No Blast crater Apollo? | Government and Political Conspiracies | Forum

A A A
Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

No permission to create posts
sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
No Blast crater Apollo?
January 15, 2011
12:33 pm
Avatar
chrisv25
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 175
Member Since:
December 20, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

so there are a series of videos by this guy and they are really good. I figure maybe we can discuss them one at a time.

I'd love some feedback about them by some of the skeptics...yes greeney2 I would love your feed back, it is articulate, well thought out and fairly convincing.

so please watch the videos and we can discuss some of the points brought up.

January 15, 2011
9:57 pm
Avatar
greeney2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 10165
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

http://www.clavius.org/kaysing.html

Bill Kaysing has no crediblity whatsoever. His employment at Rocketdyne was very short, only a few years, and why did he leave in a time when they were hiring droves of people in the early 60's? He was gone when rocketdyne was just getting into high gear, Gemini was turning into Apollo at that time.

One False statement was about the testing in Santa Susana being secret. During the time of his employment I grew up very near, and test fires occured all the time. You could hear them and they shook the houses, and we lived 10 miles away from the tests in Tarzana. Everyone knew Rocketdyne tested rockets there, there was no secret about that. EVeryone knew about the gemini and apollo programs, and Rocketdyne built the rocket. They were the biggest employer in my area, in addition to the Van Nuys GM plant, and Burbanks Lockheed.

As far as his job at Rocketdyne, many many job titles were of some sort of "engineer", and they were not nessesarily degree engineers. Many machinists/welders/shop people move into salaried jobs where OJT teaches them specific job discription skills. LIke they say, he was a glorified libraian. Rocketdyne employed about 20,000 people in the 60's. During my time with the shuttle program, our top number was about 8800. A welder could move into being a saleried welding engineer by title, but was not a engineer with a graduate degree. So when he identifies himself as an "engineer", I know what means in Rocketdyne. Its a title, not nessesarily a educational level, so you have to regard that with a grain of salt, and take it very lightly.

Basically he just sounds like a nutcase, with the claim about killing the Chaffee, White, and Grissom. His lawsuit against Jim Lovell, thrown out of court.

This is why this moon hoax subject is a waste of time to me. It never ends. Your video of 10 minutes, the first half they made excuses for mistakes, like you should still listen to them. I have friends who go back to his time of employment at Rocketdyne and will ask what they know about him. One last point was about the Nuclear meltdown. That was true, in 1958, another Rockwell divison that shares the test facility, Atomics International, had a small reacter meltdown,that was not connected with Rocketdyne at all, they were in a separate area of the SS facility. I have seen the area when doing SSME engine repairs to hot fires, you drive past the area, but it is off limits to walk on. It was not a secret either. Only our 2 divisions were owned by North American aviation. One secret program was a secret concept of Nuclear powered rockets.

January 16, 2011
12:06 am
Avatar
greeney2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 10165
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Another point about his education, which was as a English major. That would qualify him in writing skills, for proper writing professionally of technical papers. He had absolutly no real engineering expertise whatsoever about rockets, nor was he in the main shops building them. He would have probably worked in the Canoga Park main building offices, which contained a technical library, and offices where they did that kind of work. Separate from the main assembly building, and separate from the test facility. He might have had occasions to go up to the hill facility, but its is not uncommon for the main plant workers, to never have a reason so goto the Hill facility ever. I worked at the Main plants for 30 years, and only had to goto the hill facility a few times. He may have never seen or had reason to view test firings or ever see a rocket fire.

January 16, 2011
1:42 am
Avatar
chrisv25
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 175
Member Since:
December 20, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

those are fair points about Kaysing and i stand corrected on his qualifications...what i don't understand is: all i ever hear are character assassinations about people not a critical analysis of what is said. This conforms to stan freidmans noisy negativist claim that if you can't debunk the science; debunk the person saying it...some have sort of a sort of Goebbels-esqueness (truthiness) in their fervor, which could be applied to jarrah white as well. So yes i cede that Kaysing probably did not have the technical knowledge of an engineer and that is abundantly clear. I qualify as an engineer (systems engineer) but i couldn't tell you the first thing about fixing my car. Yes knowledge is specialized and I will whole heartedly say that the character of kaysing comes into question. My only rebuttle: is this is science and not a court room. So impeaching the witness is not applicable in his claims. We should look at the claims not the man.

The question that is posed is simple however and requires no technical knowledge. The LEM weighing the same as an SUV in the moons gravity has landed with 2500 ft-lbf of pressure in a vacuum that is about 1.5 psi per square inch of lift. That is 3 times the psi in a leaf blower. go out side take a leaf blower and point it at the ground. It moves stuff. now look at the apollo 11 photos: no dust on the landing struts, no displaced soil, no crater...which ironically show up on all the other photos of unmanned landers.

Can you give me a scientific explanation as to what happened? Cause I've tried and i can't seem to come to another conclusion, either, the photos are fake for some reason and we did land on the moon or we hoaxed the moon landing... what i'm saying is Occam's razor and is good science.

This thing that they are telling us is not proven science or even common sense and as such I suspect it to be a lie.

January 16, 2011
3:26 am
Avatar
greeney2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 10165
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a1.....nding.html

Like all these theories they all have been explained only to have the same reactions just like you did. The theory you just presented rests heavily on the credibility of the one person Bill Kaysing, by the people in your video.

I can tell you working at Rockettdyne for 30 years, during the time of these TV specials, I never herd anyone speak of this person ever. There is not a gossup story or internal thing in that place that isn't on the grape vine from one end of the plant to the other. As someone who worked there we have had our share of lunitics that came and went. This person also made comments about killing the Challenger crew who was also about to go public with something.. I worked for 2 years before the return to flight, serving on several different teams in a NASA standdown, where every single part and its planning books were reviewed and improved, and I was only involved with the engines. The same efforts were done with every facet of the program, the orbiter, the test facilities, and KSC. No investigation was probably more complete than the Challenger, and it was not a planned plot to kill 7 astronauts. That is totally preposterous, as is the claim about the Apollo 1 crew. This person was a screwball, like it or not, and he was not an Engineer, he worked doing things requiring writing and English skills. Sometimes it is the messenger that you have to kill, and in this case he has no credibility. His lies about these lost crews is ludicras, and I'm supose to believe his other crater ideas???

I will give you my opinion ABOUT THE CRATER. The link above is a second by second account of Armstrong and Aldrin decending. You have some preception that a rocket would just lower itself to the gound, and the thrust would just dig a big deep hole and make a giant crater. One of the things they did not know was what they would encounter. Would they fall into a hole, or land on a bolder, or sink hopelessly into talc dust. They did not know. If you read the account of landing the explanation is simple. They landed with forward velocity.

They had a system that computed altitude, and as they got lower, they were also taveling forward. they did not just back straight downward to the ground and land, they traveled forward watching ahead where they were going to set down. They reached a point of seeing dust but still prceeded forward, with the thought of not wanting to be backing up into where they could not see. The trust is also not hovering over the same spot as the get lower and lower. They also had reduced to only about 8% thrust. In the final few seconds ARmstong was sure to land with a forward velocity travel to a point when the sensor touched the ground on the pad. They are designed to shut off as high as 10 feet and drop, obviouly avoiding any back blast of thrust. It is not hard to understand why a careful setdown was done, and what they trained for. They knew if they sat hovering and digging a big hole, it had to damage the LEM. With maintaining a forward motion and slightly tilted they could ease down on the thrust, and touch right down. Much link watching a helocopter gently set down, as it still has some forward motion, and shut down the motor. If you goto the bottom almost of that link, read where ARmstorng tells about the things that surprized him on the moon. Read what he tells about the characteristics of dust in a non atmosphere.

I have positively no doubt, we landed on the moon and these things are all true. The crater theory is just another dumb theory. Kaysing is a crackpot, and the 2 clowns in your video defending their mistakes, are banking on him being credible.

January 16, 2011
7:19 am
Avatar
chrisv25
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 175
Member Since:
December 20, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

So good stuff I read the transmission logs. I've seen the footage...many times.

So why in 1969 when he is debriefed does he give a very different account of the dust from the engines.. he say the word dust 12 times in the NASA debriefing in 1969 and then in 2001 he says there were no dust clouds in an interview???

this is all from NASA's website:

in 1969

102:45:17 Aldrin: 40 feet, down 2 1/2. Picking up some dust.
[Armstrong, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "I first noticed that we were, in fact, disturbing the dust on the surface when we were something less than 100 feet; we were beginning to get a transparent sheet of moving dust that obscured visibility a little bit. As we got lower, the visibility continued to decrease. I don't think that the (visual) altitude determination was severely hurt by this blowing dust; but the thing that was confusing to me was that it was hard to pick out what your lateral and downrange velocities were, because you were seeing a lot of moving dust that you had to look through to pick up the stationary rocks and base your translational velocity decisions on that. I found that to be quite difficult. I spent more time trying to arrest translational velocity than I thought would be necessary."]

102:45:21 Aldrin: 30 feet, 2 1/2 down. (Garbled) shadow.
[What Buzz says here is sometimes transcribed as "Faint shadow" but I recently listened, once again, to both the Public Affairs tape and to the on-board tape and feel uncomfortable making a decision, primarily because the transmission is distorted and partially clipped. Buzz first saw the LM shadow when he looked out at 102]
[Fjeld - "Perhaps Buzz did say 'Faint shadow' but was referring to the now fuzzy edge of the shadow on the streaking dust layer."]

[David Harland suggests a transcription of 'Great shadow', but I still do not believe it is possible to definitively pull this one out of the noise.]

[Armstrong, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "I heard Buzz say something about contact, and I was spring-loaded to the stop engine position, but I really don't know...whether the engine-off signal was before (footpad) contact. In any event, the engine shutdown was not very high above the surface."]

[Armstrong - "We actually had the engine running until touchdown. Not that that was intended, necessarily. It was a very gentle touchdown. It was hard to tell when we were on."]

[Aldrin - "You wouldn't describe it as 'rock' (as in, 'dropping like a rock'). It was a sensation of settling."]

[Some of the other crews shut down 'in the air' (meaning 'prior to touchdown') and had a noticeable bump when they hit.]

[Aldrin - (Joking) "Well, they didn't want to jump so far to the ladder."]

102:46:xx Armstrong (on-board): Both (garbled) vent.

[Aldrin, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "We had a little right drift and, then, I guess just before touchdown, we drifted left."]
[Armstrong, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "I think I was probably over controlling a little bit in lateral. I was confused somewhat in that I couldn't really determine what my lateral velocities were due to the dust obscuration of the surface. I could see rocks and craters through this blowing dust. It was my intention to try and pick up a landing spot prior to the 100-foot mark and then pick out an area just beyond it such that I could keep my eyes on that all the way down through the descent and final touchdown. I wouldn't, in fact, be looking at the place (where) I was going to land; I would be looking at a place just (out) in front of it. That worked pretty well, but I was surprised that I had as much trouble as I did in determining translational velocities. I don't think I did a very good job of flying the vehicle smoothly in that period of time. I felt I was a little bit erratic."]

and in 2001:

[On a final note about engine shutdown, Ken Glover calls attention to the following from an interview done with Neil on 19 September 2001 by historians Stephen Ambrose and Douglas Brinkley at NASA Johnson.]

[Brinkley]

[Armstrong]You never had a cloud of dust there.[/b] That's a product of having an atmosphere, and when you don't have an atmosphere, you don't have any clouds of dust."]

["I was absolutely dumbfounded when I shut the rocket engine off and the particles that were going out radially from the bottom of the engine fell all the way out over the horizon, and when I shut the engine off, they just raced out over the horizon and instantaneously disappeared, you know, just like it had been shut off for a week. That was remarkable. I'd never seen that. I'd never seen anything like that. And logic says, yes, that's the way it ought to be there, but I hadn't thought about it and I was surprised."]

and here is a link to the photo of the landing strut of apollo 11 no dust. http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5920.jpg

as for the regolith itself

larry Taylor and david McKay are lead members of a small group of self-styled "lunatics" whose careers have focused on lunar soil and rocks. They are among several consultants to NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), which manages the Lunar Regolith Simulant Development Program.

"Some of the stuff that got into the Apollo spacecraft was very finely ground," McKay said. Dust was everywhere and impossible to brush off. All the lunar astronauts had lung reactions to this dust, some more than others, like Harrison H. (Jack) Schmitt's "lunar dust hay fever."

from http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... _truefake/

and the photo of the strut again for good measure.
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5920.jpg

I assume that the unmanned landers had a different decent path then the LEM? I can't find that info from JPL. Love a link if you have one.

furthermore, wouldn't it be routine for classified information to be edited before release without mention of the edit for national security? It has been my experience that this happens routinely. i would assume that Rocketdyne does the same thing?

So my question is: what am i missing about the landing? and this my be a little truthiness on my part, I am however open to explore.

P.s. I have always wanted to believe we went to the moon. I like the idea of humans being that evolved and i could very well have been a "skeptic" on the subject. I do believe that some of the explanations from NASA are not logically sound and therefore I should, as a good citizen of my republic "question what i am told".

January 16, 2011
2:43 pm
Avatar
Cole_Trickle
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2730
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Greeney has an EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENT. I can understand his position. Who would want to devote 30 years of their life to something they later find out to be a monster of a lie?

Cole

January 16, 2011
6:59 pm
Avatar
greeney2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 10165
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Emotional attachment YES! Blinded by it NO! That is not being able to explain the events, and there was a very simple reason why there is not a crater under the lander. It is the simple way they landed purposly, going forward, forward, forward tward the final touch down spot, and not dwelling on any one single spot, like an X on the ground. Thrust at 8% and below, and immediate shut down of the engines.

Just like the explanation of the picutres, they have been explained, as has every other facet of faking it, and still the same people like you Cole will never accept it. Funny how you do that with every opinion you have. Yet when you put the same standard back at you to give a step by step account of just how these wild theories were pulled off, you have nothing.

Emotional attachment YES for sure, but I worked with those who did it, I know what the internal grapevine at Rocketdyne is, and I have never herd Bill Kaysings name, or even this concept discussed in those years or ever at Rocketdyne. I can also speak as an insider at Rocketdyne, what these so called "credentials" of Bill Kaysing really mean.

As I said, this subject never has an end, and why I usually do not get into it, becasue you will never be convinced.

January 17, 2011
1:56 am
Avatar
gudskepteacal
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 620
Member Since:
June 5, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Cole, I think you saying greeney has emotional attachment is like pointing to the tip of an iceberg protruding from the water. It's good to have positive emotion concerning the work that one does and there are hundreds of people that were involved with the moon landing mission, greeney is just the one who knows the most about it on this forum. To call into question whether it even happened at all is to, in fact, invalidate all the hard work those highly trained engineers and scientists did to help accomplish that mission. Say something about the moon landing being a hoax to one of those people and the range of emotion would probably be from intense anger to incredulous laughter.

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance." - James Madison

January 17, 2011
2:53 am
Avatar
chrisv25
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 175
Member Since:
December 20, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

greeney I would like to say that i have nothing but the utmost respect for you and your profession. I was a huge "that's bullshit" for the CARET programing "language" because i work on and with computer systems; and rocketdyne has done lots of really cool and technologically advanced engines like the SJY61 for the X-51. I am in no way trying to disrespect you. I think we should probably call it a day; as for the topic i understand your frustration. We will just have a different opinion on the whole Apollo 11 thing.

No permission to create posts
Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: 288

Currently Online:
31 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

greeney2: 10165

bionic: 9870

at1with0: 9243

Lashmar: 5289

tigger: 4576

rath: 4297

DIss0n80r: 4161

sandra: 3858

frrostedman: 3815

Wing-Zero: 3278

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 2

Members: 23658

Moderators: 0

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 8

Forums: 32

Topics: 8548

Posts: 122734

Newest Members:

landerosthomasine, Jason Spencer, ikupuxa, lift710, Garcia, Haug, sarbaz hassan, Lara, Raymond, ufosightingsfootage

Administrators: John Greenewald: 516, blackvault: 1777