• Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
  • There are no markets
  • "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

'Fake' Apollo Moon Landing

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,047
Likes
7,596
I keep struggling to keep fluid dynamics sidelined, but a guy a couple pages back, while as much as calling me a mental midget in the course of defending his favorite god(gravity) mentioned surface tension.

The irony was off the charts. I bit my tongue hard enough to feel it even through layers of protective fermented molasses.

...gee that's weird, I wonder what causes surface tension? ...could it be majik fairy dust? Dandruff from a bald dude?
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,047
Likes
7,596
While designing the linear motor actuator (magnetic), I said to my boss, "we are designing the wrong product, we should be looking into this technology for space travel" He told me to stop dreaming & go back to work.
Fast forward 20 years, I heard that scientist had discovered that magnetism was a bit faster than light & they were looking into magnetic lines of flux for space travel.
Sure make one wonder which science is next to be proven wrong, Al Gore !!! lololol
Why I think pseudo-scientist goofballs are trolling us with this silly Newton-Einstein franken-theory of gravity majik while they work from the real genius' notepad...at Cern. Pretty sure they're not smashing gravitons over there.

...and a pigs-bozo god particle GTFO with that sillybiz.
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
11,876
Likes
19,082
Location
ORYGUN
solarion, have you morphed into Mikey ???
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,047
Likes
7,596
Last edited:

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
11,876
Likes
19,082
Location
ORYGUN
Sure hope not, I can't drink like that guy. lol
I did pretty good (bad) 30 years ago, but I knocked it off in 1983. I just whyne in my older years.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,047
Likes
7,596
lol

 

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
648
Likes
1,078
Location
Southern MN
Well I've got some catching up to do on this thread but anyway...

I went ahead and wrote another basic 2D gravity simulation program in c++. Curious, I never entered the value 9.8... meters but it came up when debugging the value of acceleration after putting in the radius of the Earth and the distance to an object. So I wondered, now that it simulates pretty well what we can observe on the surface of the Earth what happens if I change the scale and enter the values for the mass and radius of the Earth and moon and the distance to them how long would it take in "simulation time" representing 1 second per program loop. After letting it run for a bit over an hour the simulated time was 27 days and 7 minutes (very close to a lunar orbit) and what do you know, it went around about one revolution and even moved Earth in this simulation. I'm not yet taking into account the Sun etc. but dang the math sure does seem to fit observation.

Gray circle represents the path of the moon, blue streak represents the position of the Earth. Early in the program but already getting some interesting results. Not that this will mean anything to anyone who doubts this stuff.

EarthMoon-System-2017-12-30-27days-7hrsSS.jpg
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,047
Likes
7,596
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
7,620
Likes
4,081
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Jeebus h krist-ina on a + sign of popsicle leavings.

I freaking posted a gif of an atom and you told me you "KNOW" otherwise. How TF does one pretend they've even a trace of objectivity in such a scenario?!?

How many provable forces in nature do not have an opposite?

I drone on and on about electromagnetic attraction one can observe without pretending they can negate the not force of gravity by simulating "zero g" for testing.

Nothing. but. crickets.
idk.....I'm 2 drunk to chase that chick'n

eye should justr....dam...I should just watch porn/....dam; u all b good to each other cuz I just gota check out....
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,047
Likes
7,596
Hey enjoy your pr0n and congrats on the sun worship advancement! :2 thumbs up:



 
Last edited:

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
648
Likes
1,078
Location
Southern MN
Gravity seems to work for me. My basic little program written in a few days can predict how fast something will fall near the surface of the Earth given only the mass and radius of the Earth. I can also enter the mass and radius of the Earth and the moon and the speed of the moon and it happens to orbit at about the same rate we can observe ourselves without having to change any of the logic. Pretty good evidence that the same affect responsible for an object falling on the surface of the earth is the same effect keeping the moon in orbit around the earth. Nothing fancy here, basic Newtonian math that fits observation. Keep in mind, if I enter random values it's not easy to get a get a stable orbit in this thing. Maybe there is something special about how this all came to be, I wouldn't doubt that. However, as Galileo put it so well "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.". The accepted model seems to add up with my sense and reason. How it got how it is would be another question that I cannot begin to answer.

About the shape of the Earth, just as we can observe the angle of the stars and how it relates to how our telescope mounts work and see that the Earth is spinning and that it must be roughly spherical and about the size of the accepted model. This is through our own observation without consulting NASA. I don't see any way this could work if Earth did not fit the accepted model. Also we can observe the shadow of the Earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse which is pretty good evidence for the shape and size of the Earth. Also we can observe more meteors in the morning hours than in the evening, which adds up with the accepted model (your windshield hits more bugs than your rear window, right? Now if bugs could fly faster than your vehicle it would still hold true but you would get some on your rear window just not as many). These are things we observe without the help of NASA and things mankind has been aware of before NASA ever existed.
 

