1. Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
    Dismiss Notice
  2. There are no markets
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Week of 6/24/2017 Closing prices & Chg Over Last Wk---- Gold $1256.40 Silver $16.64 Oil $43.01 USD $96.94
  4. "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"
    Dismiss Notice

'Fake' Apollo Moon Landing

Discussion in 'Topical Discussions (In Depth)' started by Scorpio, Nov 19, 2017.



  1. #48Fan

    #48Fan Silver Member Silver Miner

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2014
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Oldmansmith, solarion and RealJack like this.
  2. RealJack

    RealJack Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,352
    Likes Received:
    1,017
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Snip taken from the article in the link above:

    "Such sentiments made me realize that the Moon landing lie is somewhat unique among the big lies told to the American people in that it was, in the grand scheme of things, a relatively benign lie, and one that could be easily spun. Admitting that the landings were faked would not have nearly the same impact as, say, admitting to mass murdering 3,000 Americans and destroying billions of dollars worth of real estate and then using that crime as a pretext to wage two illegal wars and strip away civil, legal and privacy rights.

    And yet, despite the fact that it was a relatively benign lie, there is a tremendous reluctance among the American people to let go of the notion that we sent men to the Moon. There are a couple of reasons for that, one of them being that there is a romanticized notion that those were great years – years when one was proud to be an American. And in this day and age, people need that kind of romanticized nostalgia to cling to.

    But that is not the main reason that people cling so tenaciously, often even angrily, to what is essentially the adult version of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. What primarily motivates them is fear. But it is not the lie itself that scares people; it is what that lie says about the world around us and how it really functions. For if NASA was able to pull off such an outrageous hoax before the entire world, and then keep that lie in place for four decades, what does that say about the control of the information we receive? What does that say about the media, and the scientific community, and the educational community, and all the other institutions we depend on to tell us the truth? What does that say about the very nature of the world we live in?

    That is what scares the hell out of people and prevents them from even considering the possibility that they could have been so thoroughly duped. It’s not being lied to about the Moon landings that people have a problem with, it is the realization that comes with that revelation: if they could lie about that, they could lie about anything."
     
    solarion likes this.
  3. Bottom Feeder

    Bottom Feeder Hypophthalmichthys molitrix Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,811
    Likes Received:
    2,363
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Seattle
    Thanks for that link, Joe, very interesting site.

    BF
     
    Joe King likes this.
  4. solarion

    solarion Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    4,075
    Likes Received:
    6,195
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That it was Kennedy that committed us to going there plays a role as well...imo. He holds a special place in the hearts of Americans, so to deny the moon landing is to tarnish his memory in some abstract way.
     
  5. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    4,781
    Likes Received:
    4,445
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    Appreciate the link, but is there a readers digest version? I'd say that it's more than a bit long.
    ...but I did notice that it starts out setting the stage with a Wernher von Braun quote that seems to be intended to plant the idea that the only way to get to the Moon is with multiple giant rockets. Ie: that the way Apollo was done had to be impossible. I'm afraid that that assumption is simply not true. That quote comes from a time when he had no way of knowing for sure exactly what it would take to get to the Moon. In other words, he was theorizing.

    Then the very first thing mentioned is the "fake" Moon rock given to Holland. I'm sorry, but that has been shown to not be accurate. First, NASA never gave out samples like that where a 3lb chunk was just handed to someone and secondly, in 1969 no samples had yet been prepared to be handed out. They were still examining the stuff themselves. Apollo 11 had just returned a few Months prior.

    So how is it possible that Neil and Buzz were just handing out pounds of the stuff to people? It's not as though they got to keep half the haul for themselves. Everything they brought back was .gov property.
    ....and the official samples given out were not much bigger than a grain of rice, and were mounted on plaques.


    As for the rest of the 100's of pages, could we just go over the main points? I'm willing to discuss this with anyone here and keep it very civil while discussing the logic behind the points on both sides.
    Stuff like no blast crater.
    Angles of light.
    No stars in pics.
    Or any of the other points made.




    That's not why I believe the Apollo missions were real. I believe it due to many years of investigating the data about each of the alleged proofs of a hoax.

    That's just it, I want to know how the World really does function and am open to the idea of allowing the evidence to guide me. I've been on both sides of this issue. There was a time I would have been right there with you on this subject, but the evidence when examined in depth actually suggests far more strongly that the Apollo missions were in fact real. I say suggests because unless you/I actually went with them, we can never have absolute knowledge.
    ...but that applies to everything if you personally did not experience it first-hand. Was WW2 real? How many reading this was there to know for sure? At some level we must examine the evidence both for and against something without applying a bias for either side.
     
  6. #48Fan

    #48Fan Silver Member Silver Miner

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2014
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It is quite long, but it gives just about all of the perspectives of the "hoax" side. Lots of great stuff in there. I just read a section or so a day. Anyway, totally up to you.
     
  7. RealJack

    RealJack Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,352
    Likes Received:
    1,017
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I sure would like some of that space suit insulation and a/c technology for my motor home.
    About all we get is that reflective mylar bubble wrap stuff which sorta helps a little bit.
    Damn good thing it's not 260f + or- outside.
     
  8. RealJack

    RealJack Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,352
    Likes Received:
    1,017
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh, and those awesome miniature battery packs they had to run everything on the moon.
     
  9. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    4,781
    Likes Received:
    4,445
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    What are the points though? I want to discuss the actual points and that is a tough read for me because as I already pointed out, he starts out with things that have already been easily dis-proven. The alleged fake rock given to Holland. If I can find info that casts serious doubt on that story, why couldn't the guy writing it do the same?
    Ok, I read a little further and I see this. How many decades can pass, after all, without anyone coming even close to a reenactment before people start to catch on? Four obviously haven’t been enough, but how about five, or six, or seven? How about when we hit the 100-year anniversary?
    He uses the argument of, "why haven't we gone back?" well, that was already covered. There's nothing there to keep going back for and it is super expensive. People and mankind do the things we do because there is a reason to do them. Usually a financial reason. Going to the Moon only costs resources that can be put to better use elsewhere right now.
    Also, choosing the space shuttle locked us into LEO-only for 40 years. Because having a way to put big things into orbit, at what they thought would be a cheaper price, is where the money is.

    Then he says, "The first thing that I discovered was that the Soviet Union, right up until the time that we allegedly landed the first Apollo spacecraft on the Moon, was solidly kicking our ass in the space race." No, that isn't exactly true. They only "kicked our asses" prior to a large effort to get to the Moon was undertaken. At that point our tech overtook their tech. They tried building a big rocket to beat us there, but never was able to get a successful launch. They ended up giving up and turned to follow the American lead by building their own version of a money-pit space shuttle program. By the time they got close to completing it, they went belly-up.

    He is right about this: "In truth, the entire space program has largely been, from its inception, little more than an elaborate cover for the research, development and deployment of space-based weaponry and surveillance systems."
    Which lends credence to the idea that there is no use of going to the Moon for any of that for either America or the Soviets/Russians. The Moon is not a strategic location for watching the goings-on here on Earth. So why would anyone be surprised that neither side has spent the money to go back? Seems self evident to me as to why that is.

    Then he says: "The Apollo astronauts, on the other hand, traveled a distance equivalent to circumnavigating the planet around the equator nine-and-a-half times! And they did it with roughly the same amount of fuel that it now takes to make that 200 mile journey, which is why I want NASA to build my next car for me. I figure I’ll only have to fill up the tank once and it should last me for the rest of my life."
    This is an inaccurate comparison because cars need to burn fuel constantly to keep moving. Rockets in space don't. Once you acheive the velocity required to leave Earth orbit and head to the Moon, you can coast due to being in the frictionless enviroment of space. They do not burn rocket fuel the entire way there. They let inertia do the work for them. On Earth, there is friction everywhere trying to constantly slow you down. Not so in space.


    Then he says: "transmitting live footage back from the Moon was another rather innovative use of 1960s technology. More than two decades later, we would have trouble broadcasting live footage from the deserts of the Middle East, but in 1969, we could beam that shit back from the Moon with nary a technical glitch!"
    When broadcasting from the Middle East, the Earth is in the way of anyone below the horizon. Therefore the TV/radio signals will have a much harder time getting there. Between the Earth and Moon there is nothing to get in the way It just takes time for the signal to travel there. That's why they built stations at various places around the Globe to always keep the Moon in line-of-sight radio communications during the Apollo missions.

    Then he goes into missing tapes. Yes, ok, it appears that the gov-employee ineptitude we all know exists, also extends to NASA. We're supposed to be surprised about that?
    ...and that also casts doubt that everyone at NASA could keep a secret like this for all these years. One of the idiots would have slipped up by now, don't'cha think?




    What are the specific points that convinced you it was all fake? Can we discuss those one by one?
    ...and as I already posted, I used to have my own doubts about it too, but after examining the issue further, I'm convinced that the overwhelming answer is that it indeed did happen. I say it that way because none of us reading were on the Moon to be able to know for certain one way or the other. As in none of us have direct first-person knowledge. We are left to use our intelligence to determine what is most likely.
     
    Someone_else likes this.
  10. DodgebyDave

    DodgebyDave Metal Messiah Midas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    5,521
    Likes Received:
    3,293
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Still waiting, refute the evidence
     
  11. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    4,781
    Likes Received:
    4,445
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    It's not that temp outside in space. In fact, space doesn't have a temperature. Things in space have temperatures, but if there is no medium to conduct the heat away, it will mostly stay where it is. Your motor home is surrounded and literally engulfed in a heat-conducting substance known as air.
     
    Someone_else likes this.
  12. RealJack

    RealJack Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,352
    Likes Received:
    1,017
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah, "things"...especially space suits and hands and feet and heads and torsos and water hoses and blood.
    Nothing like frolicking around on the moon, playing golf and hanging out... with the sun heating your garment up to 250f.

    What I'd give for a pair of motorcycle gloves like those space suits have. But i guess only government employees get the really good stuff.
     
    solarion, Oldmansmith and #48Fan like this.
  13. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    4,781
    Likes Received:
    4,445
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    As for the missing Moon rocks, lookie where one of them was found.

    Arkansas' lost moon rock found in Clinton's files


    LITTLE ROCK, Ark (Reuters) - For years, Arkansas historians have searched for a valuable lunar rock from the Apollo 17 mission, one of the moon rocks NASA presented to each state in the 1970s.

    While other states also continue to dig for the rocks that came to be known as the Goodwill Moon Rocks, the mystery in Arkansas was solved Wednesday -- sort of -- when an archivist discovered it in former President Bill Clinton’s gubernatorial papers.


    Still up in the air is how the moon rock got there.
     
  14. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    4,781
    Likes Received:
    4,445
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    That's why they make space suits white. So that all wavelengths of light can be reflected as much as possible. Also, the side the Sun light is not hitting is not being heated at all. In fact, it would radiate heat away.
     
    Someone_else likes this.
  15. EO 11110

    EO 11110 He Hate Me Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    12,031
    Likes Received:
    7,952
    Trophy Points:
    113
    besides the inability to repeat the outrageous claim of landing on the thing...

    there are telescopes and satellites that could view and video the trash left behind of the alleged landings. but nothing...

    my favorite -- nasa claims to have taped over the original footage they shot. so all that's left is digital creations....

    if you like pancake theory, you'll love moon landing yarns. our resident gov shill has a book two inches thick to try and prove the ridiculous story and fight all of the blatant evidence of hoax

    might have to add this one to my list of things that expose shills. the two main that rarely fail:

    1. pancake theory/man in cave

    2. aerial spraying
     
  16. solarion

    solarion Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    4,075
    Likes Received:
    6,195
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wiki claims China has all kinds of plans for the moon. Seems weird they'd be 48+ years behind the US, but there it is. Apparently the Chinese just aren't very bright.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Lunar_Exploration_Program

    Same goes for Russia. I mean they had little trouble getting stuff into Earth orbit, but that moon thing was just a bridge too far...I guess. I understand Russia is aiming for 2030? They must be real slow learners. I mean 61 years after we genius Amerikans got there? Gnarly. Did the USSR lose the NAZI scientist lottery drawing or what?!? lol
    https://www.space.com/14915-russia-moon-landing-2030.html
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rface-ahead-creating-permanent-base-2030.html
     
    EO 11110 likes this.
  17. #48Fan

    #48Fan Silver Member Silver Miner

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2014
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Yes JK, the article brings up the "lost" spacesuit technology, problems with many photos, the impossibility to shoot said photos manually in a spacesuit with a chest mounted camera, the lack of blast holes under the lander, how there is no room in the lander for all the batteries/systems/astronauts/rover, the remote controlled filming of the lander blasting back to the mothership, problems with photos of the mothership in lunar orbit, and some other stuff.
     
  18. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    4,781
    Likes Received:
    4,445
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    Now that anyone is planning to, it seems that everyone else is too. Which further reinforces my earlier contention that competition is a big driving factor.





    Covered in post #38, unless you don't believe there are optical limits to telescopes?
    I choose to believe that there are optical limits and that mathematics can in fact be used to determine the size of optics one would need in order to see a given object at a given distance. If you choose not to believe it, try using a pair of 7x35's to study individual ants on a mound 300 yards away. It's well within the range of focus, but it can't resolve anything that small. Ie: the same reason you can't see the Lunar lander. Or what's left of it.


    I read posts on here all the time about gov ineptitude. Who do you think causes that ineptitude People do. It extends to NASA as well as every other agency. Not saying that everyone there are idiots, but sometimes people make mistakes. Back in those days, video tape was more expensive and they were looking for ways to cut the budget. Send a few low levels lackys in to clean out the warehouse, and who knows what would end up getting re-used or thrown out.
    I just don't see it as beyond the realm of possibility. I've worked with enough people who mostly just go through the motions without always thinking about what they're actually doing. So yea, IMHO it's plausible some idiot pulled the labels off and sent the tape to be re-used. Besides, this one thing alone does not out weigh the evidence that says we did put men on the Moon.


    I'd like to keep the discussion civil, as I like and respect most everyone on here. It is not my intention to quarrel or insult or do anything other than have a civil discussion on the merits or lack thereof of the various points put forth on both sides of this issue.

    Certain things in life sometimes requires that we look at evidence in order to decide what is what. We all can't be there to see/hear everything in person. Nor are any of us born knowing any of it. What we are born with is intellect that can be used to deduce a correct answer. Oftentimes that answer does not come quickly, but only by digging for more info on a particular subject. That takes time that many do not have in our busy World. None of us have time for everything.
    ....but in order to find an answer, that's what it sometimes requires. More digging.

    How many times have we heard that no stars in Moon pics is proof they never went there? IMHO, we should all be able to use our intellect to realize that cameras cannot capture both low luminosity objects and high luminosity objects in focus on the same piece of film with a particular exposure setting. It's something that is easily proven with any cheap camera, and if we take the time to think about it, we realize that it is a fact. Yet the idea persists. Why? Not because people are stupid, but because most people only look at the surface of an argument, take it at face value and move on.
     
    abeland1 likes this.
  19. solarion

    solarion Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    4,075
    Likes Received:
    6,195
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks for the video, but unfortunately there are no specifics on how NASA plans to get guys to the moon...er I mean return to the moon or even a timeline.

    I always have to remind myself that NASA is part of the same gumbymint that still somehow, even now, denies the possibility that extra-terrestrial lifeforms could possibly be visiting our planet yet wastes resources to load gold records onto space ships and launches them for some other intelligence to interpret. The same gumbymint that funded SETI for years and has telescopes in space allegedly searching for signs of water on distant planets...supposedly because they think there's life out there, life that obviously could never come here. Their positions are incoherent by design, so I don't generally expect a whole bunch of honesty from that direction.

    Edit: There's a comment on a utube video about Chinese lunar footage and one of the commenters asked:
    ...and the reply?
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2017
    #48Fan likes this.
  20. Bottom Feeder

    Bottom Feeder Hypophthalmichthys molitrix Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,811
    Likes Received:
    2,363
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Seattle
    Well here’s what I think; jack ain’t a real science fiction fan and the fan guy don’t have a cliff notes version of moondoggie for mr king and I still can’t figure out whose evidence dave wants refuted.

    But other than that it’s a pretty lively sorta scientific discussion (I think).

    Happy turkey day kids :D:D

    BF
     
    Joe King, solarion and #48Fan like this.
  21. #48Fan

    #48Fan Silver Member Silver Miner

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2014
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Happy Tofurkey Day, BF! (I'm vegetarian), great post btw.
     
    Joe King and solarion like this.
  22. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    4,781
    Likes Received:
    4,445
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    At least it's a start. Keep in mind that vid is talking about an announcement not even two Months old. Lets give it some time to see where it goes. You said you wanted 'em to go (back) to the Moon and your administration appears to want it too.


    Yea, it's entirely plausible IMO that they are hiding evidence of alien visitation. I wouldn't put it past 'em. Who knows, maybe aliens do live on the far side of the Moon and we humans have been warned off. I certainly haven't been there to know for sure. lol


    I am planning to read more of that. I'll just post up my responses to it as get to the various points in it.
    ...and Dave is asking for evidence of a hoax to be posted.


    That's what I'd like it to stay as. A lively and civil discussion about the merits of the science.

    IMHO, the best way to prove something, is to attempt to dis-prove ones original assumptions about it. Ie: take the opposite view and attempt to poke holes in your own argument. Only then can it be objectively scrutinized. It's very easy to fall into a cognitive bias trap when attempting to theorize about something.
    ....and this applies to everything, not just the Moon landing or lack thereof.
     
  23. solarion

    solarion Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    4,075
    Likes Received:
    6,195
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It makes more sense than going to Mars, but that's been the plan for decades as far as I know. If I had my way I'd close NASA down completely...along with 99% of the rest of the federal military industrial complex. Not only are they not Constitutional, but if the pentagram/DOD guys are really so shit all stupid that they can misplace trillions then they shouldn't have jobs. Obviously they didn't misplace the trillions and they're just doing what they always do...lie, but the point is the same. If we'd stuck to the Constitution then it'd not be an issue.
    We joke, but to me that's a whole lot more plausible than we went there a few times almost 50 years ago and haven't been back...that dog doesn't hunt. I've little doubt they're hiding evidence of alien visitation btw. Just the Roswell data that's been declassified alone is enough to convince. I mean the army air corps themselves said they had possession alien craft and then re-canted the whole thing the next day. Battle of Los Angeles...thousands of rounds fired and 5 deaths attributed to those falling rounds...but hey it was just a weather balloon. Never mind that there were photos taken of a not weather balloon.
     
  24. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    4,781
    Likes Received:
    4,445
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    I haven't seen that part yet. Will look in to it.

    I hadn't read that far yet either, but the cameras were supposedly set up to require minimal input from the astronauts.
    Are you referring to the number of pics taken and the idea that they didn't have enough time to do so? If so, the answer is that they probably took multiple pics from a given spot in quick succession, then moved on to other things. Then took a few more pics in quick succession. That's how one can get an average that says a pic was taken every 50 seconds. IMHO, I think it would be natural to want to take several froma given location. If for no other reason than to attempt to capture a wider view from that location. Click, turn slightly, click, turn slightly, click, etc etc. In a minute's time you might get a half dozen pics.
    This and other Apollo picture problems are discussed here. https://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2...ould-the-astronauts-take-so-many-photographs/


    There is evidence of dust being blown away, but supposedly where they landed, the dust was not very deep. Like two inches at most and the engines exhaust blew it away at high speed due to no air resistance. Also, the engines were being throttled down to nearly off as they neared the surface. Keep in mind too that with no atmosphere to get get in the way, the exhaust would necessarily spread out much quicker (have a higher velocity away from the craft) then it would here on Earth in air.

    Apollo 12 landed close to one of the Surveyor landers and there was evidence of scouring found on the side facing the Apollo 12 lander that was caused by the exhaust-blown dust from Apollo 12.
    ...and this is another issue with having any kind of colony living on the Moon. Every time a rocket lands nearby, everything and everyone in the area will have fine sharp dust blasted at it.



    The batteries were supposedly off-the-shelf batteries and the Lunar lander carried 100 pounds of them for a 22 hour stay. 100 pounds of batteries sounds reasonable to me and someone already posted a vid of them getting the rover out.


    Here's a short vid on that topic. I think what the man says makes sense. Check it out.





    Which photos are those? Do you have an example you could post?

    Keep it comin' buddy! I'll try my best to keep up.
     
  25. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    4,781
    Likes Received:
    4,445
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    Yes, I agree.
    On a side note, did you know that at the end of the Apollo missions, that NASA wanted to send a manned mission to Venus? That idea got shot down by Nixon. He gave us the space shuttle instead. lol

    Can't say I disagree. If fully abiding by the original intent cost us NASA, then so be it. Small price to pay for the small gov I was promised as a birth Right.

    Agreed in spades.

    Well, I choose to accept that without a compelling reason to go, we won't. Which is why we haven't yet. I understand human nature enough to know that it takes certain things to really motivate and get things done.
    ...and having to rise to the challenge of a perceived to be imminent threat is a strong motivating factor and I believe it to be a plausible reason why we haven't been in a hurry to go back. Soviets even said that they had no interest in sending men to the Moon until we announced that we were going to.

    Yea, again, I gotta say I agree that it is very plausible indeed. Lotta weird chit about that whole Roswell thing.
     
    the_shootist likes this.
  26. Crockett

    Crockett Seeker

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    63
    (5:43) “I’d go to the moon in a nanosecond. The problem is we don’t have the technology to do that anymore. We used to, but we destroyed that technology and it’s a painful process to build it back again."
    - Don Pettit NASA Astronaut​

     
    Oldmansmith likes this.
  27. solarion

    solarion Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    4,075
    Likes Received:
    6,195
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I tend to doubt we went to the moon as well, but I wish he hadn't put so much effort into his temperature analysis in that video. While his estimated temperatures for the thermosphere seem credible, talking about the temperatures without discussing the phenomenon of heat flux density makes that whole section of video seem like a waste of time.
     
  28. the_shootist

    the_shootist The war is here on our doorstep! Midas Member Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Messages:
    16,035
    Likes Received:
    15,980
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Oxygen Breather
    Location:
    Somewhere out there!
    I'd be interested to know what other technology we've 'destroyed' over the years!
     
  29. #48Fan

    #48Fan Silver Member Silver Miner

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2014
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Just another quick thought. In videos taken on the moon, why does everything look to be in slow motion? If there is no atmosphere, no resistance, 1/6 the gravity on Earth, shouldn't everything move quicker? The astronauts move around as if they are in water.
     
  30. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    4,781
    Likes Received:
    4,445
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land

    Exactly. The air is exponentially thinner at those altitudes and can therefor transfer heat via conduction at a similarly reduced rate.
    Also, time of exposure is a factor. A rocket is moving very fast at those altitudes, and accelerating. Ie: it takes little time to pass through any heated areas of the atmosphere it may encounter.
    It takes time to transfer heat from one thing to another. You can prove this yourself in your bathroom with various temps of hot water, your own hand, and a stop watch. The hotter the water, the less time you'll be able to keep your hand in it before involuntarily moving it. Same thing applies to any object. Whether or not something gets melted or burnt, all comes down to time of exposure.
    ...but then I'm thinking we all already knew that, right? Even the guy in the vid, if he had really thought about it.


    What I took away from that vid is the idea that the VAB's prevent space travel above LEO.
    What I think is going on here is that he doesn't realize that Apollo really had little shielding. NASA relied on time of exposure to get them through it. Just like it takes time to transfer heat, it takes time to get a lethal dose of radiation. The answer they say is that the Apollo missions did not pass through the strongest areas of radiation and that they passed through at 25,000+mph. Ie: their time of exposure was very low.

    Same thing applies to radiation here on Earth. That sarcophagus the Russians originally built? Everyone who got close to it worked for a certain number of minutes, and they couldn't work there anymore due to having hit a threshold for exposure.

    Have any of you ever worked somewhere that you had to wear a dosimeter? If so, that's what it is for. To measure your over-all exposure. If it were to hit a certain limit, action would have been taken to prevent you having any further exposure.

    Also, the whole "four feet of lead shielding would be required" is non starter because it's mostly a different kind of radiation than we are familiar with here on Earth. Like the dental x-ray he used as a comparison. In space "radiation" consists of charged particles and in this case, 4 feet of lead would make the problem worse.

    Here's a vid that explains it better than I can. 6 minutes.
    How he explains it makes sense to me, and you can also use the info he states to do your own searches in order to easily find data that corroborates the data given.



    One other thing to consider is that 50 years ago we had a higher appetite for risk. Today we have the attitude that we must have absolute protection from every conceivable thing that could potentially harm us.
    Back then they were willing to take far more personal risks than today. It's part of the pussification of America we've been witnessing.
    In fact, all the Apollo guys spoke of seeing flashes of light with their eyes closed. That was cosmic rays tearing through their retinas. No one gave a f' back then, or just considered it part of the cost of going at all. Today it'd be a major f'ing deal with multi-million dollar lawsuits after the missions were over.
     
  31. Juristic Person

    Juristic Person They drew first blood Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    2,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because I know that it wasn't done, period. We have not been able to send man beyond low Earth orbit. We couldn't do in 1969 and we still can't do it.

    NASA hired a ton of people out of Hollywood (this is easily verifiable) and they fabricated a story (for a number of reasons) using the best technology they had at the time. They "lost" all th tapes because modern technology easily exposes them for the hoaxes they are.

    There was no moon walk in 1969.
     
  32. Juristic Person

    Juristic Person They drew first blood Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    2,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What do you mean the Soviets had to be in on it? Why do you say that?
     
  33. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    4,781
    Likes Received:
    4,445
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    Ok, reading a little more I came across this: "Here then is the formula for creating Moonwalk footage: take original footage of guys in ridiculous costumes moving around awkwardly right here on our home planet, broadcast it over a tiny, low-resolution television monitor at about half speed, and then re-film it with a camera focused on that screen. The end result will be broadcast-ready tapes that, in addition to having that all-important grainy, ghosty, rather surreal ‘broadcast from the Moon’ look, also appear to show the astronauts moving about in entirely unnatural ways."

    Have you or anyone else ever tried recording an image off an old TV? If you have, the scan rate becomes readily apparent.


    "And what guy, given the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to spend some time in a reduced gravity environment, isn’t going to want to see how high he can jump? Or how far he can jump? Hitting a golf ball? Who the hell wants to see that? How about tossing a football for a 200-yard touchdown pass? Or how about the boys dazzling the viewing audience with some otherworldly acrobatics?" Here he seems upset that they didn't perform a certain experiment. Even if they had, would it have satisfied him? Probably not. There was limited time on the Moon. Apollo 11 astronauts were only out on the Moon a total of about 150 minutes. Ain't time to do everything that would make everyone happy.



    "Am I the only one, by the way, who finds it odd that people would move in slow motion on the Moon? Why would a reduced gravitational pull cause everything to move much more slowly? Given the fact that they were much lighter on their feet and not subject to air and wind resistance, shouldn’t the astronauts have been able to move quicker on the Moon than here on Earth? "

    Those space suits and life support systems they wore are not exactly light. They at least double the astronauts weight and increase the resistance to movement. Yes, less gravity makes them feel lighter, but the mass is the same. Therefor it would like a whole new experience relative to how we are used to moving and reacting to mass in Earths gravity.
    Also, if you were out in space a quarter million miles from help, would you be in a huge hurry to running and jumping to your maximum ability? Fall down the wrong way, you might break something. Like your life support system. Or snag a the sharp edge of a rock and rip your space suit open.
    If it were me, I would tread lightly and be extra cautious. Make deliberate movements, etc etc.
    ...and I'd think that anyone who considers their own well-being would approach it in a similar manner.



    “Well,” you now say, “what about all those cool Moon rocks? How did they get those? The Moon is, you know, the only source of Moon rocks, so doesn’t that prove that we were there?”

    No, as a matter of fact, it does not prove that we were there, and as odd as it may sound, the Moon is not the only source of Moon rocks. As it turns out, authentic Moon rocks are available right here on Earth, in the form of lunar meteorites."


    No one knew there were Lunar meteorites or how to identify them until Apollo astronauts brought back samples with which to compare them to. Ie: Apollo samples are the standard bearer for what is a Moon rock. Besides, Moon rocks brought back on Apollo do not show signs of atmospheric heating due to their entry into the Earths atmosphere.



    "Some of them apparently bear no resemblance at all to lunar meteorites. Instead, they look an awful lot like petrified wood from the Arizona desert.

    Such was the case with a ‘Moon rock’ that the Dutch national museum has been carefully safeguarding for many years now, before discovering, in August of 2009, that they were in reality the proud owners of the most over-insured piece of petrified wood on the planet."

    We've already covered this in post #80



    "It is certainly true that there have been numerous claims over the years that various satellites or unmanned space probes or space telescopes were going to capture images that would definitively prove that man walked on the Moon, thus settling the controversy once and for all. Despite all the promises, however, no such images have ever been produced,"

    There are pics. From the LRO.


    "Here is another thing that I sometimes wonder about: why it is that in the 1960s we possessed the advanced technology required to actually land men on the Moon, but in the 21st century we don’t even have the technology required to get an unmanned craft close enough to the Moon to take usable photographs?"

    Again, the LRO
    ...and if we can send probes to Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Ceres, Vesta, Venus and Mercury, it laughable that he says the tech doesn't exist to send an unmanned probe to the Moon.


    About the LRO, he states: "Sounds promising, doesn’t it? The images, however, hardly live up to the billing. They are, in fact, completely worthless. All they depict are tiny white dots on the lunar surface that could be just about anything and that would barely be visible at all without those handy “long shadows from a low sun angle.”

    He again ignores the resolution limits of the optics. There was no reason to build the LRO with the type of optics that could resolve things down to a gnats ass. Remember, the stuff we left there is relatively small, but it can be seen. It was designed to see things like craters in that pic I posted a link to.
    ...and the fact remains that tracks and objects are visible in the pics that match with pics and vid taken during the ascent stage nearly 50 years ago.



    About the retro-reflectors he states: "According to the ‘debunkers,’ the fact that observatories to this day bounce lasers off the alleged targets proves that the Apollo missions succeeded. It is perfectly obvious though that the targets, if there, could have been placed robotically – most likely by the Soviets."
    The Soviets put them there? How can that be? Earlier he said, "I’m going to have to say that the Soviets were lying their asses off almost as much as NASA was."

    Yet the Soviets were responsible for delivering several reflectors and calibrating them? Ok, now his own arguments are not maintaining consistency between them.


    Ok, this post is long enough for now.
     
  34. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    4,781
    Likes Received:
    4,445
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    Because they tracked it all the way there and if they had been able to show that the signals had not come from the Moon, they would have exposed it then. Unless of course they were in on the hoax and were ok with the idea of the Americans beating them there. Which is why I stated that to believe it was all a hoax requires one to believe that the Soviets were in on it.
     
  35. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    4,781
    Likes Received:
    4,445
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    There still has to be reasons that convinced you.

    Currently, yes. However, that was due to the fact Nixon slashed their budget and locked us in to the Space Shuttle. Which, btw was only a part of the proposed plan. Had the entire system been developed, there would have been the ability to go far beyond LEO.

    In addition to that, and as I already posted, NASA wanted to send a manned mission to Venus in the mid 70's, but again was nixxed by Nixon.

    Edited to add: https://www.space.com/12085-nasa-space-shuttle-history-born.html
    In early 1969, President Richard Nixon had established a space task group to help determine NASA's post-Apollo direction. In September of that year, the group delivered its report, which recommended going back to the von Braun paradigm in some fashion: shuttle, space station, manned moon trips and, finally, manned missions to Mars.

    Nixon was not pleased with this recommendation, Launius said. The president thought the plan was far too expensive for NASA's budget, which had been cut from a high of $5.9 billion (4.4 percent of the federal budget) in 1966 to $4.25 billion (2.3 percent of the federal budget) in 1969. So he zeroed in on a single aspect of the von Braun paradigm, ditching the others.

    "The one stand-alone thing that you can point to was the shuttle," Launius said. "So that's where they went."


    The decision marked a key shift in NASA's charter from space exploration to space utilization,



    Apollo 8 & 10 both went far beyond LEO.
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2017
  36. solarion

    solarion Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    4,075
    Likes Received:
    6,195
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It would help immensely with NASA/goobermint credibility if they'd just stop losing vital information. The events of July 20, 1969 are held up as a huge milestone for all humanity...I mean "one small step...blah blah", then to show just how incredible that leap forward was...they "lost" the original recordings.

    You have got to be f'n kidding me. This is often billed as the most impressive feat humanity has ever accomplished and these d1ckheads supposedly "lost" it?
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-got-erased-nasa-admits-idUSTRE56F5MK20090716

     
    spinalcracker likes this.
  37. DodgebyDave

    DodgebyDave Metal Messiah Midas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    5,521
    Likes Received:
    3,293
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wanna know why The Soviets never made it to the moon? It's really easy to find that information.

    http://www.astronautix.com/n/n1.html

    A funny thing happened on their way to the moon..........................they killed all of their top scientists!

    https://www.wired.com/2011/10/oct-24-1960-soviet-rocket-explodes-killing-top-engineers-technicians/

    The Soviets NEVER WERE in the lead for the moon.



    Also, another top technology lost forever is the blueprints and tooling for the SR-71, The XB-70, The X-15
     
  38. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    4,781
    Likes Received:
    4,445
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    They never wanted to send people there until we started our own program to go there. Again, the competition as a motivating factor rears its head.

    I'm pretty sure all those things actually exist. The planes, I mean.
     
  39. DodgebyDave

    DodgebyDave Metal Messiah Midas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    5,521
    Likes Received:
    3,293
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They sit in museums, and to be quit fair, all 3 are obsolete. The models exist, but, as I stated, the blueprints, tooling, etc have long since been destroyed

    The XB-70 at Wright Pat have intact engines IIRC, The Static displays of the Blackbird and X-15 do not.

    Also, to be fair, the stainless steel honeycomb building techniques pioneered by the XB-70 survive quite well in other form........you can honeycomb cardboard and paper for a nice and strong box!
     
  40. DodgebyDave

    DodgebyDave Metal Messiah Midas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    5,521
    Likes Received:
    3,293
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you study the N1 drawing, you can see where the Soviets were light years behind us. Especially in 2 critical ares.

    1 is the use of common LOX/propellant center tank bulkheads.............

    2 and most critical was in testing. The Soviets never static tested the full N1 first stage motor package. According to Astronautix they only eve tested 3 out of every 10 engines prior to final assembly. Rocketdyne tested every engine for Apollo before shipping to the various sub assemblies suppliers.
     

Share This Page