Another look at the moon landing.

[GentleGospeller]

Bill Kaysing was a technical writer. He had no engineering qualifications.

Who was he a technical writer for?

 

[GentleGospeller]

In his published book, Bill Kaysing presents the following letter from RocketDyne, pg 80 - We Never Went to the Moon

Do you see where it says "service engineer", for "09-15-1958"?

So, shall we continue with this ad hominem, or get to facts of fraud of the OP?

 

[The Liturgist]

Thank you, so they are actually visible.

I didn’t say that.

 

[The Liturgist]

Who was he a technical writer for?

Technical writers are not engineers. Rather, working with engineers, they create manuals, using a combination of graphics design and writing. You see, not all good engineers are good communicators who could prepare easy to use documentation - producing easy to use documentation does not require understanding the intimate details of how a system works, but rather requires the ability to explain to the end user in the simplest possible way how to interact with that system.

As an example of what happens when you have bad technical writing or an engineer trying to do technical writing, the Boeing 727 manuals at United Airlines had an infamous page explaining the electrical system, originally labelled I-8, which was so confusing people had T-shirts and other items that said “I hate I-8”.

 

[prodromos]

Do you see where it says "service engineer", for "09-15-1958"?

Yes, and what is the job description for a Service Engineer?

Google Search

They basically do routine maintenance on the factory equipment. They do not design or build anything because they have not been trained in any engineering discipline

A while back I trawled through all the documents I could find on the development of the F1 engine. Lots of actual engineers names came up, Bill Kaysing wasn't one of them.

 

[GentleGospeller]

Yes, and what is the job description for a Service Engineer?

Google Search

They basically do routine maintenance on the factory equipment. They do not design or build anything because they have not been trained in any engineering discipline

So you agree that he was not just a 'technical writer', but also an "engineer", a "service engineer"?

Are we done with the ad hominem now?

 

[GentleGospeller]

Technical writers ...

The question I asked, "Who was he a technical writer for?" did not seem to be addressed by the plethora of word salad in that last reply. Would you care to try again? The answer is pretty simple.

 

[prodromos]

So you agree that he was not just a 'technical writer', but also an "engineer", a "service engineer"?

It's a misnomer that has become entrenched. You can search up his academic record yourself to see he has no training in any actual engineering discipline.

Are we done with the ad hominem now?

It isn't ad hominem to show that your sources are false. Bill Kaysing had zero involvement in the development of the F1 engine. I haven't looked into any of the others but whoever did the research for the video you linked have not done their due diligence when they've taken the testimony of someone who lied about their involvement at face value.
The letter you linked above also shows that Kaysing left Rocketdyne Division six years before Apollo 11 landed on the moon.

 

[GentleGospeller]

It's a misnomer that has become entrenched. You can search up his academic record yourself to see he has no training in any actual engineering discipline.

It's actually irrelevant. People do work without degrees or official schooling all of the time. I worked in construction (framing, roofing, tear-off, foundational, cement walls, iron-girders (steel frame), &c), plumbling (rough, top out and some finish), and other jobs, such as managerial, and internal call centers (dealing with multiple companies, as well as serious matters like morgue, medical), all without any degree, or training, or expertise, except by day by day just doing any of it. I have 0 degrees in theology or languages, and can read and share the deep, plenty just be having been in it so long.

You keep attacking the man (ad hominem), his knowledge and record. The man obviously wote technical papers (and you need to know what you are talking about in the technical to write them), and as cited, obviously did service engineering, among other things. Again, he has to know how to do that.

It is pointless to continue this route. It is not actually addressing the facts of his statements, let alone the facts of the science I keep begging you to get into. But you seem content to attack a man, his past, his education.

I see nothing upon your part which even has anything of what he has done under his belt (now deceased). What if someone a few years after your death mocks you in the same way?

Mat_7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

 

[GentleGospeller]

It isn't ad hominem to show that your sources are false.

It is ad hominem. Also, my sources are false? Where? I directly cited the actual document. What did you cite? You? Who are you?

 

[prodromos]

It is pointless to continue this route. It is not actually addressing the facts of his statements, let alone the facts of the science I keep begging you to get into. But you seem content to attack a man, his past, his education.

Bill Kaysing had zero input in the development of the F1 engine and left the company 6 years before Apollo 11 put two men on the moon. He was not a Rocketdyne engineer as he claimed. He was a technical writer and also worked in maintainance of machines used by actual engineers to manufacture parts for the rockets. You obviously have lot invested in what he falsely claimed to be.

You haven't actually posted any of his statements nor have I seen you post any 'facts of science'.

 

[GentleGospeller]

Bill Kaysing had zero input in the development of the F1 engine and left the company 6 years before Apollo 11

Correct, and?

You had 0 input on the Bible, and nothing to do with any of the writers, or the Canon, all of which was completed some 1900 years before you were even born. Do you think you have any right to comment upon any of it with the same 'logic' as you just presented to me?

You also had 0 input on the devleopment of the F1 engine, are not a technical writer, or even a "service engineer", and were not even a part of the company (ever), and were not present at the fakery. Do you think you have any right to comment upon any of it with the same 'logic' you just presented to me?

Let's just see how far this hypocrisy in 'logic' goes.

 

[Apple Sky]

Questions about the Moon Landings >>>>>>>>

How did they get through these so called dangerous Van Allen Belts ?
How did they get the moon buggy's there ?
How come the moon buggy's tyres were still in tact ?
Who filmed them on take off ?
Why were there no stars ?
Why was psalm 19:1 quoted on Wernher von Braun head stone ?

Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

 

[prodromos]

Questions about the Moon Landings >>>>>>>>

That have all been answered many times over

How did they get through these so called dangerous Van Allen Belts ?

They passed quickly through the weakest part of the belts, so were not exposed to any significant radiation. The astronauts received less exposure than someone getting a CT scan done.

How did they get the moon buggy's there ?

Flat pack. It was basically folded up and strapped to the side of the lunar lander. You could easily search this up on he Internet.

How come the moon buggy's tyres were still in tact ?

Why wouldn't they be?

Who filmed them on take off ?

They had a radio camera on a motorised tripod that automatically tracked the launch. The video signal was received by the lunar module and relayed to Earth

Why were there no stars ?

It was broad daylight. When you take photos of the sky during the day, why don't you ever see stars in those photos. Why is it much harder to see stars at night if there are bright lights around? It's a combination of aperture and length of exposure.

Why was psalm 19:1 quoted on Wernher von Braun head stone ?

Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

You'll have to ask Wernher.

 

[prodromos]

Correct, and?

He isn't an authority on the subject. He admitted as much himself.

You had 0 input on the Bible, and nothing to do with any of the writers, or the Canon, all of which was completed some 1900 years before you were even born. Do you think you have any right to comment upon any of it with the same 'logic' as you just presented to me?

I have direct access to the One who inspired the Scriptures. Do you not believe that yourself?

You also had 0 input on the devleopment of the F1 engine, are not a technical writer, or even a "service engineer", and were not even a part of the company (ever), and were not present at the fakery. Do you think you have any right to comment upon any of it with the same 'logic' you just presented to me?

I have an engineering background and have done my research. Anyone with half a brain can read up on the subject and obtain sufficient knowledge to be able to comment.

Let's just see how far this hypocrisy in 'logic' goes.

You haven't given any 'logic'. Have fun tilting at windmills.

 

[Apple Sky]

That have all been answered many times over

They passed quickly through the weakest part of the belts, so were not exposed to any significant radiation. The astronauts received less exposure than someone getting a CT scan done.

Flat pack. It was basically folded up and strapped to the side of the lunar lander. You could easily search this up on he Internet.

Why wouldn't they be?

They had a radio camera on a motorised tripod that automatically tracked the launch. The video signal was received by the lunar module and relayed to Earth

It was broad daylight. When you take photos of the sky during the day, why don't you ever see stars in those photos. Why is it much harder to see stars at night if there are bright lights around? It's a combination of aperture and length of exposure.

You'll have to ask Wernher.

Thanks for all your answers, all of your answers were wrong, well done

 

[prodromos]

Thanks for all your answers, all of your answers were wrong, well done

What are the 'right' answers, in your highly educated opinion?

 

[Phil G]

Thanks for all your answers, all of your answers were wrong, well done

Oh well, that’s that then, so there!

 

[The Liturgist]

Questions about the Moon Landings >>>>>>>>

How did they get through these so called dangerous Van Allen Belts ?
How did they get the moon buggy's there ?
How come the moon buggy's tyres were still in tact ?
Who filmed them on take off ?
Why were there no stars ?
Why was psalm 19:1 quoted on Wernher von Braun head stone ?

Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

Dr. von Braun repented of his sins and converted to Christianity in the early 1950s. He had of course been baptized, but like most members of the SS, had committed apostasy in favor of the various alternative belief systems of the Nazis.

Psalms 19:1 would not have been regarded as Scripture under the Positive Christianity advocated by National Socialism, which was neo-Marcionite, and which was one of many heresies opposed by the holy martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Lutheran pastor and a leader of the Confessional Church of traditional Lutherans who resisted the Nazis, and who was killed for this belief.

So it was demonstrative of the repentance of Werner von Braun that he had this psalm on his tombstone, which aptly summarized his career in rocketry since he started working for the Americans primarily on those issues of space exploration before Nazi ideology had, in the 1930s and 40s before his arrest, twisted him into the manufacturer of weapons, an abuse of rocket technology, further perverted by the use of slave labor to manufacture the A4/V2 rocket at Peenemunde.

However the A4, when put to civilian use, was redeemed as a means of space exploration, as a sounding rocket (which it was much better at than as a weapons system, since its use of liquid fuel and poor guidance systems made it fragile and easy to misdirect, among other tactical limitations - the British were able to trick the Nazis into incorrectly programming most V2s to land short of London, by reporting in the newspaper a hit, when the V2s missed their target, and a miss, when they hit, and since the V2 relied on inertial guidance this kind of trickery worked in the UK, which had become a denied area for Nazi spies - the rockets were more successful on the Continent for this reason.

At any rate, Werner von Braun convered to evangelical Christianity and rededicated his life to the peaceful exploration of space that he had been interested in before the war.

His main contribution to the Apollo program was the first stage of the Saturn V rocket, which housed the five mighty F1 engines. Some American aerospace engineers thought he was too conservative in his designs, derisively nicknaming the Marshall Space Center which he directed as the “Huntsville Bridge and Iron Works” due to a belief he had over built the first stage with its reinforced steel trusses and other heavy structure, but considering how trouble free the Saturn V rocket was compared to the Atlas rockets used with the Mercury program, which were so lightweight several accidents occurred during development where the rockets collapsed under their own weight during launch, and especially compared to the Soviet Luna rocket, which used a large number of small engines like the Spacex Starship but which lacked the sophisticated guidance software SpaceX uses, and which crashed repeatedly, the fourth launch being a particular disaster, since the rocket reversed course and crashed into the launchpad resulting in what was at the time the largest non-nuclear explosion in history (apparently the Soviets didn’t have a working Flight Termination System like all American rockets have, which is used by a military Range Safety Officer at Cape Caneveral to destroy rockets that lose control so as to avoid any risk to civillians - when the Space Shuttle Challenger launch vehicle exploded*, the USAF officer on duty activated the Flight Termination System on the two Solid Rocket Boosters, which were flying out of control, willy nilly, to blow them up lest they hit something on the ground.

*The launch vehicle consists of the Orbiter when mated to the solid rocket boosters and the external fuel tank, which provided liquid hydrogen and oxygen for the three Main Engines on the Orbiter, and which was the component that exploded due to a jet of plasma leaking from a failed O ring on one of the SRBs burning a hole through its liquid hydrogen tank - the hydrogen reacted with atmospheric oxygen and the superheated plasma shooting out of the SRB, and expanded, blowing the bulkhead separating it from the liquid oxygen allowing for the two to instantly react, turning the external fuel tank into a massive bomb.

Distressingly, this did not instantly destroy the cockpit of the orbiter - the astronauts remained alive and conscious long enough to activate their emergency personal oxygen supplies, and probably died when the surviving part of the orbiter that included the cockpit slammed into the Atlantic Ocean. The cockpit including their bodies were found intact, albeit with fatal injuries from the impact. Thus one could argue the Shuttle Orbiter may have been too well designed in terms of survivability in terms of the flight deck - this may have been due to aborted plans to make the flight deck a sort of ejection module similar to how ejector seats worked on certain supersonic aircraft including the Grumman F-111A, as something like this was considered for an enhanced version of Gemini that would have taken a four man crew to a space station, and was also the theory for the emergency launch abort system on the Apollo spacecraft.

 

[The Liturgist]

Thanks for all your answers, all of your answers were wrong, well done

Once again, you’re lapsing. Remember, we’ve been over this - Flat Earth does not rule out space travel. You’ve got to stop accusing people of lying. It’s morally wrong and it is not necessary, as I showed you, to maintain your belief that the world is flat and stationary. I even showed you a model being investigated by mainstream scientists in which the world is completely flat.