EO 11110

He Hate Me
Mother Lode
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
12,463
Likes
8,540
the hoax awareness is growing. coast to coast just trotted out a shill to fight the rising tide. it's on youtoob if anyone cares to listen. probably most useful for our resident shills - to polish up their act
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,047
Likes
7,596
the hoax awareness is growing. coast to coast just trotted out a shill to fight the rising tide. it's on youtoob if anyone cares to listen. probably most useful for our resident shills - to polish up their act
This appears to be the ticket.


Shill shows up at around 8mins
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,047
Likes
7,596
Huge batch of new doctored photos recently released by NASA. Yay!

Only took them 45 years to finally spit out some pictures that cost Amerikans $84 billion.
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
11,876
Likes
19,082
Location
ORYGUN
'Fake' Apollo Moon Landing
I have struggled with this for years, as I worked on the telemetry system, LEM/ORS (Lunar Excursion Module/Orbital Rendezvous System) at Hughes T.E.L. in Tucson AZ. in 1968. Being what I thought was part of the design of the guidance system, this has been difficult for me to swallow. The evidence has become overwhelming. What a sad fucking farce !!!!
A short vid. that is good. (it might have be posted at GIM2 before, but here it is !)
Unlike all of the other proof over the years about the moon landing hoax, this video will examine how NASA themselves have inadvertently admitted that we never went to the moon nor are we still able to go to this day.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,047
Likes
7,596
We have discussed some of these issues here in this thread. There was a video posted starring this same presenter at some point, though not sure if it was the same video. The alleged temperature extremes in the upper atmo"sphere" are partially addressed by observing time of exposure vs heat flux density, though I've not gone over the maths myself...partially because I don't necessarily trust the stated temps and partially because I'm lazy. :) Frankly it does seem ridiculous when one considers that allegedly meteorites burn up in this same upper atmo"sphere" and are at least in part composed of nickel/iron.

There are so many easy targets to debunk the moon landings that I don't often even consider some of the more mundane. I frankly think it's impossible for a human to get through the Van Allen radiation belts without being turned into gelatin. NASA themselves have acknowledged that the belts both extend further(36,000 miles) and are more deadly than previously thought. Yet people still think guys went through there with 1960's tech. Even if the tech to survive the radiation belts was available the tech to lift enough weight to survive the radiation belts with a single rocket was not available. Both NAZI Von Braun and Russia's guys have confirmed as much.

...and those silly videos allegedly from the ISS with so called "astro-nots" in their harnesses "levitating" with their arms always folded in front of them...please NASA, just stop. It's insulting. It ain't 1970 anymore...people know what green screens are. They know what special effects look like guys.
 
Last edited:

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
648
Likes
1,078
Location
Southern MN
'Fake' Apollo Moon Landing
I have struggled with this for years, as I worked on the telemetry system, LEM/ORS (Lunar Excursion Module/Orbital Rendezvous System) at Hughes T.E.L. in Tucson AZ. in 1968. Being what I thought was part of the design of the guidance system, this has been difficult for me to swallow. The evidence has become overwhelming. What a sad fucking farce !!!!
A short vid. that is good. (it might have be posted at GIM2 before, but here it is !)
Unlike all of the other proof over the years about the moon landing hoax, this video will examine how NASA themselves have inadvertently admitted that we never went to the moon nor are we still able to go to this day.
I didn't even have to get a minute in before he made the claim about "no stars". He already showed how naive he is about photography. Not sure how much further I'll get on that vid.
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
11,876
Likes
19,082
Location
ORYGUN
I didn't even have to get a minute in before he made the claim about "no stars". He already showed how naive he is about photography. Not sure how much further I'll get on that vid.
I have taken 100's if not 1,000's of photo's with stars, I don't understand your point.
It is a short vid. please watch all of it, then comment.
 

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
648
Likes
1,078
Location
Southern MN
I have taken 100's if not 1,000's of photo's with stars, I don't understand your point.
It is a short vid. please watch all of it, then comment.
I will do. My point, that I have made here before with real examples, is if you take a picture with the moon and expose it long enough to show stars the moon will be grossly over exposed. I don't understand why most of the videos like this don't seem to understand that fact.

Edited to add, one example: http://goldismoney2.com/threads/fake-apollo-moon-landing.164095/page-18#post-1300006
 

#48Fan

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 14, 2014
Messages
468
Likes
345
I will do. My point, that I have made here before with real examples, is if you take a picture with the moon and expose it long enough to show stars the moon will be grossly over exposed. I don't understand why most of the videos like this don't seem to understand that fact.

Edited to add, one example: http://goldismoney2.com/threads/fake-apollo-moon-landing.164095/page-18#post-1300006
And I have maintained that you can't get a decent photograph with a manual focus camera strapped to your chest wearing hockey gloves and a helmet on. Not to mention perfectly composed like the ones they released as "proof".
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,047
Likes
7,596
I'm pretty sure NASA faked the whole moon landing thing and I'm just as sure the Earth is a globe.
Oh they faked it alright.

...and if the Earth is in fact a pear shaped oblate spheroid it ain't 24,901 miles in circumference. It would have to be much larger. There's entirely too much missing curvature.

I did try to watch the first video you posted up there, but the presenter almost immediately began hurling insults and sounded like he was full of himself. Arrogant crap is crap. I shut it down...the dude is a total dick.
And I have maintained that you can't get a decent photograph with a manual focus camera strapped to your chest wearing hockey gloves and a helmet on. Not to mention perfectly composed like the ones they released as "proof".
I tried that approach, but cat is unfortunately immune to logic. I even asked why one couldn't simply adjust the exposure and snap a pic of the stars from the moon...or orbit, but I received no response.

My own opinion is that this was not done by any Apollo actor because they couldn't create a convincing fake of the stars from the moon in 1969. Can you even imagine how damning such a pic would be now with modern computers and simulations? It'd be brutal. Same can be said of realtime video of the Earth in 1969. Very difficult to impossible in 1969.
 
Last edited:

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
648
Likes
1,078
Location
Southern MN
And I have maintained that you can't get a decent photograph with a manual focus camera strapped to your chest wearing hockey gloves and a helmet on. Not to mention perfectly composed like the ones they released as "proof".
I then pointed out that what they did photographically isn't much more difficult than what I have done while doing astrophotography outside bundled up in sub zero temperatures in so many layers it is hard to move fumbling a camera at odd angles attached to a telescope in order to point at the targeted area of the the sky and doing manual focus. Doing what they did and the much shorter exposures required for the kind of things they were shooting I really fail to see that as convincing evidence of a hoax.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,047
Likes
7,596
So essentially they can take perfect pics of guys in fold up electric dune buggies, but a pic of the stars is not do-able? That sounds...convenient.
 

Bigjon

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
2,352
Likes
2,220
Oh they faked it alright.

...and if the Earth is in fact a pear shaped oblate spheroid it ain't 24,901 miles in circumference. It would have to be much larger. There's entirely too much missing curvature.

I did try to watch the first video you posted up there, but the presenter almost immediately began hurling insults and sounded like he was full of himself. Arrogant crap is crap. I shut it down...the dude is a total dick.

I tried that approach, but cat is unfortunately immune to logic. I even asked why one couldn't simply adjust the exposure and snap a pic of the stars from the moon...or orbit, but I received no response.

My own opinion is that this was not done by any Apollo actor because they couldn't create a convincing fake of the stars from the moon in 1969. Can you even imagine how damning such a pic would be now with modern computers and simulations? It'd be brutal. Same can be said of realtime video of the Earth in 1969. Very difficult to impossible in 1969.
I see no harm in you believing BS.
Go ahead and be a believer.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,047
Likes
7,596

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
648
Likes
1,078
Location
Southern MN
I have taken 100's if not 1,000's of photo's with stars, I don't understand your point.
It is a short vid. please watch all of it, then comment.
Okay I watched the whole video. In it, I found one potentially valid point among everything stated which I point out below.

Okay, let me see how credible this video is and try to break down his points.

The movements of the wavy flag actually are a good indicator it was in a low pressure environment. You can see the bar supporting the flag. It moves exactly how one would expect in that environment.

The lack of the blast crater has been covered extensively in this thread, I wouldn't expect a big blast crater under those circumstances.

The lack of stars, I just addressed. The moon would be grossly over exposed. There would be problems with reflection and glare all over the place as they were in direct sunlight. It actually would not be too hard of a challenge if you had the right equipment but it wouldn't be easy to make it look nice and what would be the motivation to even do that when there is all this new stuff to photograph?

He states airplanes fly at and above 10 miles (52,800 feet), most comercial planes fly around 39,000 feet.

It's worth solving the challenges beyond LEO before sending people because it has been so long that everything essentially needs to be rebuilt.

The astronaut stating "The beginning of human beings leaving LEO" - I'll give you this, in this entire discussion that was the best piece of evidence presented for this being a hoax so far. Not enough to sway me, given the other evidence, but I'll give you that, one good point in the video and so far the best point made on this thread. I wonder what the full context is of what she said. Again, best point so far.

It's true that right now we can only fly in LEO. Mostly was a budget decision, the money is in LEO. So I don't get a lot from the statement from the next astronaut quoted.

The upper atmosphere, where the temperature is high the air pressure is extremely low so while it may be very hot how do you suppose the heat will conduct well enough to pass on that heat to the material? It's a pretty simple concept really.

What do you feel was the best point on the video, or the most compelling evidence for a hoax?
 

#48Fan

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 14, 2014
Messages
468
Likes
345
When you take pics through your telescope, is it on a tripod? Do you sight it in through an eyepiece? Or do you just point and shoot from your beer chair and guessedimate? When you do this, do you have perfect shutter speed/f stop no matter where you steer your telescope? If so, how often does it work out for you?