fooled" into "thinking it was real."

I'm so sorry if it's not but is this a joke about nazi scientists?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 09, 2019 10:39 PM  

As for the cause, it was the discovery that the speed of light is a constant. This is a commonplace now, but it is almost impossible to overstate the impact of that discovery on the world of physics.

Blogger Das67 July 09, 2019 10:40 PM  

I vote for It as "Greatest Troll"... Truly a thing of beauty

Blogger monamala July 09, 2019 10:50 PM  

@One Deplorable DT

>Perhaps there were multiple copies? Perhaps in NASA's original findings "sold" was assumed to be the same as "taped over" since that's what a buyer would normally do? Perhaps both?

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps, perhaps not. It's incredibly easy to see lies when logos is on your side. But more importantly that you can explain anything away when you don't including hammer sounds made in vacuums.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 09, 2019 11:00 PM  

You think that, Das67, if it gives you comfort.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 09, 2019 11:14 PM  

"Sure, but as a proponent of relativity you concede my point. There's no way to scientifically demonstrate that the Earth is moving within the framework of the theory, and you are willing to challenge non-motion of the Earth based on your mathematical framework, not observation."

You are an imbecile.

Seriously. Look up what reference frames are. Until you do, and understand it, you'll continue behaving like an infant throwing a tantrum, spouting streams of obscenely idiotic garbage that you expect us to dig through. You prove repeatedly that you haven't the slightest clue what you're trying to argue about. Fuck off and expect to be ignored.

"Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps, perhaps not. It's incredibly easy to see lies when logos is on your side. But more importantly that you can explain anything away when you don't including hammer sounds made in vacuums."

Stunningly enough, sound carries through media besides air. You know, like the hull of a spacecraft.

It's not hard to parse out "okay there are almost certainly lies" and separate it from "and they must be about X". It's intellectually dishonest to assume one based on the other. If you actually were ordered in your thinking, you wouldn't need this to be pointed out to you. Since you are disordered and attempting to derive results for your chosen conclusion, you didn't notice.

Many words make a fool, and they do so even faster when he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 09, 2019 11:28 PM  

The anti-moon crowd has the unenviable position of being burdened by many, many idiots that see this as their chance to finally shine. This isn't to say that the Moonies lack idiots, because they do not, but they aren't generally going to be that specially unhinged kind who always wanted to step out of line and were just looking for an excuse.

Not to derail the thread, it's much akin to all the loons who glommed into the Protestants as soon as they provided a rationale for leaving the CC. The instant you break from the orthodoxy you become a rallying point for all of the people who just wanted out and didn't actually care how or why. Legit or not, you're gonna look like ass for a while. A general dynamic of rejection of the popular opinion.

Blogger Alexei July 09, 2019 11:53 PM  

"Seems legit"

Yep.

If I learned anything in my Navy and Pentagon time, it was not to underestimate the sheer idiocy of Federal bureaucracy.

This might seem to scream conspiracy, but I have no trouble at all believing NASA was indeed this stupid and incompetent.

Blogger Dirk Manly July 10, 2019 12:24 AM  

@56 Nate

"sugar tits... me and 100 rednecks could recreate the Apollo program for about 150k in todays dollars."


Ken Burns' documentary about how the negro space agency did it

Blogger Dirk Manly July 10, 2019 12:29 AM  

@85

" In one breath the government is an incompetent entity that overwrites tapes and can't figure out how to rebuild rockets it already built, and in the next it's a Machiavellian savant who ruthlessly culls projects based on rate of return and future projections to the level that NASA didn't yield enough percentage points to be deigned worthy of investment. The US government has spent more money on stupider things, the argument that they rationally decided the rate of return wasn't worth it is not sound."

We are talking about politicians here. Other than pissing money away on completely idiotic programs, at which they excel, when it comes to funding projects which bring about advancements in science and technology, they are erratic at best, except when the recipient agency is the US Air Force.

Blogger Dirk Manly July 10, 2019 12:40 AM  

@88

" In one breath the government is an incompetent entity that overwrites tapes and can't figure out how to rebuild rockets it already built, and in the next it's a Machiavellian savant who ruthlessly culls projects based on rate of return and future projections to the level that NASA didn't yield enough percentage points to be deigned worthy of investment. The US government has spent more money on stupider things, the argument that they rationally decided the rate of return wasn't worth it is not sound."

Just remember, all of the engines would be powered by Glocks.

Blogger Dirk Manly July 10, 2019 1:09 AM  

@89

" Look at their body language. Is any of it consistent with guys who did anything, never mind just completed the most amazing accomplishment in human history?

Or do they look like three guys feeling very uncomfortable because they're lying?"

That's the same impression I get -- they're deep into a lie and can't get out.


The crucial question is this -- WHAT are they lying about, and is it a lie of commision (making shit up that didn't happen) or a lie of omission (omitting important information [like say, extraterrestrial life contact, "because classified!!!]).

@93

"I would not be surprised at all to have it tally up as several hundred hours of footage, with a great lot of it being boring as hell."

Film is bulky. A standard reel only holds ~18 minutes. The more film you take, the greatere the requirement for compartment area INSIDE the radiation shielding = more weight. Therefore, the ONLY time you're running cameras is if you expect something interesting or entertaining (golfing!) to happen.

@109

"The thing that made me question the moon landing was the distances and speeds involved. ~240,000 miles to the moon, while the launch platform (Earth) is moving in a curved orbit around the sun at 66,600 MPH or whatever. The rocket losing Earth's velocity as it leaves Earth's gravitational field, etc. You'd think the rocket would just as likely end up flying aimlessly into space, and the fact that nobody had done this before means the exact behavior of a spaceship in reality, as opposed to in movies, would be completely unpredictable. The idea of even being able to HIT the moon, let alone safely land three men on it, seemed completely ridiculous."

Easily solved with Newtonian physics and differential equations. It's obvious you've never even signed up for a calculus class, let alone attended, let alone passed one. Ditto on 1st semester physics. It ain't nearly as difficult as you think. In fact, that basic problem (in generic form) was one problem out of a homework set when at took AAE (Aeronautics and Astronautics Engineering) 203 midway through the semester. This was a sophomore level course. The problem can be solved without differential equations by use of vector calculus and first semester (Newtonian) Physics and the "laws of motion."

Solving the problem (what angle A to launch at, given engine thrust, rotational speed (A') and diameter of the body being launched from at the latitude of the launch point, distance to the target body, and orbital position (theta) and orbital speed (theta') of the body orbiting the body being launched from, along with the gravitational constants for the two bodies.

Vector Calculus turns a lot of REALLY hairy problems into elegant, easily visualized and solved equations.

Blogger Dirk Manly July 10, 2019 1:33 AM  

@114

"And then you want to tell me that we understood orbital mechanics without having had the opportunity to physically interact with them before this hypothetical journey into what had up to that point been a hypothetical place, outer space? Are you this ignorant?"

Dude, I was a student of the woman (Professor Kathleen Howell) who invented the "slingshot" method of sending space probes to the outer planets at much higher speeds than we could do by merely launching towards them and using whatever fuel could be launched to increase the volocity due the the acceleration from the thrust provided by the engines in the prime movers.

She was in charge of everything having to do with the launch and flight paths of the Galileo probes (I and II) getting to Jupiter.
[Compare the flight paths of the Voyager probes -- launched in 1977 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_program#/media/File:Voyager_Path.svg with Howell's flight path for Galileo, using gravitational assists from Venus, Earth (twice), allowed Galileo to reach sufficient velocity to reach Jupiter (but at 2x the time needed) while still having enough fuel on board to decelerate so as to go into Jupiter's orbit and become a satellite of Jupiter (for about 8 years).

How do I know Howell worked it out the equations for doing this sort of thing? It's her PhD thesis. And you don't get a PhD in Aero or Astro Engineering, for repeating what somebody else has already done.

She's one of the 2, maybe 3 women I've met who are smarter than me.


What you're saying is impossible is laughably trivial to ANYBODY WHOSE EDUCATION goes beyond high school trigonometry.

And as for Relativity (both Special Relativity and General Relativity), those only come into play when an object is moving at velocities greater than 1% of the speed of light. Nothing of the kind going on here...and the moon landings would require even less velocity than the Galileo and Voyager probes.

As for Quantum Dynamics... dude, that stuff only matters at distances LESS THAN THE DIAMETER OF AN ATOMIC NUCLEUS.... literally 0.00000000000000000000001 meters or so (give or take a factor of 1000)

Blogger Dirk Manly July 10, 2019 1:50 AM  

@141

"So here's the question for someone like yourself who is an expert on the history of the science on this question. Why did physics reject the observational science up to that time that points to the Earth being stationary in an absolute sense for a relativistic philosophical framework which says the Earth is moving but can equally validly be interpreted to be stationary, just as it appears to be and behaves in every way? Is there a scientific reason for this, or did they just not want to consider that the Earth is stationary for philosophical reasons?"

It makes the starting mathematical equations 100x simpler, dufus.
Simpler equations are more elegant
And in the "hard" sciences and engineering, in almost every situation, when comparing two alternative equations to calculate the same thing, to the same degree of accuracy, with the same number of factors, the theory or model that leads to the more elegant equation is almost always much much much closer to the truth of things than the theory or model that requires the more complicated equation.

See: Predicting the position of a planet in the sky, using the Geo-Centric model (orbits + epicycles and deferens) vs.
EVERYTHING revolves around the sun, including the Earth, which is also rotating.

Blogger Dirk Manly July 10, 2019 1:56 AM  

@148

"But more importantly that you can explain anything away when you don't including hammer sounds made in vacuums. "

You neglect that there was a conducting path through solid and semi-solid media ...from the hammer, to the pole, to the moon surface, to the astronaut's boot, through his body, to his hand, holding the camera.

And that conductive path would be a far BETTER sonic conductive path than air. Spend some time an an anechoic chamber and you'll see that the direct path conduction of air at approximately standard pressure and temperature is pretty lousy. You can barely hear anything, and ONLY when you have a direct "line of sight" between the source of the sound and your ear.

Blogger God Emperor Memes July 10, 2019 4:25 AM  

I don't believe the speed of light has been proven to be a constant. The fact that light can be slowed under laboratory conditions shows that C is not immutable, does it not?

Blogger JaimeInTexas July 10, 2019 10:06 AM  

@149. Snidely Whiplash

If the cosmic egg hypothesis is correct, was it a perfect sphere? Even if not, there is/was (?) a center? That center is unknown, maybe non-existent. Until such universal center location can be identified we can only use whatever most logical and consistent point of reference to determine our position.

I wonder if OneDeplorableDT ever jerked up and hard pressed his car break thinking he was moving backwards, when in reality he was stationary and the car to his left moving forward.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 10, 2019 11:01 AM  

JaimeInTexas wrote:I wonder if OneDeplorableDT ever jerked up and hard pressed his car break thinking he was moving backwards, when in reality he was stationary and the car to his left moving forward.
That's the whole point. His car WAS moving, but in relation to the other car, but not to the ground.

Blogger JaimeInTexas July 10, 2019 11:41 AM  

@162
I agree to a point. Hitting the breaks on the car moving backwards in this instance is pointless.

We are in agreement.

Blogger Charles July 10, 2019 11:59 AM  

Comment #27, by ADS, succinctly provides answers to what the NoMoon people believe. But the NoMoon people will not believe it because their belief is an emotional one, not intellectual. If you desire not to believe it, no amount of truth will sway you.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 10, 2019 1:10 PM  

JaimeInTexas wrote:I agree to a point. Hitting the breaks on the car moving backwards in this instance is pointless.


As I said above, moving in relation to what? Motion is a spatial relationship to another body, not an absolute.

Blogger Engineer-Poet July 10, 2019 1:31 PM  

@140 "From a fabrication standpoint the "spacecraft" looks like it's made of construction paper and foil wrapper. The panels are wavy and rippled the "rivets" are not even symmetrically spaced."

Of course it's wavy.  What you see is largely "thermal blanket" and meteoroid shield; it's not rigid.  Here is an overview of the LM construction:

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM04_Lunar_Module_ppLV1-17.pdf

The bulk of the blanket is aluminized mylar, but the outermost layer is gold-coated for better IR reflection.

"It's difficult to imagine this joke of a craft being the crown jewel of engineering in the 20th century."

The Russians practice the kind of steel-plate construction you appear to like, and as a consequence the N1 rocket required more than 10 million pounds of thrust to fly the mission that the Saturn V did with about 3/4 as much.  What you find difficult to imagine is that rocket scientists might just dispose of things they don't need for the mission.  Others are not so limited.  "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery

The LM design is full of clever optimizations.  For instance, a bubble canopy like a helicopter's would have been far too heavy to carry along, not to mention allowing way too much heat into the cabin.  Ditto standard pilot seats.  But somebody realized that the maximum acceleration of the LM was only about 1 G.  The LM crew could fly it standing up, with their faces right up against some much smaller, lighter windows.  And so they did.

"I could be mistaken."

Ya think?

"the whole thing really smells like bullcrap."

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can see." - Arthur Schopenhauer

I find it very ironic that we live in an age of instantly-accessible information, yet we have people making declarations contrary to easily proven facts.  As for why this matters:

"Let's go back to the moon!" = Make America Great Again

"We never went to the moon; it was all fake." = America is a racist, sexist fraud that does not deserve to exist.

You know which side of that I'm on.

@142 Exactly.

@160 What's constant is speed of light in a vacuum.

Blogger One Deplorable DT July 10, 2019 3:32 PM  

@161 JaimeInTexas - I wonder if OneDeplorableDT ever jerked up and hard pressed his car break thinking he was moving backwards, when in reality he was stationary and the car to his left moving forward.

I'm assuming in this scenario that at the start both cars are stationary relative to each other and to the ground. Ignoring the obvious visual clues which would indicate which car was moving in relation to the ground, my body, like yours, can detect accelerated motion (i.e. a curved trajectory through spacetime). So no, I've never slammed the brake when my car was stationary in relation to the ground because another car started moving forward in relation to my car. I can see the ground, and I can observe that my body is not pitching forward which would occur if my car was accelerating backwards.

Blogger JaimeInTexas July 10, 2019 4:15 PM  

@167
Not necessarily.

You were stationary relative to ground, got distracted (looked down at your phone/radio, whatever) and caught movement with corner of eyes and thought you were moving when in fact it was the next car that was moving (relative to ground).

A few months ago I was at an automated car wash, was reading something, and had an "oh crap" press the break hard (already in park). It was the machinery that was moving backwards (yes, relative to ground) and not my car that decided to launch forward (relative to ground).

Blogger Ominous Cowherd July 10, 2019 5:08 PM  

Engineer-Poet wrote:"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery

That makes sense for aircraft and spacecraft.

Blogger One Deplorable DT July 10, 2019 6:13 PM  

@168 - A few months ago I was at an automated car wash, was reading something, and had an "oh crap" press the break hard (already in park). It was the machinery that was moving backwards (yes, relative to ground) and not my car that decided to launch forward (relative to ground).

You reacted based on misleading visual cues despite the absence of acceleration force. People sometimes do that because we don't feel small accelerations very strongly, and our mind can place confidence in misleading visual cues given the lack of a strong contradictory sensation of acceleration. (Heck, the human mind being what it is, strong enough visual clues can trigger the sensation even if it's not there. On the flip side, given that all of our sensations are imperfect sometimes the visual cues are correct and the sensations of acceleration are off.)

If you had been watching the readout of a very sensitive and precise accelerometer in your car you would have known that it was the machinery's trajectory through spacetime which was changing and not yours.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 10, 2019 6:19 PM  

"You were stationary relative to ground, got distracted (looked down at your phone/radio, whatever) and caught movement with corner of eyes and thought you were moving when in fact it was the next car that was moving (relative to ground)."

You also need to look up reference frame. In this case, you're acting like the only valid frame is from the ground, while in reality the frames from your car and the other car are equally valid.

Blogger Unknown July 10, 2019 7:23 PM  

One Deplorable DT wrote:@4

...

Claim #2: If the brightness of this image increased in a graphics editor, strange angular ‘shadows’ appear around the astronaut (Fig.3)...Behind the astronaut the background is black, and behind the flag it is purple. What does this mean? It indicates that the astronaut and the flag were shot with different backgrounds.

Here is a link to the 4k scan available on Flickr. I tried shoving brightness to max in Photoshop. When that didn't produce anything like his image I pushed brightness further with a second adjustment using levels. My final result was brighter than his with more clipped highlights. But there are no angular shadows and there is no purple noise halo in that scan. The only variation in the background is quite obviously the result of flare off the spacesuit and flag. There is zero evidence of a composite image or of different backgrounds.

I would like to give the author the benefit of the doubt and chalk his results up to a bad or highly compressed digital file, which could explain purple noise like he claims to have found. But his angular shadows are fake as can be and have no innocent explanation. Which leads me to believe that he is a liar and a fraud.


Agree with you on claim one; It looks like something you might take while struggling in a suit that inhibits fine motor control, skewed horizon and all. Some of my pictures com out like that and I've never worn a spacesuit.

About claim two: I had already had the idea to try adjusting the brightness myself before I saw your comment. So my results follow.
Starting with the image at https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasacommons/9460240874/
I edit with GIMP, so under "Brightness and Contrast" I adjusted brightness to 75. At this point the angular "shadows" are visible by careful examination.
Then, under "Enhance" I apply the sharpen tool, Amount 40, leaving radius alone. My resulting image clearly shows the resulting "shadows".
My result

What does it mean? Dunno. I'm just a guy with a camera and a free image editing tool. I don't make my living from photography, and I've certainly never taught it. It does appear that one of the images Nasa is distributing from the Apollo missions has been edited, although whether this was to improve an existing image, to compose a shot that they wanted but couldn't get framed on the moon, or because they didn't go to the moon can't be determined from one image. (but there is evidence that someone is lying about the nature of this photo)

