For Those of You Who Enjoy Science Fiction

[Duane Daman]

"I understand why conspiracy theorists have doubts about the moon landings’ authenticity. I am not saying they are right, but their doubts are understandable. Apollo 12 supposedly made a pinpoint landing to be near Surveyor 3. Pinpoint is right, even though the lunar dust blinded them as they landed. They also may have landed several feet from their deaths. They landed so near the crater where Surveyor 3 was, that a few feet further would have landed two of the LM’s legs into the crater, which could have possibly made a tragic end to the Apollo program. The LM was designed to be positioned no more than 6 degrees from a vertical orientation. It appears that the crater slope had more than a 6-degree slope to it, and appears that as few as ten feet further toward the crater would have had the LM at greater than a 6-degree angle, and they may not have been able to take off. I have not done the work to prove it, but the terrain at the crater’s lip appears to be greater than a six-degree slope. "

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#_edn62

Click on this link to read the text.

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/burn.jpg

Edited February 1, 2008 by Duane Daman

[Kevin M. West]

Well, let's start with the obvious.

In that lower middle picture, the image is rotated about 2.5 degrees to the right (the right fiducial is lower than the left) to exagerate the slope. But ignoring that, how do you even determine what is level ground? There is no reference to determine if the camera was held level when the image was taken.

[Duane Daman]

Well, let's start with the obvious.

No, let's start with the important issue ... The angles of those amazing flight trajectories and landing the LM, which had NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE APOLLO 11 ALLEGEDLY LANDED ON THE MOON .

The LM spun wildly out of control during the Apollo 10 trail run while trying this particular maneuver ... So landing the exact same LM design on the Moon shortly after that disaster must have been some kind of miracle... Or some kind of hoax .

[Evan Burton]

According to the Apollo 12 mission report:

"The final resting attitude, as viewed by the crew, was 3 degrees up in pitch and a 3.8 degree roll left, which indicates a surface slope of 4 or 5 degrees downward to the left and rear of the crew"

.

.

.

"The landing was very stable from a tipover standpoint, since the maximum angle between the spacecraft vertical axis and the local gravity vector did not exceed 4 degrees."

Page 4-23

Section 4.2.3 - Landing Dynamics

NASA MSC-01855 - APOLLO 12 MISSION REPORT dated March 1970

[Evan Burton]

The LM spun wildly out of control during the Apollo 10 trail run while trying this particular maneuver ...

No, you are wrong again. How many times do people have to tell you to check your facts before repeating what other people have said?

The "wild gyrations" were NOT part of the descent on Apollo 10. That section of the test had been completed successfully.

It was when they switched over to the ascent / abort mode. The LM has two navigation systems: the Primary Navigation & Guidance System (PNGS) and the Abort Guidance System (AGS). AGS was meant to be a back-up system. When they had completed the descent tests, they had to separate from the descent stage and fly the ascent stage into a rendezvous with the CM.

Through a mixup, the guidance switch had been placed back into AGS instead of PNGS. After they had separated from the descent stage, Stafford placed the ascent stage back into AUTO mode. Immediately AGS tried to get the ascent stage into a rendezvous with the CM - sending it wildly moving about (because there were no maneuvering limits set for the AGS).

[Duane Daman]

The "wild gyrations" were NOT part of the descent on Apollo 10. That section of the test had been completed successfully.

Oh really ? .. Where did the crew sucessfully descend and land the Apollo 10 craft then ?

Through a mixup, the guidance switch had been placed back into AGS instead of PNGS. After they had separated from the descent stage, Stafford placed the ascent stage back into AUTO mode. Immediately AGS tried to get the ascent stage into a rendezvous with the CM - sending it wildly moving about (because there were no maneuvering limits set for the AGS).

So the Apollo 10 LM did spin wildly out of control and this burn maneuver was never sucessfully tested .

"They came in sideways and changed angle, while the rockets were firing, slowing down the LM for landing . Nothing like this was ever attempted in anything close to a live situation that I am aware of, and the LM which spun wildly on the Apollo 10 trail run, never had this burn performed in a live enviornment until Apollo 11 landed on the Moon ."

[Evan Burton]

The "wild gyrations" were NOT part of the descent on Apollo 10. That section of the test had been completed successfully.

Oh really ? .. Where did the crew sucessfully descend and land the Apollo 10 craft then ?

This is where you should have answered the questions yourself.

They were NOT scheduled to land. That particular LM was considered too heavy with not enough fuel margin. This was the primary argument AGAINST them landing. Many people asked - quite rightly - if they had been sent all the way to the Moon with all the risks it entailed, why not make the first landing? The weight of the LM was the deciding factor.

Instead they did a simulated landing at a point far above the lunar surface. This demonstrated the descent profile accuracy, and even the performance of the landing radar.

Through a mixup, the guidance switch had been placed back into AGS instead of PNGS. After they had separated from the descent stage, Stafford placed the ascent stage back into AUTO mode. Immediately AGS tried to get the ascent stage into a rendezvous with the CM - sending it wildly moving about (because there were no maneuvering limits set for the AGS).

So the Apollo 10 LM did spin wildly out of control and this burn maneuver was never sucessfully tested .

No, the landing phase had been tested successfully. The separation sequence was successfully tested (both here and on Apollo 9). It was that the ascent stage under AGS control was trying to perform an incorrect manoeuvre to rendezvous with the CM. It DID perform "wild" manoeuvres, but that was because it was trying to do what it was told to do under the circumstances.

[Duane Daman]

No, the landing phase had been tested successfully. The separation sequence was successfully tested (both here and on Apollo 9). It was that the ascent stage under AGS control was trying to perform an incorrect manoeuvre to rendezvous with the CM. It DID perform "wild" manoeuvres, but that was because it was trying to do what it was told to do under the circumstances.

Apparently your information is incorrect .

The Landing Module was never tested in a real landing and takeoff situation until Armstrong and Aldrin supposedly landed on the moon and took off. When Armstrong tried flying a stripped down version of the LM on earth, he crashed it, nearly getting killed. The LM supposedly made six perfect landings and take offs from the moon.

Apollo 10 was the closest thing there was to a live test of the LM before landing on the moon. After the LM descended and was getting ready to ascend, it began spinning wildly, and its pilot, Eugene Cernan, thought it was going to crash. He got it under control and made it back to the Command Module. The official reason for that near-disaster is that an abort switch had been incorrectly set because of an error in the manual they used. That explanation shows how vulnerable the missions were to human error, but according to NASA, human error was minimal during the Apollo missions.

O'Leary was skeptical about the Apollo missions, and his skepticism was precisely where mine has been: the moon landings themselves. The LM had virtually no testing in the environment where it would be used, and the scariest parts of all, the lunar landing and ascent, had no live testing whatsoever before Armstrong and Aldrin supposedly landed and took off from the moon. The LM had to come in sideways, and its rockets to fire perfectly to make a horizontal landing on the moon. Nothing like it in manned space flight has been done before or since, and it was done without having been properly tested in a real environment before the Apollo 11 Mission. In kind, it is a situation similar to NASA never sending an animal beyond the Van Allen belt to test the radiation of space's effects on living creatures before it sent men out there. Just before the Apollo 11 mission, NASA sent a monkey into earth orbit, to spend thirty days there. The monkey died in a week and the capsule was brought down on July 6, 1969."

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#died

Edited February 2, 2008 by Duane Daman

[Evan Burton]

No, the landing phase had been tested successfully. The separation sequence was successfully tested (both here and on Apollo 9). It was that the ascent stage under AGS control was trying to perform an incorrect manoeuvre to rendezvous with the CM. It DID perform "wild" manoeuvres, but that was because it was trying to do what it was told to do under the circumstances.

Apparently your information is incorrect .

The Landing Module was never tested in a real landing and takeoff situation until Armstrong and Aldrin supposedly landed on the moon and took off. When Armstrong tried flying a stripped down version of the LM on earth, he crashed it, nearly getting killed. The LM supposedly made six perfect landings and take offs from the moon.

Apollo 10 was the closest thing there was to a live test of the LM before landing on the moon. After the LM descended and was getting ready to ascend, it began spinning wildly, and its pilot, Eugene Cernan, thought it was going to crash. He got it under control and made it back to the Command Module. The official reason for that near-disaster is that an abort switch had been incorrectly set because of an error in the manual they used. That explanation shows how vulnerable the missions were to human error, but according to NASA, human error was minimal during the Apollo missions.

