Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

a reply to: dragonridr
Look back through the thread if you dare youll see the same old posts shot down multiple times yet like a bad penny they turn up again and again and again.

yep....Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter photograph fallacy just wont die....

a reply to: Misinformation

The LRO photos are becoming more of an embarrassment each day with the latest news that
commercial satellite companies will soon be permitted to sell even higher resolution images to the public than NASA has of the moon.

The company is due to launch a new satellite, dubbed Worldview-3, in August, and says its images will display features as small as 31cm. As the Reuters news agency reported, that will mean users will go from being able to identify a car to being able to identify its make.

Lif ting restrictions on satellite imagery

So, a satellite orbiting earth, hundreds of kilometres high can take a high resolution photo of your mailbox through the earth's atmosphere.

Yet a satellite skimming the moon as low as 25 kms with no atmosphere to contend with can't produce more than a blob of unrecognizable pixels. What a joke.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: onebigmonkey

Not only that, but rocket/propulsion technology and space habitability technology has also grown steadily since Apollo days.

turbonium1 --
Rocket engines today are much more efficient than rockets from the 1960s. The general physical make-up of a spacesuits is similar, but the technology has certainly not stagnated. The materials used for spacecraft design are more advanced than the Apollo era. Even the space shuttle (which began design about the same time of the final Apollo mission) had its avionics updated during its 30-year program life. The space shuttle as designed in the 1970s that was first flown in 1980 did not have the advanced avionics it had by the end of the program.

It's not that we CAN'T get back to the moon -- it's that we choose not to, because we don't have a good enough reason to do so. You can argue that "because exploring is whet we do" is a good enough reason, and in some ways I agree with that. However, just because I think that is a good enough reason, that doesn't mean that the people who decide on NASA budget's think its a good enough reason.

Excuse me? "We choose not to"?

They certainly DID choose to! Do you not know about the Constellation program? Sheesh.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Well, seems you are back to posting old ideas that were debunked several times . . .

First spanking

Second spanking - you devoted an entire thread on the subject and got trounced

Third Time

. . So you are either trying to perpetuate a lie, or you have Alzheimers. Which is it SayonaraJupiter?

Just for reference this is the original cover of the SP_386 publication that was published as a scientific analysis where as the cover you like to use was published for public use.



Not sure why you keep coming back to this idea that someone was covertly trying to send out a subliminal message to a bunch of doctors that probably didn't have any idea how many mountains should be in that picture. And as for the content . . it is accurate in every detail. Have you read the publication?

originally posted by: ppk55

So, a satellite orbiting earth, hundreds of kilometres high can take a high resolution photo of your mailbox through the earth's atmosphere.

got proof?? or is this an unsupported claim?? or even a lie??

and also.. of course its unrecognisable.. to you.. you have never seen the top of the descent stage before.. you dont even know what the reflection should look like.. and yet you seem to be want to be the expert in recognising the reflection on the top of the descent stage..

you are acting like someone who has never had any training even remotely close to the field of medicine, all the while trying to diagnose cancer cells..

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: onebigmonkey

Not only that, but rocket/propulsion technology and space habitability technology has also grown steadily since Apollo days.

turbonium1 --
Rocket engines today are much more efficient than rockets from the 1960s. The general physical make-up of a spacesuits is similar, but the technology has certainly not stagnated. The materials used for spacecraft design are more advanced than the Apollo era. Even the space shuttle (which began design about the same time of the final Apollo mission) had its avionics updated during its 30-year program life. The space shuttle as designed in the 1970s that was first flown in 1980 did not have the advanced avionics it had by the end of the program.

It's not that we CAN'T get back to the moon -- it's that we choose not to, because we don't have a good enough reason to do so. You can argue that "because exploring is whet we do" is a good enough reason, and in some ways I agree with that. However, just because I think that is a good enough reason, that doesn't mean that the people who decide on NASA budget's think its a good enough reason.

Excuse me? "We choose not to"?

They certainly DID choose to! Do you not know about the Constellation program? Sheesh.

and they CHOSE to delay it due to budget constraints.. orion will have its first test flight later this year..

originally posted by: Misinformation

a reply to: dragonridr
Look back through the thread if you dare youll see the same old posts shot down multiple times yet like a bad penny they turn up again and again and again.

yep....Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter photograph fallacy just wont die....

its not just the LRO which supports the manned moon missions.. other countries also support it with their own imagery from their own satellites..

It's Jim Irwin's magic mountain. Sure I read SP-368. It's full of summary tables, pictures of equipment, etc. You just wanna spank yourself silly with that sad defense of book written for people on the street. Why should the public version have a different cover than the other version you pointed out? Was NASA trying to fool the public with that magic mountain?

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
It's Jim Irwin's magic mountain. Sure I read SP-368. It's full of summary tables, pictures of equipment, etc. You just wanna spank yourself silly with that sad defense of book written for people on the street. Why should the public version have a different cover than the other version you pointed out? Was NASA trying to fool the public with that magic mountain?

did nasa make the cover?? or was it by a graphic artist?

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: turbonium1

Oooh ooh! I see what you're doing here: it's an analogy!!

It's a bad one.

Apollo accomplished nothing in one giant leap, it accomplished it via the extensive training and ground breaking work of Mercury and Gemini and the unmanned Apollo missions. People who have no understanding of the Apollo programme usually trot out at some point that they just went without doing anything to prepare. This is nonsense, because they got the hang of launching things, getting into orbit and staying there rendez-vous, passing from one craft to another, spacewalks, docking and undocking, re-entry, all over years of preparation.

The LM was tested in earth orbit to make sure it did what it was supposed to do before it went to the moon. it was tested in lunar orbit before it ever landed.

Here's a thought, why don't you specifically tell us which part of launching, earth orbit, trans-lunar injection, landing, lunar orbital rendez-vous, trans-earth injection and re-entry are impossible. Ideally, you should tell us exactly why they are impossible. NASA have kindly supplied all the equations to prove it is possible, now provide yours.

Equations can show elephants could drive, but they can't get inside a car to prove it. Equations can prove that ducks are capable of speaking Latin, too. Equations are not proof.

The LM was not proven in any way, either. Equations do not prove the LM was capable of landing on the moon, or ascending from the moon, or docking with a spacecraft flying at high speed in lunar orbit.

That is not proof of anything.

I don't claim to have absolute proof that the LM was not capable of such things, either.

So look at what we DO have...

We have a vehicle - the LM - which is supposedly landing on the moon without a hitch, with no unmanned test landings. The same vehicle splits in two, without a hitch, with no prior tests done. The upper half ascends from the lunar surface, for the first time ever, without a hitch, and with no unmanned tests of the ascent from the lunar surface. This vehicle is able to catch up to another spacecraft flying at 3500 mph in lunar orbit, and dock with it, all for the first time ever, with no tests ever done.

That is just scratching the surface of what doesn't make any sense.

You just say 'Well, we did it anyway, without those tests. But we did lots of other tests!'..

"The LM was tested in earth orbit to make sure it did what it was supposed to do before it went to the moon. it was tested in lunar orbit before it ever landed. "

These tests cannot be proven, but even if they did these tests, it does not explain no tests for even more critical functions - like landing on the moon, separating, and ascending from the moon. It does not make any sense whatsoever.


Look at what we are doing today...

We are sending unmanned probes to the moon, which have found water is present all over the lunar surface.
How do they explain the Apollo samples containing NO traces of water (except from contamination)?

They change their story, that's how. For over 40 years, scientists around the world study thousands of Apollo samples, and find not a single molecule of water. After they discover water is present throughout most of the lunar surface, they say 'Hey, we just found there really IS water in the Apollo samples!'

'We didn't find it before, since we've only had instruments that could detect it for the last decade.'

So why didn't they find a single trace of water for the last 10 years, having the instruments which are able to detect such levels of water?

How would they answer that one? 'Hmm, I'm not sure why we didn't find any water for the last 10 years. Maybe you should ask someone else, I can't help you on that..'

What nonsense.

Let's consider the 'giant leap' now...

The Constellation program was supposed to 'return' men to the moon, right?

With 40 years of advanced technology, and knowledge, it should be much easier for them to 'return' men to the moon, right?

Of course it should.

So why is it not only more difficult, it cannot even be DONE?

Oh, right, it is a lack of money, etc. That is such BS. Here iis what happened...

NASA requested the amount of money they said it would take to do it. The Government GAVE them this money. NASA wasted it in no time, getting nowhere in the process. So then NASA went back to the Government, and asked for a lot MORE money. They got that money, too. Once again, NASA wasted it all in no time, still getting nowhere further than before in the process. They asked for EVEN MORE money, and were refused. They were asked for a REALISTIC amount of money it would take to succeed. NASA said they had no idea how much money it would take. The program was cancelled.

Apollo-ites blame the Government for it all, and say it can be done...... if they were given enough money!

That's a good one!

Do you know why they failed? Because they were trying to take the same 'giant leap' as Apollo supposedly took. They must have figured they could do it, if Apollo did it 40 years ago.

The people involved in the Constellation project got a huge reality-check, to say the least!

It is not possible to make such a 'giant leap', as I said. That is just a fantasy. It doesn't work that way, ever.

Look at the process before and after Apollo. That is what really happens. Apollo is a massive spike, they plopped into the middle of the real timeline, of the real achievements, of the real milestones we've reached in space.

We didn't go 'backwards' with the Shuttle. We progressed from what we really did before. Which is Mercury and Gemini. Apollo plopped into the timeline. We take it out, because it is not real. Then we have the Shuttle, which continues our real timeline again. We get to Constellation, which quickly flops, because it doesn't follow the real timeline, just like Apollo didn't follow it 40 years earlier.

So that's where we stand today. Apollo-ites blame the government for it, and/or a lack of money, and/or how the public isn't interested in another moon landing, yadda, yadda.

I do believe we will land men on the moon some day. At least, I hope we do. And I hope I'm still alive to see it, but I really doubt any of us will, or even our children, or grandchildren.

In my opinion, we are nowhere near to landing men on the moon. I'm certain that is why the Constellation program was doomed from the very start. It had absolutely no chance of succeeding. We do not have anywhere near the technology, nor the knowledge, nor the experience, to do such a grandiose, remarkable, milestone achievement such as this.

Look at what we are doing now. We have two unmanned probes in the VA Belts. The same VA Belts they supposedly went through over 40 years ago, without a hitch, a total of 18 times, back and forth.

That makes perfect sense to me, though, because I know Apollo was complete nonsense. It fits into the real timeline very well.

How you would explain it, as an Apollo-ite? You can't, so you make up excuses for it. Same as you made up excuses for the Constellation travesty.

So you say,,, 'We already knew the VA Belts very well by the time Apollo went through them. This project is merely to gain more knowledge about them. And to help in protecting satellites which fly within the region.'

a reply to: turbonium1

Epic post by turbo

Look at what we are doing now. We have two unmanned probes in the VA Belts. The same VA Belts they supposedly went through over 40 years ago, without a hitch, a total of 18 times, back and forth.

Radiation Belt Storm Probes Launch - Nasa
www.nasa.gov/pdf/678135main_rbsp_pk_final_hi.pdf
NASA
Aug 9, 2012 - Radiation Belt Storm Probes Ion Composition Experiment (RBSPICE) . ..... The total life-cycle cost of the RBSP mission is $686 million.

I thought we had those radiation belts whipped 30-40 years ago? The Russians don't go past 475km.. just below the belts.

a reply to: turbonium1

Ok first things first just the fact that you dont realize flights prior to apollo 11 they indeed tested all the things you mentioned including doing a rendezvous in orbit. So the reason you find it amazing is simply lack of knowledge of all the tests they did to get it right. And yes mistakes were made apollo 1 comes to mind.


Now the favorite topic of the conspiracy theorists the Van Allen belts your right we learned alot about them since then. But nothing we learned makes them impossible to traverse its not some invisible barrier that cant be crossed. The radiation levels would be lethal with prolonged exposure but we didnt get prolonged exposure because of that huge rocket that was sending them to the moon. Your welcome to show us off the data collected that its lethal and instantly kill an astronaut. But guess what the readings Apollo of astronauts received dosage oddly matches are reading taken by that satellite that amazes you. So id guess that proves that NASAs calculations were pretty good though actually they calculated slightly higher than actual all except one mission.

To continue from the last post...

You say the project is for 'more knowledge, and to help protect satellites'. You say we already understood the VA Belts during the Apollo era.

It will indeed help us to protect satellites in this region. That part is true. The rest of it is absolutely false.

NASA's probes have proven that they - NASA - has been lying to us for over 40 years ago about how the VA Belts!!

Daniel Baker, director of the University of Colorado at Boulder's Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, said new findings indicate that electrons in the Van Allen radiation belts circling Earth are energized to speeds much higher than researchers had thought. The Van Allen belts are two main zones in Earth's magnetosphere where charged particles are confined by the planet's magnetic fields.

"We used to think that the Van Allen Belts slowly waxed and waned and were not particularly dynamic," he said. "But these belts have now been shown to be powerful, energetic particle accelerators, generating excitement and awe in the scientific community."

www.spacedaily.com...

Once thought to be a slumbering cocoon of charged particles embracing the Earth, new research shows these radiation belts can become extremely powerful in a matter of seconds.
Such sudden changes pose far greater risks to orbiting telecommunications satellites _ and even spacewalking astronauts, scientists said Monday at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union.
``We had thought the radiation belts were a slow, lumbering feature of Earth, but in fact they can change on a knife's edge,'' said space physicist Daniel Baker of the University of Colorado.
Detected 40 years ago, the doughnut-shaped particles extending more than 20,000 miles around the planet were thought to be very stable, waxing and waning over a period of months.
New observations by an array of satellites show changes in the planet's own magnetic field can accelerate electrons in the belts to nearly the speed of light, transforming them into what some researchers describe as ``killer electrons.''
Under those conditions, the charged particles can pierce a sheet of aluminum a half-inch thick, possibly resulting in a catastrophic accumulation of particles in the sensitive electronics of hundreds of orbiting satellites.
``Many of the satellites up there now, and future spacecraft like the space station, have the potential to be severely impaired by light-speed electrons,'' Baker said.
Shielding people and hardware in space is expensive and heavy, and the discovery may compel space engineers to design orbiting systems differently.

....

The risk to NASA's manned space program is less certain. Satellites orbit 22,000 miles above the planet in the midst of the most energetic fields of the Van Allen Belts.
The space shuttle and the space station orbit within about 250 miles of Earth. Scientists said that during intense periods the charged particles pulse down into the atmosphere.
Researchers said they cannot yet precisely forecast when the belts of highly charged electrons peak in intensity, but they are advising NASA when conditions appear to be changing so the agency can decide whether to delay space missions.
``If one of these events occurs during the space station assembly, do you have the astronauts hurry up and risk ripping a glove?'' said space physicist Terry Onsager of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. ``Or do you let the mission go as planned?''

www.apnewsarchive.com...


This is absolute proof that we DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE VA BELTS DURING THE APOLLO ERA. WHEN WE SUPPOSEDLY WENT THROUGH THEM 18 TIMES WITHOUT A HITCH, THAT IS.

Oh well, no big deal, I guess.

You just say 'We avoided the worst regions of the Belts when we went through them 18 times, to and fro. That's the reason they all came back to Earth, safe and sound".

That doesn't work, either. There is no way they would even KNOW where it was safe, or where it was not safe, first of all. `We had thought the radiation belts were a slow, lumbering feature of Earth, but in fact they can change on a knife's edge,'' That's what they thought at the time of Apollo. They can't avoid the 'worst regions', because they have no idea where the worst regions are yet!

So what they are doing makes sense to me, because Apollo was nonsense.

Apollo-ites have to come up with even sillier excuses for it, of course.

What will it take for you GET A REALITY CHECK? This is normal progress. We are nowhere near to landing men on the moon yet.

That is why we have 'Lunar Lander Contests'. We didn't have one 40 years ago. We need one to land men on the moon. Do you follow the logic here?

Why has nobody even ATTEMPTED to fly humans through the VA Belts, ever. Because nobody can do it yet! Do you see how it all makes perfect sense now?

Why did they never discover water in Apollo samples? They were not collected off the moon, because astronauts have never been on the moon to collect samples. Logical, once again. Why did they say water was found in Apollo samples later on? Because they found water all over the moon, so they had to change their story to fit the truth. Easy as pie.


I haven't mentioned the complete lack of any animal/life form tests within the VA Belts, and so much more...

a reply to: turbonium1

wow that's a lot of opinion and arguining from incredulity with absolutely no evidence provided by you to support any of it.

Apollo was tested and tested and tested in both unmanned and manned forms. Landing on the moon was tested with unmanned probes many times before Apollo got there. Separating and re-uniting LM stages was done in Earth and lunar orbit. Launching things and getting them to meet up in orbit is, at its most basic level, not difficult - it's just a matter of timing. Buzz Aldrin got a PhD in orbital rendez-vous before he even flew into orbit. Have a research document from 1961 on the subject

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Apollo was not a giant leap, that's just a cute soundbite from Armstrong. Apollo was a logical progression along a series of carefully planned out steps that tried and tested every procedure they could, starting with just getting something into orbit. Yes they landed on the moon without first landing people on the moon, sorry if that offends you but someone has to be the first, someone at some point has to take a risk to do something for the first time just like anything else.

Your disbelief is not proof it didn't happen. Samples, data, time specific and location specific photographs prove they did happen. You have failed to prove that any of that evidence is not genuine.

Your post also demonstrates that you have no idea how science works, or scientists, or that advances in technology can bring different results. They did find water in Apollo samples, but they did not make the mistake of claiming it was lunar water without being absolutely certain. Advances in technology allowed samples and data to be re-evaluated. That's how science works. As an aside, NASA was finding evidence from its probes of widespread water in 2009, but water in Apollo samples was detected in 2008.

You can spend a long post railing against all the stuff that you don't understand or you can provide some proof. I'll go and raise a family and build a house while I wait for you to find some.

a reply to: turbonium1

...and more of the same.

Your paraphrasing of my points is misleading.

I did not say they understood the VAB completely at the time if Apollo.

Our understanding of what the belts do might have changed, but they were still known about and studied in the 1960s (by scientists all over the world) and their basic structure was understood. They knew how to design a trajectory to spend as little time as possible in them. Nobody has lied, and the current research is not proof that we could not pass through them. No-one said it was safe to pass through them, but it was perfectly possible to design mission features that minimised the risks as much as possible. Again your disbelief doesn't actually prove anything.

Again you return to the water in Apollo samples. That water contains signatures of elements only possible on the moon. The samples themselves are consistent with a lunar environment. You have no evidence to prove otherwise.

Oh, and the Russians sent lots of animals through the VAB. To the moon and back.

The key point in both your rambling essays is where you say astronauts never went to the moon. Your problem is that this is your starting point and you are bending everything to fit it into that unproven and unfounded premise.

originally posted by: Misinformation

a reply to: dragonridr
Look back through the thread if you dare youll see the same old posts shot down multiple times yet like a bad penny they turn up again and again and again.

yep....Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter photograph fallacy just wont die....

Prove what I posted earlier isn't true. A photo from 1971 published in a book in 1975 showing rocks exactly where they should be .

originally posted by: ppk55

The LRO photos are becoming more of an embarrassment each day with the latest news that
commercial satellite companies will soon be permitted to sell even higher resolution images to the public than NASA has of the moon.

So, a satellite orbiting earth, hundreds of kilometres high can take a high resolution photo of your mailbox through the earth's atmosphere.

Yet a satellite skimming the moon as low as 25 kms with no atmosphere to contend with can't produce more than a blob of unrecognizable pixels. What a joke.

Ridiculous.

The LRO was not put into lunar orbit to photograph Apollo hardware, it just so happens that every so often it passes over it. Putting a satellite into Earth orbit specifically with the intention of taking high resolution images of small objects does not prove that the LRO can't take pictures of Apollo mission evidence on the moon. This evidence is not restricted to man made objects, but includes small rocks and craters in Apollo photographs.

originally posted by: dragonridr

Now the favorite topic of the conspiracy theorists the Van Allen belts your right we learned alot about them since then. But nothing we learned makes them impossible to traverse its not some invisible barrier that cant be crossed. The radiation levels would be lethal with prolonged exposure but we didnt get prolonged exposure because of that huge rocket that was sending them to the moon. Your welcome to show us off the data collected that its lethal and instantly kill an astronaut. But guess what the readings Apollo of astronauts received dosage oddly matches are reading taken by that satellite that amazes you. So id guess that proves that NASAs calculations were pretty good though actually they calculated slightly higher than actual all except one mission.

Are you telling me you have seen all the Van Allen Probes data? If you have, are you also telling me it is in line with the Apollo data?

If you haven't seen the VAP data, then you have no idea if it is safe or not, or is in line with the Apollo data.

You sound very confident in what you claim, so you must have seen the VAP data, right?

Please show me where I can see this data, and we can continue further.

You have seen the data, right? I'm sure you wouldn't say all that from just pure ignorance...

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: dragonridr

Now the favorite topic of the conspiracy theorists the Van Allen belts your right we learned alot about them since then. But nothing we learned makes them impossible to traverse its not some invisible barrier that cant be crossed. The radiation levels would be lethal with prolonged exposure but we didnt get prolonged exposure because of that huge rocket that was sending them to the moon. Your welcome to show us off the data collected that its lethal and instantly kill an astronaut. But guess what the readings Apollo of astronauts received dosage oddly matches are reading taken by that satellite that amazes you. So id guess that proves that NASAs calculations were pretty good though actually they calculated slightly higher than actual all except one mission.

Are you telling me you have seen all the Van Allen Probes data? If you have, are you also telling me it is in line with the Apollo data?

If you haven't seen the VAP data, then you have no idea if it is safe or not, or is in line with the Apollo data.

You sound very confident in what you claim, so you must have seen the VAP data, right?

Please show me where I can see this data, and we can continue further.

You have seen the data, right? I'm sure you wouldn't say all that from just pure ignorance...

likewise..

shows us the data that you have that has given you so much confidence that the VAB are deadly even if you pass through the outer edges at high speed.

p.s. dangerous does not mean deadly.. it does not mean impossible to pass.. incase you forgot the first time you brought all this up..