Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

a reply to: muckleduck
The computer Apollo did have was powerful enough to do the job, so I'm not sure how having a more powerful on-board computer would make more likely that they should have returned.

The reason they stopped going was public interest in the moon landings waned. The public got bored of going to the Moon, and basically demanded that the government stop spending money on the Apollo Program, because the public felt the money was needed elsewhere (to help fight social ills, such as poverty and crime). Remember, this was the liberal movement early 1970s, when the taxpaying public felt that trips to the Moon were frivolous when there were other problems here on Earth.

So NASA's budget was gutted to about 1/4 of it was in the hey-day of the Apollo Program, and they didn't have enough money to do anything else other than the space shuttle (The space shuttle program started at the same time as the last moon landing).

NASA's budget is now back up again, but is still only 1/2 of what it was during the mid-to-late 1960s. NASA now is spending money on (among other things) new spacecraft that will hopefully take manned crews to an asteroid, and eventually to Mars in about 20 years.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: muckleduck
The computer Apollo did have was powerful enough to do the job, so I'm not sure how having a more powerful on-board computer would make more likely that they should have returned.

The reason they stopped going was public interest in the moon landings waned. The public got bored of going to the Moon, and basically demanded that the government stop spending money on the Apollo Program, because the public felt the money was needed elsewhere (to help fight social ills, such as poverty and crime). Remember, this was the liberal movement early 1970s, when the taxpaying public felt that trips to the Moon were frivolous when there were other problems here on Earth.

So NASA's budget was gutted to about 1/4 of it was in the hey-day of the Apollo Program, and they didn't have enough money to do anything else other than the space shuttle (The space shuttle program started at the same time as the last moon landing).

NASA's budget is now back up again, but is still only 1/2 of what it was during the mid-to-late 1960s. NASA now is spending money on (among other things) new spacecraft that will hopefully take manned crews to an asteroid, and eventually to Mars in about 20 years.

u took what i said wrongly , i meant if the tech was there 40 years ago then why cant we go back today just to prove that we have went there? why plan manned missions to mars when we cant even colonise the moon? its just these things that stick out in my mind.

i mean we spend millions everday on the wars were in so a couple billion to grab a few selfies on the moon is just pocket change, it would end all doubt is all im saying.

the moon would be a better place to colonise id imagine due to cost of getting there and time spent.

theres nothing more i want than for it to be true but i have my doubts.

its not like the assets arent there, america spends billions every year on defence, first one to colonise the moon would rule the earth below.

would b better than flying to and from a space station id imagine having some sort of structure on the moon.

originally posted by: muckleduck

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: muckleduck
The computer Apollo did have was powerful enough to do the job, so I'm not sure how having a more powerful on-board computer would make more likely that they should have returned.

The reason they stopped going was public interest in the moon landings waned. The public got bored of going to the Moon, and basically demanded that the government stop spending money on the Apollo Program, because the public felt the money was needed elsewhere (to help fight social ills, such as poverty and crime). Remember, this was the liberal movement early 1970s, when the taxpaying public felt that trips to the Moon were frivolous when there were other problems here on Earth.

So NASA's budget was gutted to about 1/4 of it was in the hey-day of the Apollo Program, and they didn't have enough money to do anything else other than the space shuttle (The space shuttle program started at the same time as the last moon landing).

NASA's budget is now back up again, but is still only 1/2 of what it was during the mid-to-late 1960s. NASA now is spending money on (among other things) new spacecraft that will hopefully take manned crews to an asteroid, and eventually to Mars in about 20 years.

u took what i said wrongly , i meant if the tech was there 40 years ago then why cant we go back today just to prove that we have went there? why plan manned missions to mars when we cant even colonise the moon? its just these things that stick out in my mind...

I was just pointing out that we didn't go back for two reasons (two related reasons):

1. There was very little public support to continue missions to the moon, much less a Moon base or colony.
2. It would cost too much.

Points 1 and 2 are related because it's hard to get enough funding without public support -- and Apollo lost public support. The public no longer wanted the government to spend money on going to the Moon, so that was a no-brainer for the government to take that money away from NASA, considering their was really no national security interest in space spending anymore. We won the space race, and that was that.

You could argue that the Moon is the ultimate "High Ground" for a military force, but in reality it would be HUGELY expensive to use the moon as a military base of operations (say as a nuclear missile base or something, if they wanted to break treaties). The military would be better off using Earth orbit as their high ground rather than the moon.

It isn't necessarily hard to get to the Moon, but it is very expensive per pound of payload, especially if we start adding life0support for humans to the equation.

So, now we are taking it much more slowly with human space exploration. NASA is spreading out the cost and the missions over many years. The next test flight of the Orion (which just had its first test flight december 5) won't be until late 2017 or 2018 at the earliest. The first manned flight won't be until 2021 at the earliest. Back in the Apollo days, they had much more money to throw around (probably quadruple what the Orion program has to work with), so the test flights came much more quickly -- only months apart.

NASA probably could go to the moon again -- and that was the original plan under George Bush's "Constellation Program", which was to build a Moon base as a stepping stone for a Mars mission. However, studies (such as the "Augustine Commission Report") had shown that building a Moon Base would not really provide a cost-benefit for the future of human space flight and in getting to Mars -- i.e., it would be unnecessarily expensive to build Moon base as a stepping stone to Mars.

a reply to: HomerinNC

I know but it's just too easy to believe that those Masons (professional liars) could jail break from the most sophisticated prison ever conceived in the Beverly Hillbilly's mobile. I'm still waiting for the disclosure that lego masterbuilt an elevator to the moon and Arthur C Clarke is the operator on the up Kubrick is operating the down.

originally posted by: muckleduck

u took what i said wrongly , i meant if the tech was there 40 years ago then why cant we go back today just to prove that we have went there? why plan manned missions to mars when we cant even colonise the moon? its just these things that stick out in my mind.

i mean we spend millions everday on the wars were in so a couple billion to grab a few selfies on the moon is just pocket change, it would end all doubt is all im saying.

You won't find anyone who is interested in space exploration, its history and development who disagrees with you.

Space money generates jobs and scientific data, and there's nothing I'd like more than to return to our nearest neighbour and have a look around with the new technology we have now - not to prove we went to the moon with Apollo but to continue the exploration and research. People often seem to assume that supporters of the Apollo programme support every decision NASA and its budget controllers have made and that's nonsense, but we have to accept political and financial realities. Political and financial reality is the only reason we are not on the moon now. Robots are not as good as people, but they don't cost anything like as much and NASA has acquired more data with less money using remote probes than it could with people.

You don't go to the moon to prove the technology works, you develop the technology to go to the moon. The basic principle of getting there is not difficult, you just need to fire a rocket for the right amount of time in the right direction. The reason it was so expensive was to make damned sure that the technology they used was reliable and to make sure that it was as light as possible, because weight = fuel = money, and also to keep 3 people alive, which again costs a lot because they need food and water and oxygen.

You don't need to go to the moon to prove that we went there, all need to do is look at the data and images they brought back. There are really very few people who seriously don't think we went, and it would be stupid to plan missions just to prove them wrong when no-one who understands science and engineering has any doubt whatsoever. The loudmouths on the internet mostly seem to have something to sell, be it books, DVDs, TV appearance fees or advertising revenue. They lie to get that money. Why should anyone go back to prove those kind of people wrong?

All you need to do to satisfy yourself that Apollo happened as described in the history books is educate yourself with all the material that is out there (not just the cherry=picked, manipulated and frankly fake evidence the Apollo opponents tout), something that some posters in this thread fail to do at the most basic level and they find themselves embarrassed every time they write something.

originally posted by: choos

ok i misunderstood, apologies..
www.abovetopsecret.com...

dont know why i have to prove to you that i did apologise for it when its right there.. but anyway..

I simply wanted to know where you apologized, so I can read what I missed previously. I wasn't challenging you to "prove" it.



Your apology was for the specific comments, noted below..right?..

originally posted by: choos

its gold in colour because you made it gold..
its green also because you made it green..

that is not evidence of anything apart from evidence that YOU have been tampering with evidence to suit your needs..


as simple as when you make the black areas appear gold or green then the terminator which is also dark will follow suit.. the only thing you have proven is that you have deliberately altered the image and called it evidence.. adjusting brightness contrast gamma correction and all that to prove they used what you want them to use is being dishonest.

Your unfounded assumptions about me went too far, this time...

You did the right thing when you apologized for it.

Thanks for the apology, btw.



So you first assumed the still frames I posted had been edited, and you assumed I had edited them to fit with my argument. You assumed I wanted to deceive everyone into believing that the stills were all genuine, untouched original still frames, of the Apollo footage. You claimed I was dishonest.

Why would you ever make up all those assumptions?.

originally posted by: choos
i do find it curious that you say its never a good feeling to be falsely accused of being a liar though..

Please, no more wacky assumptions. Enough, already!

originally posted by: turbonium1

Why would you ever make up all those assumptions?.

why? because hoax believers have been known to change the brightness/contrast up of pictures to attempt to try to prove something is in the blackness of space when there isnt, i misunderstood thinking you had done the same.

originally posted by: choos

no evidence?? did you miss the image that i have posted?? ive posted it twice already this will be the third time:

when something is over-exposed the glare becomes more obvious.. basically you are claiming the glare to be some magical golden pane..

oh look is space golden coloured again? (this picture isnt strictly over-exposed so to speak, just using it as an example)

Here is the still frame, again...



First of all, I did not say the gold color seen in the frame above IS that color. I said that it APPEARS to be gold in color, in those areas, in that still frame.

Just like I said it APPEARS to be white in color, in another area, in that same still frame.

The gold areas in that frame may not be gold colored at all.

The actual color is not known.

We only know it appears to be gold in color, in that frame.

You claim it is actually black. Blackness of space, and blackness of a shadow on the Earth (its terminator).

You say it appears to be gold, because the black (of space and shadow) is being over-exposed in that still.

Your images have a goldish-brown color, but the still is only gold in color. It has no brownish tint, as your images have.

But the still has many more significant differences to your images.

The gold in the still has a rippled texture to it. Your images do not have any texture in them at all.

Space is black, but it does not have a rippled texture.

Space does not overlap Earth, like the gold-colored material in the still overlaps the 'Earth'.

It does not have a line, to indicate the overlap, either.

This really isn't difficult.

it was a camera test. They were testing the camera. They were using the lo gain antenna and the picture quality wasn't brilliant. They commented on the poor quality, including the rippling effect you mention, in the audio throughout the broadcast.

This TV image, and let's not forget that they are isolated fragments of a TV broadcast, shows the camera adjusting to changes in focus, aperture and lighting as it is moved around. You might want to check the quality of your source material because I've watched my DVD of that broadcast many times and haven't seen what you've managed to reproduce. Gee, do you think poor quality rendering of a poor quality broadcast might just have something to do with it?

The TV image shows time and date specific weather patterns that could not have been known about beforehand because the satellite images weren't available.

Have a high quality Hasseblad image taken at the same time:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

The terminator is exactly where it should be for that broadcast, as has been demonstrated to you already in this thread many times.

Everything you need to explain what is in that picture has been given to you many many times but like choos' apology you somehow manage to skip over it.

Now, is this being filmed in cislunar space by your mystery spacecraft or a studio? Make your mind up.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: muckleduck

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: muckleduck
The computer Apollo did have was powerful enough to do the job, so I'm not sure how having a more powerful on-board computer would make more likely that they should have returned.

The reason they stopped going was public interest in the moon landings waned. The public got bored of going to the Moon, and basically demanded that the government stop spending money on the Apollo Program, because the public felt the money was needed elsewhere (to help fight social ills, such as poverty and crime). Remember, this was the liberal movement early 1970s, when the taxpaying public felt that trips to the Moon were frivolous when there were other problems here on Earth.

So NASA's budget was gutted to about 1/4 of it was in the hey-day of the Apollo Program, and they didn't have enough money to do anything else other than the space shuttle (The space shuttle program started at the same time as the last moon landing).

NASA's budget is now back up again, but is still only 1/2 of what it was during the mid-to-late 1960s. NASA now is spending money on (among other things) new spacecraft that will hopefully take manned crews to an asteroid, and eventually to Mars in about 20 years.

u took what i said wrongly , i meant if the tech was there 40 years ago then why cant we go back today just to prove that we have went there? why plan manned missions to mars when we cant even colonise the moon? its just these things that stick out in my mind...

I was just pointing out that we didn't go back for two reasons (two related reasons):

1. There was very little public support to continue missions to the moon, much less a Moon base or colony.
2. It would cost too much.

Points 1 and 2 are related because it's hard to get enough funding without public support -- and Apollo lost public support. The public no longer wanted the government to spend money on going to the Moon, so that was a no-brainer for the government to take that money away from NASA, considering their was really no national security interest in space spending anymore. We won the space race, and that was that.

You could argue that the Moon is the ultimate "High Ground" for a military force, but in reality it would be HUGELY expensive to use the moon as a military base of operations (say as a nuclear missile base or something, if they wanted to break treaties). The military would be better off using Earth orbit as their high ground rather than the moon.

It isn't necessarily hard to get to the Moon, but it is very expensive per pound of payload, especially if we start adding life0support for humans to the equation.

