Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: IroncladFT

The Wright brothers built the first plane and since then planes have gotten bigger, faster, more efficient, more reliable, etc... so how is it NASA builds a lunar lander in the 60's with 60's technology and today in 2014 we aren't even close too and definitely not any better than almost 50 years ago??? Are we to believe NASA just doesn't have the brains needed to far exceed the guys who worked for them in the 60's?

IMO, Project Morpheus helps prove the lunar landing was BS!!!
morpheuslander.jsc.nasa.gov...

In 1942, the Glenn L. Martin company built a series of flying boats that were 171 feet long, had a 200' wingspan, and carried 32,000 lbs of cargo. Since 1942, planes have gotten bigger, faster, more efficient, more reliable...so why is it that nobody has built a flying boat bigger than the 1942 vintage JRM-3? Are we to believe that the aviation industry just doesn't have the brains needed to far exceed the guys who worked for Martin in the 40s?

Believe it or not, my (admittedly) mocking send-up and your original question have the same answer. "Because there hasn't been a need for that kind of hardware in decades, and we can't duplicate all the technology that's gone obsolete between then and now." I've got first-hand experience with this problem...I'm a member of the Commemorative Air Force (Arizona Wing), and finding parts for outdated technology is an ongoing nightmare. If you're not 'into' WWII aircraft, here's a more tech-based example: Can you build me a PC? I want an Intel 386/20 with 512K RAM, dual 5.25" disk drives, and a 9600baud modem? Why not? We were building them in the 1980s.

Yes, I do have a point. No company is going to maintain a technology that has no market (see above references to 386 chip sets and 1940s aircraft parts...see also buggy whips and steam locomotive parts). It's simply not cost-effective to do so. After 1972, there was absolutely *no* market for Lunar Excursion Modules or Saturn-V launch vehicles. After about 1985, it even became pointless to think about using the Apollo-era blueprints to restart production, as we no longer made the very primitive electrical components used in the designs. By the time we get to the 21st century, we're literally better off starting from scratch (as expensive and tedious as that process is) than we are trying to set the technology clock back 40 years. I'll admit that it seems counter-intuitive that advancing technology makes a great achievement harder to duplicate, but as a famous author once said, "Of course truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense, truth doesn't labor under that constraint".

a reply to: Brother Stormhammer

Your right in fact would be a major effort just to build the flight computer they used in Apollo. Because no one makes the parts. Of course we have better computers than they had and could integrate those but then we have to start upgrading controls to handle the better computer. Then will end up redesigning the parts they attach to because we cant find the motors they used. The Then of course we move on to life support again we dont make the parts anymore so were having to redesign it using parts we do have available.By the time your done trying to build an apollo vehicle capable of going to the moon its cheaper to just re engineer it from the start and toss out the old plans. As far as technology it makes lots of things obsolete go try to find a VCR tape. And the whole well they havnt done it since than doesnt mean a thing they haven't built a battleship in 60 years that doesnt mean we cant there is no need for them. We can make ship cheaper smaller and stronger with more firepower than multiple battleships.There was no need to repeat Apollo it was done at a specific time in US history. Now when we did start looking into going back the economy cancelled that NASAs budget was cut by Obama forcing them to scrap there plans to return.There trying to keep alive the manned mission to mars by extending out the costs but i wouldnt hold my breath.

We will not return to space travel until people demand it and the interest just isnt there.Who knows for Americans we mat never return to space we may have to wait for the Chinese to go. I think part of the problem is people with all these wild accusations about NASA as well turning our space program into a joke makes it superficial and people dont spend money on jokes.

a reply to: douglas5

The parachutes on Venera 9 didn't need to be very heat resistant, because they were designed to detach high above the surface: they slowed the probe down initially but then were no longer needed because it was braked by the very thick atmosphere:

At the altitude of 62 kilometers above the surface, three main parachutes with the total area of 180 square meters had deployed [...] Main parachutes were jettisoned at the altitude of 50 kilometers above the surface and the lander was then in a free fall, slowing down only with the help of a disk-shaped aerodynamic break.

www.russianspaceweb.com...

At that 50km altitude, conditions are not too different from at the surface of the Earth: 1 atmosphere pressure and temperatures of around 60C. In fact that part of the Venusian atmosphere has been called "the most Earth-like place in the solar system"! www.universetoday.com...

The Venus Pioneer probe used a similar technique and the design spec for its parachute was 80 deg C. It used Dacron (PET) which is more acid resistant than nylon: solarsystem.nasa.gov...


Perhaps you were thinking of the earlier Venera probes, which did use parachutes all the way down to the surface? They didn't work too brilliantly, in part due to... parachute failure! Hence the revised design for Venera 9, which got round the problems caused by high temperatures. The exact material used for those parachutes is unclear: the Soviet space program was a lot less open than NASA, who publish every last detail of their work. They described it as "glass nitron", which is suitably vague. Nitron usually refers to polyacrylonitrile, but presumably they actually meant some form of glass-fibre cloth as used in fire blankets, which doesn't melt until well over 800 deg C. Interestingly the release mechanism for the parachute was quite clever and used the heat to its advantage: the parachute was tied up with nylon cord, which melted once the temperature got high enough and opened the chute. Simple but effective!

Once again - if you are curious about something, why not take the time to look it up rather than ask "gotcha questions" that turn out not to be anything of the sort? You can find the answers to just about anything on the internet.

originally posted by: dragonridr

We will not return to space travel until people demand it and the interest just isnt there.Who knows for Americans we mat never return to space we may have to wait for the Chinese to go. I think part of the problem is people with all these wild accusations about NASA as well turning our space program into a joke makes it superficial and people dont spend money on jokes.

No interest? Was there interest in the 60's? NO...but there was cause for government concern that Russia would get their first, so what a convenient way to get American people to band together and pay higher taxes to fund the space race...or fill pockets, take your pick. And are you telling me today's society wouldn't like to see HD video of our men/women on the moon? Wouldn't educators be delighted ant NEW shots of the moon, equipment, new tests of elements (maybe something has changed on the surface?), etc...but I digress, who needs to see that? With the technology you guys say we have no, getting there should be 10x easier, 10x more exciting, and bring todays society what they want to see.

Imagine, BILLIONS able to tune in on HD tv's, HD internet live feeds, etc...or is NASA afraid with OUR technology we will see the original landing was BS? Such an easy excuse not to go back..no interest, no need? REALLY!!!

a reply to: Brother Stormhammer

but as a famous author once said, "Of course truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense, truth doesn't labor under that constraint".

I have a nice quote from Charles Bolden "We're gonna turn science fiction into science fact."

He is also in charge of the Keep Out Zones on the moon.

Quotes are funny things! I can quote astronauts saying that the moon looked "unreal" or that the landing looked like "a hollywood movie". I can quote astronauts comparing the moon to "plaster of paris". I can quote astronauts talking about

t r u t h ' s p r o t e c t i v e l a y e r s .

Can we get truth from quotes? I think quotes are just the starting point, because X marks the spot; then we dig into the quote to find out what the meaning is. As an Apollo Reviewer I like quotes because they help to put some context into the narrative which is a good way to avoid the pitfalls of the official narratives leave omit important details, for example, distorting the official timeline by leaving out important details about specific Apollo 15 tv conferences.

What did Charlie Bolden mean by turning science fiction into science fact?

How much value is a quote in this thread when no humans or monkeys have been outside leo since Nixon was president?

Quotes... quotes... quotes...

originally posted by: IroncladFT

originally posted by: dragonridr

We will not return to space travel until people demand it and the interest just isnt there.Who knows for Americans we mat never return to space we may have to wait for the Chinese to go. I think part of the problem is people with all these wild accusations about NASA as well turning our space program into a joke makes it superficial and people dont spend money on jokes.

No interest? Was there interest in the 60's? NO...but there was cause for government concern that Russia would get their first, so what a convenient way to get American people to band together and pay higher taxes to fund the space race...or fill pockets, take your pick. And are you telling me today's society wouldn't like to see HD video of our men/women on the moon? Wouldn't educators be delighted ant NEW shots of the moon, equipment, new tests of elements (maybe something has changed on the surface?), etc...but I digress, who needs to see that? With the technology you guys say we have no, getting there should be 10x easier, 10x more exciting, and bring todays society what they want to see.

Imagine, BILLIONS able to tune in on HD tv's, HD internet live feeds, etc...or is NASA afraid with OUR technology we will see the original landing was BS? Such an easy excuse not to go back..no interest, no need? REALLY!!!

well contact your congressman write the president tell him you want to go back. unfortunately not alot of people care .In the 60s it was a case of national pride that made it important today theirs no national pride left. So that only leaves one optio go there for profit but the expanse makes that extremely dificult though there are companies attempting just that. It wont be the Govt going to the moon but more likely a US company.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: Brother Stormhammer

but as a famous author once said, "Of course truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense, truth doesn't labor under that constraint".

I have a nice quote from Charles Bolden "We're gonna turn science fiction into science fact."

He is also in charge of the Keep Out Zones on the moon.

Quotes are funny things! I can quote astronauts saying that the moon looked "unreal" or that the landing looked like "a hollywood movie". I can quote astronauts comparing the moon to "plaster of paris". I can quote astronauts talking about

t r u t h ' s p r o t e c t i v e l a y e r s .

Can we get truth from quotes? I think quotes are just the starting point, because X marks the spot; then we dig into the quote to find out what the meaning is. As an Apollo Reviewer I like quotes because they help to put some context into the narrative which is a good way to avoid the pitfalls of the official narratives leave omit important details, for example, distorting the official timeline by leaving out important details about specific Apollo 15 tv conferences.

What did Charlie Bolden mean by turning science fiction into science fact?

How much value is a quote in this thread when no humans or monkeys have been outside leo since Nixon was president?

Quotes... quotes... quotes...

There can be truth in quotes heres one Houston the eagle has landed.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

I have a nice quote from Charles Bolden "We're gonna turn science fiction into science fact."

You seem to like this quote, but you clearly have no idea what it means. It's not difficult. "We're gonna turn science fiction" — ie the long-held dream, seen in sci-fi back to the days of Jules Verne and beyond, of men walking on the moon — "into science fact" — ie make it a reality. And that is exactly what they did. Hardly ambiguous, is it?

originally posted by IronCladFT

Imagine, BILLIONS able to tune in on HD tv's, HD internet live feeds, etc...or is NASA afraid with OUR technology we will see the original landing was BS? Such an easy excuse not to go back..no interest, no need? REALLY!!!

Right now there is a rover on Mars beaming back dozens of HD pictures of the surface of Mars every day, posted on the internet for anyone to study. How much public interest in that is there? The general public don't give a damn about space.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: Brother Stormhammer

but as a famous author once said, "Of course truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense, truth doesn't labor under that constraint".

I have a nice quote from Charles Bolden "We're gonna turn science fiction into science fact."



He is also in charge of the Keep Out Zones on the moon.



Quotes are funny things! I can quote astronauts saying that the moon looked "unreal" or that the landing looked like "a hollywood movie". I can quote astronauts comparing the moon to "plaster of paris". I can quote astronauts talking about



t r u t h ' s p r o t e c t i v e l a y e r s .



Can we get truth from quotes? I think quotes are just the starting point, because X marks the spot; then we dig into the quote to find out what the meaning is. As an Apollo Reviewer I like quotes because they help to put some context into the narrative which is a good way to avoid the pitfalls of the official narratives leave omit important details, for example, distorting the official timeline by leaving out important details about specific Apollo 15 tv conferences.



What did Charlie Bolden mean by turning science fiction into science fact?



How much value is a quote in this thread when no humans or monkeys have been outside leo since Nixon was president?



Quotes... quotes... quotes...

Quotes are only any use if they are cited correctly and given the correct context. When people quote things incorrectly, then ascribe meanings that were clearly not intended, or actually make stuff up based on something that was never actually said, then the quotes are pointless and don't beloing in a debate.

You are not an 'Apollo Reviewer'. You are a historical revisionist intent on putting meaning into things that were never there, and trying to claim that things didn't happen for which there is abundant physical evidence.

originally posted by: Rob48

Right now there is a rover on Mars beaming back dozens of HD pictures of the surface of Mars every day, posted on the internet for anyone to study. How much public interest in that is there? The general public don't give a damn about space.

An UNMANNED rover.....this is why no one cares. Send MAN back up to space and that will change, but of course we won't because we never have in the first place. Sending a rover doesn't prove MAN was there, it proves we can send machines...and no one doubts that. But conversations between astronauts and earth, live feeds of man walking on the moon, live feeds of man laying the first brick to the new moon lab building on world TV in HD WOULD draw attention....this idea no one cares is NOT true. We watched them hop around for a few days in the 60's right...and drive a little buggy around right? So why not send an athlete up there and let him hit a baseball, throw a football, ride a bike, etc...it would be awesome and make a lot of money...but I again digress, we won't because WE CAN'T!!

ETA: Why hasn't the HD rover sent back HD pictures of what we left on the lunar surface from the 60's? Kinda odd they won't show that stuff on the HD photos...instead just pixilated BS photos. Oh yeah, WE CAN'T SHOW WHAT ISN'T THERE!!!

a reply to: IroncladFT

ETA: Why hasn't the HD rover sent back HD pictures of what we left on the lunar surface from the 60's? Kinda odd they won't show that stuff on the HD photos...instead just pixilated BS photos. Oh yeah, WE CAN'T SHOW WHAT ISN'T THERE!!!

Or perhaps because the rover is on Mars?

But the lunar hardware has been photographed from lunar orbit at a resolution BETTER than any available satellite imagery of the Earth: 25cm per pixel. The best commercial satellite imagery of Earth (eg as used on Google Maps) is 30cm per pixel.

At that resolution, the lunar modules have a diameter of about 16 pixels, and we can make out the lunar rovers, TV antennae, science experiment packages and even the trails of footprints. Hardly "pixilated [sic] BS"!

Edit to add images:

Cars as seen on best satellite images of Earth:



Lunar module as seen on LRO image of Moon:



Both objects are about 4 metres long. The lunar module shows as more pixels.

a reply to: IroncladFT

Imagine, BILLIONS able to tune in on HD tv's, HD internet live feeds, etc...or is NASA afraid with OUR technology we will see the original landing was BS? Such an easy excuse not to go back..no interest, no need? REALLY!!!

Well I agree with the whole premise of your post!!!

& I propose a survey....
Anybody who reads this and does feel there is interest in landing on the moon again star Ironclad's post that I have replied to!!!
I would have said star mine but I'm not fishing for stars I just want an accurate reading so if we get a majority of stars for IC's post we should see how many would like to!!!
I've starred the post because it does interest me probably more than it interested anybody in the 60s!!!

So how about you ATS???
Do you have an interest in such a venture onto our Lunar companion, or will you ignore the survey proposal???

Peace everybody!!!

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs
I hardly think that "people reading a thread about the moon landings on ATS" is a representative sample of the general public!

originally posted by: IroncladFT

originally posted by: Rob48

Right now there is a rover on Mars beaming back dozens of HD pictures of the surface of Mars every day, posted on the internet for anyone to study. How much public interest in that is there? The general public don't give a damn about space.

An UNMANNED rover.....this is why no one cares. Send MAN back up to space and that will change, but of course we won't because we never have in the first place. Sending a rover doesn't prove MAN was there, it proves we can send machines...and no one doubts that. But conversations between astronauts and earth, live feeds of man walking on the moon, live feeds of man laying the first brick to the new moon lab building on world TV in HD WOULD draw attention....this idea no one cares is NOT true. We watched them hop around for a few days in the 60's right...and drive a little buggy around right? So why not send an athlete up there and let him hit a baseball, throw a football, ride a bike, etc...it would be awesome and make a lot of money...but I again digress, we won't because WE CAN'T!!

ETA: Why hasn't the HD rover sent back HD pictures of what we left on the lunar surface from the 60's? Kinda odd they won't show that stuff on the HD photos...instead just pixilated BS photos. Oh yeah, WE CAN'T SHOW WHAT ISN'T THERE!!!

Because the HD rover is on mars and the apollo mission landed on the moon. Your closer than the rover is to the apollo landing sites. And you claim people are interested in space but yet you donot know this. I think this blatantly proves a lack of intrest in space exploration. But dont feel bad id bet most people if asked when get this wrong.

a reply to: Rob48

And I disagree that that's the case!!!
I see ATS as a compound for enlightened minds, albeit in their own fields of expertise but we represent the majority of intellectuals just like Facebook harbours a majority of reprobates...
But even they'd get involved in a "back to the moon survey" I'm sure!!!
How many active members here???
Couple hundred thousand???
How many readers waiting for the right thread to join up and comment???
Similar numbers no doubt!!!
So as a whole we could easily persuade Government to look into it...
If you're not interested just say so, I'd find it highly unbelievable considering you avatar though pal


Peace Rob!!!

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Of course I am interested. I would love to see another manned mission, the sooner the better. But that doesn't mean I don't believe the original missions were real. The evidence is overwhelming.

There is a rover on the moon, but not sure if it is working at this time, sent by the Chinese with HD capability just like our rovers on Mars.

a reply to: Rob48

Of course I am interested. I would love to see another manned mission, the sooner the better. But that doesn't mean I don't believe the original missions were real. The evidence is overwhelming.

That's 2 of us at least

I wouldn't expect you to go against your research either, I do believe the missions happened, just not how we were told!!!
Remember I'm all about the "how"... not the ifs & buts!!!

Helped by E.T just like Hermann Oberth admitted himself!!!
Educated about how to penetrate the VAB, how to design craft, how to communicate back & forth etc!!!

I'm a believer, just like I believe 9/11 happened, I just struggle with the official story!!!


Peace Rob!!!

a reply to: IroncladFT

If I remember rightly the Chinese Rover is up and running again...
But there is a no fly zone over Landmarks on the moon so it would take a while to get their!!!

Personally I don't think China care about America's landing sites, they're probably more interested in exploration & collection!!!


Peace IC!!!

a reply to: Rob48

I am confused by your example of the satellite photo of the parked cars. You're saying the images given by Google earth/maps are NOT as high quality as the ones NASA used to show the left behind equipment on the moon, then post a pixilated image of 3 cars parked and of the lunar rover. So i ask you...how come I can see my truck clear as day using google maps/earth, but this quality isn't available from NASA to show the rover?



I am honestly confused because some of the SAT images I have seen while in the Military and working as a PMC in Afghanistan are unFN real.