Neil Armstrong, Talk About Transparent, PooPoos Apollo Fraud , Then Proceeds to Go All Ballistic

Of all the theories that serve to prove that we may, or may not, have gone to the moon there is one issue above all for me that says we can't have gone.

How did the astronauts get rid of their backpacks before leaving the moon, how did the astronauts enter and exit the lunar lander with their backpacks and spacesuits on through a hatch not big enough through which to enter and exit?

There was no air lock, there was a limited amount of oxygen supply on the lander. These are facts. So having re-entered the lander prior to leaving the moon how did the astronauts remove their backpacks, throw them out of the lander as their weight meant they were too heavy to be returned up to the command module. There was no air lock, so if they opened the hatch the astronauts would loose all their atmosphere, and there wouldn't be sufficient supply for them to reach the command module. Did they hold their breath, open the door, lob out the backpacks and other items too heavy to bring back, and trust to luck? Wouldn't opening a hatch on a pressurized compartment in an airless environment cause some kind of drastic event inside the lander with things being sucked out and blown all over the place, wouldn't this pose a severe risk to the astronauts? I guess people could add their own thoughts to this.

Like I mentioned previously, the hatch seems to me to be one of the most unexplained and unexplored elements of the moon landing conspiracy. I just don't see how the landings were possible with the size of the hatch, the entry and exit from the lander with the bulky space suits and the size of the hatch and not risk damage to either the suits, packs, or lander itself.

Maybe someone should ask Mr Armstrong on this issue, or any of the other astronauts, on the issues of getting in and out of the lander.

reply to post by Rob37n


I for one have never contemplated this, and am intrigued.
Doing a bit of quick delving, I found this, which to me onlt partly explains.
It says the pod depressurized, then the hatch was opened and gear tossed out. Does this mean whilst the door was open, they were exposed whilst in their suits? Surely opening the door would have reversed the depressurization process?


www.airspacemag.com...

Originally posted by Mufcutcakeyumyum
reply to post by Rob37n

 

I for one have never contemplated this, and am intrigued.
Doing a bit of quick delving, I found this, which to me onlt partly explains.
It says the pod depressurized, then the hatch was opened and gear tossed out. Does this mean whilst the door was open, they were exposed whilst in their suits? Surely opening the door would have reversed the depressurization process?


www.airspacemag.com...

Enter pod, pressurize, take of backpacks, hook up to pod's air supply via hoses while keeping the suits on, depressurize, open hatch, throw out stuff...easy game

reply to post by MrXYZ


Which is fine, but how about getting in and out of the hatch? I think I read somewhere there wasn't an internal air system like you describe, but I stand to be corrected on that one as well.

reply to post by Mufcutcakeyumyum

Does that make sense, or am I sparking tripe?

Fifty years from now, automobiles will use AI to drive themselves with no risk of collision. People will scoff at the idea that humans were ever crazy enough to drive automobiles themselves.

reply to post by Rob37n

Which is fine, but how about getting in and out of the hatch? I think I read somewhere there wasn't an internal air system like you describe, but I stand to be corrected on that one as well.

Lunar Module Environmental Control System

System Description

The Lunar Module environmental control system was comprised of four main sections: atmosphere revitalization, oxygen supply and cabin pressure control, water management, and heat transport.

The atmosphere revitalization section (ARS) consisted of a suit circuit assembly and suit liquid cooling assembly. The ARS is illustrated in figure 6. The suit circuit assembly was a closed-loop recirculation system that cooled and ventilated the two pressure garment assemblies (PGA) through flexible umbilicals. The suit liquid cooling assembly circulated water through and controlled the temperature in the liquid cooling garment, circulated cabin gas via a cabin fan when required, and removed lunar dust from the cabin after ascent from the lunar surface.

lsda.jsc.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by Rob37n
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Which is fine, but how about getting in and out of the hatch? I think I read somewhere there wasn't an internal air system like you describe, but I stand to be corrected on that one as well.

Of course there was an internal air supply, they weren't wearing their backpacks during liftoff or the journey. During liftoff for example they were simply hooked up directly to the pod instead of the backpacks. The "backpacks didn't fit through the hatch" thing is not based on reality btw

You "We never went to the Moon" people have a baseless stance similar to that of James Oberg and those that claim UFOs don't exist. You overlook, deny and debunk literally mountains of supporting data to say something such as,"See! See! The shadows are all wrong in this still image supposed taken by astronaut X on the Moon. Therefore, the entire program was a fake!!!!"

It is clear from nothing more than a visit to the Space Center theater at Cape Canaveral that NASA has no qualms about mixing studio stills and videos with real footages. That is wrong and the fake stuff should be adequately identified, but to scream that the entire Moon program is a huge fake is like...asking for the Moon.

Thought I was a kook that didn't know squat ?

reply to post by DJW001


My answer to you is NO !!!!!!! DJW001, for the reasons stated previously. I am more than willing, indeed am eager, to debate NASA docs, named PERPS, professional astronomers and so forth.

Might gumption filled of you DJW001, rather nervy of you wouldn'tcha' say, to persistently engage in calling me a "moron", an "idiot", as paradox called me a "retard"(to his credit, he at least desisted with regard that particular insult) and then challenge me to a debate and expect me to assent. Who taught you your manners ?

If you do not like the way I pick on the ain'tstronauts and mop cislunar space with their heiny jive lyin' fannies, TOUGH...... If you believe it to be a double standard my slamming them from time to time as I do, TOUGH... I am intentionally provocative with them and with good reason. I wrote to Armstrong long ago and warned him about what I was capable of in more ways that one, as I wrote to others. I informed them they could choose to talk/go public themselves, or I would proceed to write their lyin' jive heinies into the grand books of world infamy. They chose the latter, so be it. They cannot say that they were not warned. Ditto for the NASA Administration.

As for you personally DJW001, you are most welcome to post in opposition to me, but if you do persist in your petty personal attacks, I may choose to not respond to you directly, if at all. Ditto for others that call me "moron" , idiot", "retard" and what not.

Clear enough ?

Hope that was/is helpful.......

reply to post by decisively

My answer to you is NO !!!!!!! DJW001, for the reasons stated previously. I more than willing, indeed am eager, to debate NASA docs, named PERPS, professional astronomers and so forth.

I knew you didn't have any faith in your position. You are a coward.

reply to post by Aleister

Maybe it was Frank Herbert that wrote the Apollo Mission scripts

There are no photos in existence of alleged Apollo landing sites which show unambiguous evidence of actual human activity on the lunar surface . White specs, sgwiggly lines.

As a friend of mine once quipped to our delight/amusement in another forum and in so quipping helped to earn himself a ban, maybe the white patches seen on the lunar surface as demonstrated by LRO flyover photography are mounds of extravasated barium, medical archeology as it were, from decades past hypaque/contrast enema radiographs performed on Frank Herbert DUNE like moon worms.

Maybe that's why they went to the moon Aleister. Maybe that was the big secret, motivation; the Apollo missions were a program to once and for all definitively study the epidemiology of lunar worm colon cancer.


Makes as much sense as NASA's own bogus telling of things.

I have to ask: Did an astronaut steal your gf? Because you seem mighty angry for someone who hasn't presented any proof to support his claims...so your position isn't exactly a rational one. And given your use of words it's very ironic you complain about name calling

PS: in case you're wondering why they went to the moon...they did it to show that the US was technologically more advanced than Russia. And if they had staged it, Russia would have long found out about it by now and made fun of the US in front of the entire world.

reply to post by decisively

There are no photos in existence of alleged Apollo landing sites which show unambiguous evidence of actual human activity on the lunar surface .

do videos count??

such as the apollo 14 SEQ bay accidental pendulum




or perhaps a free falling bag being tossed?
youtu.be...

lets add this one in too, which compares images taken on the surface from apollo 11 with LRO pics, i picked the point with the astronaut in it as the video is quite long.
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Mufcutcakeyumyum

 

Does that make sense, or am I sparking tripe?

Fifty years from now, automobiles will use AI to drive themselves with no risk of collision. People will scoff at the idea that humans were ever crazy enough to drive automobiles themselves.

According to google, in 2005 there were almost 6,420,000 auto accidents that cost the country more than 230 billion dollars. Almost 3 million were injured and 42,636 were killed.

In 10 years that would be 2.3 trillion dollars of economic losses. And 426,360 killed.

If you ask me, people of the future are good thinkers.

BUT I think we went to the moon.

My proof is that only the US was dumb enough to land a man on the moon and spend several times more than the Soviet Union in the process just so it could say that it did it. And then stop going there for 40 years so far. This, above all, is US of A and is just too much like America to be a hoax.

We landed on the moon like it was our mistress and then we left her like we never knew her.

If it were a hoax, we would have spent less, done it in less time for other reasons than the space race, landed for scientific reasons and set up a He3-mining base in the 40 years after. Additionally, we would have built a telescopic array for deep space observations. Because remember, the US does not do things that way. This is why we never explored the Orion Program idea more. We're too paranoid of bad people getting access to atomic bombs even if it means manned flights to Saturn. We're short-term, hyper-paranoid, control-obsessed, money-obsessed, megalomaniacs.

Our claims have nothing to do with UFOs, please take that jive elsewhere

reply to post by Aliensun



Our claims, those of individuals doing serious Apollo fraud research have nothing to do with UFOs. Please do not inject such nonsense into this thread.

Sure we have lots of proof

reply to post by MrXYZ



Try this;

Why did the Lick Observatory Astronomers know where the Eagle had landed on 07/20/1969, exactly where it landed, and Neil Armstrong did not ?

If you don't know where your space ship landed, you certainly were not on the moon, especially when some geeky astronomers in San Jose knew EXACTLY where NASA pretended to park the thing.

Pretty dang fool proof ain't it MrXYZ ? and that is just for openers.........

Originally posted by decisively

Sure we have lots of proof

reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Try this;

Why did the Lick Observatory Astronomers know where the Eagle had landed on 07/20/1969, exactly where it landed, and Neil Armstrong did not ?

If you don't know where your space ship landed, you certainly were not on the moon, especially when some geeky astronomers in San Jose knew EXACTLY where NASA pretended to park the thing.

Pretty dang fool proof ain't it MrXYZ ? and that is just for openers.........

edit on 27-5-2012 by decisively because: caps

edit on 27-5-2012 by decisively because: comma

Because the landing site wasn't a specific area of only a few meters, it was a larger area that gave the 2 some choice upon closer inspection. Given that back then the exact surface features weren't as well known, that makes perfect sense. They simply didn't know the landing site area in enough detail...which is why for example the crater they landed in was only named AFTER the event.

Again, you are seeing unicorns where there are none

No, incorrect

reply to post by MrXYZ


You are not aware of the Apollo 11 narrative details. The Lick Observatory Astronomers were told by "Houston" on the evening of 07/20/1969 that the Eagle was at 00 41' 15 " north and 23 26' 00" east. Indeed, as it turned out, these were the EXACT OFFICIAL landing site coordinates ( until Merton Davies' "revision" in 1987). Neil Armstrong was not aware of these numbers until 11 days after the landing, 08/01/1969.

Question ; Why would you land Neil Armstrong on the moon and not tell him where he was , and yet, tell the Lick Observatory Astronomers where the Eagle landed ? Ditto for Michael Collins, why was he not told where the Eagle was ? Why was he searching all over the imagined moon of the Apollo 11 voyage with his sextant ? The Lick astronomers knew Neil was at 00 41' 15 " north and 23 26' 00" east , why not tell Collins ? What if there was a problem ? Is it not important that these guys know where the bird perched ?

Answer; the landing was/is fraudulent.

Neil and CapCom McCandless even referred to the landing site coordinate numbers as "the $64,000 question" during the cislunar ride "back from the moon".

reply to post by decisively

I wrote to Armstrong long ago and warned him about what I was capable of in more ways that one, as I wrote to others. I informed them they could choose to talk/go public themselves, or I would proceed to write their lyin' jive heinies into the grand books of world infamy. They chose the latter, so be it. They cannot say that they were not warned. Ditto for the NASA Administration.

I can see that NASA and Armstrong were really worried about you going public about a moon hoax

Like Neil Armstrong said how would you keep 800,000 NASA and Sub-Contractor employees from spilling the beans if it truly had been a hoax

reply to post by CynicalWabbit

Plenty worried now

Were not then, but they are plenty worried now.

NASA, Armstrong, Aaron don't know me from Adam. But they do know what the public knows in a general sense. What creates the greatest difficulties for them practically and psychologically, are first of all, DETAILS.

If someone says Apollo is fake because flags don't wave in a vacuum, it's more or less no big. But if I write Apollo is fake because the 1202 alarm is a cover for hiding the Eagle, a cover for pretending they don't know where it lands, and that because GARMAN MAKES THE "GO !!!!" CALL ON THE ALARM, THEN HE IS A PERP. AND SCHIESSER IS A PERP TOO BECAUSE HE IS IN CHARGE OF THE TRAJECTORY AND LANDING SITE CONCERNS AND WHAT HE WROTE IN THE MISSION REPORT DOES NOT SQUARE WITH WHAT HIS OWN FIDO H. DAVID REED WROTE. Well they get a little more than nervous because now we are not simply saying Apollo was a "hoax" , we are saying how and why it was fraudulent. WE !!!! are writing Apollo's HISTORY and writing it well. This is over the top difficult for them.

As I have stated before, and undoubtedly will do so again, SayonaraJupiter is 1000 times the Apollo historian Andrew Chaikin is, and NEIL ARMSTRONG KNOWS IT, and it causes him great great pain.

Secondly, as physicians, NASA has no defense, NONE, nothing to counter our demonstration of Apollo's fraudulence based on medical issue grounds.

So it's not me decisively they know, but what decisively and colleagues are saying, writing, state of the art Apollo fraud expositions, and believe me, THAT !!!!!! worries them, 'cuz they don't sleep so hot any more knowing their grand children will know in the most horrifically embarrassing detail what punks the PERPS were and how they shamed our country.

Bit of a game change what has occurred recently, No ?