We Probably Never Made it to the Moon

a reply to: cooperton

Huge difference in cost, weight, capacity, design and expensive for custom computer memory literally hard wired by hand vs a purely semiconductor based chip….

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: cooperton

Huge difference in cost, weight, capacity, design and expensive for custom computer memory literally hard wired by hand vs a purely semiconductor based chip….

Technology so good that it's actually less capable than it was back in the 1960s

originally posted by: neutronflux

More like a electromagnetic pulse takes out all the modern ships with computers. And very few people proficient to run sailing ships and navigate by celestial navigation without computers. And try to maintain the same volume of shipping enjoyed today.

How many wooden sailing ships would it take to match the cargo shipped by one cargo ship reliant on computers and vulnerable to and EMP? But they would still work while modern ships with burnt up computers sat idle.

I see your point, but why not just use the old technology then? It allegedly worked well enough to get us there consistently without fail. It seems more likely that they're trying to cover up the lies of the past, although I think the current astronauts and engineers genuinely believe we went there. But when they admit we can't get humans past the Van Allen Belts with the new technology it seems more likely that we were just never there in the first place.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

So, i'm unable to find any conclusive studies on the material brought back from the moon, despite asking the duck.

a reply to: cooperton

Because many of the companies that built that tech don't exist anymore, and the ones that do don't have the capability to build them anymore. It's the same reason Boeing doesn't build new B-52s or KC-135s, despite both airframes being so good that they have individual aircraft flying that are 60 years old. They can't anymore, unless they want cost to be through the roof, and them to cost more than a B-2. You don't go from building state of the art 2022 computer systems to building 1960s computer systems.

It isn't "so good it's actually less capable", it just has to be tested in the area that it's going to be used. It's no different than anything else. You don't build a new plane, and immediately put it into use without extensive testing. You don't build a new rocket and capsule combination and send astronauts to land on the moon without extensive testing, including in the Van Allen Belts.

a reply to: noonebutme

They are BS but they are interesting to think about.

a reply to: cooperton

see your point, but why not just use the old technology then?

Different times. It’s expected to have safer systems that todays more powerful computers allow for.


What do you think would be cheaper to insure for transporting 100 million in gold bars across the ocean. An authentic 1800’s sailing schooner? Or modern cargo ship?

It allegedly worked well enough to get us there consistently without fail.

At how much risk? Vs risk reduction if you can make nav and safety systems as power as todays computers harden against rigors of space.

The subs the turtle and the hunley “worked”, but I think I would choose the modern submarine I served on over the two listed to sail in.


I rode around in my parents car no seatbelt. Now it’s recommended a toddler has to ride in a rear facing child car seat in the back until like two years old. And kids have to use a car seat until like 50 pounds and 40 inches tall. And cannot ride in the front seat because of the air bag safety system until around 13z


Times change. There are more lawyers.

although I think the current astronauts and engineers genuinely believe we went there.

Because of real time tracking, radio transmissions from the moon back in the day, and the stuff left there like the mirrors used to bounce earth based lasers off of…. And met people that have set foot on the moon….

a reply to: Grenade

This was a problem in the 9/11 forums. Access to publish studies usually takes paid subscriptions to actual journals. Or access to a library that carries research journals.

Moon rock collected by Apollo 17 astronauts reveals new details about lunar evolution
By Chelsea Gohd published December 15, 2021

www.space.com...



"I anticipate an exciting decade for lunar sample research!" Nelson said.

The new study was published Dec. 14 (opens in new tab) in the journal Nature Communications.

www.nature.com... UCT&utm_content=textlink&utm_term=PID100052171&CJEVENT=94c1d261bc2511ec80dfbeb30a82b82d

Email Chelsea Gohd at [email protected] or follow her on Twitter @chelsea_gohd. Follow us on Twitter @Spacedotcom and on Facebook.

a reply to: Grenade

It is hard to find, mainly because they are often buried in libraries gathering dust because no-one's interested. That's how I've been able to buy them cheap second hand.

This finally persuaded me to get round to doing something I've been meaning to sort for a while - this document:

onebigmonkey.com...

contains the list of papers in all of the Lunar Science conference proceedings I own:

There are literally hundreds of scientists there. One conference alone quotes 560+ attendees from over 16 countries, including the USSR. My collection is by no means complete.

This document:

onebigmonkey.com...

is a scan of the first page of papers presented at those conferences that use both Apollo and Soviet data, including a few by scientists from the USSR.

There may well be other papers referencing Soviet data from other papers.

Fun fact: my Apollo 11 conference proceedings are ex libris from the UK's Atomic Weapons Research Establishment.

I know from my own researching that there are whole libraries of Apollo era documents that have yet to be scanned and still only exists in paper form. No doubt the USSR's research publications are the same.

This is the conference I mentioned earlier, both volumes

www.google.co.uk...
www.google.co.uk...

It's also not well known that the Soviets were researching the VAB at the same time as the Americans, and I have seen it argued that they would not be called the Van Allen Belts had they not been so restrictive about their scientists publishing and attending conferences in the west - they'd have a Russian name instead. They had no issue with people being able to get through them.

originally posted by: neutronflux

Because of real time tracking, radio transmissions from the moon back in the day, and the stuff left there like the mirrors used to bounce earth based lasers off of…. And met people that have set foot on the moon….

When asked by a little girl why we haven't been back to the moon, Buzz Aldrin responds:

"...because we didn't go there, and that's the way it happened..."

Buzz Aldrin confesses to little girl

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: cooperton

It isn't "so good it's actually less capable", it just has to be tested in the area that it's going to be used. It's no different than anything else. You don't build a new plane, and immediately put it into use without extensive testing. You don't build a new rocket and capsule combination and send astronauts to land on the moon without extensive testing, including in the Van Allen Belts.

Fair enough, we'll see how it works out. SpaceX and Bezos's space endeavors have only barely broken the Karman line, which is not even close to outer space. I'm glad we have private endeavors trying though. We'll see where it goes

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Thank you, don't have time just now but i'll pour over it tomorrow.

a reply to: neutronflux

I don't mind paying if you point me in the direction.

I used to think the whole idea of NASA hoaxing anything was beyond silly.

Then I saw the official Mars pic that exactly matched the intricate topography of a feature on Devon Island (that someone found here on this site) and started wondering. The rodent pic in this thread only added to the WTF factor, but the critter could be pareidolia and I refer to a separate photo.

Since then the sheer number of questionable official pics and vids where skullduggery is obvious (green screens and wires in 'free fall' footage in a couple cases is what I mean) raises the question that if a government science org hoaxes anything, why? And if so, then why not hoax everything?

Add the seemingly legitimate testimony of doctoring ruins out of planetary pics and the odd fudging of so many "official" representations of our system's bodies to the intricate tales of the actual advanced space programs (peppered in with the more numerous wild, loony ones) and that the almost century of UFO ridicule and obfuscation was a cover-up, in fact, and the idea that the gen pop of planet Earth has been monumentally lied to gets rather compelling.

Then the sobering thought occurs that such a large dishonest endeavor would take a good reason to have so many smart, earnest people go along with it.

A sobering reason concerning our reality further down the food chain than once thought, perhaps, like hungry lizard folk or demonic child eaters/diddlers? OR ... what? A horrible cyclical catastrophe? Hidden religious and/or existential truths?

It all seems so ridiculous, but those few lies they were (seemingly) caught telling along with the testimonies and recent legitimate "uap" admissions, added to the fervent refuting and distractions by a dedicated cadre that sure come across as dis-info agents, makes one think about many possibilities. Unfortunately, few of the possibilities are pleasant... though the growing certainty of having spent one's life in a prison of lies is not exactly pleasant, either.

a reply to: cooperton

He’s right. We don’t go back. And it didn’t happen. As in the context we didn’t go back

Shrugs…

Did Buzz Aldrin admit the Moon landings were faked?

www.spacecentre.nz...


Example Two: In July 2018, a video1 became popular that showed Buzz Aldrin apparently confessing to an eight-year old girl that "we never went there". Taken out of context it appeared that Buzz had finally admitted that the conspiracy theorists were right and the Moon landings were faked.

However, the context of both the question and answer clearly show that Buzz was talking about why we've never been back to the Moon, not about whether he went there in the first place.

Watch the whole video and other videos of Buzz around the same time. He's elderly. His sentences don't flow as easily and precisely as they once did. He frequently misses words or struggles to find the right ones.

When Buzz said "we never went there", he was saying "we never went back". If he'd meant that he'd literally never been there at all, the rest of his response wouldn't even make sense. Here's the actual question and answer:

Girl: "Why has nobody been to the Moon in such a long time?"

Buzz: "That's not an eight-year-old's question. That's my question. I want to know, but I think I know. Because we didn't go there and that's the way it happened, and if it didn't happen it's nice to know why it didn't happen, so in the future if we want to keep doing something, we need to know why something stopped in the past that we wanted to keep it going. Money is a good thing. If you want to buy new things, new rockets, instead of keep doing the same thing over, then it's gonna cost more money. And other things need more money too. So having achieved what the president wanted us to do, and then what thousands, millions of people in America, and millions of people around the world... You know when we toured around the world after we came back, the most fascinating observation was signs that said 'We did it'. Not just us. But we, the world. They felt like they were part of what we were able to do. And that made us feel very good."

This is the same speech that Buzz has been giving for years, i.e. He questions why we're not making more effort to get back to the Moon, but he acknowledges that money is a big hurdle. As you can see in the video and transcript, he can't put it into words as well as he used to, but the message is clearly the same.

And your interpretation of a statement that has nothing to do with…

Because of real time tracking, radio transmissions from the moon back in the day, and the stuff left there like the mirrors used to bounce earth based lasers off of…. And met people that have set foot on the moon….



By all means, quote Aldrin stating he never set foot on the moon…..

a reply to: Baddogma

The ISS footage posted earlier in this thread certainly raises some question about the legitimacy of recent NASA missions.

Can someone explain it?

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: charlyv

Do we have access to these rocks and independent verification of their authenticity?

If so, can you point me in a direction of the studies so i can have a look?

Thanks

Some good places to start. Also, google searches on the web of scientists around the world that were given samples as well.

curator.jsc.nasa.gov...#:~:text=Between%201969%20and%201972%20six,exploration%20sites%20on%20the%20Moon.
www.youtube.com...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.space.com...

originally posted by: Baddogma
I used to think the whole idea of NASA hoaxing anything was beyond silly.

Then I saw the official Mars pic that exactly matched the intricate topography of a feature on Devon Island (that someone found here on this site) and started wondering. The rodent pic in this thread only added to the WTF factor, but the critter could be pareidolia and I refer to a separate photo.

There are no official Mars pics that exactly match Devon Island.

Since then the sheer number of questionable official pics and vids where skullduggery is obvious (green screens and wires in 'free fall' footage in a couple cases is what I mean) raises the question that if a government science org hoaxes anything, why? And if so, then why not hoax everything?

There lots of claims by people desperate for the advertising revenue your youtube clicks bring, there is no credible evidence.

Add the seemingly legitimate testimony of doctoring ruins out of planetary pics and the odd fudging of so many "official" representations of our system's bodies to the intricate tales of the actual advanced space programs (peppered in with the more numerous wild, loony ones) and that the almost century of UFO ridicule and obfuscation was a cover-up, in fact, and the idea that the gen pop of planet Earth has been monumentally lied to gets rather compelling.

There is no legitimate testimony of ruins being edited out. Liars and loonies, yes. Legitimate? No.

Then the sobering thought occurs that such a large dishonest endeavor would take a good reason to have so many smart, earnest people go along with it.

A sobering reason concerning our reality further down the food chain than once thought, perhaps, like hungry lizard folk or demonic child eaters/diddlers? OR ... what? A horrible cyclical catastrophe? Hidden religious and/or existential truths?

It all seems so ridiculous, but those few lies they were (seemingly) caught telling along with the testimonies and recent legitimate "uap" admissions, added to the fervent refuting and distractions by a dedicated cadre that sure come across as dis-info agents, makes one think about many possibilities. Unfortunately, few of the possibilities are pleasant... though the growing certainty of having spent one's life in a prison of lies is not exactly pleasant, either.

When you can prove someone lied, you can start on the other stuff. I spend my time refuting BS because it is important. It's a free service. You're welcome. It would not matter if Satan himself paid me to do it, what matters is whether what I'm saying is correct. It is.

originally posted by: cooperton
When asked by a little girl why we haven't been back to the moon, Buzz Aldrin responds:

"...because we didn't go there, and that's the way it happened..."

Buzz Aldrin confesses to little girl

How about you link the ENTIRE interview... rather than a sound bite thats taken completely out of context by people who want to discredit the achievement.

Heres the ENTIRE interview including the other half of his answer to the girls question...



People who use that heavily out of context clip as proof we didnt go to the moon while ignoring whats said before and after need their heads checked. He's talking about not going BACK to the moon, not that we DIDNT go to the moon in the first place, and he explains to the girl we didnt go back because it was all about money, we didnt go back because it was no longer economical to do so.

So tell me how does a guy go from saying yes i was on the moon minutes earlier to saying we didnt go to the moon... how?, Ill tell you how, because he didnt say we didnt but people take that single small piece of that interview and remove the other half of his answer to the girls question and then say 'look we didnt go to the moon Buzz Aldrin just admitted it!'.

And that is pure deliberate dishonesty from the video creator and the people who peddle it as a false proof.

Unfortunately in the modern age people have such myopic attention spans they cant watch a 15 minute video to fact check and instead happily go with a 50 second sound bite to base their beliefs on.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: xollo6

Even that photo begs the question, what light source is illuminating objects in the shadow of the LEM?

Light bounces... its why when your say looking at your house during the day everything in its shadow is still illuminated to a degree but not to the same level as the surfaces in direct sunlight. If light didnt bounce our eyes wouldnt work lol.

Didnt mean to stick it in another post... opps

a reply to: Grenade
What radiation exposure levels did the Apollo astronauts receive that would classify as lethal?

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

What you say make me think they are studio photographers, only used to being able to control the light conditions and taking close range photos instead of nature photographers, that have to use what nature presents them to work with.

Both categories can be professional photographers with lots of experience.