Jump to content

We Never Went to the Moon


Duane Daman
 Share

Recommended Posts

"a person arguing a subject from a position of abject ingnorance" .... "You make the CT club look oh so silly." .... "you are just being stupid." ... "You play the victim very well.." .... "you are a victim of your own ignorance of the subject matter you have chosen to argue." .... and ... "You have shucked and jived for quite a few posts... "

And all of this 'amazing insight' in only ONE post from you !?!... Yes sir , I can just feel the love ...

I could have sworn that you recently posted an apology to the forum owner here and even told him that you would ... watch those fingers of yours from posting any more insults to me in the future .... Yeah , right !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 141
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"a person arguing a subject from a position of abject ingnorance" .... "You make the CT club look oh so silly." .... "you are just being stupid." ... "You play the victim very well.." .... "you are a victim of your own ignorance of the subject matter you have chosen to argue." .... and ... "You have shucked and jived for quite a few posts... "

And all of this 'amazing insight' in only ONE post from you !?!... Yes sir , I can just feel the love ...

I could have sworn that you recently posted an apology to the forum owner here and even told him that you would ... watch those fingers of yours from posting any more insults to me in the future .... Yeah , right !

You need to read and comprehend son, no insults at all, just astute observations. And they fit you to a tee.

Oh, and just so I know what to say so I don't offend or insult you, exactly what words shall I use to describe your condition when you know nothing about the subject you are debating such as photography, studio lighting, the Apollo camera equipment etc.

BTW, you are still shucking and jiving away from answering my question, you ever going to answer?

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already answered your question ... I use nasa sites to show that the Apollo Program was a 30 billion dollar scam and swindle .....When I use conspiracy sites to prove this sad fact , everyone complains that it is just ignorant , incorrect information which can be easily debunked .... If ONE thing is shown to be incorrect on any conspiracy site , then the nasa defenders claim that the entire site is wrong and that ALL of the evidence on it can not be trusted or used as a source for proving that Apollo was a hoax ...

So I decided if you really want to uncover a lie ( the Apollo manned moon missions ) you need to go to the source of that lie ( nasa ) .... and that is where you can discover how they not only faked the Apollo photography but also the entire Apollo Program .

On the other hand, you and the other nasa defenders use nasa sites to try to prove that the manned moon landings were real events .... and there in lies the problem.... nasa has made some very extraordinary claims when it comes to their alleged technical abilities of landing six manned missions on the moon from 1969 to 1972 .... and has been stated before , extraordinary claims call for extraordinary proof .... but sadly, nasa doesn't have any technical proof of ever landing men on the moon , except for the self serving , uncorrorborated information on their own web sites ..... Unless there is outside verification of these alleged technical accomplishments , then unsubstantiated nasa sources can not be used as proof of their claims of landing manned missions on the moon .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already answered your question ... I use nasa sites to show that the Apollo Program was a 30 billion dollar scam and swindle .....When I use conspiracy sites to prove this sad fact , everyone complains that it is just ignorant , incorrect information which can be easily debunked .... If ONE thing is shown to be incorrect on any conspiracy site , then the nasa defenders claim that the entire site is wrong and that ALL of the evidence on it can not be trusted or used as a source for proving that Apollo was a hoax ...

So I decided if you really want to uncover a lie ( the Apollo manned moon missions ) you need to go to the source of that lie ( nasa ) .... and that is where you can discover how they not only faked the Apollo photography but also the entire Apollo Program .

On the other hand, you and the other nasa defenders use nasa sites to try to prove that the manned moon landings were real events .... and there in lies the problem.... nasa has made some very extraordinary claims when it comes to their alleged technical abilities of landing six manned missions on the moon from 1969 to 1972 .... and has been stated before , extraordinary claims call for extraordinary proof .... but sadly, nasa doesn't have any technical proof of ever landing men on the moon , except for the self serving , uncorrorborated information on their own web sites ..... Unless there is outside verification of these alleged technical accomplishments , then unsubstantiated nasa sources can not be used as proof of their claims of landing manned missions on the moon .

You're a good little Jack White clone, Duane. Ignore the evidence when it doesn't support your view, state things as fact (over and over and over) when they are actually proven wrong, make technical determinations in fields where you have no experience, interpret data as saying exactly the opposite to what it says, etc.

You sure you're not Jack's secret love child?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well , it looks as though another one of my posts has hit a nerve with you Evan .... Too bad you always feel the need to resort to insults every time you have no real come back .

I've been called worse than Jack's "good little clone" or "love child" though .... and since we're both such handsome dawgs , maybe it's a possibility ! ... Who knows ? .... Well, on second thought , I guess Jack would probably know if he had been cloned and I'm also quite sure he would remember creating a love child too ! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already answered your question ... I use nasa sites to show that the Apollo Program was a 30 billion dollar scam and swindle .....When I use conspiracy sites to prove this sad fact , everyone complains that it is just ignorant , incorrect information which can be easily debunked .... If ONE thing is shown to be incorrect on any conspiracy site , then the nasa defenders claim that the entire site is wrong and that ALL of the evidence on it can not be trusted or used as a source for proving that Apollo was a hoax ...

So I decided if you really want to uncover a lie ( the Apollo manned moon missions ) you need to go to the source of that lie ( nasa ) .... and that is where you can discover how they not only faked the Apollo photography but also the entire Apollo Program .

On the other hand, you and the other nasa defenders use nasa sites to try to prove that the manned moon landings were real events .... and there in lies the problem.... nasa has made some very extraordinary claims when it comes to their alleged technical abilities of landing six manned missions on the moon from 1969 to 1972 .... and has been stated before , extraordinary claims call for extraordinary proof .... but sadly, nasa doesn't have any technical proof of ever landing men on the moon , except for the self serving , uncorrorborated information on their own web sites ..... Unless there is outside verification of these alleged technical accomplishments , then unsubstantiated nasa sources can not be used as proof of their claims of landing manned missions on the moon .

BURDEN OF PROOF!

You're trying to shift it again!

Apollo is a proven and accepted historical and scientific fact. So the extra-ordinary claim is being made by people such as yourself - hence the burden of proof lies heavily on YOUR shoulders to provide conclusive evidence to support your claim. Something you have not been able to do, because the evidence is not there - just supposition, unsupported claims, and unscientific arguments.

(Incidentally, I see you are now claiming that the ENTIRE Apollo programme was faked... are you sure this is now your claim, or are you over-stating things slightly here?)

Happy New Year by the way! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*bump for Duane*

My question still stands:

What do you accept as a competent technical authority of the various technical achievements needed for the success of the Apollo lunar landings?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

*bump for Duane*

My question still stands:

What do you accept as a competent technical authority of the various technical achievements needed for the success of the Apollo lunar landings?

*bump* AGAIN for Duane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*bump for Duane*

My question still stands:

What do you accept as a competent technical authority of the various technical achievements needed for the success of the Apollo lunar landings?

Sorry , I missed your question before .... Proof of the alleged technical accomplishments of the Apollo space craft would have to come from outside sources ( those other than nasa or the companies who designed the Apollo hardware ) which are not only qualified to recognize the alleged space flight capabilities of the Apollo equipment , but would also have access to study the actual LM's , CSM's and Saturn V rockets themselves , or at least the blueprints to these crafts , which would prove their flight capabilities .... and in the case of the LM's , their landing and launch capabilities also ... But of course no one has ever done this to my knowledge .. and unfortuantely the blueprints to all of these Apollo crafts , including the lunar buggy , have convienantly been destroyed by nasa under orders of the FBI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you accept as a competent technical authority of the various technical achievements needed for the success of the Apollo lunar landings?

Sorry , I missed your question before .... Proof of the alleged technical accomplishments of the Apollo space craft would have to come from outside sources ( those other than nasa or the companies who designed the Apollo hardware ) which are not only qualified to recognize the alleged space flight capabilities of the Apollo equipment , but would also have access to study the actual LM's , CSM's and Saturn V rockets themselves , or at least the blueprints to these crafts , which would prove their flight capabilities .... and in the case of the LM's , their landing and launch capabilities also ... But of course no one has ever done this to my knowledge .. and unfortuantely the blueprints to all of these Apollo crafts , including the lunar buggy , have convienantly been destroyed by nasa under orders of the FBI.

Once again, the large majority of "blueprints" are available.

Ref my question: so why don't you have a look through some of the websites of people with the required technical expertise, and pick some that meet your standards. Let me know who they are, and I'll ask them to examine the Apollo hardware for a technical opinion. How about some of the companies that are trying for the latest X-Prize? They'd have to understand a lot of the space-related activity.

You will have to pick the experts so I can be sure they will meet your standard of proof. It would be unfortunate if I got a technical opinion and then you decided they didn't meet your requirements. I'd have to repeat the whole process over again with someone new; best get it right the first time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certain blueprints may still be available but not the one's for the LM and lunar buggy ....

