[jroa]

So, the camera crew were the first people on the moon? 

[Ghost of V]

No I'm from the other site. Did you not read my op

As usual all I get are one liners deflectory questions from the flat earth socioty

So you're an alt. Good to know.

Explains a lot lol

If you're insinuating that I didn't read your first post, then I have some news for you: you're right.

But I did click on the link, and I've seen this before. It was wrong then, it's wrong now.

[Gulliver]

So, the camera crew were the first people on the moon?

No. The referenced video was from the referenced automated camera. Why do you think that a film implies a film crew?

[Pythagoras]

Apology accepted vaxhall.

And jora to put this to bed when was the picture taken and who is the subject in frame?

[anounceofsaltperday]

Hi Pythagoras.  I have to type that I am with the skeptics here.  As far as I can see, you have provided ABSOLUTE PROOF that the moon landing could have been faked easily.  How can a CGI reconstruction prove anything?  If we accept your argument, it shows at best that the lighting of the astronaut is not inconsistent with the possibility that this photo was taken on the putative moon.  I for one do not rely on the conjecture that the lighting of the astronaut is impossible to have the view that the apollo missions are fraudulent. 

The extraordinary claim that the Apollo missions are as they are painted requires extraordinary proof.  All the salient original records, blueprints, films, video records and documents have been "lost" so I guess that's that.

[Gulliver]

Hi Pythagoras.  I have to type that I am with the skeptics here.  As far as I can see, you have provided ABSOLUTE PROOF that the moon landing could have been faked easily.  How can a CGI reconstruction prove anything?  If we accept your argument, it shows at best that the lighting of the astronaut is not inconsistent with the possibility that this photo was taken on the putative moon.  I for one do not rely on the conjecture that the lighting of the astronaut is impossible to have the view that the apollo missions are fraudulent. 

The extraordinary claim that the Apollo missions are as they are painted requires extraordinary proof.  All the salient original records, blueprints, films, video records and documents have been "lost" so I guess that's that.

Speaking of records, please produce your evidence that "[a]ll th e salient records, films, video records and documents have 'lost'." Thanks.

Oh and you might want to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

[anounceofsaltperday]

Hi Gulliver,  most amusing... the space agencies are totally independent.. very droll

[Gulliver]

Hi Gulliver,  most amusing... the space agencies are totally independent.. very droll

Are you implying that all of the listed, in the referenced article, third-parties acted in bad faith? Do you have any evidence for this or your prior outlandish claim?

From the referenced article:

Kettering Grammar School
A group at Kettering Grammar School, using simple radio equipment, monitored Soviet and U.S. spacecraft and calculated their orbits.[^9][10] In 1972 a member of the group tracked Apollo 17 on its way to the Moon.^[11]

[anounceofsaltperday]

Hi again Gulliver,

what evidence remains of this tracking?  Is it more than the text in the wikipedian entry?  What happened to the hours and hours and hours of the transmissions from these missions?  What happened to the blueprints of the "spacecraft".

I shall repeat ad nauseum, "extraordinary claims required extraordinary evidence".

[Gulliver]

Hi again Gulliver,

what evidence remains of this tracking?  Is it more than the text in the wikipedian entry?  What happened to the hours and hours and hours of the transmissions from these missions?  What happened to the blueprints of the "spacecraft".

I shall repeat ad nauseum, "extraordinary claims required extraordinary evidence".

I'm glad that you corrected your error, using "evidence" instead of "proof", in the adage that you wish to apply to others, but not yourself.

I refer you to the article's well-documented sources.

Of course, I've managed to provide a well-sourced article showing third-party accounts and their evidence; you've failed to back up your claims. If you want to claim that all of the Apollo blueprints are missing, you really should provide evidence  to back your outlandish claim.

Of, and here's a reference that contradicts you: http://history.nasa.gov/diagrams/apollo.html

Oh, and you don't have to trust the blueprints, Apollo 19's and 20's Saturn V are on public display, along with various other Apollo modules. Refer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canceled_Apollo_missions#Surplus_hardware

[anounceofsaltperday]

Hi Gulliver, these drawings are not blueprints.  The level of technical detail is reminiscent of Gundamn Anime technical manuals.   For me, these drawings confirm my skepticism that objects described therein could have achieved the outcomes that have been posited.  How, for example, did the lunar buggy get stowed and how did they get it out?  Where is the film evidence of that task being undertaken?   How did the craft protect the personnel from the heat and the cold?  How did they even open the door of the lunar lander inwards when the air pressure inside the module would have made such a feat practically impossible?  I remain skeptical until I have convinced myself that such feats are possible.

I quote from NASA ...http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15.lrvdep.html

Figure 1-39 is a cartoon of the deployment sequence. Section 1.9.3 of the document contains a complete description of the deployment. See, also, a set of Grumman LRV Deployment Cartoons.]


and here

http://www.moonlandinghoax.org/25.html

"Plans for the Lunar Module and Lunar Rover have been destroyed and no longer exist."

Much paperwork relating to the Lunar Module and Rover has been discarded, however this is to be expected. No company is going to keep in storage millions of documents for an obsolete project that has no chance of being resurrected. But it is not true to say the documents no longer exist. The National Archives microfilmed everything they thought was historically significant and those films are currently in storage. It is not uncommon for space enthusiasts and modelers to find many obscure facts and details about the LM, Rover, and other Apollo hardware from this archive.

A complete set of blueprints of the world's first Particle Accelerator don't survive to this day nor does the very first aircraft, HMS Victory or even the Titanic. Does it mean that they didn't exist or were not built? It's another ridiculous claim.

[A film clip (8.6Mb) shows Charlie Duke and Bob Parker participating in a shirtsleeve demonstration of Rover deployment. Digitization by Gary Neff.]

[Don McMillan has provided an animation ( 0.7 Mb ) of his Virtual Rover unfolding during deployment. A second animation shows the hinges in action.]

[Gulliver]

...these drawings are not blueprints....

Yes, they are.

...How did they even open the door of the lunar lander inwards when the air pressure inside the module would have made such a feat practically impossible?...

Do you really hope to debate this topic seriously with such a lame question? Why don't you read the Wikipedia article on the LM? It talks about the two depressurizations required for lunar excursions. Hell, a high school science student should be able to answer how the "practically impossible" feat could be easily accomplished!

...Figure 1-39 is a cartoon of the deployment sequence. Section 1.9.3 of the document contains a complete description of the deployment. See, also, a set of Grumman LRV Deployment Cartoons.]

Are you implying that engineers should not use cartoons? Really?

...http://www.moonlandinghoax.org/25.html

"Plans for the Lunar Module and Lunar Rover have been destroyed and no longer exist."

Much paperwork relating to the Lunar Module and Rover has been discarded, however this is to be expected. No company is going to keep in storage millions of documents for an obsolete project that has no chance of being resurrected. But it is not true to say the documents no longer exist. The National Archives microfilmed everything they thought was historically significant and those films are currently in storage. It is not uncommon for space enthusiasts and modelers to find many obscure facts and details about the LM, Rover, and other Apollo hardware from this archive.

A complete set of blueprints of the world's first Particle Accelerator don't survive to this day nor does the very first aircraft, HMS Victory or even the Titanic. Does it mean that they didn't exist or were not built? It's another ridiculous claim.

[A film clip (8.6Mb) shows Charlie Duke and Bob Parker participating in a shirtsleeve demonstration of Rover deployment. Digitization by Gary Neff.]

[Don McMillan has provided an animation ( 0.7 Mb ) of his Virtual Rover unfolding during deployment. A second animation shows the hinges in action.]

You might want to read that quote again. That page makes the case against the quoted hoax. It does not allege that the blueprints have been lost for even the LM, vice your outlandish claims that all of the Apollo blueprints have been lost.

[Pete Svarrior]

...these drawings are not blueprints....

Yes, they are.

Are you saying NASA is wrong about them not being blueprints? If so, could you please present evidence to the fact that, contrary to NASA's description, they are blueprints?

[Gulliver]

...these drawings are not blueprints....

Yes, they are.

Are you saying NASA is wrong about them not being blueprints? If so, could you please present evidence to the fact that, contrary to NASA's description, they are blueprints?

Please do tell me where NASA addresses these not being blueprints. Thanks.

Perhaps, a definition would help you.

A design plan or other technical drawing.

[Pete Svarrior]

While I commend you for actually looking up a term before (re-)using it (an improvement from your previous failings - now you just need to make sure you do this before you first use a term, and be just a little bit more thorough), a dictionary definition isn't the be-all and end-all of language you're trying to portray it as. While the term can be used in an informal context to refer to virtually any technical drawing, it's important to keep the context of this conversation in mind.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Pythagoras.  I have to type that I am with the skeptics here.  As far as I can see, you have provided ABSOLUTE PROOF that the moon landing could have been faked easily.  How can a CGI reconstruction prove anything?  If we accept your argument, it shows at best that the lighting of the astronaut is not inconsistent with the possibility that this photo was taken on the putative moon.  I for one do not rely on the conjecture that the lighting of the astronaut is impossible to have the view that the apollo missions are fraudulent. 

The extraordinary claim that the Apollo missions are as they are painted requires extraordinary proof.  All the salient original records, blueprints, films, video records and documents have been "lost" so I guess that's that.

No single piece of evidence is absolute proof and I don't offer this as such.

This evidence I provide is proof against the dodgy lighting argument.  Something you don't subscribe to so fair enough.

And jora, any a see to my question who is in the photo and when was it taken?

[Gulliver]

While I commend you for actually looking up a term before (re-)using it (an improvement from your previous failings - now you just need to make sure you do this before you first use a term, and be just a little bit more thorough), a dictionary definition isn't the be-all and end-all of language you're trying to portray it as. While the term can be used in an informal context to refer to virtually any technical drawing, it's important to keep the context of this conversation in mind.

And since, as anounce so clearly documented, the US has many, many documents in storage, and since the question is whether supporting documentation exists, the use of the connotation in the definition quoted clearly applies. And of course, I renew my thanks to anounce for documenting this so well.

[Pete Svarrior]

And since, as anounce so clearly documented, the US has many, many documents in storage, and since the question is whether supporting documentation exists, the use of the connotation in the definition quoted clearly applies. And of course, I renew my thanks to anounce for documenting this so well.

Entirely irrelevant, but I can see why you're struggling to come up with a response. Seriously though, good job, you're almost ready to start using the English language. A few more interventions and maybe you'll stop screwing up.

[Gulliver]

And since, as anounce so clearly documented, the US has many, many documents in storage, and since the question is whether supporting documentation exists, the use of the connotation in the definition quoted clearly applies. And of course, I renew my thanks to anounce for documenting this so well.

Entirely irrelevant, but I can see why you're struggling to come up with a response. Seriously though, good job, you're almost ready to start using the English language. A few more interventions and maybe you'll stop screwing up.

anounce has claimed the all Apollo blueprints have been "last", Do you think you might have a relevant point about his outlandish claim? Do try to stop personal attacks and concentrate on the issues.

Of course, anounce has done such a great job documenting that his outlandish claim is false. I thank him for his effort.

[Pete Svarrior]

I have a point relevant to your claim, and am awaiting response. If you don't have one, that's fine - all you need to do is simply say so. If you didn't wanted to be subjected to basic scrutiny, you shouldn't have made a claim. Pointing out that you screwed up is not a personal attack - at no point did I attack you, merely your preparation and thoroughness. Unfortunately, this time you forgot to find out what a personal attack is before claiming that one took place.