Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

reply to post by FoosM

No, sorry they didnt.

If you are going to disagree with Russia's leading authority on radiation, I'm afraid you will have to provide hard data.

And they didnt even have full knowledge of what to expect.

Again, Christopher Columbus did not have full knowledge of what to expect. Are you saying that he did not cross the Atlantic and that America is just a big hoax?

choos

FoosM

choos

FoosM

Keep digging and you will find enough info pointing to the fact that it was impossible for any human to go through the belts with Apollo space craft. They weren't designed for radiation. No protection on the windows, thin walls, etc.

thin walls?? after a quick search

Get back to me when you do a real search with the real numbers.

but that certainly does not describe "thin" now does it.. and that is only the inner shell and the outer shell..
there is also firbous insulation in between the two shells..
not to mention all the hardware inside the inner shell..
the clothing they wear..
the entire CSM and lunar module attached to the CM with all of the fuel
and consumables inside the tanks..

hardly thin

edit on 28-3-2014 by choos because: (no reason given)

Like I said, go do some more research on it, and you will find out why people are using the word "thin".
And why do you keep skipping the fact they had windows?

reply to post by FoosM


Thanks for your reply. I just find it convenient that NASA controls the science behind the landing and questioning said science or using other sources will get you nothing but ridicule. They are right and everything else is heresay. Empirical evidence on the other hand speaks for itself -- and nobody has been in the VA Belts outside of Apollo/Gemini (partially) and a couple turtles. If it were so harmless - by now (2014) there would have to be someone else to have traversed into the radioactive area. Especially if thin aluminum is an abundant shield.

reply to post by FoosM

Foos, of the 24 men who have travelled to lunar orbit, 17 of them are still alive. The youngest is now 78, the oldest 86. Would you like to call them all liars and explain to them how they should be dead?

And they didnt even have full knowledge of what to expect.

No, they didn't. That's pretty much the definition of "exploration".

Argue all you like, but pretty soon you're going to see men going into lunar orbit again, and then what will you say?

lotusfoot
First of all, has anyone noticed what a perfect studio landing ?

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you asking why everything was lit all of the time? The reason for that is that the sun was always shining. Daylight on the moon lasts for 2 continuous weeks, and there are no clouds.

EDIT TO ADD:
I mis-read your word "landing" as "Lighting", hence my response. I address the "studio landing" in another post below.

Has anyone noticed who was filming the take off ?

The only videos of the liftoff from the Moon we have are for Apollos 15, 16, and 17. That's because the cameras that were used to make those videos was mounted to the lunar rover. The camera was operated remotely by a technician back at mission control. The camera on the lunar rover had the remote control ability because one of the purposes of that camera was to keep tabs on the astronauts as they did their explorations away from the landing site.

These liftoff videos were tricky to make because of the 2.6 second time delay (caused by the limits of the speed of light) between the time the camera operator reacted to what he sees on the video coming from the moon (which took 1.3 seconds to be received from the moon) and the time his reaction commands back to the camera were received by the camera (another 1.3 seconds).

Of the three liftoff videos, only the one for Apollo 17 successfully tracked the LM ascent stage as it lifted off into the distance. For Apollo 17, the camera operator first learned what Apollo 17's ascent trajectory would be, then he simply (and blindly) panned the camera up 1.3 seconds before the planned liftoff time, and then moved the camera (again blindly) along the planned path of the LM ascent stage. The attempts on the two previous missions failed for different reasons. The first attempt video of the LM ascent was Apollo 15, but earlier in the mission the remote control panning mechanism broke, so the camera operator could not track the ascent -- we could only see the liftoff. For Apollo 16, the rover was not parked where the camera operator thought it was parked (where the astronauts were supposed to park it, so his trajectory calculations were off.

Here is an explanation and videos of all three LM ascent videos.

Leaving the Moon, Watching at Home

Has anyone noticed that NASA officially stated that they lost the original video ?

Do you mean some of the video from Apollo 11? Copies still exist, and we have all seen those copies; but, yeah -- the originals were lost.

The video was faked because NASA said it was a recreation.

Huh? Can you give a little more information about this alleged statement from NASA? Who said this? What was the context?

Anyone who thinks they took that POS contraption to the moon will believe anything they are told.

Do you mean the lunar module (LM)?

Sure -- it is not the kind of machine that you would be able to fly around the skies over your hometown, but then again it only needed to work in space; it never flew anywhere but in space.

You may be looking at all of the exposed insulation when you say "POS". the insulation on the LM is not covered by an outer metal shell like on most vehicles that need to work in atmosphere. There is no atmosphere in space, so the insulation would not need to be covered (there are no atmospheric forces to protect the insulation from). So I think you are being "dazzled" by the insulation, and not seeing the actual metal skin of LM, which does not look like a POS.

Here is a mock-up of an LM without the insulation. It may be easier to see the actual structure.




The LM is (in basic concept) quite simple. It consists of a pressurized crew cabin (the cylinder in on the right side/front of this image), tanks for fuel and other consumables (on the left/rear), and an engine (which is barely visible on the underside). These pieces make up the ascent stage:



....And a platform with legs to which the ascent stage was mounted. This platform also had its own engine with fuel tanks, which was used for the descent to the moon:




By the way, you r questions seem juvenile and not very well thought-out. It seems you are simply repeating other questions you heard before in a reactionary manner, without really taking even a brief moment to find the answers.

reply to post by FoosM

Like I said, go do some more research on it, and you will find out why people are using the word "thin".
And why do you keep skipping the fact they had windows?

Like I said, you are the one who needs to do the research and post it here if you are going to contradict E. E. Kovalev, whom Jarrah White admits is the world's leading authority, and certainly no NASA stooge. As for the windows, they were essentially silicon and aluminum, and thus shielding. Now that I have addressed that fact again, any time you claim that we are 'skipping that fact,' you will be lying. Again.

reply to post by cestrup

Thanks for your reply. I just find it convenient that NASA controls the science behind the landing and questioning said science or using other sources will get you nothing but ridicule.

NASA does not control the science. That is an absurd statement. Anyone can verify the science for themselves. In fact, I urge you to take up rocketry as a hobby. Once you master the practical aspects of applying Newton's laws, you will be able to appreciate the information NASA supplies about its own activities.

They are right and everything else is heresay.

Science is science. Either you understand it or you don't.

Empirical evidence on the other hand speaks for itself -- and nobody has been in the VA Belts outside of Apollo/Gemini (partially) and a couple turtles.

So? Only a couple of people have been to the bottom of the Marianas Trench. What does that prove?

If it were so harmless - by now (2014) there would have to be someone else to have traversed into the radioactive area. Especially if thin aluminum is an abundant shield.

Going to the bottom of the Marianas Trench is harmless. Why haven't more people gone? This is not a rhetorical question; please answer it.

cestrup
...Empirical evidence on the other hand speaks for itself -- and nobody has been in the VA Belts outside of Apollo/Gemini (partially) and a couple turtles. If it were so harmless - by now (2014) there would have to be someone else to have traversed into the radioactive area. Especially if thin aluminum is an abundant shield.

Manned flight is very expensive (and not just because of radiation protection), and the very limited resources for manned flight is being spent on the space station.

I remember when and why we stopped sending people to the Moon. The average person back on earth thought is was a big waste of money, and felt that money should be spent solving social issues here on Earth. Granted, there are a lot of other things things that a lot of money is spent on, but the politicians in the U.S. saw the Apollo project as a simple thing to cut out of the budget to appease the public.

So congress allowed NASA to move onto the next thing, which was the shuttle (the shuttle design started 1 year after the last Moon mission, and construction of the shuttle began 3 years after the last moon mission). NASA's budget allotment given by congress could not afford the shuttle plus other manned projects, so other projects were scrapped in lieu of the space shuttle.

Buzz Aldrin says they went to the moon, he also says there are 3 mile wide UFOs on film and those turned out to be dust particles. PUHLEEEZ

lotusfoot
Buzz Aldrin says they went to the moon, he also says there are 3 mile wide UFOs on film and those turned out to be dust particles. PUHLEEEZ

Where does Buzz Aldrin say that? Provide a link or admit that you're just making things up.

DJW001
reply to post by cestrup

 

Thanks for your reply. I just find it convenient that NASA controls the science behind the landing and questioning said science or using other sources will get you nothing but ridicule.

NASA does not control the science. That is an absurd statement. Anyone can verify the science for themselves. In fact, I urge you to take up rocketry as a hobby. Once you master the practical aspects of applying Newton's laws, you will be able to appreciate the information NASA supplies about its own activities.

They are right and everything else is heresay.

Science is science. Either you understand it or you don't.

Empirical evidence on the other hand speaks for itself -- and nobody has been in the VA Belts outside of Apollo/Gemini (partially) and a couple turtles.

So? Only a couple of people have been to the bottom of the Marianas Trench. What does that prove?

If it were so harmless - by now (2014) there would have to be someone else to have traversed into the radioactive area. Especially if thin aluminum is an abundant shield.

Going to the bottom of the Marianas Trench is harmless. Why haven't more people gone? This is not a rhetorical question; please answer it.

I don't think the trench and the Moon are a fair comparison. I don't see what we can gain from being there and I don't think the technology to put us there quite compares with the Apollo missions. Also, I don't really care to debate with your tactics as you seem to be emotionally invested in somethng as meaningless as a conversation about the Moon missions. Now, you'll have to understand that I'm talking about the conversation as being meaningless, not the missions or lack thereof.

I do, however, appreciate when you provide data for us to see and analyze. It's funny to me that we haven't been into the belts or back to the moon. I understand that you may not feel the same way. But the FACT remains that nobody has lending credence to the possibilty of the belts being much more harmful than NASA would have us believe. If this were a hoax, and I was conducting it, I'd have some pretty authoritative sources to back my claims so that people wouldn't question, and if they did, someone such as yourself would rush to my defense. Money and fear are great motivators -- if this were a hoax, we can assume that the people behind it could provide both.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

Has nothing to do with the lighting, its the perfect circular motion in which it lands, that's thing was only capable of going straight up and down according to nasa, someone was filming from the moon when the thing took off if it really was the moon. Yes NASA officially said they lost the original video, that was the real kicker for me. Buzz Aldrin is full of it talking about 3 mile wide ufos in NASA videos, hahahah, you trust this guy that cant tell a speck of dust on camera from a 3 mile wide ufo? I cant remember the rest of you beef.

reply to post by DJW001


Here, since Im making things up watch him say it for yourself. How this escaped you and your a member of this site is beyond me. I don't need to make things up, they do a well enough job on their own.
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Since when does public opinion dictate what our government does with the tax money? I realize in fantasy world, this may be true but not from what I observe; it seems to me that they're willing to spend our money on whatever they choose. The moon is very important and you could tell from their excitement prior to the missions they weren't just trying to go up there and hit golf balls. There were real plans. Now, I'm not saying plans can't change - I just find the notion that money was the crutch absurd. I'm sure you can find some spun up article to link stating your claimed reasons, but please don't waste your time. This is just something we will not agree upon.

reply to post by cestrup

I don't think the trench and the Moon are a fair comparison. I don't see what we can gain from being there and I don't think the technology to put us there quite compares with the Apollo missions. Also, I don't really care to debate with your tactics as you seem to be emotionally invested in somethng as meaningless as a conversation about the Moon missions. Now, you'll have to understand that I'm talking about the conversation as being meaningless, not the missions or lack thereof.

If the comparison is unfair, it is because the Marianas Trench is much closer. Also, you seem to think that there is something to be gained from going to the Moon that cannot be gained from undersea exploration. Please explain. Also, if you think that the conversation is meaningless, why are you participating?

I do, however, appreciate when you provide data for us to see and analyze. It's funny to me that we haven't been into the belts or back to the moon. I understand that you may not feel the same way. But the FACT remains that nobody has lending credence to the possibilty of the belts being much more harmful than NASA would have us believe. If this were a hoax, and I was conducting it, I'd have some pretty authoritative sources to back my claims so that people wouldn't question, and if they did, someone such as yourself would rush to my defense. Money and fear are great motivators -- if this were a hoax, we can assume that the people behind it could provide both.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that every scientist on Earth is part of a conspiracy to cover up the facts about the Earth's Van Allen Belts, and that all the satellites that traverse them daily, or are even permanently orbiting in them, are some sort of hoax. Again, I am having a hard time understanding your point.

reply to post by FoosM


So FoosM OR should we really call you JW still waiting for an proper answer to how you came up with this pile of BS.



You keep going over old ground I will keep asking HOW did you come up with this conclusion

Anyone who knows what a clone tool is should be suspicious of nasa. They have an entire photoshop department. The british guy Gary Mckinnon found it when he hacked into their system and got busted and almost extradited here.

lotusfoot
reply to post by DJW001

 

Here, since Im making things up watch him say it for yourself. How this escaped you and your a member of this site is beyond me. I don't need to make things up, they do a well enough job on their own.
www.youtube.com...

edit on 28-3-2014 by lotusfoot because: (no reason given)

He doesn't say what you said he said.

lotusfoot
Anyone who knows what a clone tool is should be suspicious of nasa. They have an entire photoshop department. The british guy Gary Mckinnon found it when he hacked into their system and got busted and almost extradited here.

Once again, you are making a ridiculous claim which you will probably defend by linking to a YouTube video made by an idiot.

reply to post by DJW001


My points were clear and I never stated every scientist on the Earth was in on a conspiracy. So you're not understanding me correctly and using fallacy to debate. No thanks.

I participate in meaningless activities all the time. A simple conversation on the internet is rather meaningless in the grand scheme of things.