User talk:Noodle boy/Archive 1

Archive 1

3RR

Please take a few minutes to read over the three-revert rule before you revert any more. You may be in danger of violating it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

3rr

You're butting up against WP:3RR in the Apollo hoax page. Please work this out in the talk page, not in edit comments. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Something to think about

We couldn't have landed on the moon because there is no air resistance to slow you down as you come in for a landing. So if you are orbiting the moon at 3000mph, you will be travelling 3000mph until you fire your rocket in the opposite direction. In order to get your horizontal (relative to the moon) speed down to zero, you'd have to fire your rocket in the *exact* opposite direction for the *exact* right amount of time. Otherwise you'd still be moving at a few meters per second to one of the sides while you were landing, which could be enough to tip you over, ram you into a rock, or break a leg off. Worse, you could start spinning which you might never be able to stop completely.

The Apollo capsule lands back on earth by aiming at the biggest body of water on the planet and doing a belly flop onto the water, using parachutes (wind resistance) to slow it down. The space shuttle glides in until wind resistance slows it down enough to roll to a stop on a miles-long flat runway. The idea that we constructed a craft in 1969 that was capable of decellerating from 3000mph and doing a 4-point "touch" soft landing on a non-flat, rock alien surface, so good in fact the craft was able to then launch again and dock with the command module still travelling 3000mph in lunar orbit, with a 100% success rate, is absolutely ludicrous. If we did land on the moon, the TV feed wasn't live and the lunar surface is literally covered with crashed lunar landers from all the failed missions.

Last, when you look at how cavalier everyone was about the whole trip, like bringing *a car* to the moon, not being worried about their spacesuit rupturing or their shitbag in their spacesuit breaking open, or about the radiation, other odd bits like the lack of stars and the existance of footprints, and how the astronauts act when they come back (none will swear on the Bible that they ever did walk on the moon, most won't give interviews, and Armstrong is going insane), it's pretty obvious the whole thing was a fake.

The Apollo 11 press conference should be proof enough to you pro-apollo nuts that there was some fishy business going on. *Neil can't hide his guilt 24.7.34.99 00:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Sad thing, of course, is that, in all likelihood, they did make it to LEO, which in itself is an admirable technological achievement. Part of the astronauts' frustration, no doubt, must be that now they are not even getting credit for that part of the project. Instead, they've had to become, or behave like, petty liers and criminals. Anon2 19:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I bet they can spell, though. Wahkeenah 23:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That was Lacan writing, there. Anon2 23:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, its pretty obvious they are being treated poorly given their achievements. Having people pester me to swear on a Bible after I did something significant and important wouldn't make me a happy camper; and why exactly would they give interviews? Interviews are a hassle, they aren't selling anything. The need for interviews or any requirement they be in public life at their age is laughable; especially for scientific neophytes. Actually everything above is laughable, non-flat surface? A good portion of the moon is quite flat. And by the way when you need to decelerate without an atmosphere, you use close orbits and gravity (Astrodynamics) to do it for you. The formulas are available for all to learn and use; otherwise one can simply engage in cheap skepticism. Fuel comes in handy to make up the difference. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Please try not to confuse the moonbats with logic and reasoning. The stress might be too much for them. Wahkeenah 23:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL @ your ridiculous claims. The theory is probably sound, but tried and tested application is TOTALLY DIFFERENT. Again, all of those have innumerably more probable explanations, than in 1969 we invented a craft wrapped in gold foil that was capable of decellerating from 3000mph without wind resistance to slow it down, and doing a 4-point soft touch landing on a hard, uneven, unexplored rock surface, which we drove a car around on, before launching again and intercepting the command module travelling 3000mph in orbit.

Your error is in trying to apply the early 21st century "we can't do this" mindset to the mid-20th century "we can do this" mindset. You weren't around then, you have no idea how different (i.e. positive) America's attitude was then about the ability to get things done. "If you think you can, you can. If you think you can't, you're right." They thought they could, and did. Wahkeenah 23:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

In short, it was a "can-do time", the sixties... Anon2 23:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL. sad, sad, sad. the arguments they make. 24.7.34.99 00:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

And the, "this is really fast, I'm not entirely sure how they did it" arguments are somehow compelling? Why wasn't it capable with the correct orbital trajectory to slow down? Because it was constructed before we had... what? What is the crucial technology and know-how that was lacking in the late 1960's? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

WAH, The error is in the fact that you can't seem to realize that slide rules were still used for calculations back then. Technology was in a primitive state. Even today Japan has had many failures sending Lunar-A into lunar orbit. This has taken them close to 15 years and they still can't get a satellite to orbit the moon and take high res pictures. Is Japan 40 years or more behind the US in technology? They make better trains, better electronics, better robots, better almost anything besides software than the US. Just let go of your dogma and listen to common sense. The farthest anybody has gone up into space since the Apollo missions was 400 miles and even then they had to descend because the effects of the van allen belt could be felt. This is verified. Allen Bean claims that the Van Allen belt didnt' affect him because they haven't been discovered yet. lol. 'nuff said.

Seriously. You pro-apollo-nuts seem to have something to hide. Evidence in the fact that you remove hoax allegation links in a hoax allegation links section of the article. In addition somebody has been flooding that page causing it to exceed it's bandwith limits.24.7.34.99 00:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The "can-do" time was not the 60s as such, it was the post-WWII era, where the USA was bursting with optimism and felt like it could do anything it set it's mind to. Vietnam and Watergate kind of turned that around, but by then the Apollo program was already concluded. I would be very happy to join "your side" if you had anything, but you don't. Meanwhile, all I'm hearing from you is that you don't see how they could have done it, so therefore they couldn't have. Are you telling me the Mars missions were fake also? What about the Shuttles? Maybe everything's a fake... except where you are, of course. That's real. Wahkeenah 00:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.geocities.com/apolloreality2/apolloreality2_files/032208c0.jpg

Seriously. Look at that picture of the lunar module on the surface of the moon. What more proof do you need. the whole thing looks like a joke. Look at the fit and finish, the gold foil. Where did they put the lunar rover? How did they block out for 72 hours the plus/minus 200 degree temperature fluctuation? Allen Bean says "batteries," but I just laugh. Just set aside your Pro-apollo bias and ask yourself if that thing looks like it landed on the moon. Anybody that sees this picture knows that to say this high school science project landed on the moon is laughable at best, but a cute story. Anyways. You will never change your mind. People who believe it was fake are not crazy. I have presented lawyers, engineers, programmers with the evidence and they are all thoroughly convinced. Also tell yourself that over 50% of the japanese public are deluded too, because that's the amount that the beleives the landings were faked, hence probably one of the reasons why they want to send up LUNAR-A.24.7.34.99 00:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

To me it looks like one of the sturdier craft from that "can-do" era... Anon2 00:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

As opposed to the X-1, for example? As I keep saying, show me some evidence beyond your opinion of whether something "ought to work" or not, based on early 21st century standards, and I'll be interested. I keep waiting for you to tell me that bumblebees can't possibly fly, either. Wahkeenah 00:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Show me the design plan for the lunar module as proof that it works. Guess we can't because it was lost or destroyed. How convenient. Also the Lunar Module is one large technical achievement with human lives involved that was not tested beforehand. But I guess "can-do" means that miracles are possible too. Noodle boy 01:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You landing believers are quite a bunch. Let me quote somebody far more qualified than us:

Prof Andre Balogh, Royal Astronomical Society, Imperial College London Subject: Space Reality

The problems NASA are having with the Space Shuttle is the true reality of space travel in low Earth orbit, and visions of manned space travel to the Moon, Mars and beyond is pure science fiction.

Prof Andre Balogh was speaking to Eddie Muir on BBC Radio 4 July 28 2005. Noodle boy 01:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Something to think about part 2

Continuing with my discussion regarding the technical feasability problems:

The moon's radius is about 1700km, so the circumference is about 11,000km. An orbit of the moon is supposed to have taken anywhere from an hour to two hours, taking 80 minutes means 136km per second or about 8000km per hour. That's about 5000 miles per hour.

When the lunar module detached from the command module, it would have retained its current velocity, it wouldn't just drop straight to the ground. It won't slow down until it hits something or accelerates in the opposite direction.

Safely landing a craft travelling thousands of miles per hour, without wind resistance to slow it down, on an uneven, unexplored solid rock surface with boulders, craters and mountains all over, without wheels or any kind of landing gear except for four legs wrapped in gold foil, using a single rocket on the bottom, a couple of maneuvering jets on the side, and almost no windows, would have been an absolute miracle to achieve even once. We are to believe it succeeded on the first try, and then 5 more times without a hitch. So well that in fact the craft was able to take off again, and the second time they brought a car to make the trip more interesting.

Please use common sense for once. Any theory can be debated endlessly with reasonable sounding arguments. But just look at the trajectory of technology in relation to history and you'll see why Prof Andre Balogh of the Royal Astronomical Society, Imperial College London, says this is all PURE SCIENCE FICTION. Noodle boy 01:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your posts, Noodle Boy! They are an excellent example of how imagination requires no real education. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

attack the message not the messenger. I guess Prof. Andre Balogh has no real education either huh? Stop living in denial, honestly. I sincerely feel sorry for you guys. You guys want to hold on to a dream that is dying by the minute. sad, sad, sad.Noodle boy 01:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You cite Andre Balogh. That's 1. I cite the tens of thousands of other scientists and hundreds of thousands of engineers and workers who put men on the moon. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

...And for that matter, WHERE does Andre Balogh say that we never went to the moon? In this article, he hailed the Apollo program as a complete success. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't blame Prof. Balogh for people twisting his words. We've caught Noodleboy "red-link-handed", as he took an out-of-context quote about the PRESENT situation and tried to make it sound like Balogh is saying the Apollo program was faked. However, I can Google too. This writeup [1] discusses Balogh's views at some length, talking about the need to get the shuttle going again for the sake of continued space exploration. The "science fiction" he is talking about is in the present and future, and it's clear why he thinks so:

Commenting directly on the final report of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, its recommendations and the consequences for space exploration, Professor Balogh says that prospects depend crucially on the availability of increased funding for NASA.

"Unless the recommendations are taken fully on board and implemented so the shuttle can resume safer flying, and a replacement is really got underway seriously this time, there is no such thing as a foreseeable future for human space flight outside science fiction," Professor Balogh will say.

"And the only way that a positive future could be guaranteed is to increase the NASA budget to something like twice its present size."

Professor Balogh will speak during this year's BA Festival of Science at The University of Salford, as part of the BA Engineering Section and Royal Academy of Engineering day of talks on the theme of 'Sustainability: engineering at new frontiers."

Professor Balogh described the fascination we have for human space exploration, saying that "robots can never replace humans waving flags", with astronauts serving as our proxies, going to places never seen before by human eyes.

Considering the future, Professor Balogh says that realistic prospects boil down to exploration in the solar system while opportunities for space tourism in the coming 30 years centre on trips into Earth-orbit 'for the most amazing views', while visits to the Moon and a possible moon-base colony, travel to Mars, and asteroid-chasing missions remain firmly in the realms of science fiction for the present time.

Looking beyond our current knowledge, to the distant future, he says that everything is contingent on "new physics, new technology and high, sustained levels of funding." He also considers the possibility of time travel through wormholes, but concludes, "It's all science fiction for now. Let's hope that the USA will make the first essential steps to get back into space safely."

Professor Balogh's talk reviews the history of space stations - MIR, its achievements and its near misses and the International Space Station (ISS) - its present status and plans for the future if the shuttle programme resumes safe flying and a shuttle replacement is developed.

He also surveys the early years of space exploration and its greatest achievements - chiefly the Apollo programme, and Apollo 13. This was a complete success, he explains, but owes much to the fact that as a national priority for the USA it was very generously funded.

Professor Andre Balogh Andre Balogh is a Professor of Space Physics. His research interests include the heliosphere and the Earth's magnetosphere as Principal Investigator on the Ulysses and Cluster missions, as well as planetary magnetospheres and magnetic fields as the first advocate for ESA's BepiColombo mission to Mercury.

There you have the answer. The will, and the money. "Can-do". Wahkeenah 02:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL. You guys take an article from 2003 as proof of what he said on a radio show in 2005?

"The problems NASA are having with the Space Shuttle is the true reality of space travel in low Earth orbit, and visions of manned space travel to the Moon, Mars and beyond is pure science fiction." Prof Andre Balogh was speaking to Eddie Muir on BBC Radio 4 July 28 2005. Find this show or the transcript and verify the quote. Before that you haven't proven anything with your old articles.Noodle boy 02:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You're the one pushing it, so the burden is on you to find it. However, the quote you cite fits perfectly with his 2003 statement, it's nearly the same quote. It's just that the moonbats (and the page from which you got it [2]) are using just that piece of it to make it sound like he implies that it's retroactive. Wahkeenah 02:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The 2 quotes are TOTALLY DIFFERENT. People can say different things at different times. I highly doubt that the quote was taken out of context. If it was I would be surprised. I have emailed the person who owns the site to ask him if it was a direct quote or a paraphrase. Noodle boy 02:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Would this site (second paragraph/section) happen to be where you found the quote? It has what you posted word for word, both quote and the transcript comment. -th1rt3en 02:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Noodle's alleged 2005 quote: "The problems NASA are having with the Space Shuttle is the true reality of space travel in low Earth orbit, and visions of manned space travel to the Moon, Mars and beyond is pure science fiction."

2003 quote: "Considering the future, Professor Balogh says that realistic prospects boil down to exploration in the solar system while opportunities for space tourism in the coming 30 years centre on trips into Earth-orbit 'for the most amazing views', while visits to the Moon and a possible moon-base colony, travel to Mars, and asteroid-chasing missions remain firmly in the realms of science fiction for the present time."

Yep, totally different. Wahkeenah 02:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is Prof. Balogh's home page. Maybe some enterprising moonbat would like to send him an e-mail and get his real thoughts on the matter, and settle this question. Prof. Balogh's home page Wahkeenah 02:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL. I took it from the apollo feedback page, word for word. I did not alter the comment in any way. Until you guys can get the original transcript, then you can't say the quote is false. The dates are very clear july 28, 2005, bbc radio. The first quote seems to talks about manned space travel, the 2003 quote refers to SPACE TOURISM. TOTALLY DIFFERENT. I agree there is a possibility that the person who owns the apollo feedback may have taken it out of context, but to say that it isa fabricated quote is just ridiculous at this point until we can get a hold of the transcript. Noodle boy 02:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, until you get the original transcript, you can't say the quote is true. -th1rt3en 02:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I may have mischaracterized it as a "bogus quote", because it is entirely possible that the quote itself is accurate, but it's being used by the moonbats to imply that he's talking about Apollo, whereas there is nothing in the quote whatsoever about Apollo, it's about the shuttle and about future flights, just like the 2003 quote was, both of which are followups to the Columbia disaster and its aftermath. The "bogus" part of it is not necessarily the quote itself, but its misuse, either by ignorance or more likely by willful deception... which is a common thread among the moonbats and conspiracists in general. Wahkeenah 02:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I have emailed the person who runs that page. Anyways, this is just one professor's opinion and whether he said or not, it does not change the fact that no amount of "can-do" can land this tin-foil carboard concoction: http://www.geocities.com/apolloreality2/apolloreality2_files/032208c0.jpg on the moon. ;)Noodle boy 02:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope you told that guy that he put egg on your face. So, all of a sudden, this distinguished Professor has lost credibility with you. Imagine that. Meanwhile, I assume you have a doctorate in engineering, and are thus well-qualified to judge the LEM's capabilities? Wahkeenah 02:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to back off and "apollo"-gize for scapegoating you a bit. You're just the messenger. You've been "had" by the dedicated moonbats, the publicity seekers and egotists, who try to put together what appears to be a valid argument, but in the end is the actual tin-foil and cardboard. It's not your fault. Wahkeenah 03:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The first military submarine was wood and tar. The first airplane was wood and fabric. So why cant the first LEM be cardboard and tinfoil? ;) -th1rt3en 03:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Very few people are qualified to judge the LEM's capabilities because the design plans were destroyed. The landing phase was the most difficult part yet they went up there manned without testing it. They practiced all sorts of things such as setting up the flag on a simulated moon surface, taking off a camera from the surveyor. But I guess that was difficult stuff, the important stuff. Landing at 3000 mph on an unknown rock surface for the 1st time was the "can-do" type of stuff that needed no testing. Amazing. Simply amazing.Noodle boy 03:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying it's 100% impossible to achieve something, however risky, on the first try? -th1rt3en 03:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Not impossible but very unlikely. If it is so easy to land using this kind of technology, why are we using less advanced ways to land our unmanned probes on Mars (parachutes, airbags, etc) at the risk of loosing them? One would think that landing a rocket would be mastered to perfection now. 74.56.207.132 04:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

agree with 74.65, Anything is possible, but the statistical odds of such a massive undertaking would be damn near impossible to carry out without testing. The fact that they claim it worked flawlessly 5 times makes it even more ludicrous. 100% success rate. Also remember this was 1969.Noodle boy 05:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? The Surveyor landers tested the technology, and they practiced for months using the 'flying bedstead' trainer on earth. Do you really think so poorly of the best pilots in the world at the time that you don't htink they could do it? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe they were "flawless", if I remember correctly. Although they did land and takeoff without incident, I believe there were problems that came up during decent on some missions. Also, for comparing Lunar Landing to Landing the Mars Rover: Consider 1) cost - its probably cheaper to use parachutes and airbags then propulsion fuel; 2) the mars missions were unmanned, so a professional who has mastered rocket landing could not be there to control the craft, also Mars Pathfinder#Mission Stages: entry, descent and landing; 3) the Mars Rover would not be considered as important as an astronauts life. Also remember that reentry to the Earth's atmosphere was done with parachutes. -th1rt3en 05:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Flaws? Yeh, I'd say they had a few. Of course, everyone knows about Apollo 13. But when they conducted the descent-and-ascent test (no actual landing) on Apollo 10, they lost control of the LEM momentarily and were on the virge of catastrophe. If you doubt that, you need to have heard the profanities those guys uttered at that moment when they thought they were about to be dead. Raw human emotion. Wahkeenah 07:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Apollo 11 press conference looks like a funeral

Check out Neil's Armstrong's curious body language after the greatest trip in mankind's history. This an Apollo 11 press conference after the trip and not an interview. *Neil can't hide his guilt 24.7.34.99 00:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• These are scientists and engineers, not entertainers. What were you expecting, Rodney Dangerfield? Wahkeenah 02:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weren't they selected for their flight experience rather than for their science knowledge? 74.56.207.132 04:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

exactly, they were selected based on their flight ability and the ability to withstand vertigo and air sicknessNoodle boy 05:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• More the former than the latter, I'd say. But I'm sure they had nausea pills in 1969. It wasn't totally the Dark Ages. Wahkeenah 06:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Where did they put the rover?

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/diagrams/ad002.gif

Check out this cross-sectional overview. Please use your almighty imagination to explain to me how they managed to bring up the rover in this tin-foil cardboard concoction.

I'm all ears.Noodle boy 03:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Lunar rover#Deployment: "The rover was folded and stored in quad 1 with the underside of the chassis facing out." -th1rt3en 03:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, Ross, here's a site that shows a model of it at its development factory, with its "garage door" partially opened. [3] It was hinged in several places for compact storage. It was in the descent stage of the LEM, which was larger than you might think. They point out how the Apollo 17 crew nearly busted it. I suppose that was just for show. Wahkeenah 03:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, here's a site that answers many questions about Apollo, including the storage of the rover, and anticipates your next one about the rover, as to why didn't the tires explode: [4] Once I read this, I remembered seeing it on TV. They opened that one side of the descent stage and the rover was right there ready to unfold. Neat. Wahkeenah 04:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't it all make you wonder that there are tons of explanations now, yet in all the diagrams no mention was made. Check this for instance: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/diagrams/ad018.gif It says that Q1 was used for battery stowage. Strange eh?

For which flight is that diagram? Wahkeenah 04:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure but the picture that you showed was from the last mission, and even then it looked like they had a hard time fitting that thing in. I'm not saying it's fake, but I'm curious about how they did it.

This exterior diagram shows the door behind which the rover was kept, to the right of the ladder as described elsewhere. [5] Obviously, it would have been better to show it in that other diagram also. What I need to find is the video of them opening it on the moon. If Bubba ever gets back on here, he might know more quickly where to find it. Wahkeenah 04:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's something interesting, a set of diagrams from the manual they developed for the astronauts. [6] Wahkeenah 04:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok nice pictures. I'm convinced that it was possible to put the rover into the cardboard LM. You guys still have to convince me about the the technical feasibility part yet though. Noodle boy 04:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What specifically? Just the deployment of the lunar rover, or other things as well? -th1rt3en 05:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What I am interested in is how the untested cardboard, tinfoil looking Lunar Module could be landed with a 100% success rate on unknown terrain in 1969. This was by far the riskiest and the most difficult undertaking in the whole APOLLO project, yet it was flawless in execution everytime. Especially since the 1st landing was supposedly shown live, sending 2 men out onto the moon's surface with an untested lunar lander would be way too risky in the case that the passengers crash and die in front of 600 million people. I don't believe they would take that risk.Noodle boy 05:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Well one, just because it looks like carboard and tinfoil, doesn't mean it is cardboard and tinfoild. You can take a visit to the National Air and Space Museum to clarify that. Two, every mission had their flaws, just not in the sense of a major catastrophy where men died. Several precausions were taken and methods of countering problems were made, as well as extensive training for the astronauts. Three, although the first landing was untested, you would have to count it as testing later landings. All prior landings would be considered tests for all later ones. Four, Apollo 13 had major news coverage after it's problem and up until reentry. If they died, it would have also been in front of millions of people, and NASA knew that as well. -th1rt3en 05:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

the cardboard part was meant as a joke because the fit and finish is so ridiculous on the thing. If you look at the command module or the saturn V's fit and finish, it is perfected to the tee. It looks like it works. The lunar module honestly looks like a high school science project. Basically what you guys think is that a guidance system computer does everything and magically eliminates all velocity vectors until it can just go straight down. That "computer" had 32k of memory, and probably couldn't do floating point math.

This magic guidance system had never been tested on the moon before. Did the LM turn around and fire it's rocket for 5 minutes until it's forward velocity was gone? How much fuel did that take? How did that POS "computer" get all velocity vectors removed to less than a few feet per second. It *never* had a glich? In 1967, an electrical fire in Apollo 1 roasted the three astronauts alive on the ground. The program was in shambles. There are a billion things that could have gone wrong on the moon missions. Landing would have been damn near impossible. Launching again and docking in lunar orbit? A miracle. The spacesuits could have ruptured. The computer could have broke. Radiation could have killed the astronauts. But it was all so easy using 1969 that they brought golf clubs and *a car* to the moon?? Noodle boy 05:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You do raise some points, but also some exaggerations and misleading information.

A computer is not the only thing that can do math, humans can too. It's been said that the computing power of computers back then were no greater than the pocket calculators of today, and a lot of the computing was done by hand by the men at NASA/Mission Control.

Did the LM turn around and fire it's rocket for 5 minutes until it's forward velocity was gone? How much fuel did that take? How did that POS "computer" get all velocity vectors removed to less than a few feet per second. It *never* had a glich?

That all can be researched. I'm not an expert on the subject of rocket science. And again, there were glitches in many (if not all) of the missions.

But it was all so easy in 1969 they brought golf clubs and *a car* to the moon??

The Rover was not a exactly a car, and even if it were, with the right tools and knowhow anyone you can actually dissasemble and reassemble an actual motor vehicle and have it run perfectly. Also, for clarification, Apollo 14 carried the clubs and Apollo 16 carried the Rover, neither in 1969. If you're going to ask questions that can be researched, I reccomend actually researching them before disregarding them as truth. -th1rt3en 05:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Shush. Don't give them any helpful hints. >:) Wahkeenah 06:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

what I wanted to say was that they were using 1969 technology, of course I knew they brought those up on diff. missions. I will edit that part.Noodle boy 06:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Earlier, somewhere in this megillah, someone was talking about rockets vs. parachutes. Well, I think they use parachutes on Mars, Venus, Jupiter, etc. because those orbs have an atmosphere and the chutes work fine (most of the time, anyway). I'm sure they would have preferred using parachutes on the moon, but ya know, that just probably wouldn't have worked out all that well. (Last transmission from Sven and Ole's moon flight: "Qvick, Ole, open de chutes!") However, the lack of an atmosphere probably helped in landing the LEM as designed, because there was no atmospheric instability to mess with it as it approached, plus the struts were specially built to absorb a fair amount of stress. Gawrsh, ya think they might 'ave figgered this stuff out ahead o' time? Sha-zay-um! Wahkeenah 06:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

NASA voluntarily dumbed itself down?

When people first hear of the idea that the Apollo program was a hoax, most automatically dismiss the idea out of hand, because it not only sounds crazy to them, but dares to question a sacred icon of American history! People can't be blamed for getting peeved by ideas that shake the foundations of cherished and widely held beliefs. On the other hand, the world of men is driven by what people believe to be "true", not what's actually true. Truth is often stranger than fiction; so it essentially boils down to whether we wish to really know the truth about things or not? While most people think conventional wisdom is obvious and indisputable, others are not afraid to have their concept of things completely upset, seeking the truth wherever it leads them, and letting the chips fall where they may. This book is obviously written for the latter type of person. The author makes a convincing case against Apollo by covering various facts from his employment with one of the leading Apollo contractors, and gleaned from his familiarity with the workings of the space program at that time.

At the end of the day however, the most powerful evidence that Apollo was a hoax is the fact that today, NASA is technically unable to send men to the moon! This amazing fact is not from lack of money or public interest, but from plain old ignorance! They just don't know how to do this! This is equivalent to Boeing suddenly being unable to build a jet aircraft, after successfully building and flying them for several years! Science just doesn't go backwards like this, nor does it completely abandon successful systems, without producing innovations based upon them! How is it that the usual evolutionary progression of knowledge and skill present in every known scientific breakthrough is somehow absent in our post Apollo space program? If the expertise garnered in the Apollo program over thirty years ago was genuine, why are we not now leveraging it into more sophisticated trans-lunar vehicles and flights? Why after Apollo has our space program suffered such a catastrophic loss of expertise? How do you justify a timeline that takes us from the cutting edge lunar flights of Apollo to Shuttle missions, limited to techniques first perfected during the Gemini program? Certainly the Shuttle is an advance in re-usable space transport, but technologically it's inferior to Apollo in one significant respect: it's incapable of operating outside of relatively low earth orbit! Why the technological regression in manned space flight?

No scientific organization has ever voluntarily dumbed itself down like NASA has, since Apollo! Successful lunar missions confirm the solution of monumental scientific and engineering problems! Preserving such invaluable expertise is fundamental to all scientific organizations! There's absolutely no valid reason for NASA's current incompetence, except that perhaps the spectacular achievements and breakthroughs of Apollo never really took place! If they had, it's safe to say, that manned moon missions would be easier to pull-off today, and still part of the NASA repertoire. They're not, and are still questionable for the forseeable future! The profound disconnect between Apollo and current NASA activities, is the most convincing indication that what was done during Apollo, was not genuine.

NOTE: this was written by an amazon reviewer by the name of G. Estes "Gerald"

• One of the many flaws in that author's reasoning is that NASA is technologically incapable of going back to the moon. The Apollo program was stopped because of lack of funding and lack of interest. The shuttle was the next logical step in the series. The various blunders that NASA committed during the 1950s and 1960s, some fatal and some near-fatal, caught up to them with Challenger and again with Columbia. Notice we aren't flying the shuttle much anymore, or at all right now. In the above rant, substitute the word "Shuttle" for "Apollo" and you can argue that NASA is now incapable of LEO and therefore they were never capable of it in the first place. Wahkeenah 14:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Two words: Budget cuts. At its height in the 1960s, the cost of the Apollo program was a mammoth 0.8% of the US's GDP. Today, NASA's budget stands at $16.8 billion, equal to approximately 0.12% of the US's GDP. To put this in perspective, even if you doubled NASA's budget to $30 billion, you would still only be at 0.2% of GDP, merely a quarter of the relative spending at the peak of Apollo. Honestly, how can people be so ignorant? I don't envy you, Wahkeenah, I sure as hell would not have the patience to debunk the claims of these fools day after day. — Impi 15:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

lol @ budget cuts. This is a great excuse. The r&d for manned moon missions has been done already, thereby cutting the cost of going back to the moon by a sizeable proportion. Also taking into account the near 100% success rates of the Apollo program, it seems that the R&D was solid, especially in terms of the overcoming the technical setbacks of going past the van allen belt and travelling 250,000 miles. It's kind of funny because every other manned space mission in history never went beyond 400 miles and you obviously deluded Nasa minions want the world to believe that we travelled 250,000 miles in 1969. Seriously LOL. Just LOL.24.7.34.99 10:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this all an act or are you really this stupid? How much do you think it cost to build a Saturn V rocket and all the other needed equipment for a moon mission? How much do you think it cost to employ the thousands of talented engineers and scientists needed to maintain and support a moon mission? The fuel, the parts, the people — all this costs a lot of money, money that NASA no longer has to spend. In fact, NASA had to scrap the final three Apollo missions (18-20)) were cancelled because NASA no longer had the funds to support them. But hey, all you need is R&D right? — Impi 13:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You forgot that those Saturn V's were just plastic models. The TV networks were in on the conspiracy, too. And they made it seem so real! Wahkeenah 14:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You weren't around then, so you are unaware that the Apollo program was cut because there was no longer any interest or need to go to the moon. NASA was redirected to earth-orbit stuff because it had actual practical value. The moonbats made up this conspiracy stuff after the Apollo program was cut, because they knew it was safe to do so then. Wahkeenah 12:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have become interested in this subject as a social phenomenon. That's what keeps bringing me back here. That, and I have learned a lot of stuff about the details of Apollo that I did not know or had forgotten. I'm sure that's not quite what the moonbats had in mind. :) P.S. I'm waiting for one of them to argue that .12 is bigger than .8 is. :) Wahkeenah 01:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This constant mocking of the conspiracy theorists is inappropriate, even on the talk page. Please show some respect, even if you don't mean it. And please drop the silly namecalling. "Moonbats" was lame to begin with, and endless repetition doesn't make it suddenly seem clever. Thanks. Phiwum 06:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Would you like 'morons' better? OK, I'll stop when you also lecture them about referring to "apollo nutties" or whatever that silly term was. Wahkeenah 06:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

And, by the way, I have actually made some efforts to tone down the pro-Apollo, shooting-fish-in-a-barrel rhetoric in the article. Wahkeenah 07:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Phiwum. LOL. I don't mind the mocking because these people are obviously not very secure with their position. They consistently delete hoax allegation sites that have substantiative claims and they treat nasa as a deity. In my opinion it is just sad. I have rarely seen so-called "conspiracy theories" taken so seriously by the scientific community and its minions such as wahkeenah. NASA writing a book debunking the claims, high-level amateur astronmers making careers off the so-called "stupidity" and "naivete" of the apollo truth movement is a sure sign that something at least is not right with the whole project. There is a lot of evidence on both sides that we went to the moon or it was all a hoax. After carefully studying the success rates of different space missions such as the MARS unmanned mission which had a 26% success rate, the numerous failures and setbacks of the newer Nasa programs and the difficulty of countries like japan and china even sending a man into orbit has led me to believe that the near 100% success rate or sending men and landing on the moon is baloney.24.7.34.99 10:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should be respectful on the talk page. That doesn't mean that I think your beliefs about Apollo are plausible.Phiwum 12:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr. 24.7.34.99 and I have been having many spirited and lively discussions here. He's taken plenty of shots at me and I've fired back. And vice versa. If he's got a problem with it, I'm sure he'll tell me. Wahkeenah 12:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not about your relations with some anonymous editor. It is about basic civility, a Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Civility. I don't care whether he's an asshole or merely thick-skinned. When you repeatedly refer to all believers of the conspiracy as "moonbats", you harm the aims of Wikipedia. We need basic civility to come to agreement here.

You are simply out of line. Maybe you're not alone in this, but that's no damned excuse. Phiwum 14:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

As long as you allow anonymous users (NOT like 24.7.34.99, who has sincere contributions to make, but rather the countless vandals) to waste everyone's time deleting their garbage, this so-called encylopedia will never be any more than a pretentious weblog. So save your self-righteous lectures, and devote your energy instead to figuring out how to deal with that issue. Wahkeenah 15:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

As long as I allow anonymous users to be bad, you can be bad too? Brilliant reasoning, that. I don't expect to reason with senseless vandals, but I had hoped you weren't equally out of touch. Phiwum 07:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"Brilliant reasoning"? Watch those personal attacks, lest some wiki-nanny start hassling you. Wahkeenah 10:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't blame me for deleting that hoax site. I like having it there. The more of those you have here, the more people can see them for what they are. Meanwhile, I think I caught an error in your math. Apollo 13 was a near-disaster and was aborted. That would cut into the alleged 100% success rate that you have claimed that NASA claimed. Wahkeenah 12:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The Reality of the Van Allen Belt

Scientists: Radiation belts threaten satellites, astronauts December 8, 1998 1:57 p.m. EST SAN FRANCISCO (AP) --

Once thought to be a slumbering cocoon of charged particles embracing the Earth, new research shows these radiation belts can become extremely powerful in a matter of seconds.

Such sudden changes pose far greater risks to orbiting telecommunications satellites -- and even spacewalking astronauts, scientists said Monday at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union.

"We had thought the radiation belts were a slow, lumbering feature of Earth, but in fact they can change on a knife's edge," said space physicist Daniel Baker of the University of Colorado.

Detected 40 years ago, the doughnut-shaped particles belts extending more than 20,000 miles around the planet were thought to be very stable, waxing and waning over a period of months.

New observations by an array of satellites show changes in the planet's own magnetic field can accelerate electrons in the belts to nearly the speed of light, transforming them into what some researchers describe as "killer electrons."

Under those conditions, the charged particles can pierce a sheet of aluminum a half-inch thick, possibly resulting in a catastrophic accumulation of particles in the sensitive electronics of hundreds of orbiting satellites.

"Many of the satellites up there now, and future spacecraft like the space station, have the potential to be severely impaired by light-speed electrons," Baker said. 24.7.34.99 10:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

How come science and what the apollo astro-nots say dont' match up? Even in low earth orbit, satellites can be disrupted by the effects of radiation. in the early 60's they CLEARLY knew that the van allen belts would be the biggest obstacle towards going to the moon. They launched operation starfish prime to try to create a pathway, but it ended up making the radiation worse. Or do you guys want to believe apollo 15 astronot allen bean who said the van allen belt didn't affect him beacuse it "hadn't been invented yet" I am just wondering why the Shuttle astronauts had such different experiences with the effects of cosmic radiation compared to the guys that went through the van allen belts and beyond , 240,600 miles more than any other manned space mission past or present.

Is the source for those quotes the same as the source for the Prof. Bolagh mis-quote? If so, why do you still trust them? Wahkeenah 12:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I got a reply from the person who runs the Apollo Reality website:

Hi

It was a direct quote from Prof Balogh, who was being interviewed by Eddie Muir. I have contacted both the programme, and the BBC for a copy of the interview, but they have failed to reply. I think they now know it was a mistake for Prof Balogh to make the remark, (even though it is the truth), because it proves once and for all that man did not venture to the Moon as we have been told, although I knew it back in 68.

Everything happened "too quickly" and the film looked "too tacky" to be real.

Where, in that quote, does he say anything about the Apollo program? Wahkeenah 19:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The only Google reference I can find is that one conspiracist website, so I could easily conclude that they made it up, which would be typical. Wahkeenah 11:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

And theoreticians also say the bumblee can't fly, so any apparent evidence to the contrary must be a government conspiracy. Wahkeenah 11:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

SOURCE IS CNN: http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9812/08/radiation.belts/ :) 24.7.34.99 12:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Kudos. Now someone needs to do some research on what actual, not theoretical, effects the Van Allen belts are having on satellites, etc., currently, and to what extent the communications with the Apollo command modules were disrupted, if any. Wahkeenah 12:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, now you are questioning scientific research. The danger of the van allen belts has been well known since 1958. Check up the reports of the 1998 challenger mission where they were forced to descend because of the effects of radiation just 400 miles above the earth. H. Friedman in his book Sun and Earth explains that "The results from Explorer I, launched on January 31, 1958, were so puzzling that instrument malfunction was suspected. High levels of radiation intensity appeared interspersed with dead gaps ... Explorer III succeeded fully, and most important, it carried a tape recorder. Simulation tests with intense X rays in the laboratory showed that the dead gaps represented periods when the Geiger counter in space had been choked by radiation of intensities a thousand times greater than the instrument was designed to detect."

MIT has this to say:

From http://paperairplane.mit.edu/16.423J/Space/SBE/introduction/SpaceEnvironment.pdf (you guys might want to read this very carefully. It opens up with the statement "SPACE IS A VERY HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT" If you guys read this and are not convinced then seriously, and I mean it sincerely, consider a brain transplant.

"Solar Flares are produced by 'storms' in the solar magnetosphere. These eruptions yield very high radiation doses within very short time periods (hours to days). There is a correlation with the 11 year solar cycle. The largest events occurring in the months following sunspot maximum. Solar flares are cataclysmic releases of energy resulting from processes that are poorly understood."

1969 correlated with the 11 year peak of the sunspot cycle, making the trip even more dubious. Seriously, the idea that we went 250,000 miles in 1969 to the moon and landed there is patently ridiculous. I know that even the landing believers have doubts about it, that is why they are so defensive about this whole issue. Ridiculous conspiracies are ignored because it's idiocy will speak for itself. Do scientists try to debunk UFO conspiracies? NO. Do scientists research bigfoot? NO. Why? because those are ridiculous and the proponents of such dubious claims prove it to be so through the sheer stupidity of the arguments. Not so with the Apollo truth movement. NASA and its minions know that the claims from this movement make a lot of sense and that it needs to flex its power to deflect the claims before it goes out of control. These claims if presented without convoluted and theoretical rebuttals, would be believable to the average person, because it is in line with common sense.

You guys are doing a great disservice to the people who truly want to understand space and the reality of space travel. As long as you guys propogate the myth that we went to the moon, honest studies of the radiation levels and genuine attempts at sending manned missions beyond 400 miles will not be undertaken, simply because NASA needs to fit new research with the dubious findings and experiences of the faked moon missions.24.7.34.99 14:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The Apollo missions were real, and you can't prove otherwise. The notion that it didn't happen is the actual myth. And that is the Apollo truth. Wahkeenah 14:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

yes bigfoot is real. I saw it in the patterson gimlin vid, you can't prove to me that bigfoot doesn't exist because nobody has managed to disprove that video for 30 years.Noodle boy 17:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I've seen that film. It didn't look anything at all like a guy in a monkey suit. Wahkeenah 19:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The reality of the Van Allen Belts are a critical issue in this discussion. I have heard experts saying very different things about this. You have those who believe that the astronauts would be killed during the trip trough the belts, or at least within 2 months, and you have those who believe the Apollo was for real, where the heroes live a long life afterwards. You usually have experts with different opinions in mosts questions. The poor performance of the space shutle make me believe that the Van Allen Belts are a real show-stoppper indeed. I do not believe we have the know how now, and I do not believe we had the know how during the NASA Apollo public relation show. (Axlalta 20:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC))

• Looks like you, as well as the Noodle guy, need to read the wiki article about the Van Allen belts. The Apollo craft skirted the edge of them and didn't spend very much time in them. This stuff about the dire warnings about these belts reminds me of the old maps of the world showing sea monsters in the unexplored parts of the ocean. As someone else pointed out, each Apollo mission was 8 days, with very little time spent, on the edge of the belts. Earth-orbiting objects would endure much longer term exposure. And where do you get the notion that the belts have anything to do with any alleged "poor performance" of the shuttle? The shuttle has performed very well. The two catastrophes were due to ground-based bad decisions. They had nothing to do with the radiation belts. Wahkeenah 21:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• I looked up the Wikipedia article on the Van Allen belts. In the "discussion" page facts are disputed. Not suprisingly, the chapter "The Van Allen belt's impact on space travel" is in accordance with the official NASA story. If I had read something like "and this proves that the Apollo manned missions to the moon were a hoax", I would be suprised :) This shows the downside of upholding the Apollo propaganda project as a matter of fact, it is a hindrance to real science. My reference to the poor performance of the space shuttle is its testing of the Van Allen belts. When the space shuttle astronauts did get to an altitude of about 400 miles, the radiation of the Van Allen belts forced them to lower altitude. At 400 miles you have not really even entered the Van Allen belts, the real venom awaits. (Axlalta 12:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC))
• Oh, I forgot... any information that comes from NASA is a lie. And how do you know that? Because any information that comes from them is a lie. Q.E.D. Wahkeenah 01:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Nasa's Current effort to mitigate the effects of radiation on manned space travel

80 researchers, 34 million dollars for research towards the minimization of dangerous space radiation on space travel. Seems to confirm MIT's opinion that SPACE IS A HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/radiation-03h.html

"To ensure the safety of spacecraft crews, NASA biologists and physicists will perform thousands of experiments at the new $34 million NASA Space Radiation Laboratory (NSRL) commissioned today at the Department of Energy's (DOE) Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, N.Y. The laboratory, built in cooperation between NASA and DOE, is one of the few facilities that can simulate the harsh space radiation environment.

"Scientists will use this facility as a research tool to protect today's crews on the International Space Station and to enable the next generation of explorers to safely go beyond Earth's protected neighborhood," said Guy Fogleman, director of the Bioastronautics Research Division, Office of Biological and Physical Research (OBPR), at NASA Headquarters in Washington."

Hmmm. The Apollo missions during the solar peak of 1969 semeed to have no problem with this radiation that they speak of, so why waste 34 million on research? All the original Apollo 11 passengers are alive and well and gracefully going on towards old age. In fact nobody was hurt by radiation or even mentioned the presence of it after they came back.

They are planning for much longer, as in duration, missions than the short moon-trips of the Apollo-era. And radiation ionizing radiation is not detectable by humans at low to medium levels. It is easily measureable by instruments, but not by our senses. Mossig 18:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"Scientists will use this facility as a research tool to protect today's crews on the International Space Station and to enable the next generation of explorers to safely go beyond Earth's protected neighborhood," said Guy Fogleman, director of the Bioastronautics Research Division, Office of Biological and Physical Research (OBPR), at NASA Headquarters in Washington." <-------- this is the purpose according to the article, they are not looking that far ahead yet. Noodle boy 18:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

And fits to what I said before: Apollo 11 mission: 8 days. Typical ISS mission: 180 days. Planned moon and mars missions: measured in months and even years.Mossig 19:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The space station is located in low-earth-orbit (220 miles).. the moon is 250,000 miles away. Big difference.Noodle boy 19:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

And danger from ionizing radiation is dose-related, ie. it scales with time. I am sorry, but I am having a hard time seeing what point you are trying to argue?

Big difference between travelling past the van allen belts and hanging around 220 miles above the earth.Noodle boy 19:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

And the conspiracists need to read wiki's own article about Van Allen radiation belt. Wahkeenah 19:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

WHy do you think the van allen belts exist? To protect us against the solar flares. 1969 was the peak of solar activity, once they left the belt they were exposed to the flares without protection. LOL @ comparing this to hanging out 220 miles above earth.Noodle boy 19:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Please make the comparison for us. The dose-rate calculations are pretty straightforward, so they should not present tomuch of a trouble. How large is the difference between ISS, Moon orbit and the van-allen belts in dose rate? In accumalted dose for a typical moon- respectivly ISS-mission?Mossig 19:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The article answered the question I had, which was how did Apollo deal with them? By mostly going around them. Duh! Also, I was intrigued by that one user's comments that the belts exist "to protect us", like they were put there on purpose. According to the article, similar belts exist around other planets. So I guess God is protecting the Martians also. Except He forgot to turn the heat up for them. Oops. Well, nobody's perfect. Wahkeenah 19:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Fact: The Van Allen Belt protects us from cosmic radiation and solar flares. For us they serve a useful function. Stop beating around the bush Wah-wah.Noodle boy 19:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they happen to protect us, but that's not the reason they exist, Noodle-Roni. Wahkeenah 19:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Nobody can answer why they exist. For the purposes of humanity, they exist to keep us safe from cosmic rays and radiation. let's leave it at that.Noodle boy 20:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. They exist because of the magnetic field around the earth. That's in the very first line of the Van Allen Belts article. You should read that article before you comment on this subject further. Wahkeenah 20:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

And in anticipation of your next question, here is the sub-article that explains why magnetic fields exist around planets and stars: Magnetic field#Magnetic field of celestial bodies . They exist whether there is life on a given planet or not. Wahkeenah 20:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL. you didn't get my point. I guess I was being a little too philosophical. Yes, I have read that and done my research. My question was more on the lines what is the purpose of life. In other words you answered the how, which I knew already, but not he "why"Noodle boy 21:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Aha. Science answers the "how" and it is up to us individually and collectively to try to answer the "why" or the "purpose" of life, if any. That's how philosophy and religion arose. Those matters are beyond the realm of science, at least at this point in time. Wahkeenah 21:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

APOLLO lunar module lack of flame

http://internet.ocii.com/~dpwozney/rcs3.jpg

This is an image of a Reaction Control System thruster firing on the space shuttle, taken from Joseph P. Allen's book Entering Space.

Another image from Allen's book also shows flame and visible exhaust from the Orbital Maneuvering Subsystem. Orange-coloured exhaust, from a single 26400 N (6000 lb) OMS firing, is caused by the oxidizer, nitrogen tetroxide.

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/STS51I/10062237.jpg

However, images and video of the lunar ascent and descent modules (LM), allegedly taken from the surface of the moon and from the Apollo Command/Service Module (C/SM), do not show flame or exhaust.

Seriously guys. Explain this to me. Also when the eagle took off, the explosion caused some flame or fire that was clearly visible.

Both linked pictures has the flame visible against the jet black of space. Which picture of the lunar takeoff should give the same view? Mossig 18:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/AS17/10075983.jpg jet black of space.Noodle boy 18:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The dynamic range of the camera that took that picture is really bad. It is not comparable to the cameras that took the examples above. But still: if the picture is imported into a image processing program a faint shadow of the exhaust plume is visible.

LOL. you guys will go to any length to make up some counterintuitive argument to prove a point. The plume should be visible in a grainy picture. In addition, the thrust was thousands of pounds, not weak at all. Also in the video you couldn't see anything either, yet you can see the spark and flame from the eagle separating from the lander.Noodle boy 19:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the video from which that frame was taken. There was definitely evidence of exhaust, at least at the moment of liftoff. It could well be that the contrast in that one frame is insufficient to show it. But given the conspiracists constant willful misuse of information, I wouldn't put it past them to have painted it out of that single frame. Wahkeenah 19:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed LOL. The flame should be more visible since it had higher thrust? This according to what scentific principle???

What I mean was that the thrust is not weak. Anyways, the mix of hydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide should produce a visible orange flame like the picture I showed. The creativity on here is amazing, you guys can have a makeshift answer for anything I throw at you. LOL.Noodle boy 19:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)~

Please show why the flame should be visible in that picture. Should be relativly easily calculated, most of the data is well known. Data on the camera can be calculated from the picture of the lander and the lunar surface. Or is it only your opionion that thay should be visible that we are discussing?Mossig 19:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Now you're hitting the core of the conspiracists' "reasoning". They decide the way they think something ought to be. When it turns out not to be that way, rather than re-examining their "reasoning", they say NASA made it up. (Notice I'm saying "conspiracists" now, as I got chastised by somebody who doesn't like the term "m**nb*ts". I don't much like it, because "conspiracists" is kind of hard to type. Maybe "cons" for short?) Wahkeenah 20:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Why did the gov't spend so much in the 1960s?

Carl Sagan lived through a golden era in space exploration. It was a time when every politician was behind NASA and a forward-thinking space exploration as a matter of sound public policy, and few ever questioned, publicly, the value of the program. But even during the 1960s, and afterwards, Carl Sagan wrote that he wondered for some time why our government had such a sudden interest in putting a man on the moon, and willing to spend so much to do it. It wasn't until years later, he wrote, that he realized that it was the socio-economic situation of the wider world at the time. After World War II, Europe and Asia stood ready to be reshaped, with Capitalism and Communism standing as diametric examples. With the ensuing build-up of nuclear weapons through the 1950s and 1960s, the superpowers of the time needed to show the world that they had the technology to transport those weapons around the world consistently and accurately. JFK's vision to put a man on the moon allowed that technology to be developed and demonstrated in a peaceful manner. And it still send a powerful message to the rest of the world.

I'm sorry I can't cite my source for what Sagan said, but I wanted to mention it for anyone wondering why the government would be willing to give NASA nearly 1% of its GDP 40 years ago, and only an eighth of that today, when we have, arguably, a greater need for it.--Ryan! 18:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Sagan talked in graceful language. Tom Lehrer put it more succinctly when he said something about "spending billions of dollars of your money to put some clown on the moon." The space race was just another aspect of the cold war. Once we won the race to the moon, interest in it (and in funding it) pretty much dried up. The Apollo-Soyuz joint venture and also the shuttle program were seen as being a lot more practical, which is hard to argue with. Wahkeenah 19:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction between Phil Plait and NASA regarding Stars

"stars are not readily seen in the daylight lunar sky by either the human eye or a camera because of the brightness of the sunlight surface"

That remark is at: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a13/images13.html

Phil Plait says this:

"On the Moon, the lack of air means that the sky is dark. Even when the Sun is high off the horizon during full day, the sky near it will be black. If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day. "

This remark is at: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.htmlNoodle boy 19:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

And both are true. Make this easy test: go out in a field at night with a clear sky. Look for a long time up into the sky and you will see the stars. Now pick out your biggest flashlight and read a bright magazine page for a minute or two. Now look up into the sky again: Magic! All the stars have disappeared! But guess how you can bring them back...Mossig 19:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

let me quote Phil: "I'll say this here now, and return to it many times: the Moon is not the Earth. Conditions there are weird, and our common sense is likely to fail us. " Nasa says you can't see the stars, the astronauts said they didnt' see ANY stars, yet Phil says you can see the stars even during the daytime on the MOON. seriously , just seriously.Noodle boy 19:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

And yet, it is you noodleboy who is trusting your "intuition" in the arguments before the scientific tests, such as the night-time sky watching, and proofs, such as the image processing. The fact is that you can see the stars if you make sure that you do not see the moon surface for long enough time for the eyes to adapt to the darkness. A luxury none of the apollo-astroauts could afford.Mossig 19:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

And Phil plait didn't qualify his claim with your suppositions. Thereby it is still a contradiction.Noodle boy 20:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

And Phil WAS NOT ON THE MOON. He wasn't wearing those sun-visors that the astronauts wore. The apparent contradiction in their statements is typical "cons" apples and oranges. Wahkeenah 20:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

And you didn't qualify your claim that Phil Plait "said" something with notes explaining that he actually wrote it, so you are a contradiction. There is no law saying that the world has to limit it's complexity to that which you are able to understand with little or no effort. Prove to me that two plus two always equals four. I'll punch holes in any argument you can come up with. Algr 00:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Explain this coincidence

Title: Apollo 13, April 13 at 13:13 hours

Apollo 13 launched on April 11th at 13:13 hours, the accident happened on April 13th at 13:13 hours.

What are the chances of a successive numerical event like this happening?

Also was it a coincidence that they chose Apollo "13" for the tragic accident? 13 being the unluckiest number in the western world.

The fact that it was launched at 13:13 meant that they were conscious of this number, that cannot be by chance. and to have it also crash at 13:13 is just pure insanity.

Brainwashed people would just call it a "coincidence" but this improbably numerical coincidence dealing on with time and date is enough to prove that something was fishy. Noodle boy 00:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Or, you could argue just the same that if they made it up and chose Apollo 13 on April 13th at 13:13 (1:13 PM), somebody down the line, SOMEWHERE would have said: "Um, don't you think that is a little too obvious?". Conspiracy theorists always seem to think that there is more continuity error thought put into Hollywood movies then was put into the moon landing "hoax". Also, numerical anomolies happen more often then one would think. -th1rt3en 00:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Give me another example of a numerical event that had this many coincidences. You seriously don't think that this all occured by chance do you? They launched Apollo 13 it at exactly 13:13 and it crashed on the 13th at 13:13. That's the thing, some people that were in on it probably did this stuff as whistleblowing or to use these numbers as a psychological mechanism. I'm speculating here, but as someone who understands the probability of successive events, the chance of this numerical coincidence is so small, calculators could not even handle the number of 0's necessary. Also, if they did indeed choose 13:13 consciously, which I think they did, then it's obvious the whole thing was a fake. Just take off your blinders and think about this yourself.Noodle boy 01:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you're using a circular argument, assuming the events were planned and not coincidental, in order to prove that ... the events were planned and not coincidental. One day we might discover the accident really was faked, but these bits of "evidence" do not prove that was the case. The chances of the accident happening at 13:13 were the same as it happening at 13:14 or 13:15 or 7:28 or any other time. The fact that there were two 13:13's in the story does not prove they were planned to occur that way. That is an argument for saying that no coincidences can ever happen by pure chance, they must always have been planned by humans. the chance of this numerical coincidence is so small, calculators could not even handle the number of 0's necessary - this is just hyperbolic waffle. JackofOz 01:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL @ your nonsense. I'm not assuming anything. The chance that something bad happened on 13th mission is already pretty small, factor in that they launched at 13:13 and the explosion happened on the 13th at 13:13. You seriously cannot think that is a chance event. There is a reason why there is no 13th floor in most american highrises or hotels, it's an unlucky number. This is total evidence of whisteblowing in my opinion. I am not looking at coincidences like "they took 13 breaths, 13 steps, 13 steps" etc. I am only looking at TIME (date and time) and the coincidences within this one variable is already amazing. It's easy to find numerical coincidences like he was killed in a 7 series bmw, shot 7 ten times, on Apr. 7th, with 7 people. Those are examples of ridiculous obsession. You can certainly find numerical anomalies if you look hard enough in a lot of things. But we are only dealing with the numerical anomalies regarding TIME and DATE.. and the fact that it was Apollo 13 just topped it off. This whole thing was done by whistleblowers. Think about it honestly, there has been no such coincidence in the history of man regarding time and date. FACT.

9/11 had a lot of coincidences involving the numbers 9 and 11. Things like Afghanistan and New York City having both 11 letters. Area codes' and phone numbers' digits adding up to 9 or 11. Several things like that. It also goes along the same line of coincidences as the Lincoln/Kennedy conicidences. Also, I would like to see the math you used to calculate the chance, don't just assume it's that small a number. Also, the chances of it being 13:13 would be the same as it being 12:34, or 15:29, or 20:11, or etc. And then there's the argument that 13:13 is just in one time zone. What I'm saying mainly is that arguing that "it's so crazy it MUST NOT be true" is no more or less valid than arguing that "it's so crazy it MUST be true". I for one doubt that a in the VERY LARGE amount of people it would take to organize and run a hoax, that not one person would ever bring up an objection, ever. -th1rt3en 01:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

When you bring up your examples of 9/11 you are dealing with area codes, phone numbers and countless other variables. We relegate the chance only with the variable of time. The chances of the number 13 showing up everywhere from launch to explosion ONLY WITHIN the domain of time and date is so low that it has to be consciously chosen. Conspiracy theorists often say that Apollo 13 was needed to create drama for the whole event. If that is indeed true, then you see why they picked the unlucky 13 for the mission number, the launch time, the date of accident and the time of accident. This is just pure whistleblowing in my opinion or some type of psychological technique used to make it more ominous or dramatic for the media. Look, I know all of you who are arguing are just playing devil's advocate right now, you know that this is pure baloney. You guys are not that stupid to think that this was a random occurence. There is so much evidence against the Apollo landings, this is just one of them. Another question, in addition to this coincidence, how many coincidence's does it take to make it not a coincidence? The safety inspector getting killed one week after testifying, his 500 page report getting destroyed, the lunar module design plans destroyed etc. etc. You must remember that if only 1 so-called conspiracy theory is proven to be true, then it puts the credibility of the whole apollo project at risk. There are hundreds upon hundreds of charges against the apollo project, many of them are bullshit, but many of them are very credible and have no readily available explanation. Think about it yourself, honestly.Noodle boy 01:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

But here's the thing, all you've done is say this DIDN'T happen, and shown no alternative series of events. Think about it: all you are saying is that the chances of 13 showing up so many times in time and date alone is SO small that it's never happened before. I can argue that you are right, it's never happened before and it'll never happen again. In the course of human existance, it's happened once and only once and that was on April 13th, 13:13, to Apollo 13 (which is a number and not a date, contrary to your arguement). You are simply saying that something specific cannot happen on 13:13 CST on April 13th, then you are mistaken. This is all just coincidence theory, not fact. -th1rt3en 01:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

How would I know the alternative series of events if all information was controlled by nasa. There were not independent witnesses to the moon landings also. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I can call bullshit when I see it. The apollo hoax is the most popular conspiracy on earth for a reason, because nothing not even Nasa's authority can squash it down. You guys love to think that the arguments have been debunked, but that is pure nonsense. Even if Phil Plait did a good job of debunking the easiest claims, even these easy debunkings have been challenged here: http://maxim.skyphix.com/moon.html . Also are you really that thick to not understand what I mean about this type of coincidence? It can be any date any time but the same numbers must show up for all the critical dates and times. The chances of the same thing happening within this limited domain of 2 major events, launch and accident is so low that it has to be whisteblowing. User:Noodle boy 02:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoever sponsors that horrendous site needs to take a course at their local community college in physics or physical science. In my work at observatory open houses, I have met only four ardent moon hoax proponents. Three of them had serious mental conditions that either caused them to obsessively fret over specific topics (Aspergers syndrome) or were delusional (schizophrenic). The fourth never received his high school diploma. --ScienceApologist 02:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to add to this latest absurdity, consider this: The worst disasters or near disasters in the Apollo program were Apollo 1 and Apollo 13, right? Well, consider this: when the shuttle Challenger launched in January, 1986, it exploded at 1:13 after liftoff. I bet NASA planned that one, too. Wahkeenah 02:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

What such stupidity are you talking about? the fact that crosshairs disappeared even when the object obstructing it was not bright, like what Phil Plait said? Or that 90 degree shadows are a common occurence? Or is it the fact that the lunar surface selectively chooses to reflect light back up on the astronauts? Anyways, that site does challenge a lot of phil plait's claims. He brings up examples that contradicts phil's explanation. If you can rebutt his arguments you are welcome. I wonder what you guys will cook up for the missing crosshair for the the command module picture. You guys are seriously some of the most creative people I have seen in my life. It is indeed very amusing to talk with you guys on here.Noodle boy 02:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Also science apologist, your insecurity about your beliefs astounds me. In fact I am going to put up that link on the hoax allegations link section. If you delete it then you admit that the site is threatening to the pro apollo crowd. The hoax allegations link section are for hoax allegation links. Deleting it just shows you have something to hide. Noodle boy 02:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

(section was moved before I submitted)

Ok, a quick note on the subject of intersecting shadows. The most commonly (or rather, only) explaination I've heard towards this by hoax supporters is that there were multiple light sources. If there were multiple light sources shinging on a "set", then there would be multiple shadows. Light doesn't choose what to hit and what not to hit. You can test this at home with two flashlights and a solid, non-transparent object. -th1rt3en 02:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

removed Challenger question response

As for the challenger coincidence it is a totally different event. I was talking about the coincidences for 1 event. the challenger incident itself didn't have the same amount of numerical anomalies. Noodle boy 03:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages

Hi Noodle boy, your comments on the Apollo hoax talk page indicate a possible misunderstanding. The talk page is not a place for you to talk about Apollo hoaxes in general, the purpose is to talk about the article. Also, you do not own the talk page, yet some of your recent comments seem to suggest that you feel this is true. I urge you to take a moment to sit back and reflect about this. Also, consider this an administrative intervention to help you avoid being blocked. Your user page suggests that your only purpose on Wikipedia is to talk about Apollo. This is not a discussion board, it is an encyclopedia. If you are unable or unwilling to contribute to the project by improving the quality of the articles, then you may wish to look for another website. Reviewing your contributions, I see a dangerous monoculture of editing almost nothing but the talk page for the Apollo hoax accusations. This needs to change.

In summary:

1. Wikipedia is not a BBS for arguing about hoaxes.
2. You do not own any pages.

- CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Why did you ban me? I simply edited after my computer restarted. Now I am accused of being a sockpuppet? I got banned by sockpuppeting to avoid the 3 edit rule? I reverted far more than 3 times and was not even aware of the rule. Please unban me and I will follow the regulations. My posts were being removed for dubious reasons and selectively. Most of the content on the talk pages did not pertain to the wiki article, why did those not get removed?Noodle boy 03:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, you were not banned, but the IP you were editing under was blocked for acting as a SockPuppet. Please use the time to reflect and familiarize yourself with WP:3RR. Revert warring is disruptive and hurts the project. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Noodle boy 07:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)hello chairboy, I am typing this from another computer. Basically I need to have that IP because that's the static IP on my home computer. Therefore, if you could unblock that IP I would appreciate it. I was not aware of these rules and looking at the Talk page, 70% of the discussion was unrelated to improvements on hte page, but rather discussions about he controversy. I found it odd why I would be singled out for this and my posts moved to my personal talk page. Anyways, I understand that my views conflict with the majority of the people who "own" that page, but banning my IP for this reason is patently absurd. I reverted the page almost 10 times before my computer shut down therefore I reverted it without logging in. I don't think it's fair that my IP got banned. Please reconsider this and I will respect the rules in the future.Noodle boy 07:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Noodle boy, please read Help:Talk page and Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page regarding these subjects. I think you may be confused as to what exactly the purpose of these things are. --ScienceApologist 03:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Sock puppet?

Are you User:24.7.34.99? If so, your latest edits may be seen as acting as a sockpuppet. Not looked upon very fondly here. --ScienceApologist Noodle boy 07:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)if you want to move my posts because they are not related to "improving" the page, apply the rules equally and move the rest of the offending pages. If you want to hate, be an equal opportunity hater.Noodle boy 07:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

[7] Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What personal attacks do you speak of? Science apologist vandalizing the main page by deleting a BBC presenation on the subject? Please refrain from using my talk section for baseless accusations of personal attacks.Noodle boy 17:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"Bubba has shown time and time again he is incapable of logical thinking." That's a personal attack. Please limit your comments to the content, not the other contributors. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

So a person who compares the Apollo missions to a trip to disneyland is logical? There is no personal attack. Please stop harrassing me on my page. You are violoating the wikipedia policy against wikilayering.Noodle boy 17:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Take care

Many of your recent actions are borderline harassment. Please try to remain calm and focus on the tasks of acheiving consensus and writing an encyclopedia. --ScienceApologist 18:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The harrassment involves you deleting links without discussing them on the talk page. You delete a BBC link claiming it is not neutral. The BBC article describes both sides of the story. In addition the BBC is probably one of the most credible information sites on the internet. You deleting their presentation of the Apollo controversy is an act of vandalism. Please be aware of your actions.Noodle boy 18:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)