They had change the engines out for much better more reliable ones and it was quite certain the best would fly and fly right. Even before this they had a very successful flight of the massive first stage. Until the second stage was fired..
@stalkervision I hardly call a launch vehicle that fails in the first stage on all launch attempts successful by even the most leniant standards, though the last launch came awful close.
As for how long NASA would mean to keep this a secret, that's something I want to know. Conspiracy theorist have claimed that James Irwin was assassinated to keep the secret. You still haven't provided a source for your claimed Van Allen comment on the belts.
@loperspest no no no no.. The first stage worked perfectly in this last test. It was when the second was ignited problems happened. Also.. There were further launches planed for the n1 with these newer engines I mentioned that were extremely reliable and are being used to this day in fact. All canceled...Apparently for political reasons sadly. Source for the belts? Try his seminal paper on the subject in Scientific American. I thought you knew this already.
Published in 1959, but a year after the belts were discovered? When what we knew of the belts was sorely incomplete? I can't access it to confirm what you say, but a later paper, written by USSR citizens, with no reason to cover for the US, denies your claim, as does Dr. Van Allen.
Yes the N1 was cancelled for political reasons, the US had beat them to the moon. There is little glory in 2nd place. How many know Buzz Aldrins name compared to Conrad?
Now if van allen had retracted his original work and gone into details about his mistakes with corrections that would be an entirely different manner completely.
@loperspest maybe you buy this buddy but i have some serious doubts. Damn them? Maybe in the future but I believe they have a nice story all waiting in the wings to justify everything they did. Actually if they just came out with it would totally support them. I can see perfectly well why they did it. I bet you wouldn't though. LOL ! I was looking at some new N1 info I never saw and apparently the N! was a lot more successful then I ever knew.
Lots of NGDS data shows the sun was alive with solar storms at this time too. In fact they were throughout the missions Yet all the missions were launched.without nary a worry. Doesn't that make you wonder whatsoever?
The real problem here is until someone besides nasa builds a space ship that will completely traverse the belts and beyond and we have multiple camera feeds on board from different nations no one knows if nasa did what it claimed it did. It is the antarctic explorer dilemma once again.
As i said believe radiation shielding tor satellites I believe is possible and is being done.Every once and a while though a solar storm will burn one right out and their software will be pretty well fried.
BTW I do believe computer devices can be hardened sufficiently enough to get through the belts because the amount of weight is minimal in that case compared to fully hardening a large capsule and it's crew.
If they used those specification, and it was as bad as you say they would have fried satellites.
You can't have it both ways. Either NASA gives them bad data on the belts, and their ships get fried early, or NASA gives them good data that reveal that the Van Allen belts are far more dangerous then NASA claims. There's private satellites in high orbit in general, not just in GSO And then there's the Chinese, Russian, EU, and Indian space probes that have gone through the belts.
@loperspest It would hardly be "bad" I am sure the data they get is quite good in fact. LOL ! what bad data?
Satellites fly withing the belts. Until some scientists decide to venture through them we will never know will we? That's pretty hard to do without a spacecraft to lift them. Do you know that nasa is doing belt research radiation shielding studies to this day and. Some say its for the mars trip but if the belts are so easily traversed why bother?
@stalkervision There is things called particle accelerators that allow us to create charged particles with energies comparable to the Van Allen Belts .Scientists can test the protection said to be needed verses the claimed energies of the Belts on EARTH.
Radiation hardening isn't an all or nothing thing. If '2 metres of lead' were needed for a 2 week trip to the moon, you would need far more protection then the satellite makers are giving them, which would lead to early failing satellites.
@loperspest yes we do but as i said where have we been getting the data from on the belts? Not these scientist you have mentioned. We have for one Van Allen who completely asserted the belts were un-travel able and never ever disavowed his original data on the belts or revised his original seminal work. Instead he became evasive about the question and said "he probably made mistakes,.." I personally don't believe van allen made such mistakes in that work.
@loperspest I looked at that Van allen quote but without a retraction of his original works or at least a modification it doesn't mean a whole lot. He refused to do this his entire career btw. He had plenty of time to fix his mistakes if that is what he is claiming from that quote. Yet he still stood by his origianl work. You don't find this a tad strange? I do..Thanks for the invitation btw but I doubt your comrades would be as understandable as you are. LOL !
Respond to this video... well the amount of radiation protection a hardened circuit needs and a human are two different things I believe you will agree. As you said the satellites operate within the belts but that is in the lower radiation areas of the belts Just take a ordinary magnet and some iron fillings and see what the belts look like yourself.
It came to me one day as a epiphany as i was pondering your very questions. That part of the fake had always troubled me. That may also explain why Russia was doing the very same thing. We just beat them to the punch it is all..
Fact: Radiation affects electronics. Fact: Many private companies operate satellites in geosynchronous orbit, right in the middle of the Van Allen belts.
Fact: These satellites are insured by places like Lloyd's of London who make money off knowing risk and setting premiums accordingly. If the radiation was as severe as you say these people would have, as you say,
"found out and objected to by many many developers of the craft."
@loperspest yes..yes..yes....yes except they are " In between" the worst of the belts. Also they systems can be "radiation hardened" far easier then a human.. THE ISS operates in the belts and the astronauts have to retreat to a safe room and some of the electronic shut down when it passes through the SAA... Phill Plait said that.
Astronauts & electronics on the ISS spend months, years in the case of electronics. going in and out the SAA. Apollo spent but hours in the belt and at most 2 weeks in space.
The effect radiation of on electronics & penetration of shielding and hardening can't be hidden.
Even universities do experiments on radiation penetration, so if NASA said "put such and such radiation protection" they would realize that it is too much for what NASA say is out there.
@loperspest Do we know if apollo even went through the belts actually. It may have but not with the crew on board. I know they spent at least a hour , two actually if you count both ways, in there without even minimal ISS shielding . The you have the National Geophysical survey data showing major solar flares were going on all through the missions. It is claimed by some nasa scientis that the minimal time in the saa allows healing to occur but that is only if the passage is very short.
Remember..the developers of these crafts only developed them to nasa specifications..If nasa specified they should be such and such specifications that is exactly what they did.
According to Soviet studies of radiation measuring experiments aboard Zond-5 and 7, " Should no solar flares occur, seven-day flights along the trajectories
of Zond-5 and 7 probes are safe from the radiation point of view."
cdsweb.cern.ch/record/864491/files/p484*pdf
Trouble with building the hardware AND faking it is now you don't havebillions in hush money You spent that making stuff that could actually go to the moon.
So they made hardware, and radiation is NOT an issue, why not go?
@loperspest The soviet missions are even more a mystery IMO.. LOL! Hay, you actually understand what I was getting at ! Cool ! Yes, indeed a whole lot of money had to be spent on the project. The vast amount I am sure.but I am sure nasa skimmed a ton of it right off the top too. IMO radiation was the over riding issue. There may have been other issues that were almost as troublesome though. That would be an interesting topic all in itself.
It a bit like if your the first adventurer to the north pole..You have a lot of special sleds and tons of special equipment made for you...but you never actually get there but people see you leave. and come back.. bragging you got to the pole. Hay you even brought samples back of the ice there.and took pictures.See I had tons of fancy equipment made especially for the trip and the peoplewho made it developed it for the pole trip.
you see what a brilliant idea that actually was? Now you can say it could be also because the missions were real. but that was the whole point of doing it this way..I know you just believe that they were real but think about what i said for a moment.
This is what i believe Early in the space program it was realized that radiation was the killer for a real moon mission.It was also realized that faking the hardware would surely be found out and objected to by many many developers of the craft. In a quite brilliant move they made the craft just like they would have if the missions had been real. Hay money was hardly a object was it?
Apollo 10 broke orbit and descended toward the surface. This would test almost everything. Then, to get back to the the CSM, they had to get to fire the acent stage engine and get back to the CSM, testing everything in that.
Oh, and if you think the LM was simply a fake, that would mean everyone at Grumman and sub-contractors would have to be in on the hoax. Also, the Apollo Telescope mount made from LM parts and the Delta II 2nd stage engones were originally surplus LM engines.
@loperspest Hmmm yes and Noooo Not at that height quite Franky. Also that was a around the moon mission as I mentioned. Actually I believe it was a real project but was never used around the moon. The vast problem with making a fake lem or anything would be someone on the teams would surely object to making it IMO.. You see the hardware IMO was pretty much all real. That is why it has been able to deceive people for so long such as yourself..
Btw the lem I believe descended to 32000 ft.That's the best number I can find right now it may have been much higher.You call that a "full landing test" I guess..I don't.
I found another vehiclle even older then the flying bedstead known as the Atar II. Same principle and it too is able to take off just fine.
britishpathe*com/record*php?id=32783
I don't see what flying above 25 feet has to do with it. These things, like the LM and LLRV, have no wings, so there is no Wing in Ground Effect helping keep it up.
I have never seen the Trieste Bathyscaphe, does that mean it's fake too?
@loperspest Yes there have been a few vehicles like this. Most with very very mixed results. You don't see any flying around do you ? 25 feet has a lot to do with it. Basically because you can cut the power at that height and because of the design you will survive. Actually I believe there is a bit of ground effect flying at a lower height with a vehicle like this but it's pretty hard to explain.
There's a reason you don't see this kind of vehicle, Earth has an atmosphere, so you can use wings. On the airless moon, soft landings require decelerating on a column of hot gas. Surveyor did so, as did the Luna landers, and all, but the ones that were similar to Luna 9, did it all the way to the lunar surface.
And the LM was tested. Not just in test facilities on Earth, not just in LEO, but also in lunar orbit and in a partial decent that was a full test of the ascent stage.
@loperspest I was being facetious. That is pretty funny you fell for it. I already mentioned the lem test which Frankly has little documentations except for a few pictures that could have been easily faked. Many skeptics say they are. It was hardly a full landing or even something that came close to it because it was done so far away the moons surface. Full test. That's a huge generalization.
Personally for me they could have done just as well and no doubt better with Armstrong sitting on a long lem simulation boom attached to a fire truck but what's the fun in that?
I do appreciate this film though. Yes I know "we have pilots" but the actual Lem was landed by almost complete computer control on almost all of the landings if you look into it. It also wasn't tested on the moon before hand as the LLRV was tested and the bugs "worked out" on earth. It was just supposedly flown in orbit on a test landing run with no actual landings whatsoever.
@stalkervision You couldn't fly the LM on Earth, it did not have enough thurst to get off the ground in Earth gravity. You could however test the components, like the rocket engine and the legs and other components seperatly and get much more useful information then if you fitted the LM chassis with another rocket engine for an on Earth test flight in Earths atmosphere.
Stop moving the goalposts. You said "ONE COMPLETE FLIGHT." That is a complete flight.
@loperspest No, why not? LOL ! They could have built one with enough thrust to do the job though just to check out all it's systems. They could have put one on a 1/6th g "support rig" and directly tested it right out. They never did this which I find a bit odd. The LLRV was far from the what the actual LEM was. Testing components "separately" is far far worse then testing the craft in it's entirety.
@loperspest I knew you would use the "moving the goal posts bit.." .Very predictable. It really doesn't add to your argument though. The flight in actuality was almost entirely STATIC with no altitude whatsoever and one turn. far from what would experience in the real lem don't you agree?
Of course I am saying that, it's what you did. It is a very nice day outside where I am, so I am leaving. Maybe later I will have regained some patience for you, but not now.
The LLRV actually had a more difficult task then the LM in some respects. It had to handle winds and higher gravity, things the LM would not encounter on the moon. It doesn't change the fact you asked for a complete flight, no dithering about not going high enough or manoeuvring enough, and I gave you one.
@loperspest good... by all means enjoy yourself. That's what would do also. I believe that the the LLRV indeed would have probably been more difficult to fly then the lem but since I have never seen a lem land except for one window that would be pretty hard to judge. Now your going on again with the one so called "flight" Yes it's a "flight' if you can call it that exactly. I don't for reasons I discussed. Did see what happened to it when they flew higher then 25 feet didn't you?
Now if you can find me ONE COMPLETE FLIGHT I will certainly watch it. The maximum flight time for these was only 13 minutes. I should offer a million dollar award on that one Loper because no one has yet been able to furnish ONE link or video of that.
At 3 minutes 30 seconds into the video, there is the start of a complete LLRV flight from lift off to touch down.
While there were many failures in the X-trials,and while computers may be more powerful now, humans are still better pilots then computers. That's why we HAVE pilots. That they could land at all is proof of concept.
@loperspest Yes, I found it by going directly to the site but do you see how far he was off the ground there the whole time Loper? What about 25 ft? Notice the lack of much maneuvering there also. I had long figured the LLRV could at least do that and was waiting for someone to to furnish me with a film of this which I thank you but frankly it doesn't prove all that much. Thanks anyway..
You seem not to realize that rockets with gimbaled motors rarely if ever land back on the spaceport once again. All except the LEM that is. It was an "exception"
It still has to stay balanced, going up or going down
And other rockets have also landed. For example, this is a goal of the g lunar lander challenge and has in fact been completed by armadillo aerospace. /watch?v=-Oud2dpDKHA
If you are wondering where I got 3:30 from, it refers to 3 minutes and 30 seconds into the dailymotion video I linked to earlier, which is a compilation. If you watch from that point forward, there is a LLRV flight from slifting to landing with no cuts.
@loperspest You really need to look at the Luner lander "X-trials" there Loper and see how many crashed trying to duplicate the lem. That in-spite of the fact that computers are far FAR FAR FAR FAR advanced of the computer aboard the lem. I looked at your video ink BTW and it's 39 seconds. You know a "compilation" means it was EDITED there don't you? I have watched many MANY of these "compilations" and they are all the same. Heavily edited..
Conspiracy theorists are living proof of Robert Heinlein's observation that "people believe what they want to and logic has no bearing on it". What a waste of time.
Gee, that's funny, the film documentation is plenty good enough when the conspiracy buffs think it suits their purpose. It only becomes "useless as evidence" on those vastly more numerous occasions when it doesn't fit with their theory. Anyone wishing to make up their own mind on the issue can start with these:
actually these 795 flights are not video documented except for what the astronauts say. Do you know even now NASA can't get a lander to hover and land without it crashing. Even with all out technology we have far in advanced of apollo,
How could the astronot, reflected in the visor of the astronot being photographed, have taken this photo without facing the subject or holding a camera?
In fact, how could he have even been on the Moon without wearing his PLSS life support backpack?
AS17-141-21608 is all the evidence needed to show that the Apollo photography was faked.
'Moon Landing Hoax Apollo 17 : A Man seen Reflected in the Astronauts Visor is Not Wearing a PLSS Backpack'
raven, most F1 drivers have raced for years in formula ford formula3/2 before 1, even carting at schoolboy level, only a very minute amount make it as F1 world champions, so your theory that armstrong was the choice because of his fighter pilot flights don't really hold any water - he was picked because he was a YES man, a good mouth piece for nasa and america at that time.
Stray. no matter how many times you've been told the difference between the LLTV and the LEM you refuse to see the difference. When was the last time you had an EEG, boy?
The LLRV had three crashes and 200 successful flights. They were harder to control than the LM's , but gave good hand-on training.
You know what isn't funny ? Neil Armstrong was a veteran X-15 pilot with 7 flights to his credit in that rocket plane. He then puts his butt on the line...AGAIN...to test the LLRV, which had a mechanical malfunction and crashed, with him ejecting just 100 ft. off the ground. And you think that's funny ?
The LLRV had three crashes and 200 successful flights. They were harder to control than the LM's , but gave good hand-on training."
If you can show any VIDEO proof of that claim, I would like to see it .. All I've seen so far is the one video showing the crash of the LLTV that almost killed Armstrong.
You think you would have what it takes to pilot a LLRV ? Only a few in the world had that flying talent.
Your comments show a lack of simple respect. How would you feel if you got hammered in a car accident, and find out people were laughing at your misfortune in
"You think you would have what it takes to pilot a LLRV ? Only a few in the world had that flying talent."
Obviously not.. I'm not a trained test pilot.
"Your comments show a lack of simple respect. How would you feel if you got hammered in a car accident, and find out people were laughing at your misfortune in
somebodys YouTube eyewitnees video ?"
How does my comment about that LLTV crash show any disrespect for the pilot who risked his life flying that piece of crap?
Stray: The LLRV info came out of a book. You may be becoming too dependent on videos for definitive information. At least search the web for info on the LLRV.
I'm sorry Raven, but anything can be written in a book.. That doesn't mean it's true.
To prove that the LLTV was successfully test flown "200 times", there would have to be some video footage of those flights.. In this case, videos are the ONLY proof that the LLTV (shown in this video with the crash edited out) could have done what NASA claimed it did.
I understand that this vehicle was the prototype of the LM, but it still would have to fly.
Video One: Early LLRV Flight Test by Zeroscam Prototype flight Pilot wearing orange jumpsuit Open cockpit Site:Edwards AFB, CA Video 2: LLRV Training flight with Neil Armstrong by Zeroscam Later flight with semi-enclosed cockpit White jumpsuit Armstrong has longer hair... Flight at Ellington AFB, TX SD: You really believe this machine didn't fly acceptably ? The Russian version (why would they build one..THEIR HOAX ?) possessed about the same stability. Can you view these videos without bia ?
Okay, then there were two test flights .. and neither one shows more an a few seconds of cleverly EDITED footage.. So where are the videos of the alleged "200 successful LLRV flights"?
"Can you view these videos without bia ?"
Yes, can you? .. All I've asked for is proof that the LLRV had successful flights and you can't provide anything except for a few seconds of very EDITED footage!
You pitch a slanted presentation loaded with enuendo and then call me biased...IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.
If possible, try to be objective here and view this video: " Lunar Landing Training Vehicle Part 2 of 2. posted by 19690720.
The video's ten min. long, with three spent on an entire flight at Ellington.
This vehicle's perfectly functional and stable. Armstrong's accident was caused by subsystem malfunction....not because the craft wasn't airworthy. Why can't you believe your eyes ?
If I put together all the written witticisms I created in my lifetime they would easily far surpass all of Shakespeare's collective works! Oh yeaahhh!
"If possible, try to be objective here and view this video: " Lunar Landing Training Vehicle Part 2 of 2. posted by 19690720.
The video's ten min. long, with three spent on an entire flight at Ellington."
If possible, you try to be objective. The video you linked is called NASA PROPAGANDA.
This video of an LLRV test flight has 9 EDITED CUT AWAY SHOTS which could have been of different flights, with a "landing" that could have been done with cables, for all we know.
That LLRV video is NOT evidence that the "flying bedstead" could take off, fly and land safely on Earth, much less the Moon. It's just more CLEVERLY EDITED NASA PROPAGANDA.
Look at the footage again and count the edits .. Then open your eyes and wake up to the fact that Apollo was a clever scam.
Aircraft are my strongest point of expertise. I have been around them most of my life, even experimental ones. I know the real deal when I see it. Enough said.
What I find interesting is that you accept the Russian LLRV video as being real, but ours is somehow a hoax.
You're bending a long ways to make this video fit into a conspiracy theory.
"Aircraft are my strongest point of expertise. I have been around them most of my life, even experimental ones. I know the real deal when I see it. Enough said."
Then you should know that the video, with it's 9 edits, proved nothing.. Enough said.
"What I find interesting is that you accept the Russian LLRV video as being real, but ours is somehow a hoax."
Unlike NASA's video, the Russian video showed the entire flight from start to finish, wihout the edits and the suspicious landing.
"You're bending a long ways to make this video fit into a conspiracy theory."
No, it needed no help from me to prove that it was a very cleverly edited piece of NASA propaganda, which showed no proof of the LLRV ever making a successful flight.
SD: Wires and mirrors and stuff like that. That's what you're seeing, right? "See, there are cuts in the film...I told you it couldn't fly !" That what most moon hoaxers claim..the LLRV was too unstable to fly.
That is what you're believing, right.
So if you showed us a video of you flying to Hawaii, showing take-off, cruise and landing with hours edited out because it would be too long to watch, then I could claim you never went anywhere...is that correct ?
The LLRV fight videos are proof enough for us simple, rational folk. I just don't have the reasoning facilities to see how all this video was a hoax engineered NASA propaganda piece.
"The LLRV fight videos are proof enough for us simple, rational folk."
Meaning that it's proof enough for those who refuse to see that it's really no proof at all.. It's also proof enough for those who refuse to see that Apollo was faked in any respect.
"I just don't have the reasoning facilities to see how all this video was a hoax engineered NASA propaganda piece."
I agree.. It's obvious that you have a preconceived opinion about Apollo that will never change for any reason.
"SD: Wires and mirrors and stuff like that. That's what you're seeing, right?"
Wrong.. I see a ridiculous looking, unstable craft that was so dangerous to fly that most of the Apollo astronots refused to even attempt it, and preferred to practice in the LM simulator instead.
I also see cleverly EDITED video footage of a LLRV test flight that doesn't prove it could even safely complete one test flight.
"So if you showed us a video of you flying to Hawaii, showing take-off, cruise and landing with hours edited out because it would be too long to watch, then I could claim you never went anywhere...is that correct ?"
SD: Come to think of it, I have never seen a Saturn V actually achieve orbit...they say it's too far away and over the horizon as well. What a load of bunk. It must be faked !
Also, I've never watched the
grass grow in my yard for any length of time, but I always need to cut it again the following week.
I don't have proof that it grew, because I wasn't continuously watching it... that's a correct assumption as well ?
You're done with this argument because you have no real evidence that the LLRV flew over "200 successful test flights".. You don't even have any proof that it flew successfully one time, and you know it.
You're also done because your silly analogies only make you look foolish for falling for NASA's many tricks.
SD: A few years I saw a video of Space Ship One being carried aloft by the White Knight. Film cuts to the pair climbing to 40,000 ft. Camera cuts again.... The rocket is dropped...cut to chase plane...engine ignites and it climbs...cut to cockpit interior with pilot in view. See Zero-g effects....cut to Space Ship 1 descending and lowering its landing gear....cut to runway camera and touchdown.
Stray... by your reasoning, this flight may have been faked . But I know the real deal when I see it.
"Stray... by your reasoning, this flight may have been faked . But I know the real deal when I see it."
Raven .. There was absolutely no reason not to show a complete, unedited flight of the LLRV, from start to finish, just like the Russians did.
When it comes to Apollo, nothing adds up.. You just want to believe it was real because your father worked for NASA during Project Apollo .. So there is no way you can be unbiased about this subject.. You only see what you want to see.
SD: Also, the technology that made LLRV craft possible was utilized not only by NASA, but by the British and the Russians as well. The British one actually flew first. Search:
" flying bedstead ". Has it occured to you, that with a jet engine being used for direct lift, weight is a supreme consideration ?
Thats why it is only essential hardware only. Like a sports car with no body.
The LM looks this way for the same reason...weight and function in 1/6 G only.
"The LM looks this way for the same reason...weight and function in 1/6 G only."
Yet the LM was never tested in 1/6 g conditions before allegedly carrying men to the Moon.
Here's a video you might find interesting about a documentary that's coming out soon.. Apparently some NASA insiders believe it's time for the sad truth about Apollo to finally come out.
Also, unlike your generation, YouTube documentaries do no classify as source information even in university studies. Why not ? Simple. The possibility for bias and manipulation is to high. Accreditation is everything in research. Subjective analysis is worthless .
Yes, but the Apollo 9 "mission" didn't ever pretend to land the LM on the Moon and then launch again.. What is LM 3?
"Also, unlike your generation, YouTube documentaries do no classify as source information even in university studies."
This is not a U-T documentary, though it might be uploaded here.. It's well researched NASA photography that proves beyond a doubt that the Apollo images were manipulated and staged.
"SD: NASA has data and witnesses worldwide that would say otherwise."
NASA has it's OWN data that no one in the scientific community dare to refute!.. If they did, they would most likely end up with no career, or possibly as dead as Apollo safety inspector Tomas Baron.
"Or is the entire world in on the hoax, and only conspiratists know the truth ?
No, not very many people were in on the hoax .. As for who knows the truth about it, we will probably never know.
SD: LM 3 was the first manned LM put into space. As far as flight testing, micro-gravity environments are even more demanding than 1/6 G for flight hardware and sub-sysytems. Conversely, 1G is just as effective in the opposite extreme. I'm curious, SD...just how could you test the LM in 1/6 without being on the moon. Put it on a KC-135 ?
It's a little big for that.
One more item: "well researched NASA photography". Who's research? Is there hard data, or just speculative opinion ?
Fiction...or could it possibly be a fact that the government doesn't want you to know ?
Just send me $29.95 for my new DVD that exposes the "Capricorn One Cover-up ". If you order within the next two minutes, you'll also receive a coupon for $5.00 off your next T-shirt order.
"SD: LM 3 was the first manned LM put into space. As far as flight testing, micro-gravity environments are even more demanding than 1/6 G for flight hardware and sub-sysytems."
And of course don't count as 1/6 g testing. So your reply was meaningless in that context.
"One more item: "well researched NASA photography". Who's research? Is there hard data, or just speculative opinion? "
There is hard data on the anomalies in the Apollo photos, inspite of the liars who attempt to refute it.
Stray: Apollo 11 WAS THE TEST of the LEM in 1/6 G. Every successive mission was an in-flight test of some aspect of the system under real conditions, making methodical, incremental advances with each mission. How else do you test a vehicle in 1/6 G? You might argue that's suicidal, that they would land one unmanned, but the JOB of Test Pilots is to FLY previously unflown hardware, testing it to its limits. Armstrong was one of the most talented test pilots. That's why he was chosen!
Sat: Well said! Most people are not aware that Neil Armstrong was an X-15 pilot with seven flights to his credit. In this craft, he was one of the first to "skip" off the top of the atmosphere. Also, his piloting expertise and quick decision-making talents were throughly displayed in averting a potential tragedy during the Gemini 8 flight. Neil was NASA's first choice for commanding Apollo 11.
Thanks, Raven. Funny, if the Hoaxers would bother to LEARN something, they would know this stuff, too! Armstrong's problem solving, under THOSE working conditions during Gemini 8, is one of the most amazing tales in aerospace.
Reven, When I saw O.J. sailing through the airport terminal in that rental car TV ad, I KNEW he was just a puppet on STRINGS! Now it all makes sense! If the puzzle pieces fit, you must convict!
Stray, The Russians had a history of keeping their manned missions secret, revealing only the details that were successful, AFTER the missions succeeded. NASA's manned missions were made public so the world could see it whether it succeeded or failed. They flew hardware TO the Moon on Apollo 8, They tested the LM in Earth Orbit on Apollo 9, They flew a LM to within 7 miles of the surface on Apollo 10, How do you suggest they SHOULD have tested the LEM in 1/6 G, except to actually land it?
No, in a simulator.. Which is EXACTLY how it was done during the Apollo 11 "test" on the "Moon" on July 20, 1969.
Even Apollo Flight Director Gene Cernan, in the documentary 'Faliure is NOT an Option', stated that the SIMS were so realistic in every respect that it was impossible for him, and mission control, to discern the difference between a real lunar landing and a simulated one!
Same went for the guys working the tracking stations.
Stray... If we take your statement and turn it around, you have just said NASA DID TEST THE LEM IN SIMULATED 1/6 G TO YOUR SATISFACTION THROUGH THEIR DUE DILLIGENCE OF CONDUCTING SIMULATOR TRAINING.
These simulations covered narrow slivers of the mission experience, such as watching their instruments while going through simulated docking or reentry. During these simulations they did not experience G load or weightlessness. They were provided with visual cues and instrument readings ONLY!
Stray: "My point is that there was no way to simulate a 1/6 g LM landing, and therefore no way to properly train for a real lunar landing."
They trained with simulations that "were so realistic that even mission control couldn't tell the difference between a simulated lunar landing and a real one" to make procedure an auto reflex and gain deep knowledge of the systems. They flew the LLRV to gain real experience piloting a vehicle with the same controls. They were the finest test pilots.
"They trained with simulations that "were so realistic that even mission control couldn't tell the difference between a simulated lunar landing and a real one" to make procedure an auto reflex and gain deep knowledge of the systems,"
They trained using such realistic simulations, so they could pass them off as being the real thing.
"They flew the LLRV to gain real experience piloting a vehicle with the same controls. They were the finest test pilots."
Most of the Apollo astronot/test pilots REFUSED to fly the LLRV, including Buzz Aldrin.. The damn thing was a death trap and they knew it .. That's why they stuck with the simulators.
Only because Buzz refused to train in the LLRV, also called "the flying bedstead".. That piece of shit couldn't fly and Buzz knew it.
"Now, THERE'S an intrepid test pilot for you!"
Right .. And also a test pilot who wouldn't have been able to fly the LM had something happened to Neil.. But we're suppossed to believe that he was the "co pilot" to the most famous "test flight" in the history of the world!. Riight.
Stray, You say simulated mission profile instrumentation readings, capsule communications, biometrics and video were being fed to Houston Control, and they were unaware - they could not have possibly been aware that the astronauts were not trans lunar or ON the Moon - that the tracking stations engineers could not tell that their measurements were being fed to them rather than being acquired by the radar equipment they were operating? All these people were deceived throughout nine missions?
"All these people were deceived throughout nine missions?"
Either deceived, or possibly part of the deception .. Yes.
I read where one NASA employee, running a simulation of an Apollo lunar landing at Honeysuckle Creek, got so excited that he had a mild heart attack .. That's how realistic they were.
"I did. I'm not impressed. See my Photobucket subalbum: "Photo Anomalies", inside of which is "Visor Reflections" .."
I checked out your album but didn't see anything labeled Visor Reflections under Photo Anomalies.
Not only is the PLSS missing on the astronot in the AS17-141-21608 visor reflection, but he's not facing in the correct position to have taken the photo, nor is he holding a camera.. Check out the Apollo Image Gallery high res photo, under a zoom in.
Steray: "Send me the link then, cuz I don't have time to waste searching thru your Apollo PB nonsense."
In my profile, on the left side there's a link to the Photobucket at the BOTTOM of that window. It says "Website" and has the link. If you're clicking on the words "Photo Anomalies" in that window... that's NOT a link. That's just text.
"It says "Website" and has the link. If you're clicking on the words "Photo Anomalies" in that window... that's NOT a link. That's just text."
I went to your PB account and clicked under the few links that said "photo anomalies" and "photographic anomalies " but didn't see any visor reflection photos.
If there's something you want me to see, just send the link to my inbox and stop playing games.
"In my profile, on the left side there's a link to the Photobucket at the BOTTOM of that window"
If you had said it was under "Albums" instead of "photo anomalies" I would have found it.
Thanks for finally letting me know where your study is on that A17 visor reflection.. Your pixels alone have even proven beyond any doubt that the PLSS is not in that photo!
Please keep up the good work in helping the CT's expose the Apollo photographic hoax evidence! .. That's some great stuff!
In fact, your evidence is so good that I would like your permission to send it to David Percy.. He would be interested to know that one of NASA's shills is actually helping expose the hoax evidence, though not intentionally of course.
But not only have you proven that the PLSS wasn't in that reflection but you've also shown that the reflected astronot is facing in the wrong direction to have taken a picture of the astronot being photographed, with his arms down at his sides.
Meaning the reflected astronot of course, who would have had his arms raised and bent at the elbow, and would also have been facing the subject being photographed, had he really been the photographer.
Sorry shillweavers, but your photobucket photo "analysis" of this one came up a tad short..
Everyone go to satweavers photobucket page, under "Albums", then "Visor Reflections" to see this shill's tap dance with the pixels! .. LOL
Stray: "Sorry shillweavers, but your photobucket photo "analysis" of this one came up a tad short.."
In honor of your CONTINUED confusion about this, I have added three new frames to the study. I believe that even ArcAngel might find the new additions informative.
If ArcAngel is on this Holy Crusade to learn the TRUTH, WHY has he disabled comments on his video? What a WHIMP!!!
"In honor of your CONTINUED confusion about this, I have added three new frames to the study..."
I'm not the one who's confused about this. You are.
The reflected astronot was NOT facing his subject and was NOT bending his arms to snap the picture.. Therefore he could NOT have taken that photo. So who did?
The pixels prove that he was also sans a PLSS.
Thanks for adding some new frames to your study though.. I can't wait to see what new steps you've added to your current tap dance.
"If ArcAngel is on this Holy Crusade to learn the TRUTH, WHY has he disabled comments on his video? What a WHIMP!!"
Oh gee, I dunno. Maybe because he's another "Charles T. Hawkins" and secretly working for NASA to obsure the truth?
His "hoax" evidence is bullshit, except for this one little slip up. You, working so hard as a NASA shill, can attempt to explain away the missing PLSS, but what you clowns overlooked WAS THE POSITION THE REFLECTED ASTRONOT IS FACING WITH HIS ARMS AT HIS SIDES.
Stray, I've posted a photo that Cernan took of Schmidt (the reflected one). It was taken on the same EVA at the same location. It shows Schmidt taking a photo, the dirt on his EVA suit and the fact that he has his gold visor up. Comparing that to the reflection shows that it is consistent with Schmidt operating the camera with ONE HAND, and that the PLSS is obscured by Schmidt himself. Schmidt's SHADOW in the reflection clearly shows that he was wearing a PLSS.
satweavers"Schmidt's SHADOW in the reflection clearly shows that he was wearing a PLSS"
I've looked at watch?v=xLanUT5ldrQ&feature=re lated
The reflection is most peculiar. Even if the shadow indicates a PLSS, it's not level with the head.
And where is the shadow of the Hassleblad camera on the reflected a/not? If it was face on to take the pic, it would still cast a shadow to the right along with the supposed PLSS' shadow. This is a techie, or a/not not kitted out properly. Miniatures?
"Comparing that to the reflection shows that it is consistent with Schmidt operating the camera with ONE HAND, and that the PLSS is obscured by Schmidt himself."
The PLSS can't be obsured by Schmitt in this photo because he's standing SIDEWAYS in the reflection.. Had the PLSS been there, it would be seen, and had he taken the photo, he wouldn't have been facing AWAY from Cernan.
Even the pixel analysis you did, comparing this photo to another one, clearly shows that the PLSS is missing.
"Does this have something to do with the above LLRV video ?"
No, it has to do with a faked Apollo 17 photo showing a visor reflected astronot that could not have taken the photo of the subject while facing away from him .. It also shows that his arms are straight down by his sides, therefore he's not even operating a camera.
His PLSS is also missing .. Scroll back to read my comments EGMAG.
Neal's flight was a flop the LLRV got out of control and crashed before blowing up on the ground Neal survived and later commanded Apollo 11.
geomodelrailroader 6 months ago
Comment removed
hunchbacked 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@geomodelrailroader
Neil Armstrong was not the only pilot who had to eject himself to save his life when testing the LLTV; two other pilots also had to eject themselves.
On the moon, it would have meant the death for them.
hunchbacked 6 days ago
Armstrong never piloted LLRVs, which were unmanned prototypes, Armstrong pilotted an LLTV, from which he had to eject after losing control.
elvisinpersonator 7 months ago
@elvisinpersonator
In fact, it was because he was not adequately warned bout the problem (loss of helium pressure) that he lost the control.
The problem with these vehicles is that, if the least failure happens, it degenerates very quickly, with no possibility of regaining control.
Two other pilots also had to eject themselves to save their lives; on the moon, it would have meant death.
hunchbacked 6 days ago
They had change the engines out for much better more reliable ones and it was quite certain the best would fly and fly right. Even before this they had a very successful flight of the massive first stage. Until the second stage was fired..
stalkervision 1 year ago
@stalkervision I hardly call a launch vehicle that fails in the first stage on all launch attempts successful by even the most leniant standards, though the last launch came awful close.
As for how long NASA would mean to keep this a secret, that's something I want to know. Conspiracy theorist have claimed that James Irwin was assassinated to keep the secret. You still haven't provided a source for your claimed Van Allen comment on the belts.
loperspest 1 year ago
@loperspest no no no no.. The first stage worked perfectly in this last test. It was when the second was ignited problems happened. Also.. There were further launches planed for the n1 with these newer engines I mentioned that were extremely reliable and are being used to this day in fact. All canceled...Apparently for political reasons sadly. Source for the belts? Try his seminal paper on the subject in Scientific American. I thought you knew this already.
stalkervision 1 year ago
@stalkervision
This paper?
tinyurl*com/vanbelt
Published in 1959, but a year after the belts were discovered? When what we knew of the belts was sorely incomplete? I can't access it to confirm what you say, but a later paper, written by USSR citizens, with no reason to cover for the US, denies your claim, as does Dr. Van Allen.
Yes the N1 was cancelled for political reasons, the US had beat them to the moon. There is little glory in 2nd place. How many know Buzz Aldrins name compared to Conrad?
loperspest 1 year ago
Now if van allen had retracted his original work and gone into details about his mistakes with corrections that would be an entirely different manner completely.
stalkervision 1 year ago
@stalkervision
What exactly say and where and when did he say it?
Whether he directly retracted it, he did say the claim was nonsense , directly and to the point.
You still understand how whatever NASA says about radiation will damn them in the end if they were faking because of radiation.
As previously mentioned USSR sen Zond 5 & 7, Luna 9 & Cosmos 110 specifically to measure radiation. They didn't go in person as their N1blew up.
Come to Apollohoax*net if you wish to discuss this further.
loperspest 1 year ago
@loperspest maybe you buy this buddy but i have some serious doubts. Damn them? Maybe in the future but I believe they have a nice story all waiting in the wings to justify everything they did. Actually if they just came out with it would totally support them. I can see perfectly well why they did it. I bet you wouldn't though. LOL ! I was looking at some new N1 info I never saw and apparently the N! was a lot more successful then I ever knew.
stalkervision 1 year ago
You see I'm a fence sitter on all of this That gives me the advantage of looking at both sides of the argument pretty fairly.
stalkervision 1 year ago
Lots of NGDS data shows the sun was alive with solar storms at this time too. In fact they were throughout the missions Yet all the missions were launched.without nary a worry. Doesn't that make you wonder whatsoever?
stalkervision 1 year ago
The real problem here is until someone besides nasa builds a space ship that will completely traverse the belts and beyond and we have multiple camera feeds on board from different nations no one knows if nasa did what it claimed it did. It is the antarctic explorer dilemma once again.
stalkervision 1 year ago
As i said believe radiation shielding tor satellites I believe is possible and is being done.Every once and a while though a solar storm will burn one right out and their software will be pretty well fried.
stalkervision 1 year ago
BTW I do believe computer devices can be hardened sufficiently enough to get through the belts because the amount of weight is minimal in that case compared to fully hardening a large capsule and it's crew.
stalkervision 1 year ago
It's the same place as the hardware developers get their specifications..
stalkervision 1 year ago
@stalkervision
If they used those specification, and it was as bad as you say they would have fried satellites.
You can't have it both ways. Either NASA gives them bad data on the belts, and their ships get fried early, or NASA gives them good data that reveal that the Van Allen belts are far more dangerous then NASA claims. There's private satellites in high orbit in general, not just in GSO And then there's the Chinese, Russian, EU, and Indian space probes that have gone through the belts.
loperspest 1 year ago
@loperspest It would hardly be "bad" I am sure the data they get is quite good in fact. LOL ! what bad data?
Satellites fly withing the belts. Until some scientists decide to venture through them we will never know will we? That's pretty hard to do without a spacecraft to lift them. Do you know that nasa is doing belt research radiation shielding studies to this day and. Some say its for the mars trip but if the belts are so easily traversed why bother?
stalkervision 1 year ago
@stalkervision There is things called particle accelerators that allow us to create charged particles with energies comparable to the Van Allen Belts .Scientists can test the protection said to be needed verses the claimed energies of the Belts on EARTH.
Radiation hardening isn't an all or nothing thing. If '2 metres of lead' were needed for a 2 week trip to the moon, you would need far more protection then the satellite makers are giving them, which would lead to early failing satellites.
loperspest 1 year ago
@loperspest yes we do but as i said where have we been getting the data from on the belts? Not these scientist you have mentioned. We have for one Van Allen who completely asserted the belts were un-travel able and never ever disavowed his original data on the belts or revised his original seminal work. Instead he became evasive about the question and said "he probably made mistakes,.." I personally don't believe van allen made such mistakes in that work.
stalkervision 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stalkervision
They would know the data was bad once the satellites started failing. and if it was good, they would know that it would have been too dangerous.
Dr. Van Allen said it was too dangerous? Whether or not he said that, he said this on the FOX moon hoax special:
"The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense."
tinyurl*com/4khxjme
I am raven by the way, come join us and discuss your ideas.
loperspest 1 year ago
@loperspest I looked at that Van allen quote but without a retraction of his original works or at least a modification it doesn't mean a whole lot. He refused to do this his entire career btw. He had plenty of time to fix his mistakes if that is what he is claiming from that quote. Yet he still stood by his origianl work. You don't find this a tad strange? I do..Thanks for the invitation btw but I doubt your comrades would be as understandable as you are. LOL !
stalkervision 1 year ago
Respond to this video... well the amount of radiation protection a hardened circuit needs and a human are two different things I believe you will agree. As you said the satellites operate within the belts but that is in the lower radiation areas of the belts Just take a ordinary magnet and some iron fillings and see what the belts look like yourself.
stalkervision 1 year ago
"Bio-scientist" I believe one actually. yes scientists do radiation experiments but where do they get there space radiation data from.....
stalkervision 1 year ago
I am really quite impressed that you didn't dismiss the idea off hand but picked up on the idea immediately. and understood it just as fast.
stalkervision 1 year ago
Just ponder on what I shared with you for a bit and don't be so quick to try to shoot it down.
stalkervision 1 year ago
It came to me one day as a epiphany as i was pondering your very questions. That part of the fake had always troubled me. That may also explain why Russia was doing the very same thing. We just beat them to the punch it is all..
stalkervision 1 year ago
@stalkervision
Fact: Radiation affects electronics. Fact: Many private companies operate satellites in geosynchronous orbit, right in the middle of the Van Allen belts.
Fact: These satellites are insured by places like Lloyd's of London who make money off knowing risk and setting premiums accordingly. If the radiation was as severe as you say these people would have, as you say,
"found out and objected to by many many developers of the craft."
loperspest 1 year ago
@loperspest yes..yes..yes....yes except they are " In between" the worst of the belts. Also they systems can be "radiation hardened" far easier then a human.. THE ISS operates in the belts and the astronauts have to retreat to a safe room and some of the electronic shut down when it passes through the SAA... Phill Plait said that.
stalkervision 1 year ago
@stalkervision
Astronauts & electronics on the ISS spend months, years in the case of electronics. going in and out the SAA. Apollo spent but hours in the belt and at most 2 weeks in space.
The effect radiation of on electronics & penetration of shielding and hardening can't be hidden.
Even universities do experiments on radiation penetration, so if NASA said "put such and such radiation protection" they would realize that it is too much for what NASA say is out there.
tinyurl*com/2gbqcd
loperspest 1 year ago
@loperspest Do we know if apollo even went through the belts actually. It may have but not with the crew on board. I know they spent at least a hour , two actually if you count both ways, in there without even minimal ISS shielding . The you have the National Geophysical survey data showing major solar flares were going on all through the missions. It is claimed by some nasa scientis that the minimal time in the saa allows healing to occur but that is only if the passage is very short.
stalkervision 1 year ago
Remember..the developers of these crafts only developed them to nasa specifications..If nasa specified they should be such and such specifications that is exactly what they did.
stalkervision 1 year ago
You understood it immediately.That's impressive..
stalkervision 1 year ago
It's a brilliant concept IMO and the only one that would have worked.
stalkervision 1 year ago
According to Soviet studies of radiation measuring experiments aboard Zond-5 and 7, " Should no solar flares occur, seven-day flights along the trajectories
of Zond-5 and 7 probes are safe from the radiation point of view."
cdsweb.cern.ch/record/864491/files/p484*pdf
Trouble with building the hardware AND faking it is now you don't havebillions in hush money You spent that making stuff that could actually go to the moon.
So they made hardware, and radiation is NOT an issue, why not go?
loperspest 1 year ago
@loperspest The soviet missions are even more a mystery IMO.. LOL! Hay, you actually understand what I was getting at ! Cool ! Yes, indeed a whole lot of money had to be spent on the project. The vast amount I am sure.but I am sure nasa skimmed a ton of it right off the top too. IMO radiation was the over riding issue. There may have been other issues that were almost as troublesome though. That would be an interesting topic all in itself.
stalkervision 1 year ago
Hell, I even brought back home movies!
stalkervision 1 year ago
They will even attest to this and show you the equipment.You saw me leave with it and I have pictures and samples..
stalkervision 1 year ago
It a bit like if your the first adventurer to the north pole..You have a lot of special sleds and tons of special equipment made for you...but you never actually get there but people see you leave. and come back.. bragging you got to the pole. Hay you even brought samples back of the ice there.and took pictures.See I had tons of fancy equipment made especially for the trip and the peoplewho made it developed it for the pole trip.
.
stalkervision 1 year ago
you see what a brilliant idea that actually was? Now you can say it could be also because the missions were real. but that was the whole point of doing it this way..I know you just believe that they were real but think about what i said for a moment.
stalkervision 1 year ago
This is what i believe Early in the space program it was realized that radiation was the killer for a real moon mission.It was also realized that faking the hardware would surely be found out and objected to by many many developers of the craft. In a quite brilliant move they made the craft just like they would have if the missions had been real. Hay money was hardly a object was it?
stalkervision 1 year ago
Picture a aircraft carrier pilot or even a airline pilot descending to 32000 ft.for a "full landing test"
stalkervision 1 year ago
@stalkervision
Apollo 10 broke orbit and descended toward the surface. This would test almost everything. Then, to get back to the the CSM, they had to get to fire the acent stage engine and get back to the CSM, testing everything in that.
Oh, and if you think the LM was simply a fake, that would mean everyone at Grumman and sub-contractors would have to be in on the hoax. Also, the Apollo Telescope mount made from LM parts and the Delta II 2nd stage engones were originally surplus LM engines.
loperspest 1 year ago
@loperspest Hmmm yes and Noooo Not at that height quite Franky. Also that was a around the moon mission as I mentioned. Actually I believe it was a real project but was never used around the moon. The vast problem with making a fake lem or anything would be someone on the teams would surely object to making it IMO.. You see the hardware IMO was pretty much all real. That is why it has been able to deceive people for so long such as yourself..
stalkervision 1 year ago
Btw the lem I believe descended to 32000 ft.That's the best number I can find right now it may have been much higher.You call that a "full landing test" I guess..I don't.
stalkervision 1 year ago
You never saw the Trieste Bathyscape? I hate to be a wet blanket but what the heck are you talking about?
stalkervision 1 year ago
Hay look.. it appears I found another complete flight too ! YT... I Dream of flying bedstead :-)
stalkervision 1 year ago
@stalkervision
I found another vehiclle even older then the flying bedstead known as the Atar II. Same principle and it too is able to take off just fine.
britishpathe*com/record*php?id=32783
I don't see what flying above 25 feet has to do with it. These things, like the LM and LLRV, have no wings, so there is no Wing in Ground Effect helping keep it up.
I have never seen the Trieste Bathyscaphe, does that mean it's fake too?
loperspest 1 year ago
@loperspest Yes there have been a few vehicles like this. Most with very very mixed results. You don't see any flying around do you ? 25 feet has a lot to do with it. Basically because you can cut the power at that height and because of the design you will survive. Actually I believe there is a bit of ground effect flying at a lower height with a vehicle like this but it's pretty hard to explain.
stalkervision 1 year ago
@stalkervision
There's a reason you don't see this kind of vehicle, Earth has an atmosphere, so you can use wings. On the airless moon, soft landings require decelerating on a column of hot gas. Surveyor did so, as did the Luna landers, and all, but the ones that were similar to Luna 9, did it all the way to the lunar surface.
And the LM was tested. Not just in test facilities on Earth, not just in LEO, but also in lunar orbit and in a partial decent that was a full test of the ascent stage.
loperspest 1 year ago
@loperspest I was being facetious. That is pretty funny you fell for it. I already mentioned the lem test which Frankly has little documentations except for a few pictures that could have been easily faked. Many skeptics say they are. It was hardly a full landing or even something that came close to it because it was done so far away the moons surface. Full test. That's a huge generalization.
stalkervision 1 year ago
Personally for me they could have done just as well and no doubt better with Armstrong sitting on a long lem simulation boom attached to a fire truck but what's the fun in that?
stalkervision 1 year ago
But I do appreciate the film once again. thanks.
stalkervision 1 year ago
Kind of landing on a carrier without really doing it and in this case not even getting close to the ship !
stalkervision 1 year ago
I do appreciate this film though. Yes I know "we have pilots" but the actual Lem was landed by almost complete computer control on almost all of the landings if you look into it. It also wasn't tested on the moon before hand as the LLRV was tested and the bugs "worked out" on earth. It was just supposedly flown in orbit on a test landing run with no actual landings whatsoever.
stalkervision 1 year ago
@stalkervision You couldn't fly the LM on Earth, it did not have enough thurst to get off the ground in Earth gravity. You could however test the components, like the rocket engine and the legs and other components seperatly and get much more useful information then if you fitted the LM chassis with another rocket engine for an on Earth test flight in Earths atmosphere.
Stop moving the goalposts. You said "ONE COMPLETE FLIGHT." That is a complete flight.
Now you won't accept it. Typical.
loperspest 1 year ago
@loperspest No, why not? LOL ! They could have built one with enough thrust to do the job though just to check out all it's systems. They could have put one on a 1/6th g "support rig" and directly tested it right out. They never did this which I find a bit odd. The LLRV was far from the what the actual LEM was. Testing components "separately" is far far worse then testing the craft in it's entirety.
stalkervision 1 year ago
@loperspest I knew you would use the "moving the goal posts bit.." .Very predictable. It really doesn't add to your argument though. The flight in actuality was almost entirely STATIC with no altitude whatsoever and one turn. far from what would experience in the real lem don't you agree?
stalkervision 1 year ago
@stalkervision
Of course I am saying that, it's what you did. It is a very nice day outside where I am, so I am leaving. Maybe later I will have regained some patience for you, but not now.
The LLRV actually had a more difficult task then the LM in some respects. It had to handle winds and higher gravity, things the LM would not encounter on the moon. It doesn't change the fact you asked for a complete flight, no dithering about not going high enough or manoeuvring enough, and I gave you one.
loperspest 1 year ago
@loperspest good... by all means enjoy yourself. That's what would do also. I believe that the the LLRV indeed would have probably been more difficult to fly then the lem but since I have never seen a lem land except for one window that would be pretty hard to judge. Now your going on again with the one so called "flight" Yes it's a "flight' if you can call it that exactly. I don't for reasons I discussed. Did see what happened to it when they flew higher then 25 feet didn't you?
stalkervision 1 year ago
Now if you can find me ONE COMPLETE FLIGHT I will certainly watch it. The maximum flight time for these was only 13 minutes. I should offer a million dollar award on that one Loper because no one has yet been able to furnish ONE link or video of that.
stalkervision 1 year ago
@stalkervision
I did that already stalkervison. Did you watch the dailymotion video or not?
dailymotion*com/video/x5mxqz_neil-armstrong-llrv-aka-flying-beds_music
At 3 minutes 30 seconds into the video, there is the start of a complete LLRV flight from lift off to touch down.
While there were many failures in the X-trials,and while computers may be more powerful now, humans are still better pilots then computers. That's why we HAVE pilots. That they could land at all is proof of concept.
loperspest 1 year ago
@loperspest Yes, I found it by going directly to the site but do you see how far he was off the ground there the whole time Loper? What about 25 ft? Notice the lack of much maneuvering there also. I had long figured the LLRV could at least do that and was waiting for someone to to furnish me with a film of this which I thank you but frankly it doesn't prove all that much. Thanks anyway..
stalkervision 1 year ago
You seem not to realize that rockets with gimbaled motors rarely if ever land back on the spaceport once again. All except the LEM that is. It was an "exception"
stalkervision 1 year ago
@stalkervision
It still has to stay balanced, going up or going down
And other rockets have also landed. For example, this is a goal of the g lunar lander challenge and has in fact been completed by armadillo aerospace. /watch?v=-Oud2dpDKHA
If you are wondering where I got 3:30 from, it refers to 3 minutes and 30 seconds into the dailymotion video I linked to earlier, which is a compilation. If you watch from that point forward, there is a LLRV flight from slifting to landing with no cuts.
loperspest 1 year ago
@loperspest You really need to look at the Luner lander "X-trials" there Loper and see how many crashed trying to duplicate the lem. That in-spite of the fact that computers are far FAR FAR FAR FAR advanced of the computer aboard the lem. I looked at your video ink BTW and it's 39 seconds. You know a "compilation" means it was EDITED there don't you? I have watched many MANY of these "compilations" and they are all the same. Heavily edited..
stalkervision 1 year ago
This test 100 feet in the air, and the hoax that they when to the moon are two completely different things.
cleanandoftenseen 2 years ago
@cleanandoftenseen ABSOLUTELY!
un4g1v3n1 1 year ago
Conspiracy theorists are living proof of Robert Heinlein's observation that "people believe what they want to and logic has no bearing on it". What a waste of time.
jrcadet4 2 years ago
what do stars have to do with this test moron?
stalkervision 2 years ago
I want an LLRV of my very own. Where to buy?
fosterbt 2 years ago
The 795 flights are all undocumented by film except for what the astronauts said. That makes them useless as evidence.
brealistic1 2 years ago
Gee, that's funny, the film documentation is plenty good enough when the conspiracy buffs think it suits their purpose. It only becomes "useless as evidence" on those vastly more numerous occasions when it doesn't fit with their theory. Anyone wishing to make up their own mind on the issue can start with these:
watch?v=vbl800iQJDI
watch?v=rua1lCpKtYu8feature=related
watch?v=Ft9VWu837mw
occhamite 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
TheJomogogo 2 years ago
Of the 5 LLRV vehicles used for training there were 3 crashes out of 795 flights
TheApolloChannel 3 years ago
actually these 795 flights are not video documented except for what the astronauts say. Do you know even now NASA can't get a lander to hover and land without it crashing. Even with all out technology we have far in advanced of apollo,
stalkervision 2 years ago
How could the astronot, reflected in the visor of the astronot being photographed, have taken this photo without facing the subject or holding a camera?
In fact, how could he have even been on the Moon without wearing his PLSS life support backpack?
AS17-141-21608 is all the evidence needed to show that the Apollo photography was faked.
'Moon Landing Hoax Apollo 17 : A Man seen Reflected in the Astronauts Visor is Not Wearing a PLSS Backpack'
watch?v=xLanUT5ldrQ&feature=re lated
straydog02 3 years ago
raven, most F1 drivers have raced for years in formula ford formula3/2 before 1, even carting at schoolboy level, only a very minute amount make it as F1 world champions, so your theory that armstrong was the choice because of his fighter pilot flights don't really hold any water - he was picked because he was a YES man, a good mouth piece for nasa and america at that time.
realitylicker 3 years ago
one shot at one landing 384,000 kilometers away - and thats the only training he had? LOL.
realitylicker 3 years ago
Reality. Read up on it. That training was just the topmost snowflake on the tip of the ice berg. LOL
satweavers 3 years ago
Hey, where's the part where Neil crashed that silly looking contraption??? ..That was the best part of the video!
Damn that NASA .. They never show us the truth of anything!
But not long after this edited crash, Neil landed another one of those silly looking contraptions on the Moon on "live" TV!!!!
RIIGHT.
straydog02 3 years ago
Stray. no matter how many times you've been told the difference between the LLTV and the LEM you refuse to see the difference. When was the last time you had an EEG, boy?
satweavers 3 years ago
"Hey, where's the part where Neil crashed that silly looking contraption??? ..That was the best part of the video!"
That was not this day. Neil as well as the other astronauts all flew and landed the LLTV many times, as you well know, of course.
"But not long after this edited crash"
The crash occurred a year and two months before he landed on the Moon but hey, why start using facts now?
ImTheSecretSquare 3 years ago
Straydog: You left out some information.....
The LLRV had three crashes and 200 successful flights. They were harder to control than the LM's , but gave good hand-on training.
You know what isn't funny ? Neil Armstrong was a veteran X-15 pilot with 7 flights to his credit in that rocket plane. He then puts his butt on the line...AGAIN...to test the LLRV, which had a mechanical malfunction and crashed, with him ejecting just 100 ft. off the ground. And you think that's funny ?
Ravenflight104 3 years ago
"Straydog: You left out some information.....
The LLRV had three crashes and 200 successful flights. They were harder to control than the LM's , but gave good hand-on training."
If you can show any VIDEO proof of that claim, I would like to see it .. All I've seen so far is the one video showing the crash of the LLTV that almost killed Armstrong.
straydog02 3 years ago
You think you would have what it takes to pilot a LLRV ? Only a few in the world had that flying talent.
Your comments show a lack of simple respect. How would you feel if you got hammered in a car accident, and find out people were laughing at your misfortune in
somebodys YouTube eyewitnees video ?
You're accountable on this one....
Ravenflight104 3 years ago
"You think you would have what it takes to pilot a LLRV ? Only a few in the world had that flying talent."
Obviously not.. I'm not a trained test pilot.
"Your comments show a lack of simple respect. How would you feel if you got hammered in a car accident, and find out people were laughing at your misfortune in
somebodys YouTube eyewitnees video ?"
How does my comment about that LLTV crash show any disrespect for the pilot who risked his life flying that piece of crap?
straydog02 3 years ago
Stray: The LLRV info came out of a book. You may be becoming too dependent on videos for definitive information. At least search the web for info on the LLRV.
Ravenflight104 3 years ago
"Stray: The LLRV info came out of a book."
I'm sorry Raven, but anything can be written in a book.. That doesn't mean it's true.
To prove that the LLTV was successfully test flown "200 times", there would have to be some video footage of those flights.. In this case, videos are the ONLY proof that the LLTV (shown in this video with the crash edited out) could have done what NASA claimed it did.
I understand that this vehicle was the prototype of the LM, but it still would have to fly.
straydog02 3 years ago
Conversely, Many videos are engineered to lead the viewer away fro the truth of the matter. Books are usually far more detailed in data.
However, there are quite a few videos on YouTube ( search LLRV ) for you to look at.
Ravenflight104 3 years ago
"However, there are quite a few videos on YouTube ( search LLRV ) for you to look at."
You do realize that all of the very EDITED LLRV video clips, presented here on U-T, are of the SAME FLIGHT that almost killed Armstrong, right?
The only flight that looked possibly successful was a Russian flight, where their LLRV looked much more stable than that junk NASA developed.
Would you like to try again, or admit that you have no real proof of a successful NASA LLRV test flght?
straydog02 3 years ago
Ravenflight104 3 years ago
"Video One:
Video 2:"
Okay, then there were two test flights .. and neither one shows more an a few seconds of cleverly EDITED footage.. So where are the videos of the alleged "200 successful LLRV flights"?
"Can you view these videos without bia ?"
Yes, can you? .. All I've asked for is proof that the LLRV had successful flights and you can't provide anything except for a few seconds of very EDITED footage!
Looks like you're the one who's biased.
straydog02 3 years ago
SD:
SD:
You pitch a slanted presentation loaded with enuendo and then call me biased...IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.
If possible, try to be objective here and view this video: " Lunar Landing Training Vehicle Part 2 of 2. posted by 19690720.
The video's ten min. long, with three spent on an entire flight at Ellington.
This vehicle's perfectly functional and stable. Armstrong's accident was caused by subsystem malfunction....not because the craft wasn't airworthy. Why can't you believe your eyes ?
Ravenflight104 3 years ago
Ravenflight104<<
BLAH BLAH BA BLAH BLAH!
BA BLAH BA BLAH;
BA BLAH BLAH BLAH!
EGMAG 3 years ago
Oh my goodness...you're here too ! And still displaying that clever humor of yours, I see..
Have you considered writing a novel ?
Ravenflight104 3 years ago
Ravenflight104 clever humor of yours<<
You trying to make my evening?
If I put together all the written witticisms I created in my lifetime they would easily far surpass all of Shakespeare's collective works! Oh yeaahhh!
EGMAG 3 years ago
EGMAG: Of that, I have no doubt.
Ravenflight104 3 years ago
Ravenflight104 EGMAG: Of that, I have no doubt. <<
Than you have so vicariously been "putting me on".
I think your mind is clearer now; at least to the "possibilities"!
EGMAG 3 years ago
"If possible, try to be objective here and view this video: " Lunar Landing Training Vehicle Part 2 of 2. posted by 19690720.
The video's ten min. long, with three spent on an entire flight at Ellington."
If possible, you try to be objective. The video you linked is called NASA PROPAGANDA.
This video of an LLRV test flight has 9 EDITED CUT AWAY SHOTS which could have been of different flights, with a "landing" that could have been done with cables, for all we know.
watch?v=S-cL7S2Xz9s
straydog02 3 years ago
"Why can't you believe your eyes ?"
Why can't you believe your's?
That LLRV video is NOT evidence that the "flying bedstead" could take off, fly and land safely on Earth, much less the Moon. It's just more CLEVERLY EDITED NASA PROPAGANDA.
Look at the footage again and count the edits .. Then open your eyes and wake up to the fact that Apollo was a clever scam.
The entire world was duped.
straydog02 3 years ago
SD2:
Aircraft are my strongest point of expertise. I have been around them most of my life, even experimental ones. I know the real deal when I see it. Enough said.
What I find interesting is that you accept the Russian LLRV video as being real, but ours is somehow a hoax.
You're bending a long ways to make this video fit into a conspiracy theory.
Ravenflight104 3 years ago
"Aircraft are my strongest point of expertise. I have been around them most of my life, even experimental ones. I know the real deal when I see it. Enough said."
Then you should know that the video, with it's 9 edits, proved nothing.. Enough said.
"What I find interesting is that you accept the Russian LLRV video as being real, but ours is somehow a hoax."
Unlike NASA's video, the Russian video showed the entire flight from start to finish, wihout the edits and the suspicious landing.
straydog02 3 years ago
"You're bending a long ways to make this video fit into a conspiracy theory."
No, it needed no help from me to prove that it was a very cleverly edited piece of NASA propaganda, which showed no proof of the LLRV ever making a successful flight.
straydog02 3 years ago
SD: Wires and mirrors and stuff like that. That's what you're seeing, right? "See, there are cuts in the film...I told you it couldn't fly !" That what most moon hoaxers claim..the LLRV was too unstable to fly.
That is what you're believing, right.
So if you showed us a video of you flying to Hawaii, showing take-off, cruise and landing with hours edited out because it would be too long to watch, then I could claim you never went anywhere...is that correct ?
Propaganda?
Ravenflight104 3 years ago
The LLRV fight videos are proof enough for us simple, rational folk. I just don't have the reasoning facilities to see how all this video was a hoax engineered NASA propaganda piece.
Ravenflight104 3 years ago
"The LLRV fight videos are proof enough for us simple, rational folk."
Meaning that it's proof enough for those who refuse to see that it's really no proof at all.. It's also proof enough for those who refuse to see that Apollo was faked in any respect.
