An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

Originally posted by jra
...
1 - Any test pilot, be it in space or on Earth in a plane, could die.
...
2 - LM was an earlier version then the ones used in the later missions. It could not land on the Moon, as it was too heavy to take off from the Lunar surface.
...

Originally posted by Big-Brain
Another illogical thing: Stafford, Cernan and Young made all the operations to test landing on the moon with big ability. They have understood and were able to solve all the problems, all the difficulties.
Why did NASA’s swaggerers send Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins?

3 - I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here.

1 - No, you are wrong. Pilots of dangerous war planes can catapult out and save their life.

2 – No, you are wrong
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

The LM Snoopy mass including propellants was 13,941 kg.

Apollo 11 LM mass was 14,696 kg

3 – If you have 3 skilful pilots that have already test all the operations suitable to land on the moon, why do you send on the moon 3 other persons?

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Test pilots knew the job was risky (there was a time in the 1950s and early 1960s that test pilots were dying at the rate of one per week).

If what you are saying was true, no pilot would have hazarded his life.
At Langley crane pilots could have tested LM in a safe manner suspended with cables.

Originally posted by ngchunter
By the way, since the sun is positioned "east" of the camera in this image, those ARE craters.

Looking at that picture, I see bubbles with the sun positioned "west".

reply to post by Big-Brain


First of all, BB....159 pages, and still all of these very kind, very patient people attempting, and succeeding, in explaining very simple, sometimes complex, issues, yet still there is no understanding?

You see bubbles, on the Moon? When in fact, they are craters.

The human brain evolved on Earth, and is accustomed to seeing what is going to look 'natural' to us, at a glance.

Trying to look at photos, some varying by resolution, and equating them to your experience as a human on Earth means you must be somewhat educated first, and have an ability to differentiate from your pre-conceived notions, based on Earth experience, and learn to realize how physics work, how things ACTUALLY happen in space (not in Hollywood movies).

There are plenty of links on the internet to explain an optical illusion to you...I've seen things, where you see a concave face, then it appears to be convex...it's a point of view....

Originally posted by weedwhacker

There are plenty of links on the internet to explain an optical illusion to you...I've seen things, where you see a concave face, then it appears to be convex...it's a point of view....

Even if I continue to observe that image, I see bubbles. I'm very sorry.

Originally posted by Big-Brain

Originally posted by ngchunter
By the way, since the sun is positioned "east" of the camera in this image, those ARE craters.

Looking at that picture, I see bubbles with the sun positioned "west".

Good job ignoring the bulk of my post with all the proof of my statement. If those were bubbles with the sun positioned west, why do the shadows end abruptly at the end of every one of the "bubbles"? They should bleed over into surrounding terrain and they definately should not have highlights at the end of the shadows indicating a crater ridge. What you claim to "see" doesn't matter, your perception does not dictate reality. Only what you can prove matters. You never addressed any of these facts that falsify your "bubble" claim.

[edit on 7-4-2008 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by Big-Brain

Originally posted by weedwhacker

There are plenty of links on the internet to explain an optical illusion to you...I've seen things, where you see a concave face, then it appears to be convex...it's a point of view....

Even if I continue to observe that image, I see bubbles. I'm very sorry.

BB, I accept your apology.

Now, could you care to offer an apology to all others who have continued to post here, jra and ngchunter, to name just a few...oh, I forgot, soylent green is people...who have tried, patiently, to explain matters of science and astrophysics to you?

Could you also apologize for posting a picture, in a post up above, showing alleged 'lunar rover tracks'....I'm referring to the picture where someone (you?) placed an arrow showing the landing site of Apollo 11.

What I am trying to point out (besides the incredible inanity of the alleged LRV tracks) is....there WAS no LRV on Apollo 11. Only three Apollo missions crried an LRV, and that were the last three....

So....waiting for an apology to all of us, for time wasted.....

[added text]

[edit on 4/7/0808 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by Big-Brain
No, you are wrong
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

The LM Snoopy mass including propellants was 13,941 kg.

Apollo 11 LM mass was 14,696 kg

You're right on that part. But the Apollo 10 LM still couldn't land. The ascent module had propellant limitations and wouldn't have enough to reach Lunar orbit, if it landed.

If you have 3 skilful pilots that have already test all the operations suitable to land on the moon, why do you send on the moon 3 other persons?

Well they were all skillful pilots. And I assume they wanted all of them to gain real experience. It wouldn't be good to use the same three every time don't you think?

If what you are saying was true, no pilot would have hazarded his life.

Well it is true and pilots did indeed risk there lives. Ever see the movie called "The Right Stuff"? If not, I recommend it.

reply to post by jra


jra, I also recommend the movie 'Apollo 13'....starring Tom Hanks.

Cuz, Tom Hanks IS the nicest guy in Hollywood, after all...and it's directed by Ron Howard, the second nicest guy in Hollywood...heck!! He was Opie for nut's sake!!

WW

Interestingly I saw an article today which mentioned that NASA's current return plans for the moon are in trouble, because they cannot reproduce the insulation used during Apollo 11. Apparently the insulation contained a higher percentage of "fiction" than is possible in today's technology.

Thank god for that amazing gold foil which protected the astronauts from the devistating radiation which prevents them from leaving the protection of the earth's electromagnetic field today.

I hope they didn't loose the formula for that too!

reply to post by Cyberbian


cite the article please

Originally posted by Cyberbian
Interestingly I saw an article today which mentioned that NASA's current return plans for the moon are in trouble, because they cannot reproduce the insulation used during Apollo 11. Apparently the insulation contained a higher percentage of "fiction" than is possible in today's technology.

Thank god for that amazing gold foil which protected the astronauts from the devistating radiation which prevents them from leaving the protection of the earth's electromagnetic field today.

I hope they didn't loose the formula for that too!

I will second, others on this site....please provide corroboration to confirm your statement. Because, without proof, then a statement is simply an opinon, and one not based on fact at all, anyway.....

Originally posted by Cyberbian
Interestingly I saw an article today which mentioned that NASA's current return plans for the moon are in trouble, because they cannot reproduce the insulation used during Apollo 11. Apparently the insulation contained a higher percentage of "fiction" than is possible in today's technology.

Thank god for that amazing gold foil which protected the astronauts from the devistating radiation which prevents them from leaving the protection of the earth's electromagnetic field today.

I hope they didn't loose the formula for that too!

It's this amazing thing called cardboard, and you know what it can do? It can block particle radiation! You know what the Van Allen belts trap, contain, and protect earth from? Particle radiation! Now for future space missions we'll probably use something slightly more durable, like polyethylene, but the principle is the same. Fibrous material with a low atomic number is ideal for blocking particle radiation without generating much bremsstrahlung radiation.

Now as others have asked, please cite your source for such things as the idea that NASA can't reproduce apollo's radiation shielding and the idea that the gold mylar foil used in apollo was there to block particle radiation (since you said that it substitutes for the earth's electromagnetic field, that can only mean particle radiation). Let me preemptively help you out some: NASA has found that the polyethylene they installed on the ISS to protect it from particle radiation in the lower parts of the Van Allen belts (known as the South Atlantic Anomaly) isn't working as well as they hoped because there's still too much aluminum underneath that's generating bremsstrahlung. The "gold foil" used on the LM, which was actually mylar, was not there to block "deadly radiation," it was there to insulate the spacecraft from the heat of the sun so that the electronics wouldn't overheat. If you want proof, just go to any NASA visitor center or museum: they sell the exact same material at NASA gift shops as a "space blanket"!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
...
What I am trying to point out (besides the incredible inanity of the alleged LRV tracks) is....there WAS no LRV on Apollo 11. Only three Apollo missions crried an LRV, and that were the last three....
So....waiting for an apology to all of us, for time wasted.....

You are too serious and don't understand my humour.

Here we are talking about true or fake moon landings, but the real problems of the world are others: recession, more and more expensive oil and life, oil that will finish in a short time, no new energy found or invented, increase of temperature, pollution, dramatic increase of world population, chinese and indian dangerous expansion, juvenil alcoholism, drug and violence.

What does it matter if you went or not to the moon?
With regard to the boundless universe it is as if an ant has climbed 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000001 mm over Everest.

In fact these 3 poor men are not too proud

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Big-Brain


Oh so now when you get called on it, it was just a joke and the discussion "isn't important"? I don't see any indication in your previous posts that your claim of "buggy tracks" was a joke, it looked quite serious to me. Likewise, I never saw any indication that your bubble claim was a joke. When confronted with facts that disprove your claims, rather than admit you were wrong, you chalk it up to a joke and try to change the subject. It's like a frustrating game of whack-a-mole that goes on without ending.

I find it insulting that you claim our study of this historical event is unimportant. It was the only time in human history where man was able to make something out of conflict and adversity that will stand the test of time permanently. Artifacts from our exploration will remain standing long after this civilization has died. If it did not actually happen it would mean that billions of dollars were spent and 600 million people were fooled in the most-watched event in human history by about 400,000 amazing liars who have kept their story straight for more than 40 years without a single one coming out with the "truth."

Our problems on earth will NEVER be completely solved because we are imperfect by nature, and that will NEVER be completely overcome. That does not mean we should stop exploring just because we haven't solved every ill of our society. If that were the case, america should never have been discovered by the europeans. If the moon landings did not happen, then the most watched event in human history is a lie. That's a gigantic claim, which requires incredible proof. So far, I do not see one shred of proof of this claim, just baseless accusations and lies that are easily dispelled by a wide range of evidence that we did go. The photo I posted the other day is just one more straw on the camel's broken back, a straw you have consistently failed to refute.

Originally posted by ngchunter
reply to post by Big-Brain

 

I find it insulting that you claim our study of this historical event is unimportant. It was the only time in human history where man was able to make something out of conflict and adversity that will stand the test of time permanently. Artifacts from our exploration will remain standing long after this civilization has died. If it did not actually happen it would mean that billions of dollars were spent and 600 million people were fooled in the most-watched event in human history by about 400,000 amazing liars who have kept their story straight for more than 40 years without a single one coming out with the "truth."

Our problems on earth will NEVER be completely solved because we are imperfect by nature, and that will NEVER be completely overcome. That does not mean we should stop exploring just because we haven't solved every ill of our society. If that were the case, america should never have been discovered by the europeans. If the moon landings did not happen, then the most watched event in human history is a lie. That's a gigantic claim, which requires incredible proof. So far, I do not see one shred of proof of this claim, just baseless accusations and lies that are easily dispelled by a wide range of evidence that we did go. The photo I posted the other day is just one more straw on the camel's broken back, a straw you have consistently failed to refute.

Have a star...that was one of the best posts ive ever read and applies not only to this topic but manty many more here on ATS.

Just been watching a Nat Geo documentary about the formation of the solar system.

Turns out the rock brought back from the Moon (or not, according to some) raised serious issues with the conventional theory of our solar system's formations.

The petrology record on the Moon suggests that a cataclysmic
spike in the cratering rate occurred ,700 million years after the
planets formed; this event is known as the Late Heavy Bombardment
(LHB). Planetary formation theories cannot naturally
account for an intense period of planetesimal bombardment so
late in Solar System history2.

www.nature.com...

Now, if these rocks are fakes, isn't that a bit odd?

I'd say it's the smoking gun that proves we went to the Moon

(unless of course the whole thing was faked by the NWO in which case anything's possible - the 'rocks' were probably made of gorgonzola .... )

Originally posted by ngchunter
...
The photo I posted the other day is just one more straw on the camel's broken back, a straw you have consistently failed to refute.

I've found a picture in which there is another misterious disturbance

www.geocities.com...

With Photoshop you can do what you want.

...
If the moon landings did not happen, then the most watched event in human history is a lie. That's a gigantic claim, which requires incredible proof.

No, you are wrong. You must demonstrate with incredible proof that you went to the moon.

People is gullible: people have believed that a steel tower of 500,000 ton
can raze to the ground hit by a ridiculous plane of 150 ton

But you are talking with me, bigbrain, the man that forced NASA's swaggerers to rotate Tempel 1 pictures 90 and 120 degrees since I unmasked their stupid artist that created the comet with a face of a bad animal.

I've beaten NASA's swaggerers.

Originally posted by Big-Brain

Originally posted by ngchunter
...
The photo I posted the other day is just one more straw on the camel's broken back, a straw you have consistently failed to refute.

I've found a picture in which there is another misterious disturbance

www.geocities.com...

With Photoshop you can do what you want.

LOL! That's about the most blatant forgery I've ever seen. What in the world is that supposed to prove? That you can get caught manipulating a photo? Sure, you can, and you just did. You're right, you must be kidding around because I find it very hard to take this latest reply seriously. The burden of proof is still on you though to prove that the original photo was somehow faked.

...
If the moon landings did not happen, then the most watched event in human history is a lie. That's a gigantic claim, which requires incredible proof.

No, you are wrong. You must demonstrate with incredible proof that you went to the moon.

Here we go again, already been done to death on this thread and in a million other places. We have moon rocks that have not made a high speed atmospheric entry, we have tons and tons of photos and video, not a single original of which contains any real proof of fakery, we have independent confirmation from other countries of Apollo's telemetry and data signals, and we have independent photographs of the mission in progress on its way to and from the moon. Not only is this proof incredible, it is irrefutable. There was simply NO way in the late 60's and early 70's to fake low gravity dust arcs in a vacuum in the manner seen in the apollo videos. No vacuum chamber was large enough to film the rover and no hypothetical non-existent chamber large enough to do the job could be airlifted into the parabolic arcs required to simulate low gravity.

People is gullible: people have believed that a steel tower of 500,000 ton
can raze to the ground hit by a ridiculous plane of 150 ton

Totally off topic and irrelevant. Scientists are not gullible, they would not be fooled by NASA or anyone else. I will not address this kind of response again though as it is completely out of the scope of this thread and this forum.

But you are talking with me, bigbrain, the man that forced NASA's swaggerers to rotate Tempel 1 pictures 90 and 120 degrees since I unmasked their stupid artist that created the comet with a face of a bad animal.

I've beaten NASA's swaggerers.

Awfully arrogant and wrong. You still haven't refuted the amateur images I showed you that provide a completely independent confirmation of Deep Impact.

reply to post by expatwhite


Thanks expatwhite! The more I get into refuting apollo hoax theories the more I learn about how the feat was accomplished and the greater the respect I have for the achievement.

Originally posted by ngchunter
...
If the moon landings did not happen, then the most watched event in human history is a lie. That's a gigantic claim, which requires incredible proof.
...
Scientists are not gullible, they would not be fooled by NASA or anyone else.

Scientists are gullible as normal people. You have seen what I've said during Twin Towers collapse.
Have you heard any scientists who have said that a 500,000 ton steel tower can't collapse that way, can't raze to the ground as if it was made by butter?

Scientists have said "it's normal" when you telecasted landings on the moon from 20th Century Fox studios and they have said "it's normal" when two incredibly powerful towers collapsed hit by two ludicrous 150 ton planes. In fact they were pulverized with explosives.

Returning to the subject, try to refute my reasoning: you will land on the moon for the first time. You have developed an incredible technology, you have solved a lot of problems, difficulties. You will have to overcome unforseen events, very dangerous circumstances.
To test your biggest technology you have sent 3 pilots close to the moon 13 km. Practically they have almost reached the moon closest to the ground.
Stafford had demonstrated to be a smart pilot.

But you have not yet landed on the moon and you must still do it for the first time.

Instead of sending Stafford, Cernan and Young to the moon for the first time, since they had been closest to its groung - 13 km, a poorest distance - what did NASA's swaggerers invent?

Like wizards, they extracted from the hat 3 new pilots as landing on the moon was child's play.

IT'S NOT LOGICAL, IT'S ABSURD AND ARE THESE ABSURD THINGS THAT SAY YOU NEVER WENT TO THE MOON.

Originally posted by Big-Brain

Originally posted by ngchunter
...
If the moon landings did not happen, then the most watched event in human history is a lie. That's a gigantic claim, which requires incredible proof.
...
Scientists are not gullible, they would not be fooled by NASA or anyone else.

Scientists are gullible as normal people. You have seen what I've said during Twin Towers collapse.

I refuse to respond to this, I refuse to let you derail the thread off topic and get me banned along with yourself yet again. If you want to talk about 9/11, do it on the 9/11 forum. There is a place for that discussion and if you want to bring it up, go there. It has no bearing here. You can't fool geologists into thinking that earth rocks are actually 4 billion year old moon rocks. There are simply too many differences.

Have you heard any scientists who have said that a 500,000 ton steel tower can't collapse that way, can't raze to the ground as if it was made by butter?

Of course not, like I said, scientists are not gullible and they do not buy into the rantings of the untrained layman without real proof. But once again, this is completely off topic. It seems like the more I demand you stay on topic the more you try to derail it. I refuse to talk about this because, apparently unlike you, I don't want to be banned.

Scientists have said "it's normal" when you telecasted landings on the moon from 20th Century Fox studios and they have said "it's normal" when two incredibly powerful towers collapsed hit by two ludicrous 150 ton planes. In fact they were pulverized with explosives.

Good lord, you really want to wind up banned again, don't you? Every sentence so far is designed to de-rail the thread! You have yet to prove or even lend credence to the outlandish theory that the moon landing telecasts came from "20th century fox studios."

Returning to the subject, try to refute my reasoning: you will land on the moon for the first time. You have developed an incredible technology, you have solved a lot of problems, difficulties. You will have to overcome unforseen events, very dangerous circumstances.
To test your biggest technology you have sent 3 pilots close to the moon 13 km. Practically they have almost reached the moon closest to the ground.
Stafford had demonstrated to be a smart pilot.

But you have not yet landed on the moon and you must still do it for the first time.

Instead of sending Stafford, Cernan and Young to the moon for the first time, since they had been closest to its groung - 13 km, a poorest distance - what did NASA's swaggerers invent?

Like wizards, they extracted from the hat 3 new pilots as landing on the moon was child's play.

Nice try (not really, but I'm trying my best to be curtious), but the crew of apollo 11 were anything but "new pilots." Let's look at Neil's experience prior to apollo 11:
Naval aviator from 1949 - 1952
Test pilot for high speed aircraft, including the X-15 project (data from which would be used to build the space shuttle years later), he flew over 200 models of aircraft, helicopters, and gliders.
Gained astronaut status in 1962
Commander of Gemini 8 - as commander of Gemini 8, Armstrong performed the first docking of two vehicles in space.
www.nasa.gov...
Yeah, this "new pilot" had been flying military and experimental aircraft for 20 years.

IT'S NOT LOGICAL, IT'S ABSURD AND ARE THESE ABSURD THINGS THAT SAY YOU NEVER WENT TO THE MOON.

Is shouting really necessary? What's absurd is the assertion that they should have assigned the same 3 astronauts to every mission. Do you have any idea how long they train for a single mission with unique objectives and a unique flightplan? Furthermore your logic just doesn't hold up, even to modern examples. By your logic we should be assigning the same pilot and commander on every shuttle mission, we have never assigned the same astronaut to consecutive shuttle missions (the only exception being when a mission specialist goes to the space station on one mission but does not return until the next). Here's an even better example, spaceship one. In order to win the X-Prize, Spaceship One had to repeat its trip into space twice within 2 weeks. On the first flight into space, the pilot was Mike Melvill. On the first flight problems were encountered with wind sheer and the pilot had to skillfully correct. They made it back safely, but they did not plan to attempt the second flight in time for the prize, instead preparing for 2 later flights for the prize. On the second flight into space, the spacecraft went into a roll that could have endangered its ability to return safely. Melvill skillfully recovered, and all was well. On the third flight though, suddenly they substituted in a "new pilot," Brian Binnie, who hadn't flown the craft in almost a year! By your logic, we should automatically assume that spaceship one was a hoax... despite the fact that it was witnessed by a large crowd at Mojave Spaceport... Your reasoning just doesn't hold any water at all.