How would any space craft technician today be able to evaluate the Apollo crafts , when there are none around to examine ? ... I doubt that nasa would pull the LM from their museum , or dig up an old CSM and allow someone to test fly them to the moon ... and aside from that , I don't know how it could be proven that any Apollo lunar module would be able to fly , land and then launch again from the lunar surface .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certain blueprints may still be available but not the one's for the LM and lunar buggy ....

How would any space craft technician today be able to evaluate the Apollo crafts , when there are none around to examine ? ... I doubt that nasa would pull the LM from their museum , or dig up an old CSM and allow someone to test fly them to the moon ... and aside from that , I don't know how it could be proven that any Apollo lunar module would be able to fly , land and then launch again from the lunar surface .

It's actually a lot easier than that. There are examples of Apollo hardware available; items that have been flown, items that were meant for flight but never used, and test articles. Here is an extensive list:

A Field Guide to American Spacecraft

Apart from that, engineers of various disciplines can tell you a lot simply by the materials and methods used in construction of the spacecraft, especially in these days of computer modelling. For instance, the design and construction of the engines. Engineers can tell you whether they'd work or not. The metals used in the construction are not secret (although they are probably patented). Metallurgists can tell you if they could have withstood the forces and temperatures involved in an engine. In fact, most engines used for the Saturn V are still around in one form or another.

They can see how the CM / SM / LM was contructed, and what materials were used. They can access the properties and indeed samples of those materials. Exotic metals, construction techniques, material processing, etc, all flowed on to aerospace and many other industries. Very little effort would be required to tell if the construction or materials were not able to meet the claimed standards.

Design, weights, construction, etc, of the spacecraft are known. Location, design, capacities, and performance of fuel systems are well documented. Specific impulses from the various RCS assemblies are documented. I daresay anyone in the final year of an aerospace engineering degree could tell you if the LM would be able to successfully fly and land on the lunar surface. There are even flight simulators available, which are based on the engineering data itself.

There are experts who have studied biological effects of radiation (based on Hiroshima survivor data, amongst others), tested the protection offered by various materials. They are easily able to tell if the Apollo spacraft could offer the required radiation minimisation (see previous radiation threads on this board).

This wealth of data is studied not only by American scientists and engineers, but by various countries around the world.

That is why I ask you to select an appropriate authority, and I'll ask them to determine if the various pieces of Apollo hardware could do the job - I'm very confident of the result. You simply cannot hide data like this - people would have discovered by now if things did not work.

Remember the cold fusion breakthrough? A method for cold fusion (i.e. at room temperature) was claimed. What was the first thing scientists around the world did? They asked for the data so they could reproduce the experiment and validate the data. What was the result? They couldn't obtain the same results - the 'breakthough' was shown to be flawed.

The same thing applies to the various data relating to Apollo - scientists don't just accept the word of NASA; they set out to trial and reproduce the data, checking it, looking for flaws, seeing if they can improve on it.

That's why we know it is correct, and we are not being subjected to a "hoax".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never been particularly comfortable with this "CIA ordered the blueprints destroyed" idea. Where (i.e. which credible source) did this come from?

If they did destroy some blueprints (presumably for security reasons), I can see why someone trying to prove a hoax would leap on the idea and say it was because the LM was unable to work as intended (so, we need to add all the engineers and technicians and designers who worked on the LM to the ever expanding list of people "in on the hoax"). That's not something I subscribe to, and I offer as evidence a simple counter-example.

SR-71 Blackbird. Another technological marvel - and far more secret than the quite open Apollo programme.

Why mention this? Simple. The blue-prints and machine tools used in manufacture were ordered destroyed by the president at the time (this even meant that spare parts could not be built - repairs were done by cannibalising parts from other SR-71s). Following the Apollo HB logic, this must mean that the Blackbird was faked and couldn't fly either. Or, it could mean that during the height of the cold war, the US did not want to risk these plans falling into the hands of the enemy i.e. Russian agents.

Edited by Dave Greer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I first read about the FBI ordering the LM and lunar buggy blueprints destroyed on the pro Apollo site called 'Who Mourns for Apollo ? ' ... It has also been mentioned on several hoax sites and even some guys were discussing this fact on either Bad Astronomy or clavius ( can't remember which) a couple of years ago ... So this is common knowledge on both sides of the Apollo fence .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...