So, now we are taking it much more slowly with human space exploration. NASA is spreading out the cost and the missions over many years. The next test flight of the Orion (which just had its first test flight december 5) won't be until late 2017 or 2018 at the earliest. The first manned flight won't be until 2021 at the earliest. Back in the Apollo days, they had much more money to throw around (probably quadruple what the Orion program has to work with), so the test flights came much more quickly -- only months apart.

NASA probably could go to the moon again -- and that was the original plan under George Bush's "Constellation Program", which was to build a Moon base as a stepping stone for a Mars mission. However, studies (such as the "Augustine Commission Report") had shown that building a Moon Base would not really provide a cost-benefit for the future of human space flight and in getting to Mars -- i.e., it would be unnecessarily expensive to build Moon base as a stepping stone to Mars.

yea that would be mythought , build moon base to launch out to mars because less g on the moon u wouldnt need as much fuel to lift off from the surface , but in that comes many other problems, re-supllying the moon etc.

im not even going to pretend i know how the space prog worked, wasnt even alive when they went to the moon, just feels like were running to mars when we should walk to the moon first if you get what im saying, dont run before we can walk, a failed mars mission would be bad , we should practice as much as we can with whats closest to us.

i can almost bet that nasa still has some sort of prog for the moon, just itll be black project now.

i dont know what to make of the aurora "pulse" jet as i havent done enough research to verify it, but its like how they released the b2 stealth, slowly it gets spotted around the globe.


space has always interested me though, when i start thinkin of the endless possiblities out there hopefully in our time we will posses the tech to get out of this solar system to explore further.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

The reason they stopped going was public interest in the moon landings waned. The public got bored of going to the Moon, and basically demanded that the government stop spending money on the Apollo Program, because the public felt the money was needed elsewhere (to help fight social ills, such as poverty and crime). Remember, this was the liberal movement early 1970s, when the taxpaying public felt that trips to the Moon were frivolous when there were other problems here on Earth.

Are you saying that Richard Nixon halted the Apollo program (cancelled Apollo 18, 19 and 20) because the public "demanded" and the "public felt" some angry emotions about wasteful government spending? That's beyond absurdity.

The voices of those who were complaining about the high cost of Apollo were lost in the thunderous cacophony of Operation Linebacker II, aka the Christmas bombings of North Vietnam, which cost the "taxpaying public" more than $4 billion dollars, not including lost planes and lost lives.

Since this week is the 43rd anniversary of BOTH Apollo 17 splashdown (the :LOL: last human mission outside the radiation belts) AND Linebacker II, I think you may benefit from the knowledge that the cost of Apollo never crossed Richard Nixon's poker playing mind.

What did Nixon do after he "cancelled" the Apollo TV shows? He invested NASA in the space shuttle which kept America in low earth orbit - below the radiation belts - for 42+ years.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Public interest in the Apollo missions certainly waned by Apollo 15 or so -- there is no doubt about that.

Anyone around back then remembers how the general public complained about spending money to go to the Moon again when there were so many social ills on Earth. Remember -- thus was the "flower power" 1970s. Sure, they felt that Apollos 11 and 12 were important, but after that, it was a case of "been there, done that". The public lost interest, and thought the money spent on the later Apollo missions were a waste...

...and if you give a president, congressman, or Senator an excuse to pull spending from a space program to put the money to other use (such as military spending), then they'll take it.

In the 1960s, most politicians felt is was of national interest to beat the Russians to the Moon; that's why they were all on board for giving NASA huge budgets in the late 1960s. However, once that goal was accomplished, then they jumped on the public's blasé attitude about Apollo in the early 1970s, and used that as an excuse to other national interest needs for that huge NASA budget, so that budget was slashed.

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

Public interest in the Apollo missions certainly waned by Apollo 15 or so -- there is no doubt about that...

...and if you give a president, congressman, or Senator an excuse to pull spending from a space program to put the money to other use (such as military spending), then they'll take it.

In the 1960s, most politicians felt is was of national interest to beat the Russians to the Moon; that's why they were all on board for giving NASA huge budgets in the late 1960s. However, once that goal was accomplished, then they jumped on the public's blasé attitude about Apollo in the early 1970s, and used that as an excuse to other national interest needs for that huge NASA budget, so that budget was slashed.

the moon would be the best military installation, otherwise we wouldnt have the wmd in space treaty, first one to the moon rules the earth , and america bieng the war hating country it is id of thought this would of been top priority.

im in 2 opinions of it, we got there then found something that made us not want to go back, or we never went at all, only thing that makes sense not to go back imo.

not even going to speculate on what they may have found as its just a theory.

the goal for the moon was bases on the surface, not just manned missions, now we are bypassing the moon to see whats on mars, doesnt make sense to me.

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

Public interest in the Apollo missions certainly waned by Apollo 15 or so -- there is no doubt about that.

As did the media's attention.By this time any mention of them at all was pushed right to the end of news bulletins in an 'And finally.....' snippet at the end-if we were lucky.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Of course being a student of history you will know that the decision to cut Apollo was not made over Christmas 1972, it was made long before that, and public pressure over the cost of the landings was around even by Apollo 12. Here's Gil Scott-Heron from 1970:



and Apollo 13 famously did not get a live TV broadcast from cislunar space until something went wrong, and you also had protests at Apollo 11 and 14's launch:

launiusr.wordpress.com...

news.google.com...

You being up the cost of Vietnam and somehow avoid the fact that the US economy decided it had other priorities - you made the point and then missed it.

a reply to: Imagewerx

As did the media's attention.By this time any mention of them at all was pushed right to the end of news bulletins in an 'And finally.....' snippet at the end-if we were lucky.

What else could have overshadowed the last two Apollo missions? It was a busy year for Richard Nixon and other important news stories.

Were the public bored with Apollo? Were the news media truly inattentive? I think there are hundreds of hours of Apollo mission TV videos on youtube - from all three major American TV networks, the big 3, NBC, ABC and CBS.

I don't think the public were bored of Apollo and I do not think that the news media were truly inattentive. According to George Mueller,

"..it was rather the perception of the President at the time and his set of values that led to a decision both to abandon the Saturn V, because we had never really planned on abandoning the Saturn V at the time we did since we wanted the capability of continuing. For example," - Source George Mueller history.nasa.gov...

Notice that he says "President at the time". You know who THAT was

Gilruth is admitting two things here.

1. That NASA paid for network broadcast of Apollo 17.
2. He blames the networks.

Kraft blames
1. The networks and the network affiliates who were showing soap operas instead of Apollo.

There were many possible underlying motives for cancelling the Saturn V rockets. NASA was disappointed. But it is crystal clear that there is one and only one suspect for cancelling the Saturn V, and that person was the "President at the time".

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

no evidence?? did you miss the image that i have posted?? ive posted it twice already this will be the third time:

when something is over-exposed the glare becomes more obvious.. basically you are claiming the glare to be some magical golden pane..

oh look is space golden coloured again? (this picture isnt strictly over-exposed so to speak, just using it as an example)

Here is the still frame, again...

First of all, I did not say the gold color seen in the frame above IS that color. I said that it APPEARS to be gold in color, in those areas, in that still frame.

Just like I said it APPEARS to be white in color, in another area, in that same still frame.

The gold areas in that frame may not be gold colored at all.

The actual color is not known.

We only know it appears to be gold in color, in that frame.

You claim it is actually black. Blackness of space, and blackness of a shadow on the Earth (its terminator).

You say it appears to be gold, because the black (of space and shadow) is being over-exposed in that still.

Your images have a goldish-brown color, but the still is only gold in color. It has no brownish tint, as your images have.

im sorry but your attempt to hand-wave the image i posted away is bizarre..

you wanted to know why the blackness of space appears golden in colour, you even claimed it shows they used golden panes to fake the terminator of earth..

i showed you an over-exposed image that shows the darkness of space being golden in colour..

your explaination to this is that its not golden but is golden-brownish and is therefore somehow completely unrelated to your still frame??

But the still has many more significant differences to your images.

you are focusing on the wrong thing.. it isnt about the differences between the image and your still frame..

in the image is the darkness of space black or not??

The gold in the still has a rippled texture to it. Your images do not have any texture in them at all.

so you are going to compare a low quality video feed capture with a high quality photo?? i dont get what this proves??
you want to prove that the still frame is from a low quality video feed and the image is of much higher quality is that it?? well cant argue there..

Space is black, but it does not have a rippled texture.

it sure doesnt, if i lowered the quality (ie. pixels per inch) of the image i posted what do you think it would look like??

Space does not overlap Earth, like the gold-colored material in the still overlaps the 'Earth'.

its so bizarre that its so difficult for you to understand..

the night side of earth is not illuminated by the sun.. compared to the day side of earth, the night side is pitch black according to the camera, it is exactly the same as the darkness of space..

It does not have a line, to indicate the overlap, either.

what??

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

Were the public bored with Apollo? Were the news media truly inattentive? I think there are hundreds of hours of Apollo mission TV videos on youtube - from all three major American TV networks, the big 3, NBC, ABC and CBS.

I don't think the public were bored of Apollo and I do not think that the news media were truly inattentive.

so you have the TV ratings to prove this??