Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

Interesting YT from 1970, with Neil saying the sky was black both on the Moon and in Cis-lunar space to the naked eye.

www.youtube.com...



Oddly, both shuttle astronauts and space station astronauts say there are brilliant stars in space. Lovell said in his book 10 years after Apollo he saw stars in the LRO.

Someone isn't presenting the truth.

a reply to: Maverick7

Can you see stars with the sun in the sky? Or even near the moon when it is bright in the sky? In a brightly lit area?

Apollo astronauts repeatedly refer to stars every time they checked their course, as well as at other times. Apollo astronauts even took stars of them.

As discussed on the thread about seeing stars in space: onebigmonkey.comoj.com...

Who isn't presenting the truth?

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: Maverick7

Can you see stars with the sun in the sky? Or even near the moon when it is bright in the sky? In a brightly lit area?

Apollo astronauts repeatedly refer to stars every time they checked their course, as well as at other times. Apollo astronauts even took stars of them.

As discussed on the thread about seeing stars in space: onebigmonkey.comoj.com...

Who isn't presenting the truth?

It might help you to read my post. I said Neil said space was always black, on the surface of the Moon, and in Cis-lunar space out the port holes.

He said nothing about daytime, nighttime. The Shuttle astronauts said they saw stars in space and Yuri Gagarin said:

"The stars are astonishingly brilliant" on his voyage into space.

Neil or Yuri. Can't have it both ways.

a reply to: Maverick7

And you didn't read my link. Or the rest of my post.

Space is black because there is no atmosphere to scatter light. Light from a bright sun, or Earth, or even moon in cislunar space, or reflected back from the lunar surface, will drown out the stars.

Once you remove the sources of bright light you will be able to see, and photograph, stars. Armstrong does not say he can't see stars from cislunar space - says the sky is black on cislunar space. The question is specifically about the view from the lunar surface.

Neil Armstrong:

00 00 46 45 CDR I can see some stars

02 23 59 20 CDR Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we are able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars. Just like the nightside of Earth. But all the way here, we have only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns.

Times are Apollo 11 mission times. Go to around 03:24 of this file to hear it as it was transmitted to Houston, and the journalists listening to it:

history.nasa.gov...

Michael Collins and Buzz Aldrin also refer to seeing stars during Apollo 11.

They all used them for navigation.

It is simply not true that Apollo astronauts did not see stars or did not discuss seeing stars.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

I don't care if Armstrong changed his story, said he saw stars in NASA records, on this interview he said we didn't see stars in Cis Lunar space, the sky was a deep black and they didn't see stars on the lunar surface.

Why say this and contradict himself? I'm not even talking about the Landing Hoax topic.

People who have had a real experience do not equivocate. They see something like brilliant star fields and remember them. But here in THIS interview, Neil said he did not see any stars either on the way to the Moon (Cis-Lunar space) or on the Moon, even when in shadow (presumably) or early in the lunar day.

So, though we don't know which time he was being accurate, he clearly can't give a consistent answer. Neither can Collins who said they couldn't see any stars and then 10 years later he wrote a book and said he DID see stars.

In addition we have the puzzling case of NASA painting lots of stars in every animation, drawing, pictorial of the Apollo missions. Did they do that because they thought it looked pretty? Or, did they not even know that space was a deep black everywhere when looking with the unaided eye?

Nobody knows.

originally posted by: Maverick7
a reply to: onebigmonkey

I don't care if Armstrong changed his story, said he saw stars in NASA records, on this interview he said we didn't see stars in Cis Lunar space, the sky was a deep black and they didn't see stars on the lunar surface.

No. He didn't. He said the sky is black on the lunar surface, and in cislunar space. He then went on to discuss what you can see on the surface.

Why say this and contradict himself?

He did not contradict himself.

I'm not even talking about the Landing Hoax topic.

uh-huh, then why say this:

People who have had a real experience do not equivocate.

He is not equivocating.

They see something like brilliant star fields and remember them. But here in THIS interview, Neil said he did not see any stars either on the way to the Moon (Cis-Lunar space) or on the Moon, even when in shadow (presumably) or early in the lunar day.

Again, no, he did not say he could not see stars in cislunar space.

So, though we don't know which time he was being accurate, he clearly can't give a consistent answer.

Yes, he did give a consistent answer.

Neither can Collins who said they couldn't see any stars and then 10 years later he wrote a book and said he DID see stars.

And he also said he could see stars during the mission - see the link I gave you. The quote you refer to was in response to Patrick Moore's specific question about stars in the solar corona. You need to read and listen to the actual words involved, not what you've read someone claim they said.

In addition we have the puzzling case of NASA painting lots of stars in every animation, drawing, pictorial of the Apollo missions. Did they do that because they thought it looked pretty? Or, did they not even know that space was a deep black everywhere when looking with the unaided eye?

Because it looks pretty. Space can be both deep black and have white shining stars in it.

Nobody knows.

Every astronaut who has been in space knows. Everyone who has looked up at the night sky when the moon is out knows. Everyone who has tried to see stars from a well lit street knows.

originally posted by: Maverick7
a reply to: onebigmonkey

I don't care if Armstrong changed his story, said he saw stars in NASA records, on this interview he said we didn't see stars in Cis Lunar space, the sky was a deep black and they didn't see stars on the lunar surface.

Why say this and contradict himself? I'm not even talking about the Landing Hoax topic.

so you openly admit to cherry picking quotes to use as a contradiction???

saying he sees stars in the transcripts and during the mission doesnt count but not seeing stars on the lunar surface in an interview does count??

hmmm.. let me try cherry picking quotes:

The contrast of your body and your mind inside ... essentially a one-person spaceship, which is your spacesuit, where you're holding on for dear life to the shuttle or the station with one hand, and you are inexplicably in between what is just a pouring glory of the world roaring by, silently next to you — just the kaleidoscope of it, it takes up your whole mind. It's like the most beautiful thing you've ever seen just screaming at you on the right side, and when you look left, it's the whole bottomless black of the universe and it goes in all directions.
-Chris Hadfield
www.npr.org...

Chris Hadfield said bottomless black of the universe..

perhaps you should learn how to see stars and what bright objects nearby or even a bright environment will do to those stars before you continue any further..

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
It fits in perfectly, because the space programme pretty much started with the mission to get to the moon using Mercury and then Gemini as the the springboard for Apollo. Apollo technology was then used in Skylab, and the experience in that area led on to the ISS.

The point is exploring space, by going outward.

Mercury, to Gemini, flying in LEO.

Apollo (supposedly) then lands man on the moon

After that, Skylab, Shuttles, and the ISS go back, into LEO.


Perfect fit?

Only in a bizarro-world, it fits.

Not in the real world...

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
No it isn't completely different. The initial research into the VAB outlined the broad structure and radiation levels within it. Later research has refined it. You already know that the next generation of spacecraft will have aluminium in it, it will also have other materials that were developed recently.

We didn't know the VAB were a volatile, unpredictable environment. We thought it was a very slow-moving region, in fact.

We're just now finding out the VAB radiation levels, how it spikes, etc.

Saying it's simply being "refined" ....is complete nonsense.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
That's the key point: they did't have a time machine - they knew what they knew, they used what they had available. The material they used was adequate and the trajectories they used minimised the risk - I notice (as I expected) that you ignored the links I posted. You have absolutely no evidence that the trajectories would have exposed astronauts to instantly fatal levels of radiation.

Without knowing the VAB are a very dynamic, unpredictable region, which can become highly energized in seconds...but they knew how to "minimise the risk"!

"Adequate" shielding material in deep space was aluminum... back then!

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: darkorange

science disagrees with you.

the technology to get man on the moon is there.. it is and has been a proven science, rocketry has been around and refined for a long time now.
what you are basically suggesting is that the ISS is a hoax also since if we didnt have the technology to land man on the moon then we also would not have the technology to get the ISS.

getting man on the moon is just a very expensive venture and not every government is willing to support it.

They tried to use that "proven science" to 'return' a man to the moon, and it proved the science was a fake.

So it seems they have "refined" science, albeit unwittingly!


Game over.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: Maverick7

And you didn't read my link. Or the rest of my post.

Space is black because there is no atmosphere to scatter light. Light from a bright sun, or Earth, or even moon in cislunar space, or reflected back from the lunar surface, will drown out the stars.

Once you remove the sources of bright light you will be able to see, and photograph, stars. Armstrong does not say he can't see stars from cislunar space - says the sky is black on cislunar space. The question is specifically about the view from the lunar surface.

Neil Armstrong:

00 00 46 45 CDR I can see some stars

02 23 59 20 CDR Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we are able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars. Just like the nightside of Earth. But all the way here, we have only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns.

Times are Apollo 11 mission times. Go to around 03:24 of this file to hear it as it was transmitted to Houston, and the journalists listening to it:

history.nasa.gov...

Michael Collins and Buzz Aldrin also refer to seeing stars during Apollo 11.

They all used them for navigation.

It is simply not true that Apollo astronauts did not see stars or did not discuss seeing stars.

The main problem is why stars are hardly worth mentioning, while such an amazing sight would surely have warranted it. And how.

And they've changed their story - from seeing no stars, to seeing stars, and so on...

It doesn't add up, not even close.

a reply to: Maverick7

People who have had a real experience do not equivocate.

I like you. What are your thoughts on Apollo? Was the Apollo a cover up to hold back information on E.T.? Was Apollo an expensive propaganda plan to brainwash the entire planet with American flag symbolism in global T.V.? Why have the Russians given up the superb propaganda opportunity of sending a female cosmonaut on a circumlunar orbital mission? Is there any connection between Apollo and the current crisis in the Ukraine?

I am a Reviewer. I'm here to double check the facts and ask questions. Please pay no mind to the Apollo Defenders. They are simply here to bump the thread for us.

originally posted by: turbonium1

They tried to use that "proven science" to 'return' a man to the moon, and it proved the science was a fake.

So it seems they have "refined" science, albeit unwittingly!


Game over.

and what science are you babbling on about now??

the science to protect against GCR's?? VAB??

science to protect against GCR's:
you still havent realised just how low the radiation received from GCR's are.. it will take SEVERAL MONTHS of exposure to GCR's to get a 5% increased chance of developing cancer in later life.. exposure time is extremely relevant..
how long was the longest Apollo mission?? 10 months?? 1 month?? 5 months??
if it takes several months to get 5% increased chance of developing cancer then is it absolutely impossible for astronauts to survive 2 weeks being exposed to it??

science to protect against VAB:
avoidance, the most intense regions only covers a relatively local area.. if you want to claim that NASA doesnt have the science to protect its astronauts against the VAB then you are claiming that NASA is too stupid to go around it..

you are just in denial saying its game over when you clearly dont understand anything science related..

originally posted by: turbonium1

The main problem is why stars are hardly worth mentioning, while such an amazing sight would surely have warranted it. And how.

And they've changed their story - from seeing no stars, to seeing stars, and so on...

It doesn't add up, not even close.

every hoax believer that make claims about astronauts seeing stars and not seeing stars have proven that they dont understand how brightness of the environment affects star visibility.. every single time..

ie. they dont understand basic science.

Disclosure Thread page 369

Let me give you all a quick "3-6-9" for Apollo Reviewers.

"3"
There are three crew members for every Apollo mission.
Three astronauts have flown to the "moon" twice.
Richard Nixon ran for President three times.

"6"
There were six missions that landed on the "moon" successfully.
Richard Nixon inaugurated on January 20, 1969.
Apollo 11 lands on the "moon" exactly 6 months later, July 20, 1969.

"9"
There were nine manned Apollo missions. Apollo 7 and 9 did not leave low earth orbit.
The crew of Apollo 11 were announced by NASA to the public on January 9, 1969, Richard Nixon's birthday.

a reply to: turbonium1

Nobody changed their story. If you and everyone else who claimed otherwise actually checked their facts, or even my website that I posted a link to earlier, would find copious and glowing descriptions of the stars.

In space, just like on Earth, you need the right conditions to see a spectacular starfield. A bright sunlit lunar surface with a bright Earth on the sky is not one of them. Any idiot can see that.

Many events can be judged on it's validity from a historical perspective...

Event(s) like Apollo, for example...

More than 40 years after the event(s), in historical perspective...

Is it consistent with everything before it, and after it, to this day?


Nothing is consistent with the Apollo event(s) as being genuine. It only conflicts with the official story

What confirms Apollo was a genuine event(s), as opposed to being a hoax?

originally posted by: turbonium1
Many events can be judged on it's validity from a historical perspective...

Event(s) like Apollo, for example...

More than 40 years after the event(s), in historical perspective...

Is it consistent with everything before it, and after it, to this day?

Yes.

Nothing is consistent with the Apollo event(s) as being genuine.

Wrong.

It only conflicts with the official story

Wrong.

What confirms Apollo was a genuine event(s), as opposed to being a hoax?

Everything. Every single piece of documentation concerning the development, testing and use of every component and procedure. Every piece of scientific evidence. Photographs, film and live TV footage of the Earth and the lunar surface - even photographs of a lunar eclipse shows Apollo 15 was not in LEO. The rocks analysed by hundreds of scientists. The scientific data sent back from the moon covering a massive range of experiments. All of this was publicly available in books, newspapers, magazines and scientific journals long before the internet and certainly long before the vast majority of people arguing against it were born.

Everything backs Apollo - absolutely everything.

What do Apollo deniers have?

- I wouldn't have done it like that
- I don't understand it
- I can't find things on the internet
- I don't trust scientists.

a reply to: turbonium1

What about the great pyramids? They were building small mounds and then they started building huge pyramids and then the went back to building small mounds..

Are the great pyramids a hoax??

It doesn't conflict with the official story, in ONLY conflicts in your mind because you are unable to comprehend the governments decisions to cut back coupled with your inability to comprehend anything science related

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

They tried to use that "proven science" to 'return' a man to the moon, and it proved the science was a fake.

So it seems they have "refined" science, albeit unwittingly!


Game over.

and what science are you babbling on about now??

the science to protect against GCR's?? VAB??

science to protect against GCR's:
you still havent realised just how low the radiation received from GCR's are.. it will take SEVERAL MONTHS of exposure to GCR's to get a 5% increased chance of developing cancer in later life.. exposure time is extremely relevant..
how long was the longest Apollo mission?? 10 months?? 1 month?? 5 months??
if it takes several months to get 5% increased chance of developing cancer then is it absolutely impossible for astronauts to survive 2 weeks being exposed to it??

science to protect against VAB:
avoidance, the most intense regions only covers a relatively local area.. if you want to claim that NASA doesnt have the science to protect its astronauts against the VAB then you are claiming that NASA is too stupid to go around it..

you are just in denial saying its game over when you clearly dont understand anything science related..

I've shown you my sources, right?

The sources clearly state, repeatedly, that aluminum is not only a poor material for shielding GCR radiation, it actually makes it more hazardous to astronauts in the spacecraft. Our future spacecraft will not be built with aluminum shielding, for that very reason.

Do they make any exception(s) for their statements, within the documents?

No, they do not.


If there had any exception(s) to this, they'd have mentioned it in the documents.



You claim GCR radiation is only a concern for long missions, not for short missions like Apollo's, right?

You base that on figures in their document, which you think are 100% accurate, valid, genuine measurements of GCR radiation, taken in the deep space environment. Yes?

Do you not recall why you're wrong, so I need to spell it out for you, once again?


They are NOT actual measurements of GCR radiation taken in deep space. They aren't even real figures. And not even in deep space. They are guesstimates, nothing more.

You should really know this, since I've already explained it to you, over and over again.

They say it in the document, and that's how I know about it, and told you it.

They don't use these figures, as they are not genuine, or even measurements..


You can't, either.