Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

reply to post by turbonium1


You can still get through and tell where the thinner spots are. The energy of the particles is changing, not the shape or the thickness of them. And even if you were caught in the belts when the energy changed it still wouldn't kill you, either instantly or in the short term.

reply to post by mrwiffler


10 out of 14 of those ancient papers were written or co-written by Van Allen himself. The latest paper you suggested was from 1967, over 40 years ago. Wow, you like to quote the old testament scriptures!

What I am saying is...... no human demonstrations of space flight beyond low earth orbit since Richard Nixon was in office. And I might also add that.. ...many of those papers you mentioned were published in the late 1950's when Nixon was still the VP Vice President.

1967-68 is approximately the same time frame that Howard Hughes invaded Nevada and occupied Las Vegas. It's also the peak year for NASA's unmanned lunar probe series Lunar Orbiter 1-5 and the Hughes built Surveyor 1-7.

Do you see what I'm suggesting? You can't take Apollo out of historical context. You can't take James Van Allen out of historical context. It's not possible to take the Apollo program out of the 1960's narrative... especially when you consider who was driving these nice Corvettes

and pictured in the glossy magazines month after month after month, every month of every year in 1960's.... the Astronots... they were heroes before they launched... they were heroes at the magazine stand... they were heroes on tv... but were they really heroes on the surface of the Moon?

At the time when Nixon was escalating the carpet bombings in No. Viet Nam he paid for it by cancelling Apollo programs and space exploration "For All Mankind". "For All Mankind" That's what the movie title says:



Apollo 17 was splashing down on December 19th, 1972. They day before, December 18, Richard Nixon had launched Linebacker II, the $4 billion dollar carpet bombing of North Viet nam.


Facts are facts. What you do with them is up to you. I just don't understand how NASA can extract itself from Richard Nixon, when it's clear that James Webb quit at the end of October 1968, replaced by Paine.. Nixon makes his 1968 come back back in November of 1968, Apollo 8 goes to the moon on Christmas Eve, 1968, Howard Hughes "official" birthday.

Michael Collins was still recovering from his spinal surgery in December. But he would be 100% recovered after Dr. Charles Berry had checked him out. On January 9, 1969, the crew for Apollo 11 would be announced, on Richard Nixon's "official" birthday.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


He also wasn't taking to you. That was meant for the claim NASA didn't even know the Van Allen Belts were there when Apollo launched.

Zaphod58
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

He also wasn't taking to you. That was meant for the claim NASA didn't even know the Van Allen Belts were there when Apollo launched.

Pardon me.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


And let us not forget december 1969 was the introduction of the first computer word processor this was obviously needed since the conspiracy requires lots of paperwork. And the zodiac killer made his first kill 2 high school students.This was obviously a hit from NASA the 2 teenagers must have found out about
NASA faking the moon landings. Hey heres something else you can throw into your collection since you have an unhealthy infatuation with Nixon. Julie Nixon married David Eisenhower im sure we na tie that back to NASA as well. And lets see Timothy Leary was arrested for possessing narcotics im sure that he was Nixons supplier and got caught before they could make the exchange. And then there thereisthe Jets winning the AFC championship this was obviously a distraction created by NASA to hide the fact that people were orbiting the moon. Boy NASA was busy in December 1968 weren't they.

turbonium1

What they used to believe about the VA Belts was completely untrue.

The VA Belts unpredictably, and suddenly, will change into a fierce hazard. How can the Apollo story possibly fit in here? Nine missions going out through the Belts, and back again, for a total of 18 separate flights. Without a hitch!

It's utterly absurd.

who said its completely untrue??

looks to me that in 60+ years of space exploration that it doesnt occur often

The October 9 event mimicked an observed, but poorly understood event measured in 1997 by another spacecraft. Ever since the 1997 event, scientists have pondered whether the increase in electron energy was the result of forces outside of the belts, a mechanism known as “radial acceleration,” or from forces within the belts, known as “local acceleration.” Data from the Van Allen Probes seems to put this question to rest.

they only noticed it in 1997.. so from the 50's to the 90's all those satellites were more or less unaffected now i wonder why that is??

“In the October 9, 2012, event, all of the acceleration took place in about 12 hours,”

oh i see it only lasts about 12 hours at a time.. i bet you have interpreted that those 12 hours means that the particles are accelerate 24/7 during the apollo era right?

p.s. that article just had the answer to your question as to why they need to study the VAB.. but i bet you will ignore that part right??

reply to post by dragonridr

Boy NASA was busy in December 1968 weren't they.

NASA and Nixon both were busy. On the weekend that Apollo 11 landed on the "Moon" is the same weekend that Mary jo Kopechne died in Chappaquiddick. Is it a coincidence that Richard Nixon was in Camp David that weekend?
Did RN have access to helicopters? Were Nixon's sub-contractors in Chappaquiddick that weekend?

Was Richard Nixon really "motoring" from Camp David to the Eisenhower estate in Gettysburg, PA?
Did he RN really visit a gift shop in Gettysburg, PA at 9:50pm on the same night Mary jo was murdered?

According to Ted's account Kopechne reportedly left the party at 11:15 p.m. with Ted.

The last thing Richard Nixon did that evening, according to the Secret Service diary, on July 18, 1969, he called Billy Graham at 10:47p.m.

As you can see, Dragon. If you really tried to put the Apollo 11 mission into the proper historical context with what else was going on that weekend July 18, 1969, you would see Chappaquiddick and it is obvious that there is different and more plausible Apollo narrative ready to break free.... the new Apollo narrative. Nixon's Apollo. The story how it should be writting - with Richard Nixon in control of the whole project, taking orders from Howard Hughes.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


No i just see you pointing out alot of what you believe to be historical events and tying to shove it in to one big box. Even though i have pointed out to you several times what you think you know about history and what actually happened are to different things.Like by 1966 Howard Hughes was certifiably crazy and couldnt even take care of himself much less plan and execute a conspiracy. Richard Nixon was well frankly an idiot i mean come on was so worried about politics he created a scandal. How did he do this simple he was an idiot and this is the man you think orchestrated what would be the biggest hoaxes ever? He couldnt even come up with a foreign policy and go look at his 1960 debate with Kennedy no wonder Kennedy won.The only reason he won is Americans wanted out of Asia and he lied and said hed do it. This is apparently a lesson are current president learned as well.But thats another story for another thread.

choos

[wow.. just wow.. so you pick the years you wish even if they are non sequential add them up and get the average to try to justify you your point about NASA's budget??? completely ignoring the peak which would completely skew your conclusions..

I was pointing out to you that the only difference was a 4-year peak, which was only about 2x the average annual budget of today. And the other years were about the same as today - on average.

You cry foul, of course.

choos

but if i play your game but properly with no bias, if you get their total budget from 61-69 on average its about 24333 per year..

Why didn't you mention the average from 2001-09?

No matter - it is about 15867 per year.

Or, almost 2/3 (62.5%) of the average annual budget from 1961-69.

Is there some point you wanted to make here?

How it's all about a lack of money?

choos

but i suppose sinc you somehow believe GCR's will make someone sick or kill them within a week with maths skills like that im not really surprised.

Still trying to put words in my mouth, I see.

choos

say what??? you are using the failure of constellation as proof apollo was faked.. you are saying that constellations issues with returning to the moon ie failure, proves apollo was faked.. or are you changing your story again??

No, it's just another story you've concocted for me (see above)

I am NOT saying it is "proof" of a fake. You spin it as my claim. Back it up, if you can. Or stop making up crap I didn't say.

choos

just look at the peak of NASA's spending.. in the mid 60's when they were developing the rockets and crafts to fly man on the moon, that is the level of costs involved to get man on the moon..

and look at the budget of NASA now, while developing new rockets and crafts to get man on the moon for a longer period of time..

I just compared them above. About 1/3 more per year would do the trick, right?

Sure it would. Not.

choos

why would it take less time??? tell us why?? apollo technology is obsolete and is not designed for what orion is planned.

Why would it take less time?

It is the very first time ever attempted, and takes 7-8 years to accomplish.

It is done again, soon after. A total of nine missions reach the moon, with six landing.

So they knew exactly how to do it, right? Sure..

More than 40 years later, we would still know exactly how to do it.

We would know it better, in fact.

We DO know more about space now.

With advancements in technology, hand-in-hand with a greater knowledge of space (and its environment(s), we only improve on it.

Consider unmanned spacecraft. It is a great example of space exploration. With genuine technology.

It shows how we truly progress. It is not going to the moon, then back into LEO for the next 40 years.

Unmanned vehicles make logical steps. They progress outward, to the planets, and beyond. They land on the moon, and later they land on Mars. They probe hazardous environments to understand them, to make human missions possible. As they are doing now in the VA Belts.

Telescopes are another example of genuine progress in space.

Same goes for manned space exploration. If we have a technology that allowed manned moon landings, we would never have stopped our progress. Not a chance. We would not drop the technology as if it were worthless garbage. We would not go back into LEO for the next 40 years.

This is complete nonsense

choos

the major problem you have is that you believe getting man to the moon is like building a time machine.. thats wrong.. getting man to the moon is physically/theoretically possible.. building a time machine is not theoretically possible.. therefore money can solve the issue of getting man to the moon.. the more money you put into it the faster it can be done.. and now you want you want NASA to get to the moon faster than the apollo era on less than half the budget they had??

The point is that money can excuse anything.

A manned Mars landing is theoretically possible, but tons of money doesn't magically transform it into reality. That's what I mean with Apollo. Money is not the reason we can't go to the moon. We simply don't have the technology required for it - not yet, anyway.

choos

you are not clear on how research and development works.. you are not clear on the issues NASA has with the ares and orion..

I'm very clear on it.

choos

one of the issues with orion is the heatshield, whereas apollo done it by hand, the contractor for orion wants to automate the process.. this process does not exist.. and you think this proves your point???

It shows we have many issues not yet solved.

choos

yea but you seem to think once something is done, a newer better object with more technology and newer designs and designing new manufacturing processes should be able to do the same thing faster and at or less than half the price.. but obviously you missed my point or chose to ignore it.

A proven technology is the foundation. Nothing is more important to manned space exploration than having the fundamental technology to land man on the moon and back to Earth.

If it is used successfully in a manned moon landing program, it is not going to be buried away for eternity because the moon landing program ends. Then they just fly around in LEO for the next 40 years? What a pathetic joke!

Is the moon even there when no one looking??

The rocks. In order for there to be a conspiracy , you have to explain how the 800+ lbs of moon rocks all have microscopic craters in them. Cannot happen on earth, as micrometeorites cannot make it to the surface because we have an atmosphere. So, where could they come from? The moon of course, and those rocks also have the same isotopic chemical signatures that could only have come from the moon.

Kind of takes the wind out of anything else.... you gotta bury the case for the rocks first, and you cannot.

You can't take James Van Allen out of historical context. It's not possible to take the Apollo program out of the 1960's narrative... especially when you consider who was driving these nice Corvettes

and pictured in the glossy magazines month after month after month, every month of every year in 1960's.... the Astronots... they were heroes before they launched... they were heroes at the magazine stand... they were heroes on tv... but were they really heroes on the surface of the Moon?

At the time when Nixon was escalating the carpet bombings in No. Viet Nam he paid for it by cancelling Apollo programs and space exploration "For All Mankind". "For All Mankind" That's what the movie title says:

Apollo is indeed part of the 1960s narrative, and for a good reason: they landed on the moon. Geopolitics is not a subject everyone cares about, but spacewalks, rocket flights and moon landings? What's not to like. That's why Corvettes were given to the astronauts, and why Life magazine negotiated a deal with NASA that pretty much doubled their salary, why watch manufacturers and anyone else who had some sort of connection with Apollo tried to get a tie in so they could share some of the pot.

This does not prove Apollo never happened. In fact it helps prove the opposite, because all that publicity and coverage means contemporary unedited images are available for scrutiny.

I have many copies of those magazines and they feature not just the astronauts but details of how the missions were carried out, photographs of Earth from space and the lunar surface.

See that photo on the DVD? I can tell you exactly when it was taken (23:00 GMT April 19th 1972) thanks to weather satellite photographs taken on the same day. I have photographs in magazines taken on the lunar surface that show details you won't find in any photographs taken before they landed, and that weren't photographed again until the LRO went over the same sites.

Facts are facts, and your opinion of Nixon isn't changing any of them. Apollo may be part of Nixon's political narrative, but he didn't start it, and he had nothing to do with the science or engineering that made it possible and that prove it happened.

Zaphod58
reply to post by turbonium1

 

You can still get through and tell where the thinner spots are. The energy of the particles is changing, not the shape or the thickness of them. And even if you were caught in the belts when the energy changed it still wouldn't kill you, either instantly or in the short term.

Is that based on the experts who just discovered the whole region is the exact opposite of what they had previously believed?

Good one.

An astronaut is in a pressurized spacesuit.

He walks around on Earth.

He walks on the moon.

Why would he walk and move around so much slower on the moon than he would on Earth?

He wouldn't.

He would actually walk and move around faster on the moon than he would on Earth. Why?

Because on the moon, there is no atmosphere. On Earth, there is resistance of an atmosphere. So we will move slower on Earth because of resistance. And faster on the moon, where there is no resistance.

Another factor is gravity, which is much greater on Earth than the moon. So the greater gravity will make our movements slower on Earth as well.


That doesn't hold true in Apollo-land, as we know. It is the complete opposite of reality.

you know that whole reflector thing placement with apollo 11.

I bet the moon is naturally gonna reflect that laser light back!

An actual reflector didn't make it up there til an actual later mission.


My old Great Grand Opa's 1st impression of apollo 11 was a hoax, the family said.

He was a polish Resistance Fighter in WWII and didn't trust anything!!

turbonium1
An astronaut is in a pressurized spacesuit.

He walks around on Earth.

He walks on the moon.

Why would he walk and move around so much slower on the moon than he would on Earth?

He wouldn't.

He would actually walk and move around faster on the moon than he would on Earth. Why?

Because on the moon, there is no atmosphere. On Earth, there is resistance of an atmosphere. So we will move slower on Earth because of resistance. And faster on the moon, where there is no resistance.

Another factor is gravity, which is much greater on Earth than the moon. So the greater gravity will make our movements slower on Earth as well.


That doesn't hold true in Apollo-land, as we know. It is the complete opposite of reality.

Seriously? You think they would move faster on the moon because there's no air? Even if that argument holds water (it doesn't) the astronaut is actually moving around in something that will restrict his movement even more: a pressurised suit.

If you watch the videos properly, you see that they do not move in slow motion despite the popular myth - it's an illusion brought about by the fact that they are on the moon under lower gravity. They actually move much more quickly when walking than they do on Earth because each step covers a greater distance. What is slower is the reaction due to gravity - they go back to the ground more slowly, as does everything else.

AbleEndangered
you know that whole reflector thing placement with apollo 11.

I bet the moon is naturally gonna reflect that laser light back!

An actual reflector didn't make it up there til an actual later mission.


My old Great Grand Opa's 1st impression of apollo 11 was a hoax, the family said.

He was a polish Resistance Fighter in WWII and didn't trust anything!!

The moon does reflect back laser light, as well as radio signals (a popular thing amongst radio hams is bouncing signals off the moon) but the fact is that the return signals are massively weaker because the a) the moon is not as reflective as the laser reflectors and b) the returned signal is spread out over a much larger area. The lasers sent to the moon are aimed at exactly the spot that the laser reflectors are placed and return a strong signal from exactly that spot. If they weren't there, any country, or any individual, with a strong enough laser transmitter and return signal receiver would be able to prove it.

I'm sure your great grandpa is a lovely man, but he's wrong.

turbonium1
Why would he walk and move around so much slower on the moon than he would on Earth?
He wouldn't.
He would actually walk and move around faster on the moon than he would on Earth. Why?
Another factor is gravity, which is much greater on Earth than the moon. So the greater gravity will make our movements slower on Earth as well.
That doesn't hold true in Apollo-land, as we know. It is the complete opposite of reality.

gather around children..

"Doctor" Turbonium1 is going to show you all how his personal "logic" can defy the laws of physics..

but seriously i dont even believe other hoax believers are "intellectually genius" enough to make this claim.. where do you get your information from??

i dont know whether to correct you or to berate you when you make such an ignorant statement.. im actually going to take a screenshot of that post so i can easily reference it back the next time you try to use your "logic" to defy the laws of physics..

i feel kind of sorry for you.. the education system in your country has failed you terribly, i can fully understand now why you believe in the manned lunar hoax theory..

but lets amuse you for a bit.. have you got any proof at all that can support your "theory" that heavier gravity will cause movements to be slower.. have you got any proof that a lower gravity can cause people to walk faster?? are you even aware of the mechanics of the walking motion??

seriously just stay away from physics type of problems especially when its your "logic".. that post of yours...... it makes newton cry in his grave.. the education system in your country has some serious problems..

reply to post by turbonium1



You're such an expert prove that the shape changes when the particles accelerate. Prove that the Belts are impossible to get through since you're such an expert. You seem to have an answer to everything so prove us wrong.