Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

The Constellation project was planned to 'return' men to the moon by 2018, then by 2020.

This plan had taken every step into account, to make it a great success...

By far the most important factor was in already having all of the required technology, which was proven to work so weil, years before..

This was Apollo's technology, of course.

They called it 'heritage technology' during the Constellation project...

It was proven, mature technology we already had used, and so, they planned to use it again...


It failed, though.

And the reason it failed, as stated in the Gov't report, was a lack of mature technology, required for this very same mission!!

Which obviously includes Apollo's technology, after they tried using it and failed, and looked for new technology instead, but failed in the effort.

That's where we are, today...

originally posted by: turbonium1

And the reason it failed, as stated in the Gov't report, was a lack of mature technology, required for this very same mission!!

Which obviously includes Apollo's technology, after they tried using it and failed, and looked for new technology instead, but failed in the effort.

lack of mature technology?? apollo hardware is outdated its not mature..

and can you show us when and where they tried using it??? can you show us where and when they built Apollo hardware and it didnt live up to what it was supposed to do? perhaps an article showing us that between 1990-2016 somewhere the guberment built a fully operational Saturn V with command module and lunar module and all and when they went to test it it blew up when they pressed the ignition switch.

you are the one saying that they tried to use it and it failed so obviously you have some sort of secret knowledge that no one else has.

originally posted by: choos

im not excluding them.
i am saying that the radiation dosage received when exposed to it for two weeks is comparatively INSIGNIFICANT.. there are more important design feature to design for than to specifically design a shield to completely protect against GCR's.

The reports say you are wrong, obviously.

They insist on one main point - that aluminum is not only a poor shield in deep space, it makes the radiation EVEN WORSE than it was before! They will NOT use aluminum shielding for deep space, for that very reason!

That is in their own reports. Word for word.

You have tried to put words in their mouths, to fit your argument.

You keep on claiming that they actually don't mean this for any short-term missions, which is utter nonsense. You can see what they say, and still, you just make up what they don't say, but 'meant', anyway...

Putting words in their mouths, just as you always do..

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

And the reason it failed, as stated in the Gov't report, was a lack of mature technology, required for this very same mission!!

Which obviously includes Apollo's technology, after they tried using it and failed, and looked for new technology instead, but failed in the effort.

lack of mature technology?? apollo hardware is outdated its not mature..

and can you show us when and where they tried using it??? can you show us where and when they built Apollo hardware and it didnt live up to what it was supposed to do? perhaps an article showing us that between 1990-2016 somewhere the guberment built a fully operational Saturn V with command module and lunar module and all and when they went to test it it blew up when they pressed the ignition switch.

you are the one saying that they tried to use it and it failed so obviously you have some sort of secret knowledge that no one else has.

The report states they were told to use 'heritage technology' , as much as possible, in fact.

Now, even they don't know why it was NOT used, because they are puzzled about what the hell happened!

We DO know they didn't use it, for sure, and that's all that really matters here.

It doesn't matter at what point they decided to drop it, since it was, indeed, dropped somewhere along the way...

And even after they had been told to use this technology, as much as possible?!?

So that is your serious problem!

a reply to: turbonium1

no not for that very reason.. the reason they said was because it was not economically viable to use aluminium as an effective shield.. and it is for this very reason..

im not putting words in their mouth because the report states this clearly.

We DO know they didn't use it, for sure, and that's all that really matters here.

no you clearly said "after they tried using it and failed", and now you are saying they didnt use it..

make up your mind first before jumping to conclusions.. so which one is it??

a reply to: turbonium1

The Orion command module will use an aluminum-lithium alloy with a felt-like thermal blanket. The idea is to use low z elements to mitigate the effects of bremstrahlung. There are other options being investigated for long term missions, including wrapping the spacecraft in foam. None of this is relevant to the Apollo missions, which spent less than two weeks in cislunar space.

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: turbonium1

no not for that very reason.. the reason they said was because it was not economically viable to use aluminium as an effective shield.. and it is for this very reason..

im not putting words in their mouth because the report states this clearly.

Where are quotes from the reports to support your claim, then?

It is just nonsense, as usual...

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: turbonium1

The Orion command module will use an aluminum-lithium alloy with a felt-like thermal blanket. The idea is to use low z elements to mitigate the effects of bremstrahlung. There are other options being investigated for long term missions, including wrapping the spacecraft in foam. None of this is relevant to the Apollo missions, which spent less than two weeks in cislunar space.

They specified which missions are relevant, for sure...

They are deep space manned missions, specifically.

This applies to all manned missions into deep space.

No exceptions made on short-stays, or long-stays...


Deny it all you want, it makes no difference to me...

originally posted by: choos

no you clearly said "after they tried using it and failed", and now you are saying they didnt use it..

make up your mind first before jumping to conclusions.. so which one is it??

You are confused, that's all..


We know they didn't use the Apollo technology, as I said.

However, we also know they were instructed to USE it, at first...

Iirc, they asked old Apollo engineers to help them out...

Anyway, they must have tried to do it with Apollo technology at first, because they were told to do it, and they failed to make it work...like I said.

Imagine another example -

The Wright Brothers invented the first successful airplane. They built a few of these airplanes, and they flew for a few years.

Then, no airplanes were ever built again, for the next 50 years.

After 50 years, someone decided to build another airplane once again.

The old technology worked, and there was nothing else developed in 50 years time, except a few things, anyway..

So they decided to use the Wright Bros technology to build their new airplane...

But they failed in the attempt, soon after.


Nobody ever knew why it failed to work, and no airplane has been built since then, either!!


It must have been due to a lack of money, you see!!

a reply to: turbonium1

Airplanes have obvious economic benefits, so that is a bad example. How about this: Let's say someone wanted to descend to the deepest part of the ocean. It would require the development and construction of expensive, specialized equipment that does not have any real economic application. Once someone succeeds in doing it, it might be half a century before someone else has the money and motivation to do it again... and that is exactly what happened.

a reply to: turbonium1

Why don't you help us out here and find the exact words that were used instead of just, oh I don't know, making stuff up?

Got that evidence for us yet? You've had a week, surely that's enough time to dig up the stone cold proof you think is out there?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: turbonium1

Airplanes have obvious economic benefits, so that is a bad example. How about this: Let's say someone wanted to descend to the deepest part of the ocean. It would require the development and construction of expensive, specialized equipment that does not have any real economic application. Once someone succeeds in doing it, it might be half a century before someone else has the money and motivation to do it again... and that is exactly what happened.

Trieste is the only example ever used to compare with Apollo. Now, why would that be, considering countless other examples in history don't compare to Apollo??


Because, in fact, the incredible claims of Trieste was just another hoax! You're comparing one hoax to another hoax, like others before you have tried and failed with...

I won't get into the details of Trieste, since it's off-topic. But it is a total hoax, I know that for sure.

Apollo and Trieste share a few traits in common as hoaxes ...

They were both far beyond anything done to that point. They were both incredible, massive achievements in human technological progress. What should take a century of progress happened in a few years time, which is a clear sign of being hoaxed.

After both achievements, they remain unmatched for decades, if ever matched.....this is despite our having far greater, far advanced technologies, too. A very obvious sign of a hoax, for sure.

Both have virtually no way to verify being done, no valid evidence to support the claims, which are all signs of hoaxes.


Technology goes forward, not backward. Any technologically-based achievement will always be repeatable. They never become an impossibility to repeat, decades later, if they were ever possible at all.

The Apollo LM is a great example...

It had to work in an alien environment, with technology that can't be tested on Earth, and somehow, it worked perfectly the first time, and every other time, too.

Not like today. We have yet to build another lunar lander. With over 40 years of progress, on top of having built one already so great with old primitive technologies!

Before long, we'll soon forget how to build the wheel, and cars will have 4 wooden blocks!!

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: turbonium1

The Orion command module will use an aluminum-lithium alloy with a felt-like thermal blanket. The idea is to use low z elements to mitigate the effects of bremstrahlung. There are other options being investigated for long term missions, including wrapping the spacecraft in foam. None of this is relevant to the Apollo missions, which spent less than two weeks in cislunar space.

Constellation was planning a short-term mission, which failed miserably. Saying we're trying to start with long-term missions is just another ridiculous excuse.

Aluminum could not have shielded astronauts going to the moon, which Apollo claimed to do. Not possible.

a reply to: turbonium1

The denial is strong in this one. I assume you believe James Cameron and the National Geographic Society are also propagating hoaxes? What would be the motivation for the Trieste hoax? The Cameron hoax?

a reply to: turbonium1

exactly what element of the LM " could not be tested on earth " ??????????????

a reply to: turbonium1

Aluminum could not have shielded astronauts going to the moon, which Apollo claimed to do. Not possible.

Not according to the leading Soviet authority at the time:



www.abovetopsecret.com...

(But you already knew that, didn't you?)

a reply to: turbonium1

Do tell us which time you think was the first time it was used.