Moon Landing Hoax Apollo 17 : Astronauts See Stagehands in The Ceiling Holding Hoses(Wires)

In about 1981 I took a computer programming class in Fortran. We had a state-of-the-art Cray Supercomputer at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks, courtesy of Uncle Money Bags Ted Stevens. The first day of class we went to see this miraculous machine. It took up half the ground floor of a large buildiing and had to be kept at a very specific temperature and we all had to wear shoe and hair covers and etc. etc. The only way to connect with this machine was from about two dozen terminals hardwired into it. The only thing you could do with it was write programming code and crunch numbers. It was slow and prone to malfunctions. This was twelve years already after the 'moon landings'. I tend to think the astronauts were really actors too. . .

Again the assumption that massive computing power is necessary, and it must be on the spacecraft to be useful. Where does this assumption come from? Was there a spate of SF movies or television shows in which the starships were utterly helpless without their massive computers?

Ballistics is a significant computing task, and in all applications requiring a high degree of accuracy have used some sort of computer. Which, in naval gunnery and the dropping of bombs, was accomplished through the 50's with ANALOG computers. In fact, largely mechanical computers.

(And in a strange linkage of fact and fancy, one of these complex gun director mechanisms became the base of the first motion-controlled camera rig, the direct precursor to the Dykstraflex of Star Wars).

Planetary orbits were calculated by hand through the centuries, and calculated very quickly on-the-spot with the fancy navigational tools of early Arab sea-farers.

The basics of the Hohman Transfer, and the orbital dynamics necessary to get a spacecraft to the Moon, were worked out on paper...even a writer like Jules Verne could get most of the numbers right (the main errors he makes are in skipping atmospheric resistance, and hand-waving the effect on his astronauts of the required acceleration. Once you accept his starting velocity, the trajectory works out).

It doesn't take a super-computer to work out how to get to the Moon.

However, computers can make this task much simpler. In the case of the Apollo craft itself, it was designed as a fly-by-wire; a computer is used to track the moment-by-moment orientation and correct it with reaction thrusters, during orientation-critical events like landing on the surface.

It would be more difficult to do Apollo completely without digital computers. Even more difficult to do without the robust and mature technology of analog and mechanical computers. But that is not the same as saying it is only possible with computers arbitrarily more advanced then what they had.


That's an interesting question. If you wish to claim that Apollo was impossible because the computers available were too slow, had too little memory, or whatever -- what are your PRECISE qualifications, and when do they become available?

Does, in your mind, Apollo only become possible when your chips break the gigahertz barrier? Do you know that the imbedded computing in most of your domestic devices, such as your car, and of course a great many guided missiles, and even some very advanced NASA robotics, are clunking along in the tens of kilohertz range? I use a family of devices which doesn't clock any higher than 20 kHz, and for most applications is dialed down to 8 or even 4. They are entirely sufficient for surprisingly complex tasks.

Or perhaps your magic litmus test is component density (aka mass versus performance). Is Apollo impossible at the IC level, impossible at the LSI level, and suddenly becomes possible when you reach VLSI? Or is it RAM? Please state the target RAM that Apollo would not be possible without.



In a way this is a good argument, because it is a quantifiable argument. The problem is, the hoax believer who says "The computers weren't good enough" has made ZERO effort to quantify what the required computing tasks are. He also generally has no experience in task-specific computing; his only familiarity is with the style of program development that comes from working within a powerful general-purpose machine with an existing architecture to leverage (aka OS and device drivers, and general code libraries).

They'd only spent a DECADE lifting several DOZEN men from the surface of Earth, putting them into space, letting them spacewalk, and getting them back home safely. And not a few of those men died.



Yes, what would it look like if a rocket blew up on the pad? Whoops. Went through several years of that. What about astronaut deaths? Nope. Had that too. How about the worst-case scenario; a pad fire on the nearly-completed moon rocket, that took the lives of three of the men who had been picked to go to the Moon and had been widely interviewed and paraded in public...and at least one of whom was already an astronaut-hero of other missions?

Nope. Had that too.




You've never served, nor been around people who work in dangerous occupations, I take it. Your lack of experience in the emotions of real people who do difficult and dangerous jobs reflects on you, not on them.

Ah, and you're one of the special, chosen ones who are blessed with the intellect and insight to understand what is most vehemently not hidden! I applaud your humility sir!

That's good. When do you start?

They didn't do it six times in 1969. You obviously don't know enough to be qualified to comment.

The eyes collectively glaze over in Moon Hoax land.

The Apollo Doubters never seem to know about Mercury and Gemini. Or Ranger and Pioneer. (Or Luna!) And they don't seem to realize there were Apollo missions before 11. Heck -- a lot of them don't seem to realize there were Apollo missions OTHER than 11!

It's a basic problem in hoax-ville. A bad idea can be expressed in four words. To explain why it isn't so takes thousands.

(In large part, because the wrong idea is also based on misapprehensions of basic science -- so before you even start explaining how a certain engine burn actually worked, you have to explain GRAVITY. You end up with a fifteen-page lecture on elementary optics before you and the hoax-pusher are even in the same room and ready to discuss the "anomalies" in a photograph.)

The same thing happens all over hoax-ville.

When you talk to the Creotards, all they have to say is "Show me the 'missing link' between dinosaur and bird." To answer their "simple" question you have to provide detailed anatomical linkages between a hundred-odd species.

Which they will usually reject.

In fact, that's the true sorrow of this sort of debate. Which is that the OP in most of these threads isn't interested in discussion. He's made up his mind and wants everyone reading to applaud his intelligence and integrity. So if anyone actually takes the challenge he offers, he will duck away. And a few days later, on some OTHER thread, there's the OP again...only this time he's claiming "And no-one has ever tried to answer my questions!"

Nixon actually had a backup speech for the eventuality of the LEM engines not restarting. I actually think it was quite beautiful, but it's better that he didn't have to use it, lol!
[link to news.bbc.co.uk]

Now, imagine that you're an astronaut in the Apollo Program. You're a fighter jock, a test pilot. You're a man's man, with brass balls and a macho image to uphold. In addition to that, you are now on the moon. Your ride home is an essentially untested vehicle, you're protected only by a pressure suit, and you only have a few hours to do what you came for. I think clowning around is a great way to deal with stress. It's actually very common in the military, which the vast majority of astronauts are.

Military was my first thought, too. We had a lot of black humor in the 82d Airborne. We knew full well that in any kind of conventional warfare, we were nothing but an under-armed infantry without armor or artillery support, hung out to dry under a small nylon parachute.

But it happens across the service. The very first instructor I had in demolitions used to stroll back and forth across the TOP of the protective berm before a shot....singing "The worms crawl in, the worms crawl out..!"

They are talking about cycling a fan in the peeing on the rover vid, that is what the "flow" conversation is about.

Then, they are talking about the beeping "tone" that hurts.

Now, the thing is, watch the dirt as they walk back and forth in the shot. Then, go outside and kick some dirt. Looks just like back on earth. Watch how the dust settles...it doesn't go flying very far what for being kicked by a full grown, earth muscled man in a very much reduced grav area...does it?

You were were a wind-dummy? Proud to know you! I'm a squid myself, more specifically, a snipe.

Part of it must be a generational thing. How many bright kids who grew up watching the space program in the sixties think it was fake? Now it's ancient history. Now you have an explosion of image and video technology with a wide-open, unfiltered delivery system. On the one hand, the newer generations are used to the idea of realistic looking "fake" images, on the other hand they seem to be losing the ability to discern. The criterion for acceptance appears to be belief rather than objective analysis. Paradoxically, you have people on a site like this rejecting real video evidence despite all attempts at reasoning with them, while simultaneously accepting clearly spurious recordings and theories without scrutiny.

Exposing Apollo

Serious problems in the Valley of Taurus-Littrow – Part One

[link to www.aulis.com]

The article claims that the LM stays in virtually the same orientation in all three pictures." But it doesn't. If you look at the details on the LEM you can easily see that the three shots are taken from three different places and match the change in perspective for the flag and the background.

I watched the clips, and I could not see any gaffs.

However I question the validity of some videos and stills, but my biggest concern is why particularly Neil Armstrong (and other astronauts) seem to speak in riddles. On his rare appearances, and speeches (he's been reclusive for years) Neil seems remorseful, reticent and rather melancholic. Many use careful words when discussing their experience, always talking about "their trip to the moon" rather than describe the detail of the decent to the lunar surface, the difficulty of the tasks, the blast off from the surface, redocking with the command module etc. etc.

With more and more countries sending up craft to survey the moon, it can only be a matter of time before photographs of the landing sites are released. It would be extremely difficult to make convincing fakes, that match the images taken 40 years ago.

Surely countries planning surveys of the surface must be tempted to peek at the landing sites. What is there still to see? Why are countries spending time and effort on this. Much like the space lab, the whole idea of space travel is pointless, a waste of money.

For Governments that are telling us that we must all reduce the use of fossil fuels, because we are in imminent danger of destroying our planet; putting humans in space is totally FUCKING retarded. We are hundreds of years away from getting a man on Mars let alone to the next solar system (wherever it may be) The nearest star is 4 light years away! Think about it for a second!

The idea of NASA, and the space station, is obscene, if we are to believe what we are being told about global warming, let alone the coming end to global financial system.

People, keep drinking the Kool Aid!

And think about it--if the whole thing was fake, why the hell would they bother to take THREE photos from the same spot and rearrange things in between? Why would they produce all the massive amounts of photos, audio recordings and data which supposedly contain all these giveaway errors? Why wouldn't they have limited it to just what they needed as evidence? Why would they have released all this material which is supposedly obviously fake?

They're interested in the Helium-3 for one thing.


[link to www.technologyreview.com]

TimOsman, space exploration and colonization may be what saves us! Once we figure efficient fusion power, Helium 3 will be the new petroleum. The surface of the moon is a great place to get He3. The upper atmosphere of Jupiter would be even better.

Using raw material from the asteroid belt, we could build orbital habitats, which could solve our population and food production problems.

Plus, I'm pretty sure someone will put a man on Mars by 2040 at latest. Probably either China or India.

Dang, you beat me to it!

my biggest concern is why particularly Neil Armstrong (and other astronauts) seem to speak in riddles.

Maybe you should take it up with Buzz Aldrin!:)

[link to www.youtube.com]

I love that video! Dude definitely deserved it.

Yes he certainly did.

But there are many such snake oil salesmen operating on this site.

They deserve no less recompense.

I don't condone assaulting anyone. But it is kind of pathetic the way they keep trying to ambush Aldrin who has been willing to talk to people and is, after all, an old man.

He's a great American hero.

I love retards.

Please someone from Fake Landing Believers please answer this one question:
if the Moon landings were faked, how come the Soviets were not telling it to the world and completely destroying USA image, exposing them as fakers and liars?

What we need is a suitable court case that can subpoena all evidence and extract sworn testimony from all witnesses. The general rule in any potential criminal investigation (such as the misuse of moon landing funds for a hoax) is to start at the bottom: with the evidence most likely to have escaped tampering or destruction, and the people least likely to commit perjury. Then work your way up, offering complete or partial immunity at one level in order to incriminate the next higher level.

Otherwise, future generations will treat the alleged moon landings the same way we treat the alleged discovery of America by St. Brendan the Navigator and his crew of altarboys.

For the same reason that President (and now Prime Minister) Putin has never publicly challenged the Bush Administration's fish story about 911:

Expose a lie, and you get some quickly passing satisfaction. But blackmail the liar, and you get a source of wealth and power for years to come.

In general, one's attitude about the alleged moon landing is dependent on one's attitude toward 911.

Those who blindly believe that wealthy, powerful people are always virtuous have no choice: They must believe whatever the politicians, the military-industrial complex, and the mainstream media tell them.

Those who follow Jesus of Nazareth and cling to the American Constitution and Bill of Rights know that wealth and power tend to corrupt, and therefore the wealthy and powerful will tend to lie, cheat, and steal whenever they can do so unchecked by a critical citizenry.