An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

reply to post by _bigbrain_

1. You keep saying it is impossible to land a rocket backwards, even though I have shown you (on a few occasions over the past months) video of a thrusted craft that flies much like the LEM:

Here's one from NASA with the news media watching:
www.youtube.com...

Here's another craft from Britain in the 1950's (yes, they were able to do this in the 1950's):
www.youtube.com...

If you have any reason to believe that these videos are somehow faked (even though the news media witnessed these flights), then please explain how...don't come back in a few weeks saying the same old "It's impossible to land going backwards".

2. You repeatedly say that the AGC (guidance computer) was not powerful enough to control the LEM. But it has been explained to you before that it doesn't take that much computing power...If the gyroscopes tell the computer the LEM is leaning one direction, the computer tells one of the 16 Reaction control thrusters to fire. The more the lean, the longer the thruster fires. It's actually quite a simple bit of engineering, and not a lot of data for the computer to handle.

...but, I suppose you again will choose to ignore this and again state next month that the computers were not powerful enough (without any proof to back your claim).

3. It has also been explained EXACTLY what the gantry (crane) at the Langely Research center was used for -- to hold up cables and pulleys that simulated 1/6 gravity for walking astronauts and for LEM simulators. They also painted the floor with craters to give the astronauts more of a sense of being on the Moon. NASA is big on immersing the astronauts with sensory familiarity so when the do get to the Moon, their brains feel as if they have been there before. This facility was not a secret. Newsman Walter Cronkite visited there in the 1960s and was suited up with cables so he could feel the 1/6 gravity.

What proof do YOU have that they did anything at the Langley facility that would help support your claim of a Moon Hoax?? Please tell me.

But, of course in a couple of weeks, you will be again asking "why did they build that crane", even though we have answered this question numerous times.

Please have some proof to back up your same old claims, or find something new for us to discuss.

Originally posted by _bigbrain_Imagine you are piloting inside the rocket. You can't react in time because you can't see where you are falling down.

The LEM had windows. They could see the surface of the Moon through these windows (even though they could not see the LEM's feet)

Using your argument, a Harrier pilot can't land vertically because he can't see his main landing gear on the ground (nor can any conventional plane's pilots see the plane's wheels touch the ground).

[edit on 3/19/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Soylent, you are deserving of Sainthood, for your continuing cogent responses to the nonsense being spouted from "He Who Must Not be Named!"

[LOL!]

Best, WeedWhacker (which means nothing, of course, it's just a screenname...)

Originally posted by _bigbrain_

You are right but the Shuttle is not a rocket that must land going backwards. Space Shuttle is a plane and lands like planes. And today we have not computers with 32k RAM.

In space the shuttle acts just like any other rocket. There's no air to speak of up there, the only way to control it is with thrusters, and the only way to deorbit it is to use the OMS engines while "going backwards." How is that situation any different from the issue you claim the LEM would experience? Aside from actually landing on a surface while in a vacuum, it's not different at all; both situations demand exact attitude control. By the way, the original shuttle AP-101 computer system had only 104K of memory, not a far cry from the days of Apollo.

If we did land on the moon in 69 (which I have doubts about...I think we actually achieved this a few years later) it is likely that current photographic and filming capabilities were severely limited- so a program was faked because we did not have the technology to film in those conditions- this would explain a lot.

My belief that we did not land on the moon in 1969 is based on the fact that the filmed evidence has long since been proven to be a dramatic interpretation of the actual events. The film we saw was in my opinion propaganda to raise money to actually do it and beat the competition in the space race. It's not out of the question for the government to have these types of "fund raisers".

The broadcast and film was terrible and the powers that be brought the controversy on themselves for their pisspoor job. I think they raised sufficient funding to make it happen shortly after.

It doesn't really matter at this point in time as we are probably colonizing the moon by now and there are probably people living there already.

reply to post by dk3000


dk3000, again you amaze us with your opinions!!

Just guessing here, you can correct me if wrong...you're probably young, right?

I only ask because we, who were alive in 1969 and saw the events happen, can stand in awe of the accomplishments. We lived in an era before home PCs, before PhotoShop, before 'Star Wars', when stuff could not be faked as easily as it can today! THIS is the dis-connect happening, right in front of our eyes!

A new generation, bred on Hollywood SFX, takes a look at archival Apollo footage and cries 'Fake!' because these kids think it should look a certain way, based on what they saw on TV. Well, kids, it ain't so!

Real space travel, at least what NASA shows us, is NOTHING like what you see in Star Wars, or Star Trek, or Space:1999 or Battlestar Gallactica or any other imagined spece-faring show. Kubrick's '2001: A Space Odyssey' came closest, but even they messed up the Lunar surface depictions.....because the movie was made in 1968!!!

Every time you watch a show and see a spaceship whizzing past, and hear a 'whoosh'...you are being entertained, not educated. It is dramatic to have a sound as the ship flies by, but it is technically wrong.

So, entertainment is not education...please remember this.

Originally posted by dk3000My belief that we did not land on the moon in 1969 is based on the fact that the filmed evidence has long since been proven to be a dramatic interpretation of the actual events.

really ?

please cite which footage is a " dramatic interpretation "

and what the evidence is that ` proves it `

The broadcast and film was terrible and the powers that be brought the controversy on themselves for their pisspoor job. I think they raised sufficient funding to make it happen shortly after.

when EXACTLY , please tell us the launch dates of these later moon missions - where they were launched from and the platform used

as for " fundraising " post 1972 - the funding was cut - they had already spent the money on apollo where is your " fund raising " coming from ???



[edit on 20-3-2008 by ignorant_ape]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by dk3000

 

dk3000, again you amaze us with your opinions!!

Just guessing here, you can correct me if wrong...you're probably young, right?

I only ask because we, who were alive in 1969 and saw the events happen, can stand in awe of the accomplishments. We lived in an era before home PCs, before PhotoShop, before 'Star Wars', when stuff could not be faked as easily as it can today! THIS is the dis-connect happening, right in front of our eyes!

A new generation, bred on Hollywood SFX, takes a look at archival Apollo footage and cries 'Fake!' because these kids think it should look a certain way, based on what they saw on TV. Well, kids, it ain't so!

Real space travel, at least what NASA shows us, is NOTHING like what you see in Star Wars, or Star Trek, or Space:1999 or Battlestar Gallactica or any other imagined spece-faring show. Kubrick's '2001: A Space Odyssey' came closest, but even they messed up the Lunar surface depictions.....because the movie was made in 1968!!!

Every time you watch a show and see a spaceship whizzing past, and hear a 'whoosh'...you are being entertained, not educated. It is dramatic to have a sound as the ship flies by, but it is technically wrong.

So, entertainment is not education...please remember this.

I agree with you on many levels and I am in my early 40's so, yes I am young. I was an entertainment executive for years so my knowledge on this subject comes from very talented experts who all stated that the broadcast seen in 1969 was a dramatic interpretation. Also, a very big studio executive told me and several people that the show was filmed on stage 18 at 20th Century Fox. These are private conversation and were not designed to inform the public as studios are heavily invested in politics and when making films and shows about war, military, government and anything else which may require the assistance of these agencies- well lets just say public comments are strictly adhered to in order for the continued assistance and permissions remain granted. Studios do this because of the immense expense in reproducing events and places and machines requires this. Within the entertainment industry this is not discussed as conspiracy crap- it just what it is.

My opinion and the information given to me by executives and talent is that the event was staged. This is not to say it didn't actually happen- its just what was seen then was not actual footage. All of my former colleagues agree that we have conquered the moon- but not as reported which opens much debate as to what is true and what is drama.

I draw my conclusions from my experience of it and I do not remember the actual event as I was a very young pup at the time.

Staged propaganda is very effective and quite often we see staged events because they are much more effective than the actual event itself. There is nothing nefarious about it.

Yes, there is a very real possibility that we did reach the moon in 1969- but what was shown on television was staged. Sorry- but it was- and this is why there has been controversy and conspiracy surrounding the moon landing broadcast of 1969.

reply to post by dk3000


dk3000, I apologize for thinking you were a youngster. Actually, that would be a compliment, in other venues, but since the internet is anonymous, I hope you can forgive my assumption.

Fascinating info....thanks for that. I was 12 years old on 1969, so you can now do the math...(b/d is in April 1957)

Based on you Lat/Long I guess you're still in SoCal? I grew up there, not living there now, hope to get back soon...preferably San Diego.

Back to the subject....if you actually have knowledge of a deception, we would all like to know. We are adults here...we can take it!

Originally posted by dk3000
My belief that we did not land on the moon in 1969 is based on the fact that the filmed evidence has long since been proven to be a dramatic interpretation of the actual events.

I must echo Ignorant_ape and ask for this supposed evidence which you claim proves the Apollo 11 footage to be a "dramatic interpretation of the actual events".

I have never seen any such evidence. Could you please provide it?

The film we saw was in my opinion propaganda to raise money to actually do it and beat the competition in the space race. It's not out of the question for the government to have these types of "fund raisers".

This makes no sense to me. How would making this "dramatic interpretation of the actual events" raise money to go to the Moon? The billions NASA got before the wasn't enough? NASA's budget peaked in 1966, thats three years before Apollo 11. NASA's budget continued to drop after that, so the budget records don't match up with your claims at all.

Soylent Green Is People, that was an excellent post. Very well said.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
...
Here's another craft from Britain in the 1950's (yes, they were able to do this in the 1950's):
www.youtube.com...
...

Congratulations.
That Lunar Lander of 1950's seems capable to keep vertical attitude and to land going backwards.

Then it's possible to build a Lunar Lander that can be tested on the Earth.

Why didn't NASA engineers test LEM on the Earth?

It was enough to use a more powerful engine.

That british rocket is similar to this:



Langley Crane, in your opinion, would have been built to test 1/6 gravity.

How can you do it suspended to a crane?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by dk3000

 

dk3000, I apologize for thinking you were a youngster. Actually, that would be a compliment, in other venues, but since the internet is anonymous, I hope you can forgive my assumption.

Fascinating info....thanks for that. I was 12 years old on 1969, so you can now do the math...(b/d is in April 1957)

Based on you Lat/Long I guess you're still in SoCal? I grew up there, not living there now, hope to get back soon...preferably San Diego.

Back to the subject....if you actually have knowledge of a deception, we would all like to know. We are adults here...we can take it!

We have all made assumptions and because of my lack of formal education- my limited verbal and grammatical skills can easily bring many to the same conclusion!

In any event- the studio executive I am talking about is A.C. Lyles- whom became more of a figurehead emeritus for Paramount Studios. He is basically a very good guy (in a ratty exploitive business) and is known for just speaking out truths. As I said before- I do not think it was a deception- rather it was a more palatable show of what occurred and it served many positive purposes. It was really a marketing campaign for the space program and I don't see anything nefarious in that.

You must remember that Hollywood is used to create propaganda and receive favors in exchange and these favors are necessary to keep film/tv budgets from skyrocketing.

Now that the entertainment industry has become broader in scope due to independent film makers the rules have changed somewhat and having the opportunity to speak with an executive of the old order- clears up many misconceptions.

For a long time I didn't think the moon landing was real because of the enormous expense which it would take- and given the budget the space program had at its disposal made it impossible. Now was there money being filtered into the space program that the people and congress were not aware of? That's possible, definitely likely- but it remains unverifiable- hence speculations abound. Naturally when I heard of the stage at 20th being used- I threw a lot out the window- the baby with the bath water so to speak.

I stand that Hollywood filming the lunar landing as a staged event was not deception- it merely drama that once revealed discredited the event as having happened.

At a party at A.C.'s house he was screening all kinds of propaganda films- to amuse his guests and some of them were really out there and many were never used- but just as many were. Most people have no idea the lengths that Hollywood went to to gain access and favor to many governments- not just our own!

Here is one I found on the net that I saw at A.C.'s:

www.youtube.com...

More and more of these are finding their way onto the net because many oldtimers have come clean and or have been infiltrated by young controversial assistants.

He screened one about the health benefits of smoking from the AMA which was off the charts hilarious propaganda from the 1930's. I hope to come across it again some day.


Mod Note: Please Stay on Topic– Review This Link.


[edit on 21-3-2008 by Jbird]

reply to post by dk3000


dk3000, just read your post, but didn't see the YTube link yet, so I'm writing off the cuff here...

I have heard of the 'links' to Hollywood and the alleged 'fakery' of Apollo before...I have not, until today, seen anyone give such a vivid 'first hand' account before.

So, dk3000, I will now go see the YT link you provided. I wanted to post this first, in memoriam, as it were.....

[spelling]

[edit on 20-3-2008 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by dk3000


dk3000, do you understand the term 'rick rolling'??

This is something that is taken very seriously by the owners of ATS.

You can be 'warned', and have points debited, or you will have your entire account deleted because of that link to YouTube.

Since I happened to go to one of the four High Schools that were mentioned in the video...remember, it was Inglewood High School, Lawndale High School, Leuzinger High School and Hawthorne High School (where the Beach Boys went...) I will not report this to Mods.

I strongly suggest you look up the term 'rick rolling' and understand the consequences.

[side note...thanks for taking me back...now, get OUT OF MY HEAD!!!!!]

[deleted]

[edit on 20-3-2008 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by dk3000
...
Yes, there is a very real possibility that we did reach the moon in 1969- but what was shown on television was staged. Sorry- but it was- and this is why there has been controversy and conspiracy surrounding the moon landing broadcast of 1969.

No, you didn't reach the moon in 1969. You never went to the moon.

You staged the landing on the moon and the reentry to win space race.

You didn't have technology to land on the moon with a rocket that had to land going backwards.

In fact there is no picture or video that shows LEM tested on the earth at Langley Crane because NASA engineers were not able to build such a rocket.

The strangest thing that makes ludicrous your show filmed on stage 18 at 20th Century Fox is that you landed on the moon 6 times in 3 years roving on its surface with some moon buggies.

You have wanted to exaggerate, to go beyond what people is disposed to believe.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by dk3000

 

dk3000, do you understand the term 'rick rolling'??

This is something that is taken very seriously by the owners of ATS.

You can be 'warned', and have points debited, or you will have your entire account deleted because of that link to YouTube.

Since I happened to go to one of the four High Schools that were mentioned in the video...remember, it was Inglewood High School, Lawndale High School, Leuzinger High School and Hawthorne High School (where the Beach Boys went...) I will not report this to Mods.

I strongly suggest you look up the term 'rick rolling' and understand the consequences.

[side note...thanks for taking me back...now, get OUT OF MY HEAD!!!!!]

I assure I did not rick roll. When I googled it my screen went runny and rick astley was sing a stupid song from the eighties and I had to shut my computer off!!

So whatever violation you are accusing me of- I assure you I had no clue. When I clicked the youtube link I provided it showed the propaganda film I told you about.

Again- this film about homosexuality was part of a series of clips I saw as an attempt at humor many years ago to a party I attended and that is all. This party happened waaaaaaaay before the net was even the big deal it is today. If somehow that link is now tagged or possibly I am tagged and causing this I will no longer post links and nor will I disclose people I was once in association with.

People can either listen to me or not. I really don't care anymore. I just hope I reach someone and help them get a better footing to try in deal with all this "stuff". This is really my only intention.

So as frustration and strange as this reply is- I guess I should have just said I have no idea what your are talking about.

btw, I never liked Rick Astley and now he is more famous than ever- apparently.

Originally posted by _bigbrain_

Originally posted by dk3000
...
Yes, there is a very real possibility that we did reach the moon in 1969- but what was shown on television was staged. Sorry- but it was- and this is why there has been controversy and conspiracy surrounding the moon landing broadcast of 1969.

No, you didn't reach the moon in 1969. You never went to the moon.

You staged the landing on the moon and the reentry to win space race.

You didn't have technology to land on the moon with a rocket that had to land going backwards.

In fact there is no picture or video that shows LEM tested on the earth at Langley Crane because NASA engineers were not able to build such a rocket.

The strangest thing that makes ludicrous your show filmed on stage 18 at 20th Century Fox is that you landed on the moon 6 times in 3 years roving on its surface with some moon buggies.

You have wanted to exaggerate, to go beyond what people is disposed to believe.

I never said we did land on the moon. I did not say we didn't either. I merely opened my mouth in exposing the staged footage.

reply to post by dk3000


dk3000....you fell victim to a person who we are trying to educate regarding how spaeccraft actually work, in real life. Our 'bigbrain' friend is being taught, step by step.

As to 'faking' the 1969 landings??? My gosh, we didn't have the technology back then to fake it!

We do now, have the tech....but that's not the point, is it? WE did not have the tech to fake it 40 years ago! Simple as that...the masses of Lunar samples, the massive amount of photos, the thousands of people required, here on Earth, to carry out the landings....THOUSANDS of people, most civilians...yet NONE has ever come forward to 'swear' on their deathbed what the deniers want to hear....Apollo happened, pure and simple.

BTW, regarding tech....we are still not able to resolve, to the resolution necessary, images on the Moons's surface...Why? Because there is no need to spend the money to take pictures of something we already know is there!?!?!? Get it?

Yeah, so many deniers want to see pics of the landing sites...but are they willing to pay for it? AND, even if they saw pics, they's likely say they were fake. SO, damned it you do, damned if you don't....

[edit on 21-3-2008 by weedwhacker]

It's a rare occasion when I have to disagree with you, weedwhacker. Despite your most noble intentions, our -bigbrain- friend (the troll of many names) is not "learning, step by step."

He refuses to learn even the most basic scientific priciples. Again and again he eats up bandwidth with the same inane arguments and baseless assertions.

In response to –bigbrain_ and his idea of craft not landing backwards:

Now correct me if I am wrong, but a rocket landing backwards is not that different to a rocket being launched vertically from the ground. Thrust while accelerating vs. thrust while decelerating. All is possible thanks to the gyroscopes. Even back in WWII Hitler used them in the V2’s, and was controlled by a simple analog computer, primitive by late 60’s.