Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,423 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 247,896
Pageviews Today: 385,418Threads Today: 131Posts Today: 2,751
04:08 AM


Back to Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
Back to Thread
REPORT COPYRIGHT VIOLATION IN REPLY
Message Subject My Husband Directed The Fake Moon Landing Says Stanley Kubrick's Widow.
Poster Handle nomuse (not logged in)
Post Content
IF it was compartmentalized as you say, then everybody else involved designed, built and tested equipment capable of going to the Moon. So why not go?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 14143765

Your logic is faulty on two counts.

1) The #1 difference between reality and fakery is that reality would have risked the lives of the celebrity "astronauts." Even if NASA had had equipment theoretically capable of carrying humans to the moon and back, President Nixon (of mass-murdering Vietnam War infamy) could not take the political chance of another celebrity multi-death "accident"--it would have entirely killed the space program, on which the military-industrial-intelligence complex had come to depend.
 Quoting: Skeptic the First


Why were they celebrities, then? Are you saying it was not under NASA's control -- that regardless of who they put in the craft, they would instantly become a "celebrity" too dangerous to expose to risk?

Why didn't this happen during the Mercury program? When did John Glenn become too well known to risk? Before or after his first flight?

What went wrong for Grissom, Chaffee, and White? Were they not well enough known to be "celebrities" before the Apollo 1 fire? Was Grissom's earlier flights insufficient? Was getting picked for the first Moon landing (because this was the leading crew at the time) not enough?

Or was this an honest accident, not a cover-up at all?

I'd be interested to hear how you reconcile this.


2) Compartmentalization does not mean that all of the components were fit for purpose; but rather, that those working on the fit-for-purpose components would be unaware of the inadequacies of other components.

The most obvious candidate for an unfit component was the Lunar Module (LM). The very idea that one might risk human lives on a contraption that had never been tested in the entirely alien environment in which it was supposed to operate is utterly ludicrous to any engineer who is not a mass murderer himself.

 Quoting: Skeptic the First


So your argument is that 9 groups were compartmentalized and made "parts" that worked anyhow, but 1 group of the ten was in on the hoax and made a part that wouldn't work?

You are aware, I hope, that all these parts actually had to fit together, right?

And by the by, you are wrong about the lack of testing. To be precise, you are lying about it; because you have had the testing program explained to you in detail before. You aren't being a skeptic here and engaging in query; you are being a debater here and trying to sway the opinions of others -- by carefully omitting facts you know might harm your case.

The LM, of course, is not a "component." It is an assembly, including the AGC developed at MIT, the airframe built by Grumman, the APS built by -- I think it was Thiokol but I'd have to look it up -- and so on and so forth. Although Grumman did the final assembly, over a hundred different companies supplied elements and at least half of them had people come out and work on the final craft.

There isn't a point at which yellow tape is thrown around the LM, and all the monitors connected to it, and all the documentation attached to it, and all the simulators for it, with a big sign saying "Grumman Top Secret Compartmentalized Fake LM Team Access Only, All Others Denied."



The United States has never landed a craft on another celestial body and returned it safely to earth--unless you count the "moon landings." Not before 1969, and not since.

The United States has never sent a mammal beyond near-earth orbit, returned it to earth, and verified its good health--again, unless you count the "moon landings." Not before 1969, and not since.
 Quoting: Skeptic the First


Are you including robotic sample-return missions?

Since you are so hung up on specific meanings in language, I have to ask if "United States" and "Celestial Body" are both necessary and inclusive.

Do you doubt that the Soviets (as opposed to the US) DID succeed in landing on another celestial body and returning to Earth? Do you doubt, to be be specific, Luna 16?

And do you doubt that the US ever sent a craft into space and returned it safely WITHOUT landing on another celestial body?

I would like to plumb the exact extent of your denial.
 
Please verify you're human:




Reason for copyright violation: