Did Men Really Walk on the Moon?

[apollo_gnomon]

Congratulations, Brucel. I'm impressed by the amount of Wrong you stuffed into one post. I can only conclude you're doing it on purpose, as mere ignorance would hardly serve to avoid accuracy so completely.

Very clever post.

So why? Are you trolling in the hopes one of us will insult you so you can report to the mods in the hope of getting TG or I banned or at least on warning?

Sorry. Go Fish.

Or are you attempting to earn yet another Stundie, that internationally recognized monthly award for funniest stupidity on the internet?

Again, sorry. The Stundie is not intended to be an award for creative writing, and as such your contribution above will not be nominated. You have to actually BELIEVE the nonsensical science or hideous logical error to be eligible. My undying faith in humanity prevents me from accepting that you actually believe the whacked-out nonsense above.

Just for any lurkers who may wander into the thread by mistake, Brucel's comments above aren't even internally consistent -- he insists satellites stay in orbit around the Earth by "onboard fuel tank rocket boosters," a wrong statement that also fails to account for the orbit of the earth around the sun.

A simplified explanation for orbital trajectory:
The direction of pull by gravity is at a right angle to the motion of the object. The orbiting object is pulled by the object it is orbiting; the orbiting object is falling, but is continually "missing" because it is traveling forward fast enough. If it were traveling slower it would hit the ground, faster and it would fly away.

The original question raised by phrased eyebrow suggested the orbiting spacecraft would lose momentum while in orbit. The Apollo craft orbited at around a hundred miles. Technically, there IS atmosphere at this altitude and technically the craft would lose some momentum orbiting. The amount lost in one or two orbits is negligible. Any fuel penalty is totally offset by the fuel savings at putting the craft into stable orbit sooner rather than later in the boost phase.

Anyway, part of brucel's response to this series of posts

according to apollo_ignomo, when moonbound..

EARTH'S GRAVITY PULL - repel objects pushes them away @ accelerated rate

suggested the space craft would be pulled by the earth while traveling toward the moon. That wasn't the original topic raised by Phrased Eyebrow, and brucel has inadvertently made (by implication) a factual statement. Earth's gravity does work against the velocity of the spacecraft traveling toward the moon, because the craft is no longer moving at a right angle to the direction of gravitational pull.

The Apollo craft left Earth's orbit at 35,568.3 Feet Per Second (FPS). {1} The boost phase (engine burn) to leave orbit lasted for only about 5 and a half minutes, and the craft coasted the rest of the way to the moon. Unlike TV/movie spacecraft, real spacecraft are fired like bullets, not flown like planes. At the gravitational midpoint between Earth's sphere of influence and the Moon's, the velocity of the Apollo craft had dropped to around 5000 FPS. {2} The craft is then falling toward the moon, eventually accelerating to around 8000 FPS. In order to get into lunar orbit the craft fires the booster to slow down (retro) to a bit over 5000 FPS.

{1} http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apol...rbit_Phase.htm
{2} http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apol...unar_Phase.htm


The notion that satellites use boosters to stay in orbit is incorrect. Applying 2.5 braincells to the question, one would question how all the rocks and planets falling in a circle around the sun, or the various chunks of stuff falling in a circle around the planets manage without boosters.

Thanks, Brucel. Your post has inspired me to inform.

[flamingflynn]

Originally Posted by brucel

@flamingflynn - may i suggest, next time you copy/paste to be kind & include a link to the original ??

May I suggest you use google to increase your knowledge before posting complete bollocks on here and making a complete idiot of yourself?

I found that quote in less than a minute. Oops I forgot to put it in quotes. *Slaps wrist*.

[apollo_gnomon]

Oops I forgot to put it in quotes. *Slaps wrist*.

You are denied access to the "Debunker's Union" free coffee for the rest of the day. I hope you've learned your lesson.

Seriously, this crap is why I suspect brucel is trying to troll us into insulting him. Gods forbid a debunker should make a typographical error, drop a double negative into a complicated sentence or post an unattributed paragraph. But for a hoax believer to completely dismiss 300 years of basic science? NO PROBLEM!

[bertl]

Originally Posted by apollo_gnomon

You are denied access to the "Debunker's Union" free coffee for the rest of the day. I hope you've learned your lesson.

Seriously, this crap is why I suspect brucel is trying to troll us into insulting him. Gods forbid a debunker should make a typographical error, drop a double negative into a complicated sentence or post an unattributed paragraph. But for a hoax believer to completely dismiss 300 years of basic science? NO PROBLEM!

And look how he's succeeding in getting to us...

[phrased eyebrow]

Originally Posted by moving finger

He was assuming you got held back.

Your assumption, I presume?

[apollo_gnomon]

Originally Posted by phrased eyebrow

Your assumption, I presume?

Another empty post? Really?

Welcome back to "ignore." Your second chance is over.

[valkyrieangel]

I voted 'yes' but I am open minded.

[flamingflynn]

Originally Posted by apollo_gnomon

You are denied access to the "Debunker's Union" free coffee for the rest of the day. I hope you've learned your lesson.

I have.

The shame!

[flamingflynn]

Originally Posted by valkyrieangel

I voted 'yes' but I am open minded.

Not like stelios or brucel, then?

[moving finger]

Interview with Armstrong:

http://thebottomline.cpaaustralia.com.au/

It's the final part of 4, the other 3 are available via links at the bottom of the page.

Includes a great google moon re-enactment of the landing of Apollo 11 narrated by Armstrong.

[phrased eyebrow]

Originally Posted by moving finger

Interview with Armstrong: Includes a great google moon re-enactment of the landing of Apollo 11 narrated by Armstrong.

What- his first stab at going through the motions wasn't convincing enough?

[lizzy]

Originally Posted by valkyrieangel

I voted 'yes' but I am open minded.

....NASA .. fraud ,global surveillance , brainwashing.

[phrased eyebrow]

Originally Posted by apollo_gnomon

Odd, most children go to kindergarten at age 5/6, 1st grade at age 6/7.

Not me. I also was also singled out / excused, to go to the 6th grade boys' class; (the guys who did the estes demos for the school several times a year) to watch the footage of Conrad's mission on their room's black and white TV.

Whereupon I returned to my class and drew pictures on the chalkboard of what I saw. And so the propaganda continues...

[night_gaunt]

I'm not exactly sure what the point would be in lying about going to the moon.. To make humanity feel that they're not contained and imprisoned in one planet?

[lizzy]

Originally Posted by night_gaunt

I'm not exactly sure what the point would be in lying about going to the moon.. To make humanity feel that they're not contained and imprisoned in one planet?

to milk the public coffers for multi billions...place spy surveillance , scalar and haarp at nwo disposal.

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by lizzy

to milk the public coffers for multi billions...place spy surveillance , scalar and haarp at nwo disposal.

Yeah lizzy. Big problem, the money was spent mainly on those big frickin' rockets

[lizzy]

Originally Posted by truegroup

Yeah lizzy. Big problem, the money was spent mainly on those big frickin' rockets

all junk.

[thommo]

Can we keep this thread on topic and stop with the insults, otherwise posts will be deleted or worse

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by lizzy

all junk.

Lizzy, you really need to engage your brain a little.

We have tens of thousands of people who were given a remit to make a rocket that worked. We have MILLIONS of people who witnessed these extremely expensive rockets taking off. We have video of every take off.

[moving finger]

Posting evidence seems a little pointless in the face of such considered and knowledgeable retorts, but we will try.

Let us now look at the internal consistency of the Apollo data, in other words everything ties in properly. To do that, let's look at this photograph:



available here: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...AS17-147-22452

A high resolution version is available here:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22452HR.jpg

The image is listed just as "CSM viewed from Lunar Module" on Revolution 12. There are no latitude and longitude co-ordinates given, and it isn't mapped in this image showing the location of the photographs:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ma...p06/150dpi.jpg

So, where is it? The next set of images in the magazine starts at the crater Becvar and continues westwards from there. Each photograph plots nicely on the surface of Google Moon as a square, so the camera is therefore pointing pretty much straight down and not at an angle:



Each photograph in that sequence features a much smaller CSM.

As we know that this image is taken from the LM after separation and on its way to the landing site at Taurus-Littrow, and as the camera is pointing straight down, we can plot the orbital path:



So far so good. As should be obvious from the first photograph above, the LM has clearly only just separated from the LM, and the dialogue in the LM voice transcript (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17_LM.PDF) shows that at 4 days 11 hours and 48 minutes the two craft were 50 feet apart and the LM crew were taking photos of the CSM over a period of a few minutes.

At this point in the mission, they had begun Revolution 12, which started at 4 days 11 hours 31 minutes. Lunar orbit start points are always taken at the line of longitude directly opposite the Earth. AOS (Acquisition of signal) on this orbit was at 4 days 12 hours. At the time of AOS, the LM & CSM were still in sight of each other.

It therefore seems likely that the image in question was taken about 10 minutes before AOS, and AOS occurs when the Earth becomes visible again to the LM. This line of longitude is not far away from the sequence of images already mapped above.

We therefore know the orbital track, and that the craters in that image must be out of sight of the Earth, but not far from the other images in that magazine.

By simply following the line of the orbit, we can plot where the mystery image belongs:



And we can demonstrate that it belongs there by showing the Google Moon view with and without the image overlay:



The location is 4 degrees south 133 east, if you care to look. You can use the overlay tool in Google Moon to add the image yourself and prove it fits.

The first image in the magazine is now easier to place, because it overlaps with this one by quite a bit, and gives an indication of the direction of travel. Feel free to try it.

We therefore have an image showing the Apollo 17 CSM, taken from the LM, showing the features on the moon that it should be showing, down to the tiniest crater, in a way that is entirely consistent with the narrative in the transcripts.

Your challenge, landing deniers, is to explain how this could have been done without actually sending astronauts to the moon.

I'm pretty sure I know what the responses will be, but please don't bother posting pictures of a large moon globe with a small camera over it, or link to pre-Apollo unmanned images, because the detail, and the detail specifically of that spot, isn't available.