Our Entire Space Program Is A Hoax And A Massive Deception

reply to post by joethejetperry


You keep talking about not seeing stars doc, well your see some
in a minute if you keep threatening armstrong.

I don’t care of boring, insipid, monotonous, repetitious, tedious, unexciting, uninteresting, unvaried pictures from the moon.
Reason please: you have decided to land on the moon.

Before going there, you must test Snoopy, you must know if it is able to land backwards on its flames as a
helicopter.

To do it, you buid Langley crane. You hang Snoopy to the crane with safety cables.

You immediately realize between 1961 and 196... that the enterprise is impossibile.
You have poor technology, poor computers, poor mechanical devices, and no ideas on how to land a rocket backwards.

YOU HAVE NOT TECHNOLOGY, EVEN TODAY, TO BUILD A ROCKET THAT CAN LAND BACKWARDS ON ITS OWN FLAMES.

NO VIDEO EXISTS ABOUT SNOOPY HUNG AT LANGLEY CRANE ABLE TO HOVER LIKE A HELICOPTER.
IT IS AN IMPOSSIBLE ENTERPRISE WITH OLD AND NEW TECHNOLOGY TOO .

Today you have dropped a peace of steel with four rocket engines (Curiosity) from a helicopter (to test its capacity) in Mojave desert and you have showed with artistic animation that it is able to stay horizontal like a helicopter, it is able to slow down velocity to 0 km/h, it is able to land softly.

You must show almost one video of you dropping that peace of metal over Mojave desert. It would be prodigious to do that at the football field. People would be amazed, astonished.

You haven't ever showed one video about Snoopy, about Phoenix, and now about Curiosity tested in Mojave and Death Valley.

During the test, Curiosity would be dead in Mojave desert, like a rolling stone.

ROCKETS ARE MADE TO GO FORWARDS NOT BACKWARDS. SIMPLE PHISICS. ALSO A CHILD WOULD UNDERSTAND.

Discuss about this argument, not about boring Photoshop pictures.

reply to post by SkepticGuy

YOU HAVE NOT TECHNOLOGY, EVEN TODAY, TO BUILD A ROCKET THAT CAN LAND BACKWARDS ON ITS OWN FLAMES.

Here we go again.

Morpheus rocket, a few days ago, has crashed. NASA's engineers have taken the technology from
Armadillo Aerospace.

I have discovered, without any doubt, that Armadillo videos are fake because thrust forces,
made by computer graphics, are completely wrong

Pay attention to the video from 1:00 minutes, when the rocket is landing, ok?

www.youtube.com...

The rocket engine is placed at the bottom of the rocket, ok?

Look at the rocket at 0:57 minute. Well, the rocket is tilting to the left. John Carmack, the famous game developer, with computer simulates flames tilted toward left.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG

To keep again rocket vertical, the flames, the thrust should be tilted toward RIGHT not toward LEFT.

If the thrust pushes to the left, the rocket spins counterclockwise and crashes.

Look at the rocket at 0:58 minute. Well, the rocket is tilting to the right and flames are tilted toward right.

To keep again rocket vertical, the thrust should push to the LEFT not to the RIGHT.

If the thrust pushes to the RIGHT, the rocket spins clockwise and crash like Morpheus

Take a pencil and rotate it slightly counterclockwise. The thrust is below the centre of gravity. Centre of gravity is in the middle. Centre of gravity of an object is also the centre of rotation.

To make the pencil turn clockwise you must push it from the right.

If you push it from the left, pencil rotates even more counterclockwise.

The rocket would crash turning counterclockwise against the ground.

Have you seen Morpheus crash?

Armadillo Aerospace Company, that has its plant in the cellar, has used computer graphics in the wrong way.

Ehy, John Carmack, continue developing your games. Rocketry is not for you. You have the face of a child, continue to play.

WOW, try to disprove my STATEMENT. (NASA often use the word "STATEMENT")

reply to post by SkepticGuy


If you are unwilling to even try to understand the laws of physics, there is nothing further to be said.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SkepticGuy

 

If you are unwilling to even try to understand the laws of physics, there is nothing further to be said.

You must explain why I'm wrong. Have you understood my reasonings?

Explain please, don't say: "If you are unwilling to even TRY to understand the laws of physics, there is nothing further to be said.

THERE IS VERY MUCH TO BE SAID. TELL ME, TELL US. YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO DISPROVE WHAT I HAVE SAID AND THEN YOU ARE ONLY ABLE TO SAY: "THERE IS NOTHING FURTHER TO BE SAID".

www.youtube.com...

If the thrust is under the Center of Gravity and the rocket is tilted counterclockwise, the rocket engine must push TO THE RIGHT to keep vertical attitude. If the engine push TO THE LEFT AS IN THE VIDEO, the rocket turns even more counterclockwise and crashes against the ground.

Have I been clear? Otherwise I repeat with other words.

Look at this picture:



Look at the flames. They push under the center of gravity, ok? Then my reasonings are right.

John Carmack with computer graphics has animated the flames in the wrong way under supervision of NASA's
buffoons.

reply to post by jra


Here is one version the poster may be referring to. This one is from the edition of "MOONSHOT" published after Shepard's death I believe. Persumably there is a similar line from the first publication but i don't have a copy of that book, only the electronic version of the latter publication. If someone like Barbree just inserted this after Shepard died it might be all the more incriminating. Shepard "writes?",

“Where were the stars?” the myth believers then asked. The cameras that NASA sent to the moon had to use short-exposure times to take pictures of the bright lunar surface and the moonwalkers’ white spacesuits. Stars’ images, easily seen by the moonwalkers, were too faint and underexposed to be seen as they are in photographs taken from space shuttles and the International Space Station.

Barbree, Jay; Alan Shepard; Deke Slayton (2011-04-27). Moon Shot: The Inside Story of America's Apollo Moon Landings (Kindle AV Edition) (Kindle Locations 3607-3609). Open Road E-riginal. Kindle Edition.

reply to post by thadius

Here is one version the poster may be referring to. This one is from the edition of "MOONSHOT" published after Shepard's death I believe. Persumably there is a similar line from the first publication but i don't have a copy of that book, only the electronic version of the latter publication. If someone like Barbree just inserted this after Shepard died it might be all the more incriminating. Shepard "writes?",

“Where were the stars?” the myth believers then asked. The cameras that NASA sent to the moon had to use short-exposure times to take pictures of the bright lunar surface and the moonwalkers’ white spacesuits. Stars’ images, easily seen by the moonwalkers, were too faint and underexposed to be seen as they are in photographs taken from space shuttles and the International Space Station.

Barbree, Jay; Alan Shepard; Deke Slayton (2011-04-27). Moon Shot: The Inside Story of America's Apollo Moon Landings (Kindle AV Edition) (Kindle Locations 3607-3609). Open Road E-riginal. Kindle Edition.

What's your point, Doc? Astronauts could usually see stars if they made an effort to look for them. Usually, they were looking at what they were doing, so their eyes were not dark adjusted.

reply to post by DJW001


No, you must not discuss about pictures. You said I'm wrong.

I have answered you and I have demonstrated I am totally right. You can't disprove my reasonings and then you prefer to talk about pictures made in some studios.

reply to post by SkepticGuy


This picture was first shown by member jra who had the same idea as me.



Apollo 17 landing site from the DAC( a still frame) as the Astronauts left the Moon 40 yrs ago compared with the LRO image of the same site.Even the tracks left by the Astronauts match!!!!

Below is the data on the images taken around the Apollo 11 lander with position, direction,distance and image number.



Again this data can be compared with images from the LRO to check distances and positions on the Moon's surface in relation to features on the surface ,ALL the landing sites have been photographed and match what was documented 40+ years ago. Also very small surface features photographed by the Astronauts around the landing sites such as small craters and rocks can be matched up with the LRO images to prove the Astronauts were actually there.

As for the debate whether stars can be seen from the surface they can NO DOUBT, IF and ONLY IF you dark adapt your eyes BUT if any part of the surace, lander,equipment or another astronaut was in your field of view your eyes would adjust to that light level and you have NO control over that.

Man went, man landed deal with it!!!

reply to post by chitchatking

How do you view the implications of your charge that vertical landings by way of rocket power was untenable given the available tools of the times? Assuming you're correct and vertical landings via rocketry were not doable in 1969....

And of course...



Before you start sucking up to SkepticGuy, Doc, you might want to ask yourself if he's being serious or not. Just saying.

This man knows everything. He ordered the Keep-Out Zones on the Moon to "protect the heritage sites".

Anyone who does enough research generally comes to the conclusion that they did NOT GO THE MOON.

It's impossible. Passing threw the van allen belt would be there death.

There's a few more reasons...

....How could they take pictures on the moon? The film wouldnt' survive those tempuratures.
....How would they take a poo in space. Back then they didn't have a space toilet made. (I'm dead serious)
....Passing the van allen belt they'd be bombarded by many many many different kinds of radiation coming from multiple sources.
....They say there computers were powerful enough. That's garbage. They did some tests and realized the kind of computers you'd need to facilitate such an endevor were not available at that time.
....They say they bounced light signals off the reflector they left there. That's a lie, the whole moon is a reflector, it's been tested.
....Why can't they zoom in on the area they landed at, the rover, the flag etc with the hubble or some other telescope?
....Why did they chop up the saturn five immediate after?
....Why didn't any other country ever go?
....Why aren't there any stars in the scenes they show in the videos?
....Why is the flag just stuck straight out. Why doesn't it move at all?
....Why when they jump they appear to jump up high in "slow motion". That's a lie. When they jump that's corrector but it shouldn't be in slow mo! That's bs.

Well anyway JUST DO YOUR RESEARCH. It's so far fetched. Basic low orbit space flight is extremely difficult "today". So how they claim they did that back then is just way out in left field. As far as the astronots go, here's what I heard. The reason they all claim they "went" is because they actually thought they did. They were in an MK ultra type project. They were hyponized and likely drugged up too. So they didn't know that what happened to them happened in either a hypnotic state or in a hollywood stage. By the time they returned out of it, they actually thought they went there. And that's why many of them are very disillusioned to this day. When you see them interviewed they seem almost confused. It's the elements of the project that trick them into believing they went. It's not that outrageous.

reply to post by r2d246

Anyone who does enough research generally comes to the conclusion that they did NOT GO THE MOON.

Only people who do not know how to do research come to that conclusion.

It's impossible. Passing threw the van allen belt would be there death.

Not according to Soviet radiation specialist E. E. Kovalev:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There's a few more reasons...

....How could they take pictures on the moon? The film wouldnt' survive those tempuratures.

Where do you store your film?

....How would they take a poo in space. Back then they didn't have a space toilet made. (I'm dead serious)

It wasn't pretty. but it worked.

....Passing the van allen belt they'd be bombarded by many many many different kinds of radiation coming from multiple sources.

They would be inside a spacecraft with an aluminum hull. See Kovelev, above.

....They say there computers were powerful enough. That's garbage. They did some tests and realized the kind of computers you'd need to facilitate such an endevor were not available at that time.

Who did these tests? Please cite a reference when you say something like that.

....They say they bounced light signals off the reflector they left there. That's a lie, the whole moon is a reflector, it's been tested.

The Moon is not a very good reflector. Lasers can spot the retro-reflectors to a very high degree of precision.

....Why can't they zoom in on the area they landed at, the rover, the flag etc with the hubble or some other telescope?

It is a question of resolution. There are images taken by spacecraft, but if you have already decided the whole thing is a lie, they don't prove anything, do they?

....Why did they chop up the saturn five immediate after?

Huh? They used a Saturn V to loft Skylab. They don't make them any more because there is not much call for them.

....Why didn't any other country ever go?

Because it's staggeringly expensive. If it were easy to fake, Venezuela would be claiming they have men on the Moon.

....Why aren't there any stars in the scenes they show in the videos?

The stars aren't bright enough.

....Why is the flag just stuck straight out. Why doesn't it move at all?

It was on a rod and there is no wind.

....Why when they jump they appear to jump up high in "slow motion". That's a lie. When they jump that's corrector but it shouldn't be in slow mo! That's bs.

It is not in slow motion. Their arms move at a normal rate. They settle to the ground more slowly because of the lower lunar gravity.

Well anyway JUST DO YOUR RESEARCH. It's so far fetched. Basic low orbit space flight is extremely difficult "today". So how they claim they did that back then is just way out in left field. As far as the astronots go, here's what I heard. The reason they all claim they "went" is because they actually thought they did. They were in an MK ultra type project. They were hyponized and likely drugged up too. So they didn't know that what happened to them happened in either a hypnotic state or in a hollywood stage. By the time they returned out of it, they actually thought they went there. And that's why many of them are very disillusioned to this day. When you see them interviewed they seem almost confused. It's the elements of the project that trick them into believing they went. It's not that outrageous.

You do your research before you embarrass yourself further.

Originally posted by r2d246
Anyone who does enough research generally comes to the conclusion that they did NOT GO THE MOON.

It's impossible. Passing threw the van allen belt would be there death.

There's a few more reasons...

....How could they take pictures on the moon? The film wouldnt' survive those tempuratures.

Originally posted by denver22

The poor video quality of the first moon landings was a deliberate ploy so nobody could properly examine it.

Television pictures of the Apollo 11 landing were sent directly to Earth from the surface of the Moon using the Lunar Module's antenna and power supply. This placed a restriction on the amount of bandwidth that could be transmitted. Apollo 11 was thereby limited to using a black-and-white, slow-scan TV camera with a scan rate of 10 frames-per-second at 320 lines-per-frame. In order to broadcast the images to the world, the pictures had to first be converted to the commercial TV standards. In the US, this was the EIA standard of 30 frames-per-second at 525 lines-per-frame. The pictures transmitted from the Moon were displayed on a 10-inch black-and-white monitor and a vidicon camera was pointed at the screen and the pictures were scanned at the EIA standard. A number of peculiar image artifacts were seen on the images. One set of artifacts was produced by sunlight reflecting off the astronauts and the LM onto the TV camera's lens. These reflections produced the ghostly effects perceived by the public. Other prominent artifacts were the result of spots burnt into the monitor screens from which the optical conversions were produced.

Apollo 11 was only a first step in what was to be increasingly ambitious missions, thus it was lacking in some capabilities. Among these was the ability to transmit high-quality TV pictures. Later missions, starting with Apollo 12, had enough time in the schedule to permit the astronauts to erect large freestanding dish antennas. This increased the amount of bandwidth that could be transmitted, thus allowing complex color TV pictures to be sent directly to Earth.

There can't be any pictures taken on the Moon because the film would melt in the 250° temperatures.

The Apollo astronauts used what was, at the time, a special transparency film produced by Eastman Kodak under a NASA contract. The photosensitive emulsions layers where placed on an ESTAR polyester film base, which had previously been used primarily for motion picture film. The melting point of Estar is 490° F, although some shrinkage and distortion can occur at around 200° F. Fortunately the film was never exposed to this kind of temperature. The cameras were protected inside a special case designed to keep them cool. The situation on the airless Moon is much different than in your oven, for instance. Without convection or conduction, the only method of heat transfer is radiation. Radiative heat can be effectively directed away from an object by wrapping it in a material with a reflective surface, usually simply a white material. The camera casings, as well as most of the astronauts' clothing, were indeed white.

Every Apollo photograph appears to be perfectly composed, focused and exposed, despite the fact the astronauts used cameras without viewfinders and light meters.

The implication is that the astronauts could not have achieved this apparent level of perfection. The obvious answer is that they did not, as is evident by this badly underexposed example
. The photos to which the hoax advocates refer are publicity photos released by NASA. Surely, NASA isn't going to release the foul-ups and blunders. Also, what appears to be perfect composition is, in many cases, the result of cropping. If all the photographs were uncropped, the number, size and pattern of crosshairs would be identical in every photo, which clearly is not the case. I don't mean to take anything away from the astronauts because they performed a remarkable job, which can be explained in three words: practice, practice, and practice. Perhaps no humans have ever been better prepared for a job than the Apollo astronauts.

The black sky should be full of stars, yet none are visible in any of the Apollo photographs

.

This claim is one I hear frequently, and is one of the easiest to refute. The answer is very simple: they are too faint. The Apollo photos are of brightly lit objects on the surface of the Moon, for which fast exposure settings were required. The fast exposures simply did not allow enough starlight into the camera to record an image on the film. For the same reason, images of Earth taken from orbit also lack stars. The stars are there; they just don't appear in the pictures. The hoax advocates often argue that stars should be visible, and some of their claims are valid, however they fail to recognize the difference between "seeing" stars and "photographing" stars. The astronauts could have recorded star images in their photos by increasing exposures, but they were not there to take star pictures. The purpose of the photos was to record the astronauts' activities on the surface of the Moon.

Bill Kaysing claims that NASA has perpetrated the lie that stars cannot be seen in space to validate the lack of stars in the Apollo photos. This assertion a lie..

Originally posted by r2d246
....Why aren't there any stars in the scenes they show in the videos?

Well anyway JUST DO YOUR RESEARCH.

Originally posted by denver22

The astronauts should have seen a beautiful star-filled sky above them, yet they never mention it.

Even though there was a black sky above them, the astronauts still had to contend with the glare of a brightly lit lunar surface. The bright landscape prevented the astronauts' eyes from becoming dark adapted, thus making it nearly impossible to see faint stars. It would be like trying to see stars at night on Earth while someone is shining a flashlight directly into your eyes. Some astronauts reported that, while inside the LM, they could see stars through the upper rendezvous window. Also, astronaut Gene Cernan said that, while standing in the shadow of the Apollo 17 LM, he could see some stars while he was outside.

There are several photographs of objects that are in shadows, yet they appear lighted and with surprising detail. Objects located in shadows should appear totally black.

The problem with this statement is that it fails to consider reflected sunlight. Next to the Sun, the largest source of light on the Moon is the lunar surface itself, which reflects large amounts of sunlight. At the Earth-Sun distance, maximum solar illumination is about 10,000 lumens per square foot; however, if the Sun is not directly overhead its rays will strike the surface obliquely. This decreases the intensity of sunlight per unit area. A typical Sun elevation during the Apollo landings was about 20 degrees, thus the illumination per square foot was about 3,400 lumens. Since the Moon's surface reflects about 10% of the light it receives, each square foot of surface reflected about 340 lumens. This is equivalent to the luminosity of a 35-watt light bulb. This amount of light easily explains the illumination observed in the Apollo photographs.

In many photographs the shadow side of the astronauts appear illuminated, while the shadow side of rocks appear totally black.

This Apollo 17 photograph
is a good example of the above hoax claim. The explanation is apparent from the photo itself. Look at the astronaut's feet and you will see that the shadow in this area is just as dark as that of the foreground rocks. The lunar surface acts as a reflector to illuminate the shadow side of the astronaut. At the elevation of the astronaut's feet, and the foreground rocks, this reflector surface is mostly covered by the adjacent shadows. However, at the elevation of the astronaut's head and torso, the shadows cover a much smaller percentage of the surface. For example, on a flat surface the angular distance from horizon to horizon is 180 degrees. At an elevation of five feet, a one-foot wide shadow subtends an angle of 11.4 degrees, or only 6% of the distance from horizon to horizon. At two inches above the ground, this shadow subtends an angle of 143 degrees, or nearly 80% of the surface. Furthermore, the rocks are darker and less reflective than the astronaut's white space suit.

Shadows cast on the lunar surface should be parallel. Some shadows in the Apollo photos are not parallel indicating more than one light source, thus the photos are fakes.

Again there is a sound explanation; it is a simple a matter of perspective. A photo is a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional world, hence parallel lines may not appear as such on film. We all know how lines on a highway appear to diverge as they approach the observer, yet we know they are parallel. Another important factor that comes into play here is the slope of the ground. Let's consider two shadows - one cast on an upward slope and the other on a downward slope. If viewed from the side, these shadows would appear to go off in different directions. However, if viewed from high above, they would be seen as parallel. In other words, looks can be deceiving. There is no evidence of NASA trickery here.

This photograph
, taken on Earth, is an excellent example illustrating how perspective causes shadows to appear non-parallel when seen on film. In this example [see photo] the astronaut on the right is standing on a small rise. The sloping ground has caused his shadow to elongate and appear at a different angle than the shadow of the astronaut on the left. Also note, if two spotlights produced the shadows then each astronaut would have two shadows.

You clearly havent done yours