One of the most convincing pieces of "evidence" propounded by the Lunar Landing Hoax theorists is that it would be impossible to control the Lunar Landing Module using the directional jets - in fact, on earth trials, the Lander always became uncontrollable. It has been suggested that moon gravity made it more controllable (I know there were several landers, but as far as I know they were of similar configuration).
Anyone have thoughts either way?

FLIGHT CONTROL AND THE LUNAR MODULE
Flight control involves controlling the LM trajectory (flight path) and attitude. Flight path control depends on the motion of the LM center of gravity; attitude control primarily involves rotations about the center of gravity.
In controlling the LM in its flight path, the thrust of its engines must be directed so that it produces a desired variation in either magnitude or direction to place the LM in some particular orbit, position, or attitude. The major velocity changes associated with the lunar orbit, injection, landing, and ascent phases of the mission are accomplished by either the descent propulsion section or ascent propulsion section of the Main Propulsion Subsystem (MPS). The engines can produce high thrust in specific directions in inertial space.
During the descent phase, the LM must be slowed (braked) to place it in a transfer orbit from which it can make a soft landing on the lunar surface. To accomplish braking, descent engine thrust is controllable so that the precise velocity (feet per second) necessary to alter the vehicle's trajectory can be achieved. For a soft landing on the lunar surface, the weight of the LM must be matched by an upward force so that a state of equilibrium exists, and from this point, the descent engine is shut off and the LM free falls to the lunar surface. The thrust of the descent engine provides this upward force, and since the weight of the vehicle is a variable (due to consumption of expendables) this is another reason why the magnitude of the engine thrust is controllable. In addition, the center of gravity is also variable and the thrust must be such that it is in line with the LM center of gravity. This is accomplished by gimbaling (tilting) the descent engine.
During the lunar ascent phase, the flight control portion of the GN&CS commands the ascent engine. In this phase, control of the thrust direction is not achieved by gimbaling the engine, but by attitude control, using the Reaction Control Subsystem (RCS) thrusters. This is necessary during ascent to keep the vehicle stabilized, because the center of gravity changes due to propellant depletion. The ascent engine is not throttleable, since the function of this engine is to lift the ascent stage from the lunar surface and conduct rendezvous. The proper orbit for rendezvous is achieved by means of a midcourse correction (if necessary) in which thrust is directed by attitude control, and thrust magnitude is controlled by controlling the duration of the burn.
It is apparent then for flight control, that some measure of the LM velocity vector and its position must be determined at all times for purposes of comparison with a desired (predetermined) velocity vector, at any particular instant, to generate an error signal if the two are not equal. The flight control portion of the primary guidance and navigation section then directs the thrust to reduce the error to zero. Attitude control maintains the LM body axes in a fixed relationship to the inertial reference axes. Any pitch, roll, or yaw rotations of the vehicle produce a misalignment between the LM axes and where the LM axes should be. This is called attitude error and is detected by the inertial guidance system, which, in turn, routes the errors to the computer. The computer generates on and off commands for the RCS to reduce the error to zero. Attitude control is implemented through 16 rocket engine thrusters (100 pounds thrust each) equally distributed in clusters of four around the ascent stage. Each cluster is located so that it will exert efficient torque to rotate the LM about its center of gravity. The thrusters are capable of repeated starts and very short (fraction of second) firing times. The appropriate thrusters are selected by the computer during automatic operation and manually by the astronaut during manual operation.
LM News Reference: Guidance, Navigation and Control (http://www.apollosaturn.com/Lmnr/gn.htm)

I would guess that the RCS thrusters (effectively small rocket engines) would be far more effective in a vacuum in one-sixth gravity than on Earth simulations using the Lunar Landing Training Vehicle. The LLTV was very diffcult to fly and often unstable. (Neil Armstrong himself had to eject from one).

I've never seen the RCS controls on the Lunar Module being used by the hoax theorists as convincing evidence as to why the landing didn't take place.

One of their favourites however is why did the descent engine of the LM not leave any sort of crater under it's landing spot. There are a number of good reasons for this it seems. There are some good websites effectively shooting huge holes through the 'hoax' arguments which are worth a look at.

Steve

It is a serious aeronautical challenge (while on earth).
Look at this video of a failed trial using 2007 computing power:YouTube - Flight of experimental Moon lander (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hJazIZoBRs)
Make one wonder how six flawless landings were performed in the 70s, while it can't be done once today. 100% accurancy is required, as there is no latitude for errors or go-arounds.
I would guess that the RCS thrusters (effectively small rocket engines) would be far more effective in a vacuum in one-sixth gravity than on Earth simulations using the Lunar Landing Training Vehicle. The LLTV was very diffcult to fly and often unstable. (Neil Armstrong himself had to eject from one).

That is the problem: DOES REDUCED GRAVITY MAKE A LANDER MORE STABLE? Somehow I doubt it.

Yes it does. It was designed for 1/6 Earth gravity. So to produce a test bed that will have enough thrust to support an experimental device in Earth gravity, you need an engine six times as powerful. The engine is gimballed for directional thrust as well as using small 'puffers' around the craft for additional control, so you have a totally different machine designed for the special circumstances of lunar gravity. If you look at the movies of the lander approaching the Command ship for docking, you have a craft in perfect stability. Look at the testing of the Harrier VTOL fighter and the instability it had at first, and the stability it had when the design was refined, and look at it today. And you say 'it can't be done'! Crazy.

Once again, we have another nutty conspiracy theory that people fervently believe, in the face of all evidence. They won't even believe it happened when they see video or photographs of the lunar craft being revisited! It will be 'faked', according to them. The important thing is not to get sucked up in this nonsense, because these people peddling this daft stuff are actually mentally disturbed. It is a mental condition to fervently believe things in the face of evidence against, but then again, I suppose that applies to all religion, and paints even the Pope as a bit 'dodgy'.

I would say, 'please stop wasting our time with this nonsense'! Yet more proof of the insanity of conspiracy theorists, do you really imagine that Big Government could maintain a big conspiracy and lie involving tens of thousands of government employees, including astronauts themselves who are extremely honest and religious, and nobody, not even drunk out of their minds, has ever admitted being part of a big 'lie'. So please give it up and take this nonsense to websites where other fruitloops congregate together, not here! A place where people can waste their lives telling each other a 757 couldn't have hit the Pentagon, that the US Government blew up the WTC (that's another real proof of total fruitloopness!). 95% of the population have had enough of this garbage- a government that can't sort out medical care and bus services is supposed to do all that? Mad! Can't you see the error of all this nonsense?

I've always believed the government, conspired with various companies and brilliant scientists and brave pilots an' such, with the aid of tax dollars...to land on the moon. And so far no one has proved they didn't.
So I'm sold.

The faking it thing; what would be the chuffing point? Wouldn't Super Communist Soviet Union have said 'You're fibbing!' and proved otherwise. Or were they in on it to just so they could celebrate coming second in the space race?

Amazing how hundreds of thousands of technicians all kept their mouths shut for nearly 40 years.

sharksandwich you naughty boy! Someone should give you a big smack! :rolleyes:

Why don't conspiracy fruitcakes just go to the moon, go to the sites where the lunar landers are supposed to have landed - photograph the big empty spaces that have no lunar landers an' stuff on them and then come back and tell us 'bout it?

Instead of whining on like stuck pigs.

It was designed for 1/6 Earth gravity. So to produce a test bed that will have enough thrust to support an experimental device in Earth gravity, you need an engine six times as powerful. The engine is gimballed for directional thrust as well as using small 'puffers' around the craft for additional control, so you have a totally different machine designed for the special circumstances of lunar gravity.
Good point, rainboe, but doesn't answer all the questions, which are likely to become more topical if the new lunar landings go ahead.
I know the hoax theories are hokem, but this one aspect is intriguing.
The lander is unstable, and even in reduced gravity is subject to Newton's Laws.
Once a touch too much puff is given (or needed), corrective efforts are as likely to increase as decrease any ocillation.
Since NASA's total computing power in 1970 was less than most of us carry round with us today in the form of cell-phones, how was it done? I mean, pilot's make errors, but here were no human errors in several landings.

Of course reduced gravity makes it easier. It makes it about 10 times easier. If you can't see that then you don't deserve to be breathing let alone coming up with more crap conspiracy theories.

Why is it the Lunar Landing they have a problem with - is all of the other space exploration stuff and rocket technology from the V2 onwards a load of BS too?

Poor old SS - I don't think he actually PUSHED any conspiracy theory, but just asked about the claims? Still, why not have a hack at him - this is PPRune, after all.

That is the problem: DOES REDUCED GRAVITY MAKE A LANDER MORE STABLE? Somehow I doubt it. - I'm a bit out of touch with space mechanincs, but my vote is no. I reckon that since the mass of the module remains the same, moon or earth, 1/6th G or 1G, it will react the same. F=M x a and all that. All that changes is the main engine power needed. The C of G of the module does not change, so all the stability formulae remain the same.
Once a touch too much puff is given (or needed), corrective efforts are as likely to increase as decrease any ocillation. Since NASA's total computing power in 1970 was less than most of us carry round with us today in the form of cell-phones, how was it done? I mean, pilot's make errors, but here were no human errors in several landings. Today 12:08 - the big factor is - they were good pilots?

I'm still trying to comprehend (1969 landing) after just 24 years after the end of WWII space suits, oxygen filters where develop in such a (WWII prop a/c) short time scale., did they have them back in the 60s? With reference to submarine fleets. Could they stay below water (as take off, landing and return to earth of this 69 mission) without using the snorkel to replenish air?.How long would the scrubbers on subs operate in 69?

1969:: They never went to the moon, maybe other launches did, mid 70s. Where are the space suits of the 69 landings? They were cremated to avoid contamination. Umm

I'm still trying to comprehend

Try harder.

I reckon that since the mass of the module remains the same, moon or earth, 1/6th G or 1G, it will react the same. F=M x a and all that. All that changes is the main engine power needed. The C of G of the module does not change, so all the stability formulae remain the same.

Thank you, BOAC,for getting to the nub of the problem!
The Moon landing craft could not be under control from Cape Canaveral (radio time lag would preclude this, plus the intricacy of the procedures) whereas it is conceivable, if not probable,the majority of the "flight" could be remotely controlled.
Since control of such an inherantly un-stable craft proved so problematic on Earth, even flown by military jet pilots, why would a decision be made to do it several times (one might think NASA would say"we got away with it once, let's call it a day!").
And having mastered it then, why is it now proving so difficult to replicate?

Technology? They never went/landed on the moon (69). All arguments asside. Who would imagine/comprehend that after (I say this again) 24 years after WWII space suite technology, systems controls, rocket technology. In my book it seems a little far fetched that they landed on the moon 69

Just point your local conspiracy theorist at this page and ask them to explain it away...

NASA - A Second Look at Apollo 11 (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/lroc_20090929_apollo11.html)

"All arguments asside",..... Err no, you can't do that - the arguments are very much relevant, you can't just blow them off because you don't fit your theory.

Technology - "technology" was around well before Apollo, it didn't start with the microchip and trendy IT courses in school....

FWIW 24 years is more than long enough to scale up the rocket technology of the V2 to become the Saturn V..., especially if the V2 design team turned it's hand to the task.

Many of the fighters of the 1950's were neutrally stable at best without some sort of Stability Augmentation system..., so I reckon the early 60's design LM was in with chance of flying right side up for a while......

CO2 filters were commonplace well before Laika's flight in '1957..

I was programming at a UK University in the early 70's using a computer language that was certainly capable of handling Lunar landing style guidance equations - I'd guess NASA, with the big bucks had much better computing capability much earlier than I did.....

In my book it's entirely credible that they went to the Moon in the late 60's, the only real mystery is why the conspiracy theories continue to run well into the 21st Century - is it because it's a feat that's beyond the wit, intellect and imagination of most of the facebook generation?

daz daz Well your Polaris boat circa 69 could stay down a long, long time typically a patrol would be about 4 months (limited by food and human factors). That after all was their mission go to sea hide and be ready to zap off the instant sunshine if need be...much the same as Trident boats do today. Of course that is why you need at least four two in refit one in training one on patrol (but try telling that to Broon and his cohorts)...


But back to the moon...they went out to the moon - did it twice in 69 (three times if you count Con's cousin in law's dress rehearsal) once in 70 (ok that was a wave off and rather more than the plot line for a movie) twice in 71 and twice in 72. Did it dun it and if the guvmit will stup up the cash they'll do it again...

Oh and ref the LM flying - you have to remember that every CDR was a very very very good pilot

togsdrag - no doubt our resident expert will be here shortly telling us the pics have been photo-shopped?

No atmosphere. That must surely make things easier.

No atmosphere, exactly the point BKS. The Lunar Module was specifically designed as a vehicle for use in a vacuum. Funnily enough the point that started this thread (ie that lunar hoax supporters consider how effectively the craft could be stabilised using the thrusters as one of their main points of contention) is one that I've not really seen being argued.

I've seen most of the others....

Now the Van Allen Belts................:)

Cheers

Steve

PS BKS - I recall the first aircraft I ever noted was a BKS Viscount at LBA in 1967 (!)

I heartily agree with all the people here who say that we DID land on the moon in 1969...and the computing power of the LM, and the CM and the mainframe back at Houston had very little to do with it.
Those guys who landed them on the moon were some of the very best pilots in the world, Neil Armstrong may have been nominally a civilian, but he was a highly skilled test pilot, and did a short spell in the US Navy before that. Pete Conrad who landed Apollo 12 with great accuracy in November 69, was a Navy pilot too....and Jim Lovell (ex USN) would have no doubt landed 13 well too, if his service module hadnt let him down..
Computers have enough trouble landing UAV's on carriers now, but these guys did it all the time, day in day out....The human brain is still a mighty processor, no matter what Intel and Microsoft would have you believe!!

Actually I have just checked, All but one of the LM commanders were USN, only Dave Scott on Apollo 15 was USAF. The conclusion seems to be, if you want to land on the Moon, dont take a computer, take a Navy pilot!

Apparently the only clip of one of the astronauts aboard a prototype (53 secs):

YouTube - LEM Prototype Crash (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-gW6AdzgwU)

Apparently the only clip of one of the astronauts aboard a prototype (53 secs):


Apparently you did not look at the column of similar videos to the bottom right of the You Tube page you linked which shows videos of at least three successful flights.

Or are you saying that was the only flight with an astronaut flying the Lunar Landing Research Vehicle? Which would infer that plain old average test pilots could fly the research vehicle but the astronauts were not good enough to fly the thing.

Which is what it was called, Lunar Landing Research Vehicle. It was not a prototype of the actual Lunar Landers.

We landed men on the moon in 1969 and brought them home safely.

BOAC - well, I would have thought that the onus would then be on the conspiracy theorists to prove that all of the Apollo landing site views (there are several, not just Apollo 11) sent back by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter are Photoshopped.

Neil Armstrong's standard written response to CTs - no, I don't know him, I took the trouble to read his approved biography - is that it would have been a lot more difficult to fake the Moon landings than to carry them out. Can't argue with that.

And then there's what Buzz Aldrin did to a CT - i.e. decked him :ok:

As has been pointed out elsewhere, even if only one person in a thousand thinks that your crackpot theories are right, that's still quite a lot of people given that there are billions on the planet. Plenty enough to give credence to our not landing on the Moon, 9/11 being an inside job, aliens alive and well in New Mexico, a flying saucer landing near a Air Force base in the east of England etc etc. You feeling fit Buzz?

are you saying that was the only flight with an astronaut flying the Lunar Landing Research Vehicle
Not me, the hoax theorists maintain the lander could not be controlled on Earth, so how could it be controlled so perfectly, so often, a quarter of a million mile out.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, even if only one person in a thousand thinks that your crackpot theories are right
They are NOT my crackpot theories. I think the hoax theories are hokum, and said so at the beginning of the thread.
I am intrigued by this one argument though - piloting the landers is so difficult that today, despite increased computing power, the landers often end up out of control. How did Apollo manage it flawlessly, not once, but six times?
Would we now consider the risk to the astronauts to be unacceptable?
I would hope so, as the chances of recovering from even a slight miscalculation in moon orbit would be fatal, maybe to all the crew.

You are talking nonsense. The lunar landes have not been used for 35 years. And they proved themselves admirably! But that design could not be used under Earth Gravity, they were built for 1/6 Earth gravity, and worked very well. Your 'proof' is bunkum. Look at the early flying bedstead testing for the Harrier, then the later production models. Working pretty well! Well enough that we gasped as they performed bows to the audience at the airshows.

I'm afraid discussing this insanity with you gives the whole thing an air of respectability. It is utter stupidity, and more fool you for even raising it here. You must be very naive, and totally blinkered.

SS said: They are NOT my crackpot theories. I think the hoax theories are hokum, and said so at the beginning of the thread.

Tog says: Second person impersonal plural, not you personally SS. Maybe I should have said "one's theories". My apologies.

As pointed out earlier by other posters the LLTV was effectively an aircraft (with a passing similarity to the Rolls Royce 'Flying Bedstead') and which had two independent means of propulsion. A jet engine supported 5/6 of it's weight whilst airborne and it was maneuvered using two rocket engines powered by hydrogen peroxide gas. There were a number of small jets on the craft to simulate the RCS thrusters on the Lunar Module and assist with stabilisation.

Armstrong's ejection in May 1968 was due to the depletion of attitude control fuel and subsequent instability (traced later to a design flaw).

In it's lunar simulation mode the LLTV flew as though in a vacuum and in lunar gravity.

To move around the pilot has to tilt the LLTV and allow the rocket engine to push him in his chosen direction and because of 1/6 g he has to tilt the craft six times as far as he would in 'normal' gravity. The danger here is by tilting too far the craft will fall out of the sky.

Whilst doing this the pilot has to use the throttle to prevent altitude loss. Once moving he would keep going in that direction (as in the lunar vacuum) until he slows down and halts his motion by tilting the craft in the opposite direction.

It was a dangerous and unforgiving machine but it gave the lunar landing astronauts (they all flew it at some time) the 'real time' experience they needed ready for the real thing. Only this craft could give the astronaut any sort of preparation for the last few hundred feet of powered descent to the lunar surface.

No prototype Lunar Module ever flew free in the Earth's atmosphere everything about it was designed purely for flight in space.

As for the hoax theory I had the pleasure to attend an event with Neil Armstrong once and he was asked his opinion on the 'hoax' his reply that given all that would have to be done to make a hoax 'believeable' it was actually just easier to go to the moon!

I've always thought,by extensive reading on the subject, that the whole Apollo mission programme was a magnificent achievement but that it was a very risky enterprise from beginning to end.
From a disfunctional orbiter (the Apollo 1 fire) to the successful landing took only 3 years.
Apollo 8 was the first maned craft to even orbit the moon and 6 months later they land successfully.

SS - keep trying. Eventually some of the folk will understand your query.

The basic 'upright' stability of a lander would have been fairly easily achieved even before the 60's with the use of a reasonably simple gyroplatform feeding the thrusters. 'All' the pilot has to do then is to input changes to that attitude to manoeuvre. I do not see the actual handling of the module as particularly 'dodgy', but the other problems such as fuel reserves and choice of landing site were huge. Your statement "in fact, on earth trials, the Lander always became uncontrollable." is incorrect. You will see that in other video clips of the modules. Have a look also at the other 'successful' VSTOLs of the 50's and 60's - the Coleoptere, the X-13, the 'Flying Bedstead' for example. All were controllable (most of the time!)

Remember too that the early earth-bound lunar trial platforms were 'development' platforms where thruster power, response, postion and angles were probably all being played with, and hard lessons learned - on earth and not on the moon. All jet-borne VTOL is challenging and like the moon module requires above average pilots (ehem..........:)). It is inherently unstable to sit on a column of thrust (nurse!) and it was always a hoot watching the early attempts at a Harrier 'static' hover which moved faster than the following Land Rover.

The CTs must try harder than that. There were other parts of the early space/moon programmes that were far riskier than the piloting of a lunar lander by a top-grade pilot!

I am tired of saying they are not my personal theories, but that with this one aspect the looney hoax theorists have raised an interesting point.
Look at the early flying bedstead testing for the Harrier, then the later production models. Working pretty well! Well enough that we gasped as they performed bows to the audience at the airshows.
.
rainboe's Harrier example is a case for the hoax theorists. How many years of failure did it take to develope the P1127, let alone a Harrier that still requires specialist training to fly.
The Osprey similary has problems in transition.
Yet, as cml387 points out, Apollo managed in three years to develope a Lander that worked perfectly six times.
And the Armadillo trials are of new craft, not 35 year old machinery.

There have been replies, the Soviet Union would have a 'field day' debunking the first landing using their space tracking capability. Read on.........

A primary reason for the race to the Moon was the Cold War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War). Plait states in Bad Astronomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Astronomy) that the Soviets, with their own competing Moon program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Moonshot) and a formidable scientific community able to analyze NASA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA) data, could be expected to have cried foul if the United States tried to fake a Moon landing,[Books 8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-20) especially since their own program had failed. Successfully pointing out a hoax would have been a major propaganda coup. Bart Sibrel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_Sibrel) has responded, "the Soviets did not have the capability to track deep spacecraft until late in 1972, immediately after which, the last three Apollo missions were abruptly canceled (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canceled_Apollo_missions)."[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-21)


I rest my case.

How many years of failure did it take to develop the P1127, let alone a Harrier that still requires specialist training to fly. - yes, but look at the accumulated experience the US already had of thrust-borne VTOL - the X-13 used reaction controls like the lunar lander and the Harrier. The French had done it. All that technology was 'in place' at the start of the Apollo programme. The basic technology of a landing craft was by no means difficult. The time scale cml refers to was compressed due to enormous investment in the project and simultaneous development of all the bits of the Apollo mission. Yes, corners were cut as we now know, but they did it, and they did it well.

So a research platform goes out of control? It does not make the whole concept impossible.

and a pretty poor case it is!

Find me one WELL QUALIFIED expert to support you! not some collection of armchair theorists, who know only how to get sensationalist nonsense printed...

Just because the Russians couldnt deep track Moon probes until 1972, doesnt mean that the Americans couldnt! We all know why Apollo's 18-20 got cancelled, it was because Nixon's administation didnt want to fund any more costly missions to prove something that had already been done....they had spent $20 billion 1960- dollars on the Space Race, and they wanted to see some payback....

Just give it a rest!

Wasn't it Sibrel that Aldrin hit?

It was indeed Sibrel that Aldrin hit. It was an absolute beaut!! I seem to recall video of other astronauts giving him pretty short shrift including Apollo 14 LMP Ed Mitchell who kicks him up the backside..........:ok:

Steve

togsdragracing wrote

Just point your local conspiracy theorist at this page and ask them to explain it away...

NASA - A Second Look at Apollo 11 (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/lroc_20090929_apollo11.html)

The conspiracy nut jobs don't believe the LRO images.

Jarrah White is probably the lead nutjob at the moment.

Well worth a look through for anyone wanting a bit of amusement. Amazing the lengths that Jarrah goes to trying to prove the Moon Hoax!

YouTube - MoonFaker: LRO, SELENE & Clementine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLYiiwyH4IA)

YouTube - MoonFaker: LRO, Moment Of Truth? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5kHPexBIWk)

YouTube - MoonFaker: LRO, Laser Retroreflector Oddity (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz09H_qwQ-U)

YouTube - WhiteJarrah's Channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/WhiteJarrah)

TJ

How many years of failure did it take to develope the P1127, let alone a Harrier that still requires specialist training to fly.

First tethered hover by P1127: October 1960.
Harrier GR1 entry into RAF service: April 1969.

So rather less time to develop than modern marvels (Typhoon, F-22, F-35) despite being a completely new concept.

rainboe's Harrier example is a case for the hoax theorists. How many years of failure did it take to develope the P1127, let alone a Harrier that still requires specialist training to fly.

Do you think maybe that astronaut and lunar landing training could be defined as 'specialist'? It's not like they just hopped into the capsule and thought '**** it - we'll just wing it - how hard can it be?'

Seems to be pretty stable: YouTube - Lunar Lander Research Vehicle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1D4GIM2bEbg&feature=related)

http://stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/images/moonlanding05.jpg

This obviously faked photo shows many of the inconsistencies spotted by the hoax theorists!
Notice the absence of stars (indicates a "studio shot"!).
The arrows show inconsistencies with shadows, indicating multiple light sources.
The relative sizes of the astronaut and the LEM suggest the former was 8 feet tall.

Nice try NASA, but we aren't fooled by this photo!


Just way too many things wrong with this picture!
Fake Moon Landings The moon landings are fake! (http://stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm)
NotiJust way too many things wrong with this picture!

Notice the absence of stars again.

The arrows indicate the various directions in which shadows are falling, again showing evidence of inconsistent scene illumination. Yet there is something even more obviously wrong with this picture.

If the length of the lower support column of the lunar lander was 4 feet tall, this would indicate that the astronaut was over 8 feet tall, which none of the astronauts were.
ce the absence of stars again.

The arrows indicate the various directions in which shadows are falling, again showing evidence of inconsistent scene illumination. Yet there is something even more obviously wrong with this picture.

If the length of the lower support column of the lunar lander was 4 feet tall, this would indicate that the astronaut was over 8 feet tall, which none of the astronauts were.

If that photo had been faked NASA would not have included a Clanger, a species unknown in the USA at the time. This photo actually proves the landings really happened!

Indeed Groundloop - in fact these never-before-seen pictures showing the presence of Clangers on the moon in the late 60's/early 70's dramatically overshadow any significance of possible water discovery.

I see SS has the audacity to suggest the photos are actually fakes - pah!

Ah, the old standby 'lack of stars'. Whatever the hoax supporters come up with, can be rebutted with the 'appliance of science'. The problem is they don't want to know. If they put forward a 'theory' (and that's all they are, nothing ever seems to be backed up with facts) and you show them that it can't possibly be correct, they instantly leap to another 'theory', much like a lumberjack leaping from rolling log to rolling log on a river.

It's struck me from this thread that there a lot of pilots and non-pilots alike who clearly have some knowledge of, and interest in spaceflight and astronautics. Is the subject one that merits, and could be considered for, a section of it's own, as opposed to a thread in 'Spotters Corner'?

Just a thought

Steve

Oh dear! Those who cannot see the humour are as bad as the original CT's:ugh:

Sorry, I DO see the humour, it's just that the naysayers get my back up. Very disappointed the Soup Dragon hasn't got a look in though..........

Daz daz: Why let a few facts get in the way of a good conspiracy eh? Apollo 20 was cancelled in about 1970 and 18 & 19 in short order after - was it a fiendish plot? Yep Nixon wanted no part of spending big chunks of wonga on what he perceived as a Kennedy programme. Ergo chopsville for the last three and most of the AAP programme.

I guess I am really an anti-anti-conspiracy-theorist at heart. I much prefer to see reasoned argument 'demolish' the CT theory than the rabid "you are an idiot" retaliation which must amuse the CT gang somewhat and possibly give them incentive to come back again, whilst doing absolutely ZERO to support the actual facts. I do not know the OP (SS), or whether in fact this thread is a sneaky way to launch another CT attempt. I would, however, give the OP the benefit of the doubt and 'innocent until proven' etc having stated his/her position on the CT and asked here for 'learned' input:). I always feel that those that splutter without reason are candidates for a touch of 'William' - "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." What are they so worried about? Is it indeed a sort of 'closet' doubt they harbour themselves?

......or am I starting another CT.........................?

Anyway, SS - do you now feel able to convince those whose theories you have produced here?