O'Leary was skeptical about the Apollo missions, and his skepticism was precisely where mine has been: the moon landings themselves. The LM had virtually no testing in the environment where it would be used, and the scariest parts of all, the lunar landing and ascent, had no live testing whatsoever before Armstrong and Aldrin supposedly landed and took off from the moon. The LM had to come in sideways, and its rockets to fire perfectly to make a horizontal landing on the moon. Nothing like it in manned space flight has been done before or since, and it was done without having been properly tested in a real environment before the Apollo 11 Mission. In kind, it is a situation similar to NASA never sending an animal beyond the Van Allen belt to test the radiation of space's effects on living creatures before it sent men out there. Just before the Apollo 11 mission, NASA sent a monkey into earth orbit, to spend thirty days there. The monkey died in a week and the capsule was brought down on July 6, 1969."

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#died

You are repeating invalid data from a suspect site. Let me point out the errors for you:

The Landing Module was never tested in a real landing and takeoff situation until Armstrong and Aldrin supposedly landed on the moon and took off.

Partially correct. It had never actually landed on the Moon. The descent sequence (DOI, braking, pitchover / transition, etc) had all been tested. The staging, ascent and rendezvous had all been tested in unmanned and manned craft, in Earth and lunar orbits.

When Armstrong tried flying a stripped down version of the LM on earth, he crashed it, nearly getting killed.

This was the Lunar Lander Training Vehicle (LLTV). It was NOT (let me repeat that) NOT a "stripped down" version of the LM. The only similar aspects between them is they both had engines and they both had reaction control systems. You might as well compare it to the X-15. The LLTV (and LLRV) had a jet engine mounted vertically in a basic framework. This would be set to provide the thrust to take 5/6ths of the LLTVs weight... thus simulating 1/6 G. It had hydrogen peroxide jets at the extremities to provide rotational control like the LM. The jet engine thrust was increased or decreased in order to simulate the LM's Descent Propulsion System (DPS), a rocket motor.

It was a trainer, and quite difficult to fly. Still, all the commanders reported that it was vital training for them despite the risks.

LLRV / LLTV

Also: http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/LLTV-952.html

Apollo 10 was the closest thing there was to a live test of the LM before landing on the moon. After the LM descended and was getting ready to ascend, it began spinning wildly, and its pilot, Eugene Cernan, thought it was going to crash. He got it under control and made it back to the Command Module. The official reason for that near-disaster is that an abort switch had been incorrectly set because of an error in the manual they used. That explanation shows how vulnerable the missions were to human error, but according to NASA, human error was minimal during the Apollo missions.

Some minor corrections: Cernan, although known as the Lunar Module Pilot, didn't actually fly the LM. The commander (Stafford) always did. Yes, everything is subject to human error and yes, it was minimised. Minimal / minimised does not mean the absence of; it means brought down to a lower level as is reasonably possible.

The LM had virtually no testing in the environment where it would be used, and the scariest parts of all, the lunar landing and ascent, had no live testing whatsoever before Armstrong and Aldrin supposedly landed and took off from the moon.

See above. LMs were tested:

LTA-10R - Apollo 4

LM1 - Apollo 5

LTA-2R - Apollo 6

LM3 - Apollo 9

LM4 - Apollo 10

That's two flights with test articles, and three flights with flight articles (not including ground tests). Three flights unmanned before a manned flight. As a comparison, the FIRST flight of the Space Shuttle was manned.

O'Leary was skeptical about the Apollo missions

Nowadays O'Leary isn't so speculative. He's convinced the Apollo program landed on the moon as NASA claims. "It was real," he says succinctly. "Apollo happened."Dr. O'Leary considers his working relationship with the more notable astronauts strong evidence that the landings were not hoaxed. "I knew the astronauts and thought they wouldn't lie, even if there were a conspiracy."(Quotations taken from a letter from Brian O'Leary, 29 August 2001, used with his permission.)

If you believe this is incorrect, contact Dr O'Leary and ask him yourself: drbrianoleary@gmail.com

Some further reading for you:

Apollo 5 Mission Report

Final Analysis of the Descent Propulsion System during the flight of Apollo 5

Apollo 5 - Final Flight Evaluation Report

Apollo 9 Mission Report

Apollo 9 Mission Report - Supplement 3: LM Abort Guidance System Post-flight Analysis Report

Apollo 9 Mission Report - Supplement 8: Descent Propulsion System Final Flight Evaluation

Apollo 10 Mission Report

Apollo 10 Mission Report - Supplement 6: Ascent Propulsion System Final Flight Evaluation

Apollo 10 Mission Report - Supplement 7: Descent Propulsion System

[Duane Daman]

O'Leary was skeptical about the Apollo missions

Nowadays O'Leary isn't so speculative. He's convinced the Apollo program landed on the moon as NASA claims. "It was real," he says succinctly. "Apollo happened."Dr. O'Leary considers his working relationship with the more notable astronauts strong evidence that the landings were not hoaxed. "I knew the astronauts and thought they wouldn't lie, even if there were a conspiracy."(Quotations taken from a letter from Brian O'Leary, 29 August 2001, used with his permission.)

Smart guy ... He remembers what happened to Tom Baron and the Apollo 1 crew, among other NASA employees who knew thw truth about Apollo ... Of course he is not going to betray his fellow astronauts or his ex employer, NASA ... Especially when those who do betray NASA seem to have rather strange "accidents " ... You remember Gus right ? ... His son Scott and his wife Betty to this day believe that he was deliberatley murdered ... Or have they also " changed their minds" ?

As for O'Leary's current position, it is only his subjective opinion for reasons only he would know ...." I knew the astronauts and thought they wouldn't lie, even if there were a conspiracy."(Quotations taken from a letter from Brian O'Leary, 29 August 2001,

Thought being the operative word .... "even if there were a conspiracy" !?!? ... Sounds like he hasn't really changed his mind about something being highly suspicious about the conflicting stories and odd behavior of our alleged Moon walkers after all.

As for the mission reports you posted , they once again come from self serving NASA sites with no outside technical corroboration as to their validity .

The bottom line still is that no Apollo LM was ever properly tested to land and take off in a 1/6 environment or anywhere else ... So NASA really had no way of knowing whether it would work properly or not .

Pretty risky business to be showing on "live" TV in front of entire world, right in the middle of the cold war and the space race with the "evil" Russians.

Edited February 2, 2008 by Duane Daman

[Evan Burton]

The bottom line still is that no Apollo LM was ever properly tested to land and take off in a 1/6 environment or anywhere else ... So NASA really had no way of knowing whether it would work properly or not .

Duane - did you even bother to read some of the references? Perhaps you are confused. Tell me: what would be the significant differences of a 1/6G environment versus a zero G environment?

[Duane Daman]

Duane - did you even bother to read some of the references? Perhaps you are confused. Tell me: what would be the significant differences of a 1/6G environment versus a zero G environment?

It doesn't matter what the differences might be because the Apollo LM never landed or launched in either enviornment until it allegedly accomplished this amazing feat on the Moon during Apollo 11.

Here's another quote from that article written by Moon landing believer Wade Frazier ...

It is not crazy to doubt that men landed on the moon, and it is hard to believe that NASA made it there and back with people. For instance, in an article posted to the Internet, written by Elizabeth Thomson, she describes a talk where Neil Armstrong and Robert C. Seamans addressed an audience at MIT. Buzz Aldrin was also in attendance. Seamans was deeply involved with the Apollo program. Seamans and Armstrong talked at length about the various technical problems that were overcome to land on the moon, especially regarding the Lunar Lander. Seamans put the Apollo feats in perspective when he told the audience, “Sometimes I have to admit that when I see the Moon coming over the horizon I find it hard to believe that it really happened." If one of the key technical members of the Apollo effort has a hard time believing it happened, how “unreasonable” is it for the conspiracy theorists to wonder the same thing?

I really like this guy !

[Evan Burton]

Duane - did you even bother to read some of the references? Perhaps you are confused. Tell me: what would be the significant differences of a 1/6G environment versus a zero G environment?

It doesn't matter what the differences might be because the Apollo LM never landed or launched in either enviornment until it allegedly accomplished this amazing feat on the Moon during Apollo 11.

Duane - how many times do you need to have this told to you?

They did not land - that is correct. They did, however, practice the descent profile and ascent stage launch multiple times, including two manned missions, and one in lunar orbit... PRIOR to Apollo 11.

You don't seem to understand and you don't seem to want to understand.

I refer you again to the first flight of the Shuttle; tell me: was that faked?

[Duane Daman]

They did not land - that is correct. They did, however, practice the descent profile and ascent stage launch multiple times, including two manned missions, and one in lunar orbit... PRIOR to Apollo 11.

According to NASA, but no one else can verify that data ....Here is some more of Wade's information to consider ...

The United States soft-landed the Surveyor 1 on the moon on June 2, 1966. Surveyor 2 crashed into the moon. Surveyor 3 had a strange landing. It bounced 35 feet above the moon when it landed because its rockets kept firing. Surveyor 4 failed, completely “disappearing” 2.5 minutes before touchdown. NASA never figured out what happened. Surveyor 5 nearly failed due to a helium leak, but a jury-rigged landing saved the mission. Surveyor 6 was the first craft to lift off from the moon. It did its takeoff maneuver (getting about 12 feet into the “air”) at the time of the Apollo 4 mission, in November 1967. Until Apollo 11, that was the only test in taking off.

Apollo 4 was unmanned, as all the Apollo launches would be through Apollo 6, because of the Apollo 1 disaster. Apollo 4 was also the first time that the Saturn V rocket was launched, which powered the manned Apollo missions. Apollo 5 used the Saturn 1B rocket, and that mission supposedly tested the LM in earth orbit, and the mission was completely run by remote control. Could they have sent unmanned Apollo missions to the moon? Apollo 6 was a demonstration of that possibility. It was the second launch of the Saturn V rocket, and the goal was to simulate the events needed to send the craft to the moon, and “man rate” the Apollo V rocket. The mission had twenty major failures, and it did not even attain the proper orbit, and the third stage burn that was supposed to send the astronauts to the moon failed to ignite. Not exactly a great record of success to build on to go the moon by 1970. The Apollo 6 mission was launched in April 1968, less than two years before Kennedy’s announced deadline. The official story is that von Braun and all of NASA pulled together and performed technical wizardry that is still hard to believe today, even by those who participated in it.

Yes, it sure is hard to believe ... Especially by those who don't believe it was technically possible to even land men on the radioactive lunar surface, keep them alive under the most horrendous of conditions on every level, and then launch them again to return home, 240,000 miles back in the deadly cosmic radiation of deep space .

That sounds like complete science fiction .

I refer you again to the first flight of the Shuttle; tell me: was that faked?

The Shuttle has nothing to do with the highly controversial 39 year old Apollo missions, which claimed to land men on the Moon ... The astronauts in the Shuttle never left earth orbit and never pretended to go where no man had gone before ... or obviously since .

Edited February 3, 2008 by Duane Daman

[Evan Burton]

They did not land - that is correct. They did, however, practice the descent profile and ascent stage launch multiple times, including two manned missions, and one in lunar orbit... PRIOR to Apollo 11.

According to NASA, but no one else can verify that data

But you see, that is the point - the data CAN be verified. There is a mass of TECHNICAL data available. The truth can be confirmed by those with the knowledge (such as aeronautical engineers, metallurgists, electrical engineers, etc). Do you think that since 1969 not one engineer has studied the LM in detail? Not one metallurgist has look at the materials used in order to solve other problems? That people haven't recreated the computer programmes used? That people haven't examined the missions in detail in order to recreate them for simulators? That any fakery would not have been exposed?

I refer you again to the first flight of the Shuttle; tell me: was that faked?

The Shuttle has nothing to do with the highly controversial 39 year old Apollo missions, which claimed to land men on the Moon ... The astronauts in the Shuttle never left earth orbit and never pretended to go where no man had gone before ... or obviously since .

It has to do with the claim of "no testing" you have repeated in your posts. The LM was tested - both ground and flight testing. Both unmanned and manned. It was thoroughly tested... and the next logical step was a manned landing.

The Space Shuttle was tested on the ground and in the air (not in space)... yet its first flight was manned. There were five flight tests of the LM systems prior to a manned landing.

It is a valid comparison.

(more to come)