"I just don't have the reasoning facilities to see how all this video was a hoax engineered NASA propaganda piece."
I agree.. It's obvious that you have a preconceived opinion about Apollo that will never change for any reason.
straydog02 3 years ago
"SD: Wires and mirrors and stuff like that. That's what you're seeing, right?"
Wrong.. I see a ridiculous looking, unstable craft that was so dangerous to fly that most of the Apollo astronots refused to even attempt it, and preferred to practice in the LM simulator instead.
I also see cleverly EDITED video footage of a LLRV test flight that doesn't prove it could even safely complete one test flight.
straydog02 3 years ago
"So if you showed us a video of you flying to Hawaii, showing take-off, cruise and landing with hours edited out because it would be too long to watch, then I could claim you never went anywhere...is that correct ?"
As usual your analogy is meaningless.
straydog02 3 years ago
SD: Come to think of it, I have never seen a Saturn V actually achieve orbit...they say it's too far away and over the horizon as well. What a load of bunk. It must be faked !
Also, I've never watched the
grass grow in my yard for any length of time, but I always need to cut it again the following week.
I don't have proof that it grew, because I wasn't continuously watching it... that's a correct assumption as well ?
Res Ipsa Loquator.
And I'm done.
Ravenflight104 3 years ago
"And I'm done."
You're done with this argument because you have no real evidence that the LLRV flew over "200 successful test flights".. You don't even have any proof that it flew successfully one time, and you know it.
You're also done because your silly analogies only make you look foolish for falling for NASA's many tricks.
straydog02 3 years ago
SD: A few years I saw a video of Space Ship One being carried aloft by the White Knight. Film cuts to the pair climbing to 40,000 ft. Camera cuts again.... The rocket is dropped...cut to chase plane...engine ignites and it climbs...cut to cockpit interior with pilot in view. See Zero-g effects....cut to Space Ship 1 descending and lowering its landing gear....cut to runway camera and touchdown.
Stray... by your reasoning, this flight may have been faked . But I know the real deal when I see it.
Ravenflight104 3 years ago
"Stray... by your reasoning, this flight may have been faked . But I know the real deal when I see it."
Raven .. There was absolutely no reason not to show a complete, unedited flight of the LLRV, from start to finish, just like the Russians did.
When it comes to Apollo, nothing adds up.. You just want to believe it was real because your father worked for NASA during Project Apollo .. So there is no way you can be unbiased about this subject.. You only see what you want to see.
straydog02 3 years ago
SD: Also, the technology that made LLRV craft possible was utilized not only by NASA, but by the British and the Russians as well. The British one actually flew first. Search:
" flying bedstead ". Has it occured to you, that with a jet engine being used for direct lift, weight is a supreme consideration ?
Thats why it is only essential hardware only. Like a sports car with no body.
The LM looks this way for the same reason...weight and function in 1/6 G only.
Ravenflight104 3 years ago
"The LM looks this way for the same reason...weight and function in 1/6 G only."
Yet the LM was never tested in 1/6 g conditions before allegedly carrying men to the Moon.
Here's a video you might find interesting about a documentary that's coming out soon.. Apparently some NASA insiders believe it's time for the sad truth about Apollo to finally come out.
"Moon Rising Movie Trailer"
watch?v=4kWMplKNwgs&feature=email
straydog02 3 years ago
" The LM was never tested in 1/6 G".
SD: Have you ever heard of Apollo 9 or LM 3 ?
Also, unlike your generation, YouTube documentaries do no classify as source information even in university studies. Why not ? Simple. The possibility for bias and manipulation is to high. Accreditation is everything in research. Subjective analysis is worthless .
Ravenflight104 3 years ago
"SD: Have you ever heard of Apollo 9 or LM 3?"
Yes, but the Apollo 9 "mission" didn't ever pretend to land the LM on the Moon and then launch again.. What is LM 3?
"Also, unlike your generation, YouTube documentaries do no classify as source information even in university studies."
This is not a U-T documentary, though it might be uploaded here.. It's well researched NASA photography that proves beyond a doubt that the Apollo images were manipulated and staged.
straydog02 3 years ago
"Subjective analysis is worthless ."
Going by that standard, all of NASA's self serving "documentation" of Apollo would be worthless then.
straydog02 3 years ago
SD: NASA has data and witnesses worldwide that would say otherwise. Or is the entire world in on the hoax, and only conspiratists know the truth ?
Ravenflight104 3 years ago
"SD: NASA has data and witnesses worldwide that would say otherwise."
NASA has it's OWN data that no one in the scientific community dare to refute!.. If they did, they would most likely end up with no career, or possibly as dead as Apollo safety inspector Tomas Baron.
"Or is the entire world in on the hoax, and only conspiratists know the truth ?
No, not very many people were in on the hoax .. As for who knows the truth about it, we will probably never know.
straydog02 3 years ago
" The LM was never tested in 1/6 G".
SD: Have you ever heard of Apollo 9 or LM 3?"
Oh, and Apollo 9 took place in low earth orbit, which is 0 g, not 1/6 g.
straydog02 3 years ago
SD: LM 3 was the first manned LM put into space. As far as flight testing, micro-gravity environments are even more demanding than 1/6 G for flight hardware and sub-sysytems. Conversely, 1G is just as effective in the opposite extreme. I'm curious, SD...just how could you test the LM in 1/6 without being on the moon. Put it on a KC-135 ?
It's a little big for that.
One more item: "well researched NASA photography". Who's research? Is there hard data, or just speculative opinion ?
Ravenflight104 3 years ago
O.J.SIMPSON:
" MARS MISSION SPACECRAFT COMMANDER "
Fiction...or could it possibly be a fact that the government doesn't want you to know ?
Just send me $29.95 for my new DVD that exposes the "Capricorn One Cover-up ". If you order within the next two minutes, you'll also receive a coupon for $5.00 off your next T-shirt order.
Ravenflight104 3 years ago
Ask yourself: Why does O.J. get arrested time and time again ?
Murder...kidnapping, assault........
Well, maybe.
Or was he threatening to blow the lid off of the Mars mission hoax, and this is NASA's attempt to silence him ?
My DVD has the answer to this mystery !
Ravenflight104 3 years ago
"SD: LM 3 was the first manned LM put into space. As far as flight testing, micro-gravity environments are even more demanding than 1/6 G for flight hardware and sub-sysytems."
And of course don't count as 1/6 g testing. So your reply was meaningless in that context.
"One more item: "well researched NASA photography". Who's research? Is there hard data, or just speculative opinion? "
There is hard data on the anomalies in the Apollo photos, inspite of the liars who attempt to refute it.
straydog02 3 years ago
Stray: Apollo 11 WAS THE TEST of the LEM in 1/6 G. Every successive mission was an in-flight test of some aspect of the system under real conditions, making methodical, incremental advances with each mission. How else do you test a vehicle in 1/6 G? You might argue that's suicidal, that they would land one unmanned, but the JOB of Test Pilots is to FLY previously unflown hardware, testing it to its limits. Armstrong was one of the most talented test pilots. That's why he was chosen!
satweavers 3 years ago
Sat: Well said! Most people are not aware that Neil Armstrong was an X-15 pilot with seven flights to his credit. In this craft, he was one of the first to "skip" off the top of the atmosphere. Also, his piloting expertise and quick decision-making talents were throughly displayed in averting a potential tragedy during the Gemini 8 flight. Neil was NASA's first choice for commanding Apollo 11.
Ravenflight104 3 years ago
Thanks, Raven. Funny, if the Hoaxers would bother to LEARN something, they would know this stuff, too! Armstrong's problem solving, under THOSE working conditions during Gemini 8, is one of the most amazing tales in aerospace.
satweavers 3 years ago
Sat:
Would you be interested in purchasing my new DVD: "O.J. Simpson and the Capricorn One Cover-up" ?
Please view previous commentaries below....
Only $29.95 !... along with a FREE, that's right, FREE set of steak knives if you order in the next twenty minutes !!!!! ACT NOW !
Ravenflight104 3 years ago
Reven, When I saw O.J. sailing through the airport terminal in that rental car TV ad, I KNEW he was just a puppet on STRINGS! Now it all makes sense! If the puzzle pieces fit, you must convict!
satweavers 3 years ago
"You might argue that's suicidal, that they would land one unmanned, but the JOB of Test Pilots is to FLY previously unflown hardware,.."
Suicidal??? .. Not on "live TV", while the whole world watched the Americans "beat" the evil Soviets in the "space race"!!!
Give it a rest shillweavers.. Apollo has been busted many times and in many ways.
'Moon Landing Hoax Apollo 17 : A Man seen Reflected in the Astronauts Visor is Not Wearing a PLSS Backpack'
watch?v=xLanUT5ldrQ&feature=related
straydog02 3 years ago
Stray, The Russians had a history of keeping their manned missions secret, revealing only the details that were successful, AFTER the missions succeeded. NASA's manned missions were made public so the world could see it whether it succeeded or failed. They flew hardware TO the Moon on Apollo 8, They tested the LM in Earth Orbit on Apollo 9, They flew a LM to within 7 miles of the surface on Apollo 10, How do you suggest they SHOULD have tested the LEM in 1/6 G, except to actually land it?
satweavers 3 years ago
"NASA's manned missions were made public so the world could see it whether it succeeded or failed."
The only thing NASA ever made public were staged simulations that they passed off for real manned missions to the Moon.
"How do you suggest they SHOULD have tested the LEM in 1/6 G, except to actually land it?"
They didn't test it in 1/6 g because they never flew it in 1/6 g.
Or like Ralph Rene sez.. "You don't send a man where you've never sent the monkey".. Especially on "live" TV!
straydog02 3 years ago
That's a dodge, Stray.
HOW should they have tested the LEM in 1/6 Earth Gravity?
HOW do you conduct such a test? With a MONKEY?!
satweavers 3 years ago
"HOW do you conduct such a test? With a MONKEY?!"
No, in a simulator.. Which is EXACTLY how it was done during the Apollo 11 "test" on the "Moon" on July 20, 1969.
Even Apollo Flight Director Gene Cernan, in the documentary 'Faliure is NOT an Option', stated that the SIMS were so realistic in every respect that it was impossible for him, and mission control, to discern the difference between a real lunar landing and a simulated one!
Same went for the guys working the tracking stations.
straydog02 3 years ago
Stray... If we take your statement and turn it around, you have just said NASA DID TEST THE LEM IN SIMULATED 1/6 G TO YOUR SATISFACTION THROUGH THEIR DUE DILLIGENCE OF CONDUCTING SIMULATOR TRAINING.
These simulations covered narrow slivers of the mission experience, such as watching their instruments while going through simulated docking or reentry. During these simulations they did not experience G load or weightlessness. They were provided with visual cues and instrument readings ONLY!
satweavers 3 years ago
"These simulations covered narrow slivers of the mission experience"
Nonsense.. The simulators were so realistic that even mission control couldn't tell the difference between a simulated lunar landing and a real one.
"During these simulations they did not experience G load or weightlessness."
They experienced that in the Vomit Comet training.
My point is that there was no way to simulate a 1/6 g LM landing, and therefore no way to properly train for a real lunar landing.
straydog02 3 years ago
Stray: "My point is that there was no way to simulate a 1/6 g LM landing, and therefore no way to properly train for a real lunar landing."
They trained with simulations that "were so realistic that even mission control couldn't tell the difference between a simulated lunar landing and a real one" to make procedure an auto reflex and gain deep knowledge of the systems. They flew the LLRV to gain real experience piloting a vehicle with the same controls. They were the finest test pilots.
satweavers 3 years ago
"They trained with simulations that "were so realistic that even mission control couldn't tell the difference between a simulated lunar landing and a real one" to make procedure an auto reflex and gain deep knowledge of the systems,"
They trained using such realistic simulations, so they could pass them off as being the real thing.
straydog02 3 years ago
"They flew the LLRV to gain real experience piloting a vehicle with the same controls. They were the finest test pilots."
Most of the Apollo astronot/test pilots REFUSED to fly the LLRV, including Buzz Aldrin.. The damn thing was a death trap and they knew it .. That's why they stuck with the simulators.
straydog02 3 years ago
Stray: "Most of the Apollo astronot/test pilots REFUSED to fly the LLRV, including Buzz Aldrin.. "
Uhm... Neil was the LM pilot... Buzz was not.
"I ain't gonna fly that thang!"
Now, THERE'S an intrepid test pilot for you!
satweavers 3 years ago
"Uhm... Neil was the LM pilot... Buzz was not."
Only because Buzz refused to train in the LLRV, also called "the flying bedstead".. That piece of shit couldn't fly and Buzz knew it.
"Now, THERE'S an intrepid test pilot for you!"
Right .. And also a test pilot who wouldn't have been able to fly the LM had something happened to Neil.. But we're suppossed to believe that he was the "co pilot" to the most famous "test flight" in the history of the world!. Riight.
Get a clue shillweavers.
straydog02 3 years ago
Stray, You say simulated mission profile instrumentation readings, capsule communications, biometrics and video were being fed to Houston Control, and they were unaware - they could not have possibly been aware that the astronauts were not trans lunar or ON the Moon - that the tracking stations engineers could not tell that their measurements were being fed to them rather than being acquired by the radar equipment they were operating? All these people were deceived throughout nine missions?
satweavers 3 years ago
"All these people were deceived throughout nine missions?"
Either deceived, or possibly part of the deception .. Yes.
I read where one NASA employee, running a simulation of an Apollo lunar landing at Honeysuckle Creek, got so excited that he had a mild heart attack .. That's how realistic they were.
straydog02 3 years ago
Stray. "Moon Landing Hoax Apollo 17 : A Man seen Reflected in the Astronauts Visor is Not Wearing a PLSS Backpack'
watch?v=xLanUT5ldrQ&feature=re lated "
I did. I'm not impressed. See my Photobucket subalbum: "Photo Anomalies", inside of which is "Visor Reflections"
satweavers 3 years ago
"I did. I'm not impressed. See my Photobucket subalbum: "Photo Anomalies", inside of which is "Visor Reflections" .."
I checked out your album but didn't see anything labeled Visor Reflections under Photo Anomalies.
Not only is the PLSS missing on the astronot in the AS17-141-21608 visor reflection, but he's not facing in the correct position to have taken the photo, nor is he holding a camera.. Check out the Apollo Image Gallery high res photo, under a zoom in.
Impressed yet? .. LOL
straydog02 3 years ago
Stray: "I checked out your album but didn't see anything labeled Visor Reflections under Photo Anomalies."
I just checked by navigating through the link in my YouTube profile. It's there.
satweavers 3 years ago
"I just checked by navigating through the link in my YouTube profile. It's there."
Send me the link then, cuz I don't have time to waste searching thru your Apollo PB nonsense.
straydog02 3 years ago
Steray: "Send me the link then, cuz I don't have time to waste searching thru your Apollo PB nonsense."
In my profile, on the left side there's a link to the Photobucket at the BOTTOM of that window. It says "Website" and has the link. If you're clicking on the words "Photo Anomalies" in that window... that's NOT a link. That's just text.
satweavers 3 years ago
"It says "Website" and has the link. If you're clicking on the words "Photo Anomalies" in that window... that's NOT a link. That's just text."
I went to your PB account and clicked under the few links that said "photo anomalies" and "photographic anomalies " but didn't see any visor reflection photos.
If there's something you want me to see, just send the link to my inbox and stop playing games.
straydog02 3 years ago
"In my profile, on the left side there's a link to the Photobucket at the BOTTOM of that window"
If you had said it was under "Albums" instead of "photo anomalies" I would have found it.
Thanks for finally letting me know where your study is on that A17 visor reflection.. Your pixels alone have even proven beyond any doubt that the PLSS is not in that photo!
Please keep up the good work in helping the CT's expose the Apollo photographic hoax evidence! .. That's some great stuff!
straydog02 3 years ago
In fact, your evidence is so good that I would like your permission to send it to David Percy.. He would be interested to know that one of NASA's shills is actually helping expose the hoax evidence, though not intentionally of course.
But not only have you proven that the PLSS wasn't in that reflection but you've also shown that the reflected astronot is facing in the wrong direction to have taken a picture of the astronot being photographed, with his arms down at his sides.
Good job!
straydog02 3 years ago
"with his arms down at his sides."
Meaning the reflected astronot of course, who would have had his arms raised and bent at the elbow, and would also have been facing the subject being photographed, had he really been the photographer.
Sorry shillweavers, but your photobucket photo "analysis" of this one came up a tad short..
Everyone go to satweavers photobucket page, under "Albums", then "Visor Reflections" to see this shill's tap dance with the pixels! .. LOL
straydog02 3 years ago
Stray: "Sorry shillweavers, but your photobucket photo "analysis" of this one came up a tad short.."
In honor of your CONTINUED confusion about this, I have added three new frames to the study. I believe that even ArcAngel might find the new additions informative.
If ArcAngel is on this Holy Crusade to learn the TRUTH, WHY has he disabled comments on his video? What a WHIMP!!!
satweavers 3 years ago
"In honor of your CONTINUED confusion about this, I have added three new frames to the study..."
I'm not the one who's confused about this. You are.
The reflected astronot was NOT facing his subject and was NOT bending his arms to snap the picture.. Therefore he could NOT have taken that photo. So who did?
The pixels prove that he was also sans a PLSS.
Thanks for adding some new frames to your study though.. I can't wait to see what new steps you've added to your current tap dance.
straydog02 3 years ago
"If ArcAngel is on this Holy Crusade to learn the TRUTH, WHY has he disabled comments on his video? What a WHIMP!!"
Oh gee, I dunno. Maybe because he's another "Charles T. Hawkins" and secretly working for NASA to obsure the truth?
His "hoax" evidence is bullshit, except for this one little slip up. You, working so hard as a NASA shill, can attempt to explain away the missing PLSS, but what you clowns overlooked WAS THE POSITION THE REFLECTED ASTRONOT IS FACING WITH HIS ARMS AT HIS SIDES.
straydog02 3 years ago
Stray, I've posted a photo that Cernan took of Schmidt (the reflected one). It was taken on the same EVA at the same location. It shows Schmidt taking a photo, the dirt on his EVA suit and the fact that he has his gold visor up. Comparing that to the reflection shows that it is consistent with Schmidt operating the camera with ONE HAND, and that the PLSS is obscured by Schmidt himself. Schmidt's SHADOW in the reflection clearly shows that he was wearing a PLSS.
Check it out.
satweavers 3 years ago
satweavers"Schmidt's SHADOW in the reflection clearly shows that he was wearing a PLSS"
I've looked at watch?v=xLanUT5ldrQ&feature=re lated
The reflection is most peculiar. Even if the shadow indicates a PLSS, it's not level with the head.
And where is the shadow of the Hassleblad camera on the reflected a/not? If it was face on to take the pic, it would still cast a shadow to the right along with the supposed PLSS' shadow. This is a techie, or a/not not kitted out properly. Miniatures?
sergemck 3 years ago
Furthermore, never mind its absent shadow, more important is WHERE IS the chest-high Hasselblad camera on the reflected a/not???
sergemck 3 years ago
"Comparing that to the reflection shows that it is consistent with Schmidt operating the camera with ONE HAND, and that the PLSS is obscured by Schmidt himself."
The PLSS can't be obsured by Schmitt in this photo because he's standing SIDEWAYS in the reflection.. Had the PLSS been there, it would be seen, and had he taken the photo, he wouldn't have been facing AWAY from Cernan.
Even the pixel analysis you did, comparing this photo to another one, clearly shows that the PLSS is missing.
straydog02 3 years ago
Stray: "Even the pixel analysis you did, comparing this photo to another one, clearly shows that the PLSS is missing. "
...and DID you look at the 3 new frames I added?
You see, it's quite obvious that Schmidt's reflection IS front facing.
satweavers 3 years ago
"and DID you look at the 3 new frames I added?
You see, it's quite obvious that Schmidt's reflection IS front facing."
I looked at them & all I can say is that you can tap dance faster than Dave Greer!.. Schmitt is NOT facing forward in the visor reflection!
As nice as your little drawing is, the position of Schmitt in your sketch & his position in Cernan's visor are NOT FACING THE SAME DIRECTION.
Which means that Schmitt (sans his PLSS) could NOT have taken the photo of Cernan.
straydog02 3 years ago
Stray, Neither of us are going to talk the other out of their positions. This conversation is over.
satweavers 3 years ago
"Stray, Neither of us are going to talk the other out of their positions. This conversation is over."
This has nothing to do with our "positions". It has to do with the faked Apollo 17 photo that you can't explain away.
So of course this conversation is over .. You lost!
straydog02 3 years ago
straydog02 POSITION REFLECTED ASTRONOT ARMS <
Does this have something to do with the above LLRV video ?
EGMAG 3 years ago
"straydog02 POSITION REFLECTED ASTRONOT ARMS
"Does this have something to do with the above LLRV video ?"
No, it has to do with a faked Apollo 17 photo showing a visor reflected astronot that could not have taken the photo of the subject while facing away from him .. It also shows that his arms are straight down by his sides, therefore he's not even operating a camera.
His PLSS is also missing .. Scroll back to read my comments EGMAG.
straydog02 3 years ago