Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,203 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 294,999
Pageviews Today: 382,403Threads Today: 101Posts Today: 1,488
03:27 AM

Back to Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
Back to Thread
Message Subject My Husband Directed The Fake Moon Landing Says Stanley Kubrick's Widow.
Poster Handle nomuse (not logged in)
Post Content
The official story is that NASA skipped testing the all-important Lunar Module on which the lives of the "astronauts" depended. Was the head of NASA a murderer or a faker?

[link to en.wikipedia.org]
The first unmanned LM flight was planned for April 1967, but because of development delays did not occur until January 22, 1968 when the Apollo 5 flight launched the LM-1 atop a Saturn IB for propulsion systems testing in low Earth orbit. A second unmanned test flight of LM-2 was originally planned, but canceled as unnecessary.

The first manned LM flight was also delayed, planned for Apollo 8 in December 1968 but not occurring until Apollo 9 using LM-3 on March 3, 1969 to test the LM's systems, separation and docking in low Earth orbit. Apollo 9 had been planned as a second manned, higher Earth orbit practice flight, but this was cancelled to keep the program timeline on track.

Apollo 10, launched on May 18, 1969, was a "dress rehearsal" for the lunar landing, practicing all phases of the mission except powered descent initiation through takeoff [i.e., what it was actually supposed to do]. The LM descended to 47,400 feet (14.4 km) above the lunar surface, then jettisoned the descent stage and used its ascent engine to return to the CSM.

If an engineer actually wanted a successful mission without murdering the passengers, he would demand thorough testing of the single most critical component.

On the other hand, if an evil engineer wanted to fool the public with an inadequate crucial component, he would deliberately minimize public testing of that component so as not to make its inadequacies obvious.
 Quoting: Skeptic the First


From the standpoint of a hoax, Apollo 10 is as easy -- or even easier -- to hoax than Apollo 11.

There is no technical reason not to claim that Apollo 10 performed whatever would be perceived as appropriate rehearsal. The purported hoax is not constrained to report Apollo 10 exactly as it took place, and then begin lying during Apollo 11.

Consider that the problem may not lie with the program or with the muddle-headed, contradictory conspiracy you have constructed, but with your own expectations.

Regardless of your own spin, the descent engine was fired, the ascent engine fired, the guidance computer and RCS systems were tested. The only thing not tested in lunar conditions were the descent radar and the shock absorbers.

(And, indeed, the radar was almost a problem for Apollo 11 -- or, rather, the approach radar, which had been accidentally left on and caused interrupts which flashed up an error message on the AGC.)
Please verify you're human:

Reason for copyright violation: