I think you missed Mr. X's point entirely. Out of the thousands of people involved in the moon missions, how is it that none of the conspiracy theorists can drum up a single witness to say it was all a hoax? The odds of keeping something like that quiet for all these years are astronomical. In a theory full of supposition, how can you possibly explain that away?

As for deductive reasoning, you are using a couple of photos to explain away thousands of photos, video, and data. Is it possible that there are no tracks shown in the photo - yes, it is possible. But it is also possible that the camera angle obscurs the tracks. We could argue about the possibilities all day long, but that is not proof one way or the other.

As for the technology being inadequate, unless you have studied structures, statics, dynamics, aerodynamics, a boatload of physics you're not qualified to make any judgements. Just because you say "it looks flimsy" doesn't mean it is. Your credibility was shot with your first post calling the lander a POS. If you could back that up with physics and engineering, I would listen to what you have to say. But since you made an unsubstantiated claim with regards to the engineering of the craft and flight systems, it made the rest of your arguments pointless.

As a mechanical engineer, I take great exception to someone making rash judgements on how something was built based on looks alone. I've studied the science and the engineering behind space flight and I know what the capabilities of that craft were.

Of course, I guess NASA could have just changed physics and engineering principles in all of the textbooks of the time (and for the future) so as to keep this insidious hoax alive.

That can be part of your next theory, along with Pearl Harbor, 9/11, Roswell, and the Holocaust.

 

where'd you graduate from egan?

 

The moon NEVER happened!!!!! We were jealous the Ruskies got some monkeys up in space.

 

we have the pearl harbor thread

the pentagon attack is sketchy at best.

why do you need aerodynamics in space?

we covered teh how many people need to know about the faking

 

I would listen to what you have to say. But since you made an unsubstantiated claim with regards to the engineering of the craft and flight systems, it made the rest of your arguments pointless.

OK,
what ever it takes to discredit me but it still doesn't answer that gating question.

You guys should not take these things personally but should realize that we are dealing with man and his ability to manipulate things.

P51 Mustang was fuel injection, the 1956 Corvett was also mechanical fuel injection, a 1970 Porsche had fuel injection. We as American did not see fuel injection in our auto's until the mid 80's. Why because gas was $.15 a gallon and it did not make those companies money.

 

aerodynamics and aerospace are usually covered in one major. Some colleges call it aeronautical and some call it astronautical and others call it aerospace.

 

isn't that like asking someone from philip morris if second hand smoke is bad for you?

 

yeah.. but even philip morris had a few whistle blowers ..

and not one out of NASA

... strange ...

 

You discredited yourself. Arguing about technology with technological terms would have been great, but arguing that something looks like a POS doesn't lend credibility whatsoever. I worked on many projects that looked like crap, but served a purpose and performed well. Is someone to now say that it never happened just because of the way that vehicle looked? All I am saying is that you should back up your claims with at least some semblance of hard data.

And what does that last paragraph have to do with the price of tea in China?

 

UC Davis

 

umm.. what??

 

WOOHOO! C/O '99 here!

 

i think by mechanical fuel injectors, he means carburetors, but not sure about the rest....

 

no its mechanical fuel injection

GM calls it that

 

so now i'm more confused. he says we don't have Fuel Injection until the mid-80s and unless he means EFI, then ya. Mechanical fuel injection is still fuel injection and we had it. Its just that it wasn't electronic.