[geocentrism] Re: Earth and science

  • From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 18:13:09 +0000 (GMT)

Neville J
From Neville Jones Sun Sep 2 15:54:19 2007
Having noted that, could you explain why Armstrong's one and only rehearsal in 
the lunar lander, which ended in loss of control and his ejection within 
seconds of his life, did not adhere to what you yourself claim is essential?
From Paul Deema Sun Mar 5 16:07:42 2006
This took me some time to unearth using Yahoo!'s pathetic search utility so 
please read it carefully. Note especially that this is the second time I have 
presented it specifically to you. (This is one of the stratagems long 
recognised as a debating tactic used by fundamentalists and hoax claimants 
alike -- pretend that it hasn't been explained previously. Your previous 
question -- abbreviated -- is shown in Grey).
... LM... Armstrong ... eject just seconds ... one and only attempt ...'. I 
know some of this forum believes there was only one flight of the landing 
simulator, and I know also that these people are unlikely to accept NASA as a 
truthful source, so you might be more kindly disposed to look at non-NASA data 
here http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apoollrv.htm. Briefly, the first two of 
five vehicles had amassed between them 205 flights before being shipped to 
Houston for astronaut training. Of the five made and delivered, three crashed 
in service (one while being piloted by Neal Armstrong). The short definition of 
the cause of the crash was a failure in an attitude control motor. No 
suggestion that this was Armstrong's only flight or even his first on this 
site. Couldnt' be bothered searching further.
Also, from http://www.clavius.org/techlltv.html, I have extracted the text of 
the answer to the typical Apollo Hoax claim -
"The lunar landing training vehicle (LLTV) was just like the lunar module, and 
it was too unstable to fly. Neil Armstrong had to eject because he couldn't 
control it."
Two vehicles were built to train the Apollo astronauts to fly the lunar module. 
The Lunar Landing Research Vehicles (LLRV) was designed at NASA's Dryden Flight 
Research Center. Bell Aircraft produced and delivered two of them to NASA. The 
lessons learned from these vehicles were applied toward the more advanced Lunar 
Lander Training Vehicles (LLTV), three of which were built. 
LLRV no. 1, piloted by Neil Armstrong, crashed in May 1968 when the helium 
pressurization system for the steering jets failed, leaving Armstrong no way to 
control the vehicle. This was not because the vehicle was too unstable to 
control, or because Armstrong was a poor pilot. This is like driving your car 
down the freeway and having the steering wheel come off in your hands. You will 
crash in that situation, and it's not because cars (in general) can't be 
steered -- it's because a mechanical failure caused your car to lose control in 
that particular instance. 
There were two other crashes: two of the LLTVs crashed, one in December 1968 
and the other in January 1971. These too were caused by technical failures. 
They used state-of-the-art fly-by-wire technology, and it did not always work 
perfectly. This is why the vehicles were equipped with ejection seats. 
By April 1966 the LLRV had already performed more than 100 successful flights 
(Fig. 2). Conspiracists generally refer only to Armstrong's crash and imply 
that this was the typical outcome of an LLRV flight. On the contrary, the 
typical outcome was a safe, successful landing. A fleet of experimental 
aircraft that can perform hundreds of times over several years with only three 
serious crashes is not inherently dangerous, unstable, or unflyable. To imply 
otherwise is to ignore a great deal of fact. 
It is important to understand that these vehicles were not built as prototypes 
for the lunar module. A prototype is built to test the technology that will go 
into the final version, whether everything fits together, and to determine how 
it can be built on an assembly line. The LLTVs and LLRVs were built to 
reproduce for the pilot, as best as could be determined in advance, the "feel" 
of flying the lunar module using whatever ad hoc technology had to be included 
to do that in an earth environment. 
From the same post we have -
Also, since you first of all dismissed out of hand the monitor men that I 
remarked upon, but now offer a very detailed explanation of their duties and 
responsibilities, I was wondering whether you might invite the source of your 
comments onto the forum, so that we may discuss it directly with him, rather 
than having everything through a third party as it were?
Well I'd hardly dignify it with the adjective 'detailed', even less 'very 
detailed'. It was an 'off the top of my head' regurgitation of part of a 
documentary I watched on Discovery or National Geographic or some such within 
the last month or so. My house is silent except for the sounds I make and the 
TV helps to dispel that silence. I prefer to watch something from which I can 
learn which helps in just these situations but I didn't record it or transcribe 
it so if you prefer to doubt either my memory or my unbiased regurgitation, 
then you may simply discount my statement. I note that you did not give 
references when you presented the statement -
Each would write down something on his pad now and again. Probably numbers off 
the screen. Each had been instructed to watch for a particular character string 
and write down each occurrence of it. 
Where did you become aware that they had been instructed to look for particular 
character strings? More particularly, even if they had been so instructed, you 
give no hint of why this is suspicious or menacing. Most people have pad and 
pencil handy to make notes even in everyday life but more especially so if they 
work from a desk, even more so if the desk involves operations. Why are you so 
suspicious of everyone and everything I wonder? Yes, a computer would do it 
more efficiently. One then has to ask -- bearing in mind the state of computer 
technology in the 1960s -- was there sufficient computer power available to do 
so? If there was, somebody in financial planning should have been invited to 
seek employment elsewhere. Or it might just be that the operator was required 
to make a judgement along with the observation. Computers are still not good at 
that. As they were all engineers, my guess is that their most important 
function was to report problems
 to their section supervisor so that rapid action might be taken when required. 
Pretty standard stuff really. You can see it in any control room -- railway 
networks, power stations and power grid control centres etc etc.
Paul D

Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage.

Other related posts: