[geocentrism] Re: Earth and science

  • From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 12:01:40 -0800


If it is the second time that I have had to ask you, then why do you not persist in maintaining arguments like military-style extreme rehearsal and precautions? It is common knowledge that Armstrong made one and only one attempt at flying the thing, no matter how many were shipped to NASA. There simply were not any extensive rehearsals, as you suggested. As for the crash being a "failure in the attitude control motor," that may or may not be the case, but the fact is that Neil (not Neal) Armstrong could not control it on his one and only attempt to do so in a far less hostile and unforgiving environment than being a quarter of a million miles away with no atmosphere. A USAF pilot being willing to take such a risk without the military precaution that you yourself alluded to? Very stupid. Very stupid indeed. Almost totally unbelievable and incredulous, wouldn't you say?

If your house is silent, then perhaps you ought to get out a little. Speak to people. Get to appreciate that the real world is strangely different from the utopia of everyone being nice and truthful that you might imagine, though you clearly only "learn" that which you want to "learn" and which you already believe to be true.

You have to open your eyes, Paul. As Jack did. As I did. Yes, I spent years believing the Apollo claims and teaching them to others.

As for the monitor men, you say, "More particularly, even if they had been so instructed, you give no hint of why this is suspicious or menacing." Actually I do. I am trying to get you to question something. It was you who were making out that so many people could not be misled or dishonest. I was trying to get you to appreciate how easy it is to mislead people, that's all.

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. Are they not? It's a simple IF-THEN DO statement. As they were all engineers how do you know this? , 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. No one got up and rushed around, though. Pretty standard stuff really. We could have another look at the "real" footage, but oh I forgot, NASA destroyed it. Along with the plans for the Saturn V. Along with the plans for the lunar lander. Oh well, that's probably standard procedure as well, isn't it?

Finally, you say, "bearing in mind the state of computer technology in the 1960s," yet you will not accept that this technology is also to be believed as getting a craft to the Moon and back, looking after the life support systems, telecommunications systems, navigation, temperature, ... By your own standards and admission, is this not a trifle hard to accept?


-----Original Message-----
From: paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 18:13:09 +0000 (GMT)
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Earth and science

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

Other related posts: