An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

Originally posted by maninblack
It is kind of to say the moon landings were faked,or else were would we have gotten moon rock from?
But I think more happend at the moon landing then we know.

Like trying to get through the "Van Allen" radiation belt. Which has been said to have tripled since we were supposed to have been on the moon. Anyone have anymore information on that. The heat shield on a shuttle would never make it back according to sources.

Originally posted by SkyChild_5
Like trying to get through the "Van Allen" radiation belt. Which has been said to have tripled since we were supposed to have been on the moon. Anyone have anymore information on that. The heat shield on a shuttle would never make it back according to sources.

I'm not sure what is supposed to be meant by "The heat shield on a shuttle would never make it back according to sources." as the heat shield on a shuttle has got bog all to do with Radiation or the Van Allen belt - hence the term 'heat shield' and not 'radiation shield'. It wouldn't have any effect on it anyway.
Nor have we ever left orbit with a shuttle nor do we intend to, even to go back to the Moon. I'd think about changing sources to be honest.

Here's some info:

The Van Allen Belt's Impact on Space Travel

Solar cells, integrated circuits, and sensors can be damaged by radiation. In 1962, the Van Allen belts were temporarily amplified by a high-altitude nuclear explosion and several satellites ceased operation. Magnetic storms occasionally damage electronic components on spacecraft. Miniaturization and digitization of electronics and logic circuits have made satellites more vulnerable to radiation, as incoming ions may be as large as the circuit's charge. The Hubble Space Telescope, among other satellites, often has its sensors turned off when passing through regions of intense radiation.

A object satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminum will receive about 2500 rem (3) (25 Sv) per year.

Conspiracy theorists have argued that space travel to the moon is impossible because the Van Allen radiation would kill or incapacitate an astronaut who made the trip. In practice, even at the peak of the belts, one could live for several months without receiving a lethal dose.

Apollo nevertheless deliberately timed their launches, and used lunar transfer orbits that only skirted the edge of the belt over the equator to minimise the radiation. Astronauts that have travelled to the moon probably have an increased lifetime risk of cancer, but would be expected not to (and did not) have noticeable illness.

www.answers.com...

So if a satellite shielded by 3mm of Aluminium will receive 2500 rem per year then that's:

2500 (rem) / 365 (days) / 24 (hours) = approx 0.29 REM per hour

If it took about 0.5 hours to travel through the Van Allen belts in one trip you would be looking at about 0.15 REM - two way trip so double that and your looking at a dose of about 0.30 REM. That's all with only 3mm Aluminium shielding.

Dosages and their affects for humans being:

Dose-rem Effects
5-20 Possible late effects; possible chromosomal damage.
20-100 Temporary reduction in white blood cells.
100-200 Mild radiation sickness within a few hours: vomiting, diarrhea,
fatigue; reduction in resistance to infection.
200-300 Serious radiation sickness effects as in 100-200 rem and
hemorrhage; exposure is a Lethal Dose to 10-35% of the
population after 30 days (LD 10-35/30).
300-400 Serious radiation sickness; also marrow and intestine
destruction; LD 50-70/30.
400-1000 Acute illness, early death; LD 60-95/30.
1000-5000 Acute illness, early death in days; LD 100/10.

www.atomicarchive.com...

You may wish to also look at these pages:

If for any reason you are one of the unfortunate souls who have bought into this nonsense, you may want to know that the key irrefutable fact is that no matter how much the debunkers try to pull the wool over the eyes of the American public, the Apollo astronauts only received a harmless 1 rem (Roentgen Equivalent Man – a unit of measurement for biological radiation exposure) and that came from quick transfer through the Van Allen belts and not from the Sun or galactic cosmic rays. Extensive radiation research prior to any Apollo launch as well as statistics from real-time Apollo instrumentation both on the ground and in space proved this to be true. The potential dangers encountered in other aspects of the mission would have greatly overshadowed anything encountered regarding this problem. The danger of death from an engine failure was far greater than anything encountered in the radiation belts, as Apollo 13 proved.

This article should serve to responsibly inform the Moon Hoax Advocates about NASA’s extensive involvement and preparation to deal with Apollo’s radiation threat. It is a story of a well managed and successfully resolved issue. For the ones who are closed to knowledge or who are heavily invested in the idea that we didn’t go; don’t bother reading this. Truth can be a bitter pill to swallow.

www.lunaranomalies.com...

spider.ipac.caltech.edu...

spacetethers.com...

The critical problem is that when people hear the word 'Radiation' their mind conjures up all sorts of ideasd without any real basis other than what they've seen in relation to nuclear testing and Chernobyl, it's actually quite fascinating but probably not as exciting as in some people's imaginations. It certainly does not have an affect Space Shuttle heat tiles anyway! LOL

I think a crude but good example of how little can be used to block various types of radiation is suncream.
It forms a thin, invisible layer and yet effectively blocks out UV radiation that even the main atmosphere and ozone layer cannot. There is an example that you can witness yourself of what can be done with apparantly very little.

There is a wealth of information on the Lunar Journal site, including operation manuals for the Lunar Module, the suits, PLSS, etc.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

If you click on 'Introductory Material' at the top of the menu that has lots of technical info.

It contains all sorts of info, including the following:

All of the photos taken while the crews were outside the LM were taken at an exposure of 1/250th of a second at f/8 or f/11, excepting some polarization pictures taken at 1/125th of a second. The two film types were SO 368 Ektachrome MS color-reversal film ASA 64 and 2485 black and white film, ASA 6000.
Sky and Telescope Senior Editor Dennis di Cicco writes, "Sirius and a few other bright stars might actually be bright enough to have recorded on the exposures, but the images would be impossibly small and hard to find on the original negatives. Furthermore, when such a negative was printed to show the foreground properly, it certainly would not have shown the star(s)" di Cicco notes that it would be easy to perform such an experiment on Earth. "Go out at night with a similar setup used for the lunar photos and take a similar exposure of bright stars. Develop the film and see if you can find any star images. Then, have the negative printed with an exposure that would be proper for a normally exposed daylight negative. I am confident that you'll never, ever see a star on the print!"

Journal Contributor Markus Mehring writes, "Just to follow up on this, in theory, you'd have a better chance to spot stars on b/w photos than on color photos, since the b/w film has a wider contrast range (which was one reason why it was used so much, the other reason being its superior sharpness). But Dennis is, of course, perfectly right; while the light from a star would certainly suffice to have a chemical effect on the film emulsion, you'd never be able to see this if the film is developed regularly. If you wanted to see those stars, you'd need to pull up the contrast so much during development of the film that the objects of interest on the Moon - astronauts, rocks, mountains - would be totally overexposed. And this is, of course, never done, since these are the objects of interest in these photos." Science writer James Oberg recently called my attention to an experiment he conducted in 1979, similar to the one di Ciccio describes above. Oberg writes, "Here are two images I made in 1979 as an experiment in response to Bill Kaysing's first book on the 'Apollo Hoax', where he asked about the stars. I set up my camera on a tripod outside under a bright streetlight, took one shot with an exposure to capture me (about 1/4 second), then took a second one with a 30-sec exposure to capture the stars which had been behind me all the time, but simply hadn't registered in the illuminated scene. Anybody can perform this experiment and thereby get the answer to the phony question, 'Where are the stars?"

[edit on 6-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

Agentsmith,

Today we have science illiterates educated by science illiterates right here on the web ! Because they seek no other sources, they are led to one feeble idea after another. They glue fantasy and science, science and religion, political gain and science all into one steaming bundle and call it "New Truth", worship it.

Originally posted by bodebliss
Agentsmith,

Today we have science illiterates educated by science illiterates right here on the web ! Because they seek no other sources, they are led to one feeble idea after another. They glue fantasy and science, science and religion, political gain and science all into one steaming bundle and call it "New Truth", worship it.

I know you are speaking to Agent here, but I just want to say that I'm not a science illiterate. I just don't believe everything I'm told by the scientists. You don't have to be a genius scientist or have a Ph.D in physics to use common sense. If something hits you as a big HOAX, well maybe it just is a big hoax. As I've said before in my troll-like way, we are not able to go to the moon today in 2005. It is impossible in the year 2005 to go to the moon. In 10 years NASA has made big promises to send a voyage to the moon just to check out the radiation on the surface of the moon so they can figure out how to make spacesuits for astroNOTs for a possible future moon landing far down the road.

Do you seriously believe that we "lost the plans" of the Apollo landings and now we have to start all over again? You seriously think technology has evolved backwards? I don't believe in evolution, but I do know that technology tends to advance in a forward direction, not a backwards direction.

This is just common sense. Are we allowed to factor that into this discussion?

Then there's the matter of the hokey space suits. Just click on the links that Agent put up about the spacesuits for the space shuttle people and how they are currently made. They are only a few hundred miles above earth, yet these suits are much heavier and the spacemen are connected by a lifeline to the ship. The astroNOTs had no lifeline and were on the moon for eight hours, having worn spacesuits for 10 days while using catheters and poop bags. Where does the perspiration go? All that body heat is contained in that spacesuit. Those hokey cool packs did not and could not keep the astroNOTs alive for 8 hours on the moon.

The moon lander. What a joke. The astroNOTs had time to wrap all that foil all around it and cover the top with all that black cloth? And still go digging? And assembling a moon buggy -- all the while wearing catheters and poop bags? Staying cool and getting oxygen for eight hours in a vacuum in 275 degrees with no protection but their spacesuits and cool packs? Taking tons of pictures that time studies have shown would be impossible to do even if that was all they did was take pictures.

NASA doesn't even care that their pictures have shadows going in all different directions, the same pasted in backgrounds, that their moon lander looks like a Halloween prank, or something thrown together as a stage prop for a high school play (that supposedly took off and met the "mother ship" 60 miles up in the air and headed back to Earth (snicker) -- they don't care because they know that all they have to do is provide some kind of excuse, ANY excuse, and people like you and Agent will believe it. (like the "gases" released around the windows that made it seem like the sky was blue).

And of course on the moon you can see stars. You just look up and there they are. The sky is black. If you are not looking at the sun you will see stars. For NASA to say it is impossible to see any stars on the moon is just plain a lie. But some people will believe anything NASA says, even though NASA is run and controlled by Illuminati -- the ultimate liars, deceivers, and destroyers on Planet Earth.

Just because you've familiarized yourself with all of NASA's lame excuses for all these things does not make you any more knowledgeable about science than some others, who may not know those kinds of details (because for one thing it's not even science, but rather just political junk) -- but who may know lots of other things about science that you don't even have a clue about. Science does not begin and end with NASA. Science and NASA are not synonomous.

Rather:

NASA equals corrupted Military
equals Military Industrial Complex
equals Illuminati
equals UFO deception
equals NWO
equals universal mind control and universal microchipping
equals Grand Worldwide Political Deception.

[edit on 6-11-2005 by resistance]

Originally posted by AgentSmith
This is something you would learn if you studied the fundamentals of Magick, but I expect you think that's evil.

Re: the eqyptian stuff... is that a Kemetic statement, your making?

Originally posted by resistance
No matter where it takes me, that's where I want to go. So I am not a flat-
earth hermit muttering from my cave.

Anyway, re: the moon, which is what this thread should be about, I have to say I went from hoax-beleiver, to total hoax-sceptic, thanks to this site www.clavius.org.

It answers every single question a hoaxer can think of.. I've talked with these guys at length. Even the Van Allen is a closed issue now. Trust me, it's pretty clear now NASA went to the moon.

What they found there is another matter.

[edit on 6/11/05 by SteveR]

Originally posted by resistance
As I've said before in my troll-like way, we are not able to go to the moon today in 2005. It is impossible in the year 2005 to go to the moon. In 10 years NASA has made big promises to send a voyage to the moon just to check out the radiation on the surface of the moon so they can figure out how to make spacesuits for astroNOTs for a possible future moon landing far down the road.

Well technically we can go to the moon, we just don't have a vehicle designed for it now. It's not that we don't have the abillity or the know how, we just lack the money to get there.

Do you seriously believe that we "lost the plans" of the Apollo landings and now we have to start all over again? You seriously think technology has evolved backwards? I don't believe in evolution, but I do know that technology tends to advance in a forward direction, not a backwards direction.

How has technology advanced backwards? The shuttle is more advanced then the Apollo spacecraft. The shuttle can't go to the moon, but that doesn't make it less advanced. It's a different vehicle for a different job.

As for the "lost plans" well here's what I found out about that in my research

Taken from here
Despite a widespread belief to the contrary, the Saturn V blueprints
have not been lost. They are kept at Marshall Space Flight Center on
microfilm. The Federal Archives in East Point, GA also has 2900 cubic
feet of Saturn documents. Rocketdyne has in its archives dozens of
volumes from its Knowledge Retention Program. This effort was initiated
in the late '60s to document every facet of F-1 and J-2 engine
production to assist in any future re-start.

The problem in re-creating the Saturn V is not finding the drawings, it
is finding vendors who can supply mid-1960's vintage hardware (like
guidance system components), and the fact that the launch pads and VAB
have been converted to Space Shuttle use, so you have no place to launch
from.

By the time you redesign to accommodate available hardware and re-modify
the launch pads, you may as well have started from scratch with a clean
sheet design.

So they arn't lost. I don't know where that whole idea started that they were. It wouldn't make sense to rebuild them anyway. Perhaps use them for reference, but it would be cheaper to build it from scratch like they said.

Then there's the matter of the hokey space suits. Just click on the links that Agent put up about the spacesuits for the space shuttle people and how they are currently made. They are only a few hundred miles above earth, yet these suits are much heavier and the spacemen are connected by a lifeline to the ship. The astroNOTs had no lifeline and were on the moon for eight hours, having worn spacesuits for 10 days while using catheters and poop bags. Where does the perspiration go? All that body heat is contained in that spacesuit. Those hokey cool packs did not and could not keep the astroNOTs alive for 8 hours on the moon.

Wow you sure are a broken record. Repeating the same stuff over and over and over. What does the weight of the suit have to do with anything? Also I believe that "lifeline" that's connected to the ship is nothing more than a tether. When you're in zero gravity, orbiting the Earth at 17580 miles/hour. You're going to have to be connected to your shuttle/station for safety reasons. Here is a bunch of information on the modern spacesuits or, Extravehicular Mobility Units (EMUs) as they call them.

From here.

During ascent to and descent from orbit, Space Shuttle astronauts wear special orange partial pressure suits with helmet, gloves, and boots in case of a loss of cabin pressure. Once in orbit, crewmembers inside the Shuttle enjoy shirtsleeve comfort. To work in the Shuttle's open cargo bay or perform other tasks outside the spacecraft, they don spacesuits known as extravehicular mobility units (EMUs), more durable and flexible than any previous suits. The EMU is modular enabling it to be built up from a number of parts depending on the particular task in hand. Also, the upper torso, lower torso, arms, and gloves are not individually tailored but made in a variety of sizes that can be put together in combinations to fit any-sized crewmember, man or woman. Each suit has supplies for a 6.5-hour spacewalk plus a 30-minute reserve and is pressurized to just under one third of atmospheric pressure. Before donning the suit, astronauts spend several hours breathing pure oxygen because the suit also uses 100% oxygen whereas the habitable decks on the Shuttle use an Earth-normal 21% oxygen/79% nitrogen mixture at atmospheric pressure (reduced to 0.69 atmosphere before an EVA). This preparation is necessary to remove nitrogen dissolved in body fluids to prevent its release as gas bubbles when pressure is reduced, a condition commonly called the bends.

The following parts of the EMU go on first: a urine-collection device, a liquid-cooled undergarment plumbed with 100 m of plastic tubing through which water circulates, an in-suit drink bag containing 600 grams of potable water, a communications system (known as the Snoopy Cap) with headphones and microphones, and a biomedical instrumentation package. Next the astronaut pulls on the flexible lower torso assembly before rising into the stiff upper section which hangs on the wall of the airlock. The upper torso is a hard fiberglass structure that contains the primary life support system and the display control module. Connections between the two parts must be aligned to enable circulation of water and gas into the liquid cooling ventilation garment and return. Then the gloves are added and finally the extravehicular visor and helmet assembly.

The moon lander. What a joke. The astroNOTs had time to wrap all that foil all around it and cover the top with all that black cloth? And still go digging?

Umm... what? The astronauts did not wrap the foil and what not on themselves, that was done way before launch. Where did you get this crazy idea?

And assembling a moon buggy -- all the while wearing catheters and poop bags?

Assembling the lunar rover was fairly easy, it just unfolded more or less. There are a bunch of .pdf documents here. If you click on the first one and go to page 97, it shows a step by step diagram of how one unfolds the chassis.

Taking tons of pictures that time studies have shown would be impossible to do even if that was all they did was take pictures.

Didn't we go over all this before? I already went over all the photography stuff a long time ago. Have you forgotten or did you just ignore what I had writen then? It doesn't take long to take a bunch of photos. It wouldn't have affected there rock gathering and all that.

NASA doesn't even care that their pictures have shadows going in all different directions,

But they arn't going in all different directions. Some become bent and distorted by an uneven surface.

the same pasted in backgrounds,

We covered this too. You keep repeating the same garbage and never try to counter our argument. I've explained a dozen times why and how the same mountains can appear in multiple photos.

that their moon lander looks like a Halloween prank, or something thrown together as a stage prop for a high school play (that supposedly took off and met the "mother ship" 60 miles up in the air and headed back to Earth (snicker)

I've shown pics and diagrams of the construction of the LM and that it's a very sturdy craft. Only the outside is covered in the foil like material. What is wrong with that? Explain to me why this shouldn't work other than that it looks silly to you. Do you have any actual reason to believe it shouldn't work?

they don't care because they know that all they have to do is provide some kind of excuse, ANY excuse, and people like you and Agent will believe it. (like the "gases" released around the windows that made it seem like the sky was blue).

What the hell are you talking about? The glass scattered the light. To the astronauts it would have looked dark outside, but the camera would have had a somewhat long exposure, thus picking up a lot more light and making it a white/blue. If you have a camera. Try taking a photo indoors. Make sure the exposure is set appropriately. Now make sure to get an outdoor facing window in the shot. The window should be bright white or very nearly.

And of course on the moon you can see stars. You just look up and there they are. The sky is black. If you are not looking at the sun you will see stars.

Yes, but the camera needs a good 10 seconds more or less, to get them to expose onto the film. Human eyes work differently then cameras. I've always said that it's the camera that cannot pickup the stars on film. The some astronauts could see them. Although harder to on the moon surface because it was very bright.

For NASA to say it is impossible to see any stars on the moon is just plain a lie.

Please show me where they said this, thank you.

But some people will believe anything NASA says, even though NASA is run and controlled by Illuminati -- the ultimate liars, deceivers, and destroyers on Planet Earth.

NASA is a civillian agency with dozens of outside contracted companies.

Science does not begin and end with NASA. Science and NASA are not synonomous.

No kidding...

[edit on 6-11-2005 by jra]

Originally posted by jra

they don't care because they know that all they have to do is provide some kind of excuse, ANY excuse, and people like you and Agent will believe it. (like the "gases" released around the windows that made it seem like the sky was blue).

What the hell are you talking about? The glass scattered the light. To the astronauts it would have looked dark outside, but the camera would have had a somewhat long exposure, thus picking up a lot more light and making it a white/blue. If you have a camera. Try taking a photo indoors. Make sure the exposure is set appropriately. Now make sure to get an outdoor facing window in the shot. The window should be bright white or very nearly.
[edit on 6-11-2005 by jra]

Sorry my fault for not explaining it well enough, here is a good write-up explaining what causes the effect:

Easy. It's "new car smell". No. Seriously.

"New car smell" is the gaseous product produced by newly manufactured polymers and resins that go into making a new car. These gases often deposit on the windshield and show up as a hazy film. After a while the substances "cure" and stop outgassing. The "new car" smell goes away.

Anyone who has recently replaced a windshield can attest to this. The cements and gaskets used to seal the new windshield in place also similarly outgas, and this shows up as a sort of gook or film on the windshield. It's easily cleaned off with window cleaner. Consult a car dealer for proof of this phenomenon.

The Apollo command and lunar modules used similar construction techniques: gaskets and sealants. Only with the double-pane windows, the insides of the two surfaces could not be wiped clean prior to launch. There's really no way around this; the film doesn't develop until after the window is assembled so you can't just change the process. The CM and LM were also equipped with window heaters -- defrosters -- to ward off condensation. If you turn these on the gaskets outgas even more.

Besides, it doesn't really impede vision. You can see just fine through it, but it scatters sunlight. The film appears blue because blue light scatters more readily than red -- the same reason the sky is blue.

The broad answer is that the window glows because there's some sort of contamination on it. I've listed one possible source of contamination. Another is condensation. A third, applicable chiefly to the CM, is contamination from the launch escape system (LES) attached to the boost protective cover (BPC). This was a cone-shaped shroud attached to the escape tower. When it was no longer needed it was jettisoned by releasing the attachments and firing the motor. The motor used the same fuel as the space shuttle SRBs, and so produces a lot of residue. On at least one mission this combined with moisture trapped on the windows under the BPC and then dried in spots. There are photographs of this.

If you pay attention to footage from the ISS or the space shuttle you see that the earth does not glow uniformly blue as seen from orbit. Further, the "clouds" some hoax believers claim are visible are quite obviously the reflections of sunlit objects in the cabin.

www.bautforum.com...

Mod edit: removed quote

[edit on 7-11-2005 by sanctum]

Originally posted by SteveR

Anyway, re: the moon, which is what this thread should be about, I have to say I went from hoax-beleiver, to total hoax-sceptic, thanks to this site www.clavius.org.

It answers every single question a hoaxer can think of.. I've talked with these guys at length. Even the Van Allen is a closed issue now. Trust me, it's pretty clear now NASA went to the moon.

What they found there is another matter.

[edit on 6/11/05 by SteveR]

Steve -- There's answers and then there's answers. I think these "answers" are pretty darned lame. But as I said before, if you guys want to believe in NASA that badly that you'll take any kind of lame explanation they want to offer, that's your choice.

I prefer to use the brain God gave me. It's obvious nobody went to the moon and never WILL go to the moon. When the fake "alien invasion" happens, remember that I told you it would, that it will result in "whirled peas" -- and the antichrist will rule. I know you guys will be thrilled to get your microchips and be good little soldiers in the NWO.


[edit on 7-11-2005 by resistance]

Originally posted by resistance
Agent, Where do you get the idea that NASA is a government agency? Private agencies don't get specific funding from the government. Man, you are even blinder than I thought you were.

What are you on about? I don't remember saying anything of the sort one way or another - I apologise if I did - but can you point out what I said and where? Is this another example of the turmoil in your head?

And I looked up 'lame' in the dictionary and guess what I found:

lame

adj 1: pathetically lacking in force or effectiveness; "a feeble excuse"; "a lame argument" [syn: feeble] 2: (of horses) disabled in the feet or legs [syn: spavined] 3: disabled in the feet or legs; "a crippled soldier"; "a game leg" [syn: crippled, halt, halting, game] n 1: someone who doesn't understand what is going on [syn: square] 2: a fabric interwoven with threads of metal; "she wore a gold lame dress" v : deprive of the use of a limb, especially a leg; "The accident has crippled her for life" [syn: cripple]

If anything's lame around here, it's not NASA or the scientific explanations (which if you understand science are actually pretty basic).
I worked most of them out by myself anyway, I didn't need to be told in the first place, nor did a lot of other people. As I said there is nothing wrong with not understand science, but don't think that those that do are some sort of retards, they are probably some of the most intelligent people on the planet. I expect you think intelligence is the work of the devil or something.

Going to the moon is not that unbelievable when you look at all the other technologies and achievements we have made over the years, even going back thousands of years to the pyramids and the science involved in their design and building.

Just look at the Channel Tunnel, The Space Shuttle, The ISS, Computers, Sky Scrapers, Bridges, Deep-Sea exploration (and the immense pressures involved), etc

With your attitude I'm suprised that you acknowledge the computer you are using exists or works let alone use it! You obviously have a deeply imbedded belief that science and God cannot co-exist, this is simply not true.
However you are entitled to your opinon of course, so you can happily carry on banging your rocks together and hooting if that's your thing.

[edit on 7-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by resistance

Originally posted by SteveR

Anyway, re: the moon, which is what this thread should be about, I have to say I went from hoax-beleiver, to total hoax-sceptic, thanks to this site www.clavius.org.

It answers every single question a hoaxer can think of.. I've talked with these guys at length. Even the Van Allen is a closed issue now. Trust me, it's pretty clear now NASA went to the moon.

What they found there is another matter.

[edit on 6/11/05 by SteveR]

Steve -- There's answers and then there's answers. I think these "answers" are pretty darned lame. But as I said before, if you guys want to believe in NASA that badly that you'll take any kind of lame explanation they want to offer, that's your choice.

I prefer to use the brain God gave me. It's obvious nobody went to the moon and never WILL go to the moon. When the fake "alien invasion" happens, remember that I told you it would, that it will result in "whirled peas" -- and the antichrist will rule. I know you guys will be thrilled to get your microchips and be good little soldiers in the NWO.

Agent, Where do you get the idea that NASA is a government agency? Private agencies don't get specific funding from the government. Man, you are even blinder than I thought you were.

Resistance, you appear to have a slight fixation with this. Why are you so convinced that we never went to the moon? Other people have put up posts that refute your points, but you keep repeating yourself. And where did the NWO stuff come from and what possible relevance does it have to this thread?
You say that the answers appear to be 'lame' but you don't say why. I think that you're forgetting about the correct use of Occam's Razor.

I started reading this thread at the very beginning and it has taken me several hours to go through everything. And I feel as if all that was for nothing. Now, don't get me wrong, I learned quite a few things I had never had a clue about before.

I was never one to really believe in the moon landing hoax. When I first heard of this conspiracy, I was intrigued, and started looking it up and researching it. As I do when I learn of any consperacy theory, I try to remain unbiased on whether it's true or not until I have gathered a sufficient amount of evidence.

What I knew of the moon hoax before, combined with what I have seen in this thread, I still believe that the moon landing was not a hoax and that we have in fact landed on the moon. Why? Because it is of my opinion that there is overwhelming evidence that supports that fact, while there is very little to no evidence that supports that it was a fake.

A lot of the claims by skeptics have been thoroughly disproved in this thread by members that have spent great amounts of time researching the subject and painstakingly detailing and chronicling why the evidence is true and not doctored. There are several links to reliable sources of information in their posts, while most of the links from skeptics are to websites made by individuals merely stating what they think happened, or what they heard from a friend of a friend who knew a guy that says he doctored photos for NASA and held vital information that could prove NASA and the entire United States government were lying about an event that several thousand people worked on. If that were true, don't you think the higher ups in the gov. would have them silenced?

Think about this: if there was a cover up, that means thousands upon thousands of people would be in on it. Anyone remotely involved with the space program (in any country, really) would be a liability if they one day decided to speak out about it.

It really annoys me when someone just refuses to accept evidence that is undeniably correct and true, just because they think it's "lame". If you want to think it's lame, go right ahead. That doesn't make it any less true. What irritates me even further is the fact that some are completely ignoring the fact that people dedicated their lifes' work to the cause of space exploration, and many lost their lives in the process. This is just plain disrespectful to the people who sacrificed so much to achieve a common goal, and disgraceful to their memory.

There has not been any sufficient evidence provided that the moon landings were a hoax, in my eyes. Referring to the Illuminati, NWO, Satan, and evil is irrelevant to the topic at hand. They in no way prove anything about this hoax.

Originally posted by jra

Well technically we can go to the moon, we just don't have a vehicle designed for it now. It's not that we don't have the abillity or the know how, we just lack the money to get there.

This is hilarious. What a LAME, LAME excuse.

Taken from here
Despite a widespread belief to the contrary, the Saturn V blueprints
have not been lost. They are kept at Marshall Space Flight Center on
microfilm. The Federal Archives in East Point, GA also has 2900 cubic
feet of Saturn documents. Rocketdyne has in its archives dozens of
volumes from its Knowledge Retention Program. This effort was initiated
in the late '60s to document every facet of F-1 and J-2 engine
production to assist in any future re-start.

The problem in re-creating the Saturn V is not finding the drawings, it
is finding vendors who can supply mid-1960's vintage hardware (like
guidance system components), and the fact that the launch pads and VAB
have been converted to Space Shuttle use, so you have no place to launch
from.

By the time you redesign to accommodate available hardware and re-modify
the launch pads, you may as well have started from scratch with a clean
sheet design.

Quite obviously if the 1960s vintage hardware, guidance system components are able to work better than anything we can now devise, then building them now would be no problem. Same with the launch pads. These excuses are even LAMER than WE LOST THE PLANS!!!!

What does the weight of the suit have to do with anything? Also I believe that "lifeline" that's connected to the ship is nothing more than a tether.

No, jra. There's a tether and there's also a lifeline that feeds oxygen and cooling to the spacepersons. If I sound like a broken record it's because this is first time any of you NASA junkies have even tried to deal with this point I've brought up. When it's been discussed and addressed I will drop it. I'm allowed to bring up the same point if it's not been discussed and settled on this forum.

Umm... what? The astronauts did not wrap the foil and what not on themselves, that was done way before launch. Where did you get this crazy idea?

You mean they landed with this foil already on and the black cloth all draped around on top? And it didn't burn up or fall off while they were zooming through space? Come on. Get real.



And assembling a moon buggy -- all the while wearing catheters and poop bags?

Didn't we go over all this before? I already went over all the photography stuff a long time ago. Have you forgotten or did you just ignore what I had writen then? It doesn't take long to take a bunch of photos. It wouldn't have affected there rock gathering and all that.

No, I rebutted what you said and you never answered me. I said if they could have taken all those pics if that's all they did and they didsn't have to move from one spot to another to take them, but obviously they did a lot more than stand in one place clicking pictures one after the others. That's assuming they weren't wearing pressurized gloves of course. The time management study proves they could not have taken all those pictures. Do you want me to go fish out the link again?

For NASA to say it is impossible to see any stars on the moon is just plain a lie. - your response to me was: Please show me where they said this, thank you.

Okay. I'm going to have to hunt this up. Basically over the years as NASA has been questioned on the subject of the stars, they have just taken the position that stars are just not visible from the moon, period. No sense beating about the bush and equivocating on that. What other position could they have taken once Armstrong and Collins committed themselves to that position publicly at their press conference?

NASA is a civillian agency with dozens of outside contracted companies.

NASA is a government agency that gets funds, and LOTS of them, appropriated by Congress.


[edit on 7-11-2005 by resistance]

I don't normally pick things apart with tweezers, but I'm a little amused now.

Originally posted by resistance

Originally posted by jra

Well technically we can go to the moon, we just don't have a vehicle designed for it now. It's not that we don't have the abillity or the know how, we just lack the money to get there.

This is hilarious. What a LAME, LAME excuse.

Taken from here
Despite a widespread belief to the contrary, the Saturn V blueprints
have not been lost. They are kept at Marshall Space Flight Center on
microfilm. The Federal Archives in East Point, GA also has 2900 cubic
feet of Saturn documents. Rocketdyne has in its archives dozens of
volumes from its Knowledge Retention Program. This effort was initiated
in the late '60s to document every facet of F-1 and J-2 engine
production to assist in any future re-start.

The problem in re-creating the Saturn V is not finding the drawings, it
is finding vendors who can supply mid-1960's vintage hardware (like
guidance system components), and the fact that the launch pads and VAB
have been converted to Space Shuttle use, so you have no place to launch
from.

By the time you redesign to accommodate available hardware and re-modify
the launch pads, you may as well have started from scratch with a clean
sheet design.

Quite obviously if the 1960s vintage hardware, guidance system components are able to work better than anything we can now devise, then building them now would be no problem. Same with the launch pads. These excuses are even LAMER than WE LOST THE PLANS!!!!

Umm... what? The astronauts did not wrap the foil and what not on themselves, that was done way before launch. Where did you get this crazy idea?

You mean they landed with this foil already on and the black cloth all draped around on top? And it didn't burn up or fall off while they were zooming through space? Come on. Get real.

[edit on 7-11-2005 by resistance]

oookay.... late take a look at the above. First things first, the Apollo programme cost a lot of money. It was propelled by a combination of money and the need to fulfill Kennedy's promise to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade (and beat the Soviets, he might have added, sotto voce). So there was the political will behind it. Once they got there - and the programme hit the start of the 70's and the economic turmoil therein which meant that they needed the money, which was in the order of billions - that political will weakened, especially as there was no realistic 'and now what do we do?' plan in place. The need to find funding is not a lame excuse, Resistance. It is a cold hard fact. the money has to come from somewhere. At the moment the resources of the US are going into the War Effort in Iraq. I won't mention that as I might start to foam at the mouth.
Next up, please read the past posts. They aren't saying that the Saturn V was wonderful and lovely because 60's tech was better then anything we have now. They're saying that the parts made the rocket. Change the parts and you change the rocket. So you can't build a Saturn V using modern parts, because the plans rely on 60's tech. It's a simple point. A modern Saturn V would look different if it was made from modern parts. Horses for courses.
And the last point - zooming through space with foil and black felt wrapped around it. You seem to think that 'zooming' is possible in space. It's a vibrant word that brings to mind things flapping in the breeze. Well, there's obviously no breeze in space, as it's a vacuum. So what's your point? There's nothing out there to burn it off! The moon has no atmosphere, so as the LEM descended there was no heat friction. The LEM was stored in the main part of the third stage I think - it was pulled out, attached to the Command Module and off they went. Nothing to burn. If you want a good idea of how that was done, watch Apollo 13. Good film.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Originally posted by resistance
"Agent, Where do you get the idea that NASA is a government agency? Private agencies don't get specific funding from the government. Man, you are even blinder than I thought you were. "

What are you on about? I don't remember saying anything of the sort one way or another - I apologise if I did - but can you point out what I said and where? Is this another example of the turmoil in your head?

Sorry -- I edited it out of my quote. I had you mixed up with jra and it was too late to fix it. People jump on you and post your comments before the ink is dry around here.

they are probably some of the most intelligent people on the planet. I expect you think intelligence is the work of the devil or something.

There's intelligence and then there's wisdom and common sense. Intelligence is the ability to do hard math, figure out cube puzzles, memorize facts and statistics. Wisdom and common sense means using whatever intelligence God has given you, great or small, in the right way, using it to discover and live by truth, to conform one's knowledge and understanding with all that is known, not to isolate facts and information from all other information so that one can come to ridiculous conclusions that contradict all OTHER information.

Gong to the moon is not that unbelievable when you look at all the other technologies and achievements we have made over the years, even going back thousands of years to the pyramids and the science involved in their design and building.

Just look at the Channel Tunnel, The Space Shuttle, The ISS, Computers, Sky Scrapers, Bridges, Deep-Sea exploration (and the immense pressures involved), etc

Yeah. So what's the big holdup on going there NOW? Why do we have to wait until 2010 or whenever NASA is going to get around to sending a mission just to orbit, not land on, the moon, and for the purpose of measuring the deadly radiation bombarding it from above and below? A feasibility study of going to the moon. Well, apparently NASA's not too sure anybody can survive on the moon even though supposedly people already DID survive and survive very well. The astroNOTs are alive and well, old guys without cancer or whatever. So why the feasibility study now? And why do they have to wait so long just to do that? A moon voyage would come many years past THAT event, if ever.

With your attitude I'm suprised that you acknowledge the computer you are using exists or works let alone use it! You obviously have a deeply imbedded belief that science and God cannot co-exist, this is simply not true.
However you are entitled to your opinon of course, so you can happily carry on banging your rocks together and hooting if that's your thing.

Well, obviously I AM using a computer, and obviously none of the things you've said are true regarding what I believe or don't believe about science. I think real science (i.e. search for the truth) is great. I just wish we had a few more real scientists, people wanting to find truth, instead of a bunch of people using taxpayers money to try to prove a lie.





[edit on 7-11-2005 by resistance]

Darkmind you said:

And the last point - zooming through space with foil and black felt wrapped around it. You seem to think that 'zooming' is possible in space. It's a vibrant word that brings to mind things flapping in the breeze. Well, there's obviously no breeze in space, as it's a vacuum. So what's your point? There's nothing out there to burn it off! The moon has no atmosphere, so as the LEM descended there was no heat friction. The LEM was stored in the main part of the third stage I think - it was pulled out, attached to the Command Module and off they went. Nothing to burn. If you want a good idea of how that was done, watch Apollo 13. Good film.

Yeah. I gotta see that film. I gotta see how they landed with the foil and the black cloth all draped around the moon lander. That I GOTTA see.

Thanks for the tip.

Originally posted by resistance
Darkmind you said:

And the last point - zooming through space with foil and black felt wrapped around it. You seem to think that 'zooming' is possible in space. It's a vibrant word that brings to mind things flapping in the breeze. Well, there's obviously no breeze in space, as it's a vacuum. So what's your point? There's nothing out there to burn it off! The moon has no atmosphere, so as the LEM descended there was no heat friction. The LEM was stored in the main part of the third stage I think - it was pulled out, attached to the Command Module and off they went. Nothing to burn. If you want a good idea of how that was done, watch Apollo 13. Good film.

Yeah. I gotta see that film. I gotta see how they landed with the foil and the black cloth all draped around the moon lander. That I GOTTA see.

Thanks for the tip.

.....

Are you serious? Apollo 13 never touched down on the lunar surface due to a malfunction in the Oxygen tanks. But wait, it's probably just another lame excuse from NASA, right? What better way to get people interested in the program again than by purposely endangering the lives of the crew and wastes millions of tax payer's money, all for an entertaining story.

Originally posted by resistance
Darkmind you said:

And the last point - zooming through space with foil and black felt wrapped around it. You seem to think that 'zooming' is possible in space. It's a vibrant word that brings to mind things flapping in the breeze. Well, there's obviously no breeze in space, as it's a vacuum. So what's your point? There's nothing out there to burn it off! The moon has no atmosphere, so as the LEM descended there was no heat friction. The LEM was stored in the main part of the third stage I think - it was pulled out, attached to the Command Module and off they went. Nothing to burn. If you want a good idea of how that was done, watch Apollo 13. Good film.

Yeah. I gotta see that film. I gotta see how they landed with the foil and the black cloth all draped around the moon lander. That I GOTTA see.

Thanks for the tip.

No, Resistance I don't think that you read my post properly. It shows how they pulled the LEM out of the third stage, not how it landed. Apollo 13 was the one where an explosion in an O2 tank badly damaged the module and they had to abort the landing. Damn nearly lost the crew too.
Good film, as I said.

.....

Are you serious? Apollo 13 never touched down on the lunar surface due to a malfunction in the Oxygen tanks. But wait, it's probably just another lame excuse from NASA, right? What better way to get people interested in the program again than by purposely endangering the lives of the crew and wastes millions of tax payer's money, all for an entertaining story.

Darn! I was hoping to be able to see how Hollywood could portray landing the LEM with the gold foil and black cloth already draped around the legs and top of the lander. Oh, the disappointments of life!

Especially when the foil on the pads was already came off in one picture that Jack White analyzed, and that was tightly fit and custom fit and you wouldn't imagine anybody would be putting gold foil on the pads. So I can believe that the gold foil was already on the moon pads, and that stuff DID come off. I don't believe the gold foil and black cloth all draped around was that way when they landed.

Darn! I wish they had a moon movie showing the lander and that foil. I would really love to see that. You think Hollywood could figure out a way to portray that? I mean Hollywood can do anyhting, can't they? Aren't they the master of special effects and magick? Maybe the Wonderful World of Disney could portray that somehow?

Darn. I really wanted to see that.

[edit on 7-11-2005 by resistance]

For one thing, as once again was said before, it is not 'cloth' and 'foil' but:

MATERIALS COVERING THE LUNAR MODULE
LM-2 appears just as it would have during a moon-landing mission. Several materials cover the spacecraft to protect its inner structure from temperature and micrometeoroids. Specially designed materials maintain temperature balance inside the craft.

NICKEL-STEEL ALLOY
The black materials on parts of the LM are heat-resistant nickel-steel alloy, 0.0021072 millimeters (0.0000833 inches) thick. The black sheets absorb heat when exposed to the Sun and radiate to the blackness of deep space.

ALUMINIZED PLASTIC FILM
Not metal foil, these plastic films are thinly coated with aluminum, which reflects the sun’s heat and insulates the spacecraft. The thin, gold-colored films are used in "blankets" of up to 25 layers. All of the plastic films protect the spacecraft from micrometeoroids.

www.nasm.si.edu...

And for another, this should be good, what exactly do you think could interfere with or damage these coverings significantly during lunar orbit and landing?

[edit on 7-11-2005 by AgentSmith]