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

I'm not sure what particular issue they are referring to, but one I hear is that "debris was found 6 miles from the Shanksville crash site". That's just plain wrong.

Firstly, the "debris" consisted of some paperwork according to the policeman who found it.. "nothing at all significant".

Secondly, it was 6 miles ROAD distance from the crash site. Straight line distance it was about 1.2 to 2 miles.

It seems that they feel that if they keep repeating the same errors, they can alter reality.

I have often wondered why they call themselves "truthers" when that seems to be the last thing they are interested in.

Duane,

Your repetition of my post just demonstrates my opinion about you.

As for Jarrah - he is a screwball, with no training in the sciences and no ability in them either. He has constantly made errors which when pointed out to him, he denies. I don't think he has raised a valid point yet. He is such a nobody I surprise myself I bother to remark about him here. He is a nobody trying to be a wannabe. He should spend more time dressing up in his James Bond costumes; it is far more productive.

I think I prefer these:

Dave has kindly done all the work I had hoped you would do, Duane. Reference your quote from Von Braun in 1960... don't forget that knowledge increases over time, with experience. Remember that in the early 1900s, there were people who said that manned powered flight would never be possible; that in the mid-1940s a senior US Army engineer said the atomic bomb could not work, and there were aeronautical engineers who believe it was impossible to travel faster than the speed of sound.

And once again, Dave has shown how you should check the claims before making them (lunar soil kicked in long trajectories). It was shown with your comments in the Cameras thread. If you think something is important, check the sources from which it occurs. If you don't believe something has occurred in videos but you have not checked to confirm that, then qualify your statement, e.g.:

"I haven't been able to view all the Apollo lunar videos, but I don't think that any of them show...."

re: left / right handed. Maggie, make sure you ask did he shoot a rifle left-handed.

I'm right-handed, shoot a pistol right-handed, but shoot a rifle left-handed.

Who, indeed, will be the next target of irate Indian cricket fans?

I thought the $20 bill indicated cocaine usage but apparently not. Perhaps the autopsy will reveal more.

I have been told that Heath Ledger (an Australian actor) was murdered by fanatical cricket fans in retaliation for India losing the Test against Australia.

Opinions?

Still looking up the answers to my questions? Let me know when you are ready.

Having just read Guenter Wendt's THE UNBROKEN CHAIN, I see there were lots of photos of the astronauts being strapped in to the CM, the gifts they gave the crews, the 'gotchas' they played, etc.

Perhaps you'd like to ask these people - the people who strapped them in, who saw the spacecraft then launch.

No, you didn't answer my questions:

Tell me - what was the increase in exposure by raising the visor, and what was its effect?

So I will ask you one last time .... Don't you find it highy strange that no cameras were positioned in the cabins during liftoff for the "greatest technological achievement of all mankind " ??

YES OR NO ? ( And that was not shouting !!! )

No, I don't find it strange. There was a multitude of telemetry from the capsule - pressures, temps, heart rates, breathing rate, voltages, voice, vibrations, acceleration, etc, etc. There was no particular need for the cockpit camera. Perhaps they should of had one - it would have been nice... but was it operationally essential? No. Did it form part of the mission requirements? No.

Remember Apollo 7? Wally Schirra was unhappy about a TV camera being brought aboard to transmit from orbit. There was much angst about it on the flight, though Wally later admitted it was a good idea:

"In retrospect it seems inconceivable, but serious debate ensued in NASA councils on whether television should be broadcast from Apollo missions, and the decision to carry the little 4 1/2- pound camera was not made until just before this October flight. Although these early pictures were crude, I think it was informative for the public to see astronauts floating weightlessly in their roomy spacecraft, snatching floating objects, and eating the first hot food consumed in space. Like the television pictures, the food improved in later missions."

http://www.wallyschirra.com/apollo.htm

No, he seems to rely on other people's assessments without the most basic standard of verification. If he does verify the data he posts, he does not acknowledge nor publicise the source / method of his verification.

That statement is completely untrue ... If I post an article or evidence here that are not my own words, I always provide a link to where the information came from.

You misunderstand me - I'm talking about verification. For instance, if you post an article written by a physicist, talking about physics, then it would be quite understandable for you to accept that at face value. If, however, the physicist make claims that are very much against the mainstream, then you'd have to try and determine if his claims are valid or not... or at the very least, understand that the claim is contentious. If the physicist discussed mechanical engineering, you'd have to determine if they have the necessary knowledge to speak authoritatively about engineering; their expertise in physics carries no weight in the engineering field.

Another example: a claim is made on the internet. You know nothing about the person making the claim, the details of the claim are outside your area of expertise, and the claim is one that is not widely accepted. Do you simply accept the claim? No; you should look at the details given, and check them out. For instance, the claim says that a report appeared in a major newspaper. You check the newspaper to see if the report did appear.

That sort of thing.

You just repeat what others have said without checking if the claim is valid or not (and you yourself have said you generally do not check on the veracity of claims). This is what many of us harp on about, especially when you can easily check on claims.

Remember the "impossible" photographs? Why not simply try to recreate the images yourself, see if something is possible or not? That way you have confidence in what you are saying; you can say "I know this to be true because I have tried it myself!".

Oh - can I say once again - YouTube is NOT science.

I stand ready to admit my error if anyone can provide evidence that any recognised scientific body admits a YouTube (or similar) video as sole scientific evidence of a claim.

I agree. In my opinion, Duane has been sadly lacking in being able to effectively support his views. He has said that he doesn't check his sources, and seems to display a complete disregard for any scientific method.