Blogger One Deplorable DT July 10, 2019 10:20 PM  

@172 - About claim two: I had already had the idea to try adjusting the brightness myself before I saw your comment. So my results follow.
Starting with the image at https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasacommons/9460240874/


That's not the original film scan. Using PS I can confirm that the image you used contains those artifacts. But the original film scan at the Flickr link I posted does not contain those artifacts. Using the original film scan, as you push brightness you clearly see flare and what I believe to be a hint of scanner noise which appears as a green tint in the blacks. The green tint could also be due to color bias in the film itself. Nothing else. Go ahead and try it in GIMP to confirm.

My initial thought was that the image you used was auto generated by Flickr for web display. But that doesn't explain the dramatic difference in contrast or the cropping of the left and bottom edges where the original scan includes the film edges. A person processed the image you used. And whoever it was they butchered the original film scan, sacrificing both highlight and shadow detail for the sake of more 'dramatic' contrast.

I have not reproduced their exact steps from the original scan, but it looks to me like those angular shadows represent a bad lasso job. They did a sloppy job selecting the astronaut to apply a separate adjustment from the rest of the image, and that adjustment clipped the background within the selection to pure black. The purple noise is likely due to a color adjustment which shifted and/or clipped the color channels.

It's also possible the processed version was produced a long time ago with steps involving much older techniques. Maybe the image was literally cut, adjusted in pieces, and put back together. But whenever and however it was produced, the reason doesn't appear to be nefarious. Someone wanted more contrast, saturation, and 'punch.'

Having cleared that up, I have to retract the following statement: I would like to give the author the benefit of the doubt and chalk his results up to a bad or highly compressed digital file, which could explain purple noise like he claims to have found. But his angular shadows are fake as can be and have no innocent explanation. Which leads me to believe that he is a liar and a fraud.

I called Leonid Konovalov a liar and a fraud assuming the differences in his image were intentionally caused by him. They clearly were not. He made the mistake of using a processed image rather than the original scan and his entire assessment is therefore false. But there is no reason to assume he did so maliciously, and I retract my statement about him being a liar and a fraud.

I doubt he's here or would ever read this, but it's not right to leave that out there based on my initial false belief of the source of the edits.

Blogger JaimeInTexas July 10, 2019 10:37 PM  

@170 @171
the windshield has soap and cannot be seen through, the car is vibrating because of the spinning brushes.

Another everyday point of reference example are people not paying attention to the speedometer and accelerate, thinking they are slowing down when, in fact I am going faster and passing.

Blogger It July 11, 2019 12:37 AM  

@143

Yes, our everyday experience of the Earth is an observational point unambiguously in favor of a stationary Earth. The evidence I was actually referring to was tests like Airy's failure and Michelson-Morley. The latter was the straw that broke the camel's back and made relativity necessary to salvage the heliocentric theory. While its result could not refute the idea that the Earth was rotating on an axis, the result was totally incompatible with the heliocentric theory's larger motions unless the previous metaphysic of absolute motion was discarded in favor of a logically self-contradictory and scientifically unjustifiable relative one.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 11, 2019 10:17 AM  

By the time of the Michelson Morley experiment, no serious person believed the heliocentric theory.

Look, just give it up. Nobody cares what you think. You obviously don't understand topic, and you're a moron. I've been reading your comments for 2 days now, and I haven't seen you post one smart thing.
"Every time you start to talk, I just feel tired all over."

Blogger Unknown July 11, 2019 1:26 PM  

One Deplorable DT wrote:@172 - About claim two: I had already had the idea to try adjusting the brightness myself before I saw your comment. So my results follow.

Starting with the image at https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasacommons/9460240874/


That's not the original film scan. Using PS I can confirm that the image you used contains those artifacts.

I tried the same procedure with your link this morning, and notice no artifacts. Results here.

It's also possible the processed version was produced a long time ago with steps involving much older techniques. Maybe the image was literally cut, adjusted in pieces, and put back together.But whenever and however it was produced, the reason doesn't appear to be nefarious. Someone wanted more contrast, saturation, and 'punch.'

This image shows a lot more detail, particularly in the reflection of the helmet. You can even see Cernan squatting as he takes the picture.

This really makes curious why the image was edited, and distributed on a Nasa account, especially since it removes detail. Personally, the scan is the more visually impressive image to me. Nasa really aren't doing themselves any favors.

Having cleared that up, I have to retract the following statement: ...
Likewise, hence my checking of the image at your link.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts