Moon Hoax? - NASA built huge hard vacuum chamber just before Apollo 11 and decommissioned it 1975

Brother Stormhammer, you my friend, are a dissector.

That is to say you will take someone else’s entire post, cut it up into little quotes then either take the quotes out of context or ask stupid questions about them all in all to make it look as though you thoroughly debunked and/or discredited the post.

If you do it again, in my thread, I will not reply to you. Ok? Great.

First: The USSR US coldwar thing, has nothing to do with this thread, it was just a reply to a comment made by someone else. I do not wish to debate this here.

Second: Ok yes, I thought more than 4 of them were manned. My mistake, although they did go three flights over budget.

Third: You can find explanations. But then again you can find explanations for anything if you look hard enough and ignore enough of the details. It is your choice to be ignorant; I have posted a few clips of the artificial lighting examples in an above post.

Forth: Oh he wants to know about the rainbow bomb tests. What was that thing you just told me? “Google is your friend.”
www.space.com...

Fifth: Fair point, but you could simply fly out through a pole of the earth. You don’t have to blast off from the pole itself.

All in all: I’d rather not speak to you again. Take your arrogance and ego elsewhere.

I hope this has answered your questions.

One thing that can not be disputed is the general milieu or social environment in NASA at the time of the Moon landing project.

There was the same lack of bottom to top accountability that Richard Feynman related in his testimony during the Challenger disaster investigation.

There was a two-tiered system of contractors, who were made to work long hours and to handle areas outside their expertise and not paid the same as NASA employees. Because of this there was quite a bit of fraud, waste and corruption going on according to some reports.

There was dissention among the Astronauts. Witness the famous declaration by Gus Grissom that NASA was not just a few years away from a launch they were more than 10 years away.

I think if people now really understood the situation they would have a better handle on the complete impossibility of using a low tech approach to landing a man on the Moon at the time.

As I've said before, it's not just that there were a few photographs that seem odd. It's that there exists big questions in every aspect of the project, from the cancellation of the space station, to Von Braun's comment in 1953 (just 8 years prior in his book 'Conquest To The Moon') that it would be impossible to put a man on the moon given the size of the rocket required.



[edit on 21-6-2007 by Badge01]

Badge01,

I agree. NASA was not even close to landing a man on the moon. Russia was not even close, and the Russian space program was probably 10 years ahead of NASA.

And having such a high success rate from Apollo 11 to Apollo 17 one has to wonder how they could be so lucky over and over again, given their previous blunders.

I confess I need to research the Apollo missions far more thoroughly before I can put more of the pieces together.

Certainly on the technical/physical side of things I do not believe their space suits would have allowed the astronauts to take extended walk around trips on the moon. Portable batteries were primitive back then, even if they were expensive silver zinc batteries.

I just don’t see how you can regulate a pressurized atmosphere in a rubber suit on the moon with a couple of 16 volt batteries and 1960’s technology. It seems really implausible that this was ever actually accomplished to me.

And of course then there are all the anomalies in the footage.

All in all: I am still not entirely convinced that it never took place, but it is certainly leaning toward being a big cover-up in my mind.


[edit on 21-6-2007 by Yandros]

Originally posted by Spoodily
NASA wouldn't lie to us. They love us and all of their findings they openly share with the people because we fund their programs and they want to thank us for the support.

Hahahahaha....

This coming from the same government that lies about everything else they do...

"We're the party of low taxes..." And what happens...taxes raised.

"I'm running on the platform of no more wars." 1 year later...


"I am here to protect America." Iraq war and Afghanistan start to protect our "interests," but has nothing to do with the homeland...


Right...


I wouldn't believe anything that comes out a wolf's mouth, why should I believe a politician?

This coming from the same guys who brought us the war on terror, war on drugs, war on Americans.

OK.

I believe them now.

Originally posted by Yandros
Badge01,

I agree. NASA was not even close to landing a man on the moon. Russia was not even close, and the Russian space program was probably 10 years ahead of NASA.

[edit on 21-6-2007 by Yandros]

I'm like you, still on the fence with regard to the landings. It may be that only the first one was 'mocked up'.

But to me there seems to be quite a few 'you can't get there from here' jumps or gaps in the program.

Besides the 'rocket gap', going from mostly unsuccessful launches to completely reliable launches in 8-9 years, there is, as you might call it, the 'suit gap'. NASA just didn't have enough time in space to be able to field test and modify and come up with a better suit.

I do believe they had fuel cells, and according to one of the Astronauts, that's what they used in the orbiter (batteries in the LEM), but it's remarkable that their suits seem to function almost without any observable signs.

I also think there'd be significant outgassing of the water vapor from the cooling system. But we see nothing, as though the whole thing is self-contained.

In other areas I think they'd have wanted a more robust design than what we're told was in the construction of the LEM. Having a non-symmetrical four strut-legged craft try to land on its tail just seems overly optimistic to me.

It's also hard for me to buy that they actually had the rover stored on the side. It just seems too large to have fit in there.

Again, I'm kind of reaching to discuss some hypotheses, since we're talking about what seemed 'too little too late' in the design of the mission, etc. ;-)

Badge01,

Well this is a photo of the "SUN" from Apollo 12:
history.nasa.gov...

So we can safely say that (some) footage from 12 was also faked. I do have my doubts that they ever made it. Or if they did perhaps not publicly.

A few hypothesizes:

A) Unable to make it. Faked 11 – 17 and squandered the budget on space weapons
B) Sent surrogate team to moon, faked footage as backup. No teams ever returned.
C) Same as B except teams returned explaining territory was heavily guarded.
D) Made it as promised but lost half the tapes due to radiation belts on the way home.
E) Realized early on that Russia couldn’t do it, so neither could they. Used budget for other things, faked videos.
F) Actual program was commandeered by the NASA war department (NASA is the department of war of space) who had the footage faked so they could use the money to go up and try to setup military installations.


I don’t know honestly. Its really up in the air, anyone’s guess.

I quite like (F) even if it is pretty out there, because it falls into line with some of the moon bases research I have done. And also it makes sense that if anyone can get to the moon it’s the US secret military, right? Unlimited black budget.

Most likely I would say is (A) followed by (B) followed by (D).

Have you got a hypothesis of your own?

Great research Yandros

No doubt the pro nasa debunkers will be over shortly with some fancy explaination, trying to explain it all away

Thanks Raffles.

Lmao, no doubt. Although I think they'll be hard pressed trying to convince me that what is obviously a large spotlight, is actually the sun.

Originally posted by Badge01

But to me there seems to be quite a few 'you can't get there from here' jumps or gaps in the program.

I do believe they had fuel cells, and according to one of the Astronauts, that's what they used in the orbiter (batteries in the LEM), but it's remarkable that their suits seem to function almost without any observable signs.

I also think there'd be significant outgassing of the water vapor from the cooling system.

In other areas I think they'd have wanted a more robust design than what we're told was in the construction of the LEM. Having a non-symmetrical four strut-legged craft try to land on its tail just seems overly optimistic to me.

It's also hard for me to buy that they actually had the rover stored on the side. It just seems too large to have fit in there.

Again, I'm kind of reaching to discuss some hypotheses, since we're talking about what seemed 'too little too late' in the design of the mission, etc. ;-)

There 'seems' to be a trend here. As with most arguments against the moon landings the believes and knowledge of the of the poster take presidence over science and fact that are know by others.

The concept of "If I don't understand how it could be done, it can't be done", is a seriously flawed one.

Non-committalism is very common in a debate particularly one where available ‘facts’ are of a dubious nature. It is a way to express ideas without affiliating yourself with them, and hence key for an open discussion on a given topic.

Science is a completely subjective term. If you are still thinking in absolutes you definitely need to spend more time here. The universe is a strange strange place. Mainstream science breaks down in the grey areas between correct and incorrect understandings, and instead of trying to redefine itself to match the laws of the universe, it hides what it cannot explain.

But on the topic of Moon Hoaxes, we are strictly looking for a way to put the (possible) pieces together, which makes sense. If you think this footage was made on the moon, when they are clearly using artificial studio lights, then you have a ten o’clock paradigm shift waiting with your name on it.

While some anomalies turned out to be not anatomies at all but correct physics, many still remain untouched.

You tell me; Do you believe this is what the sun looks like from on the moon:
history.nasa.gov...

Because that is supposed to be a photograph of the sun from the moon during Apollo 12. If you enhance the image you can see the light-bulb inside the spotlight; it has a higher intensity.

Originally posted by Yandros
Thanks Raffles.

Lmao, no doubt. Although I think they'll be hard pressed trying to convince me that what is obviously a large spotlight, is actually the sun.

I totally agree, not seen that spotlight picture before.

Keep up the good work

[edit on 21-6-2007 by Raffles]

i seen a this video back 2 years ago on tv
www.youtube.com...

you see rumsfeld , kessinger and others thel all how they fake the moon landing and so on, and at the end its sea all was fake and scripted.....

rumseld and all others are really great lier and actor as wee see in the video so how can i trust them anymore when they talk about other things lol


ps. sorry for my english

Originally posted by Raffles

Originally posted by Yandros
Thanks Raffles.

Lmao, no doubt. Although I think they'll be hard pressed trying to convince me that what is obviously a large spotlight, is actually the sun.

I totally agree, not seen that spotlight picture before.

Keep up the good work

[edit on 21-6-2007 by Raffles]

Hang on - just because it looks like a spotlight (actually more like a flood) doesn't mean it is one. Jim Lovell describes the surface of the moon as "... essentially gray, no color. It looks like plaster of Paris, like dirty beach sand with lots of footprints in it.".

Would he actually wax lyrical about a studio floor that could possibly have been covered in tons of Plaster of Paris, or dirty sand? Also - when you 'enhance' the image - what techniques are you using? Do you see a stand/mount for this 'spotlight'? Why would any of the participants in this grand hoax swing their chest-mounted Hasselblad camera around to photograph a spotlight? Posterity?



[edit on 21-6-2007 by Skunky]

Fantastic find Yandros Its funny that never came up in any of my searches....

Its sort of the missing link I have been looking for. I had noticed the jumping in many of the videos... and particularly them being out of breath on even sort climbs... seems they are in much heavier gravity....

But if John is right, its 64 % there LOL

As to the outside area here is a Lunar Crater field on Earth...



And here is the training data I have put together so far...
landoflegends.us...

Look at the way they put the background in for the new film then take a look at the background in the Apollo shots... Notice anything? I will have to collect some to add to the page but its not hard to find what I mean...

There is also one video I need to find from the Moon Hoax side that shows two different scenes supposed to be miles apart yet the background is identical... If any one knows the Youtube ID I would appreciate it

So either they totally faked the images and did not go...

Or they went and faked the images because they did not dare show us what was up there, a fact supported by the loss of all that video ( and before anyone says its easy to lose old files... check first just how MUCH was lost and the volume it would take up... then tell me it is easy to lose)

John and I talked about this yesterday... we were both originally 100% with #2... but more evidence seems to be cropping up that favors #1

Perhaps there is a third option not considered yet

Originally posted by maple5211

Still, begs the question why have they not built a moon base instead of spending up to 100 billion on a space station which creates very little new science!!!

They did on the farside before Apollo 11

Also, it’s going to be interesting when you get china sending a man to the moon!!!

Not going to happen... Japan already scrapped their moon mission and NASA has been in negotiation with China... China is currently leaning towards spending the money on a space station rather than going to the moon...

I would love to have a recording of those negotiation, but all we will see is press releases

I posted all this in two other threads... but I would watch the news from China next few months...

This could very well spark a new cold war!!!!

That is very likely, though a "staged war" would be more correct... call me crazy if you like, but when it happens you know where you heard it first

Originally posted by damajikninjaThese 'scopes are capable of imaging distant planets, so why cant we zoom in on the surface? Are we really that far behind in ground based observation?

Yes they can gather the light from distant objects with long exposures... no even the biggest scope on Earth can not see something the size of the lander

And what about Hubble? Couldn't it be pointed at the moon to zoom in on that flag?

The Hubble is designed for far space and cannot focus that close...

Well that's the OFFICIAL story.... On the rumor side... rumor has it that there are two Hubbles... and that when it was down needing repair... it was actually on another "mission"

But those are just rumors

Now if the rumors are true... they would never let us know that the Hubble could see the flag.

The Ikonos satellite could do this... its commercial. I noticed on their site that they make a short statement... "We will no longer be imaging the Moon..." Period. I wrote them to find out and they said they are an Earth imagine company with no need to look at the moon.

They should be moon PRO's by now. Why is it that even now, when NASA announces that it is headed back for the moon, that they say it will take them till 2020 to do it? Seriously? I mean, they are even having trouble just getting to and staying in orbit. It's 2007 and NASA can barely maintain consistent operational status just a few hundred thousand feet off the ground. Yet, they made it to the moon back in the 60's with experimental craft with the computational power equal to a fraction of a black & white Gameboy?

Well without going into repeated details in this thread... just to answer your question..

A) They had help
B) They had to do a moon mission because Kennedy publicly challenged them, so they had to pull something off to hide the real mission that had already put a base on Farside
C) Kennedy was killed because of this...
D) The crew already on the moon could easily have placed a flag and a laser target...
D) There IS a secret astronaut corps... And the proof is sitting in jail for the rest of his life...
E) All of this will be put into order in the next few weeks so don't bug me for backup right now

Don't even get me started on Mars...

Okay so I won't tell you we are there already too
Ask me about the Aquila sometime

Disclaimer:

All the above info is totally unsubstantiated AT THIS TIME due to lack of free time on my part ergo it is merely opinion and food for thought

So there

[edit on 21-6-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by Yandros
This is why satellite imagery of the earth always sucks, not enough light information.

Ah now see? That is what you all have been LED to believe... Sure you don't find the really high res images online... they are for the DoD and other agencies eyes only...

Even the commercial sattelites will not give you such detail...

Not because they can't, but because it ain't cheap... so if you want good images from space pull out that check book! Because a set of 6 images like the sample I will add in a moment will cost you 20,000.oo

Now two things about this image...

1) this is not the highest resolution available... its only .1 meter per pixel... and they can go at least to .01

2) its an image taken in China of the Tsangpo River... the entrance to Shangra_La (the REAL one... not the fantasy)

So we have the technology, yet we cannot get access to it... The DoD has Lunar Obiter images that can see a card table on the moon... we won't get access to those either... and Clementine took full color super high res images that only recently were released though they were around since 1994

Russia and NASA have been hand in hand since the beginning... read a book called "The Two Faces of the Moon" written by a Russian and American astronaut. John found one passage that the Russians had a rover on the moon during Apollo...

ESA is in with NASA... just look at any ESA site you will see the NASA logo

India and Japan have both announced scrapping their Moon Mission,,, so that leaves China... and they are already talking Space Station instead of Moon

Here is the Ikonos image... for those with dial up... sorry making in smaller would defeat the purpose... also wait for it it takes four scans to complete

landoflegends.us...

Now then tell me again how much satellite images SUCK I have seen license plates from space

Originally posted by damajikninja I figured there had to be a reason private and academic 'scopes hadn't seen it yet.

Private has nothing really big but the reason academic ones don't is because they won't. I asked the director of Mt Palomar that very question...

Hi Ron,

I haven't seen any images of the Moon from Palomar either. It is possible that some were taken long ago, but astronomers would rather explore the Moon with spacecraft and use the big telescopes for observing much, much fainter objects.

Clear skies,

- Scott

W. Scott Kardel
Public Affairs Coordinator, Palomar Observatory
Telephone: (760) 742-2111
E-mail: [email protected]
WWW:www.palomar-observatory.org

And I figured NASA was selfish with Hubble.

Its interesting how many people blame NASA for everything... Clementine was a DoD/Navy Balistic Missile project and the DoD got the high res Lunar Orbiter images according to the defense contractor that made the cameras..

NASA is a puppet... Its the DoD that runs the show... and for any that still think NASA is a "public entity" well all I can say are you ever in for a surprise...

If the DoD wants to use the Hubble to look at something... well who is going to stop them?

[edit on 21-6-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by Badge01
The mere fact that they scrapped it, is one of the main things that tells me that Kennedy was mis-informed, or lied to, and that the 'fall back plan' (faking all or part of the landing(s)) became the primary plan.

Hmmm not bad not bad at all very close And von Braun is right in the thick of things

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
Because the Van Allen belts are about the *only* things that are negligible (in terms of hazard) at the South Pole. You've got extremely low temperature, high winds, low-to-nonexistant visibility for long periods of time, long lines of supply, and absolutely no infrastructure.

You know its funny really how information gets distorted. Everyone is so sure the radiation belt is dangerous yet ignore the constant stream of radiation from the sun and cosmic rays beyond the belts...

But hey NASA sees no danger...

"I looked up a typical satellite passing the radiation belts (elliptic orbit, 200 miles to 20000 miles) and the radiation dosage per year is about 2500 rem, assuming one is shielded by 1 gr/cm-square of aluminum (about 1/8" thick plate) almost all of it while passing the inner belt. But there is no danger.

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...

So someone has not been telling the whole truth here..

In short, if there's a worse place on Earth than the South Pole to build a launch complex, it would have to be the North Pole, where you'd have to build the thing on pontoons.

Hmmm North Pole...

Mars on Earth Project..
www.marsonearth.org...

South Pole
landoflegends.us...

Pontoons???? Now that would be a silly notion... a floating launch platform?

Oh wait...
www.boeing.com...

This one was built to handle Delta IV Heavy Components... these are 20 meters taller than the Shuttle rockets

Oh and its a joint Russian/Boeing project. Now just how many secret launches could you make with a platform at sea? Hmmmm

Here is the Delta series... impressive capacity

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer

For one thing, we aren't in the business of making heavy-lift boosters any more.

:shk:

Google is your friend

[edit on 21-6-2007 by zorgon]

Hey, apologies if my point has been made previously, not had time to read the whole thread, i just wanted to state.

Many of you believe the moon landings were faked, and have managed to back it up with statements etc.

But I'd just like to put forward my opinion.
I don't think there is sufficient evidence to point to a "hoax"
yet, at the same time, there are questions remained unanswered, ie, those mentioned in this thread.

However, let's say for a moment that NASA did not put a man on the moon in 1969, do you think it's safe to assume that it has since been done? That they have indeed landed on the moon, but at a later date than in 1969?