No, he seems to rely on other people's assessments without the most basic standard of verification. If he does verify the data he posts, he does not acknowledge nor publicise the source / method of his verification.

Yes, I agree with my fellow CT's that the Apollo astronots made it as far as LOW EARTH ORBIT ! .... But I'm afraid that I can't back that up with any evidnence because THERE WERE NO CAMERAS IN THE CABIN DURING LIFTOFF PROVING THAT THE APOLLO ASTRONOTS WERE REALLY IN THE ROCKET DURING LAUNCH !

Well, proof that there were people in the capsule during Apollo 12 can be presented when the astronauts reported the systems failures during the launch. They said they thought they may have been hit by lightning... which was confirmed later (actually, they were hit twice).

Regaining data from the CSM was only obtained by the famous 'SCE to AUX' - a setting that could ONLY be obtained by manual manipulation of the switch in the CM during the launch. They then had to realign the platform through MANUAL star sightings; again only possible if there were people in the CM that was in orbit.

If Apollo 12 had been a 'unmanned' launch, then the whole thing would have been exposed as a fake due to system incidents that required manual intervention.

You are obviously far more knowledgeable about this, being able to make such claims.

Tell me - what was the increase in exposure by raising the visor, and what was its effect? You're so sure of your claim... you should be able to look that up. It's available on the internet.

Enlighten us.

Fair question:

Did they launch in the Saturn V, yes or no?

What do you say, Duane?

Okay then , here's some evidence for you Gav...

"Mattingly was sure the "disappearance" of the stars was due to his gold visor. The doctors had advised him to leave the reflector down, LEST HE BE EXPOSED TO HARMFUL RADIATION, but he couldn't stand it anymore."

" He blinked the visor open just long enough for the universe to show a familiar face: There they are! "

A Man On The Moon - P.492 A.Chaikin

I guess maybe Jack Schmitt had some kind of Superman powers "out here in the Sun" , cuz he sure didn't seem as concerened as Mattingly did about what that RADIATION EXPOSURE WOULD DO TO HIS EYES WITH HIS GOLD VISOR ALWAY PULLED DOWN !

Once again, you are making assumptions, leaping to conclusions, and not checking your facts.

The astronauts were advised to leave their gold visors down, because it helped stop harmful glare to their eyes and did help protect them from radiation. Not having it down meant that they would get additional exposure; not something that they did willy-nilly, but if required they did that.

Most people kept the visor down. Mission Control reminded people not to leave the gold visor up... but Jack did on a number of occasions. Why would that be?

You yourself noted the conversation... but you left a little off the end. Have a think about that bit:

165:01:54Parker: Hey, Jack. And we see your gold visor is up. You may want to put it down out here in the Sun.

[Jack climbs out of the crater and moves cross slope, angling uphill and to the east.]

165:02:02 Schmitt: Well, I think I might...I can't see with it down; it's scratched! Bob, I'll use it. I think I can monitor that one (meaning his visor). (Pause)

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17.sta6.html

I'm willing to be corrected, Duane:

- Show me the evidence that the tech drawings are no longer available. You said you didn't buy it the first time... you must have checked, and got proof of that, haven't you? Real proof - not just a quote from a mate of yours who says they are not available.

- Apollo documentation not releasable until 2026? Seems to be a shed-load of it available today. Again, where is your evidence that it is not available until 2026? Again, real proof.

Oh boy! I guess he's going to show the 'Armstrong holding his breath on the lunar surface without his helmet on' image next, and claim THAT was real.... but the nasty NASA Men-in-Black had it expunged from everywhere and everything.

Yeah, right Duane.

This is changing the subject a bit, but I have a question maybe our resident Apollo expert can answer .... Why does NASA and all of the Apollo astronauts refer to the Moon as the moon ? ... Everything I have read by NASA , including excerpts from the various books written by our alleged Moon bound astronauts , always spell the word Moon incorrectly with a lower case m ... Is this possibly their way of telling us that it wasn't the real Moon they went to, but perhaps NASA's version of the moon ... as in ; moonset ?

Sorry Dave, but I have another nomination for the "Least Convincing Argument" category....

Duane, it's how people write it. I normally write Moon but often write moon. Look over the internet and you'll see the variations used everywhere; in fact, I'd guess that most people do NOT capitalise it.

President John F. Kennedy initiated the Apollo program amidst a tense Cold War political environment. In a speech to Congress on 25 May 1961, Kennedy outlined his Apollo program, a plan to send an American to the Moon by the end of the decade. This program, he hoped, would remind the world of America’s enormous technical capability.

The Apollo program succeeded. On 20 July 1969, the world witnessed what was arguably the most astonishing technological achievement in history when Neil Armstrong and Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin became the first humans to set foot on the Moon. While Apollo 11 was an astounding technological achievement, it was also the triumph of an enormous project infrastructure, requiring the cooperation of many thousands of dedicated individuals.

http://history.nasa.gov/ap11-35ann/index.htm

The first photographs from the Moon came in 1964 when Ranger 7 radioed photographs back as it plunged into the lunar surface, crashing and being destroyed in the process.

Two human missions, Apollos 8 and 10, orbited the Moon before the Apollo 11 landing.

http://history.nasa.gov/apollo_photo.html

And you keep saying all the blueprints have been destroyed - that is false. A number of blueprints (and it depends what you mean by blueprints) have been discarded but most still exist. A large amount went into national archives. Some when into company archives (because the vehicle was built with sub-components made by various contractors) but some where simply discarded because it was deemed unnecessary to keep them. Major structural and systems technical drawing still exist.

I believe that has been pointed out to you before.