Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

Here's a point about the budget Apollo had, compared to Constellation's...

Apollo-ites compare the entire budget of Apollo, which is completely wrong, and very misleading.

This mistake has always helped in their well-worn 'lack of money' as the main cause of Constellation's failure.

So, any Apollo-ites who have realized the comparison is flawed would never mention it.

I just realized it a few days ago, and so I'm happy to inform everyone who reads this post..


Apollo supposedly flew men to the moon in 1968, with Apollo 8 orbiting the moon, and back to Earth.

The missions after that were with the same spacecraft, so they are not relevant to our budget comparison.

It cuts 4 years (1969 to 1972) from the Apollo figure, in fact.


The 'lack of money' argument gets cut to pieces, as a result

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

Building mounds, then building the great pyramids, and then back to building mounds again?? Hilarious, really!

so if the egyptians were building mounds and then built the great pyramids and then back to building mounds again..

you would believe that the great pyramids were not real, perhaps maybe a hologram?? hilarious indeed.

p.s. if you dont like the pyramids ill use skyscrapers:

Burj Khalifa UAE height 828.0 m completed 2010
23 Marina UAE 395.0 m completed 2012
Princess Tower UAE 392.0 m completed 2012
The Index UAE 328.0 m completed 2009

seems in the UAE the were only capable of about 328m in 2009 and then in 2010 they go right upto 828m!!!!!!! and then 2 years later they go back DOWN to 395 m and 392 m.. do you believe the burj khalifa to be a hoax also??

If the people who built mounds were also the people who built the pyramids, and went back to building mounds forever after, you'd need to account for a completely illogical set of events.

What makes you even think it actually happened in that way, when you have zero evidence to support it?

You were that desperate to find a comparison to 'LEO, to manned moon landings, and back to LEO forever since' story!?

And your skyscraper comparison is just as ridiculous, too..

Do you not realize that, in fact, skyscrapers have actually been built taller and taller over the years, and not built small, then very tall, and then back to only building small ones, forever after?

Do I really need to show you the undeniable proof of that?

I hope not, for your sake....

originally posted by: turbonium1

Orion has never flown humans into deep space, either.

and yet it is a future spacecraft designed to carry humans made primarily from aluminium..

before you said they are not using aluminium anymore on future spacecrafts.. therefore you are wrong.

Anyway, by pointing out that Orion is built primarily of aluminum, you're obviously implying that Orion will use aluminum for radiation shielding...otherwise, it wouldn't be relevant to bring up...

you missed my point.. you said future spacecrafts will not be built with aluminium due to radiation protection reasons.. and yet the very next spacecraft they are building is made from aluminium..

Now, I've got no idea WHY you'd mention it, because aluminum is NOT being used for radiation shielding in the (primarily aluminum) Orion spacecraft...

whether or not they use aluminium as radiation shielding is not my point.. my point is you claimed it would no longer be used because it was deemed too deadly to use and yet the very next spacecraft is made from aluminium even if it might have something else to protect it from particle radiation the spacecraft is still made from aluminium.

The spacecraft can be primarily aluminum, as Orion is, but to fly Orion into deep space, it needs to have radiation shielding. These shields are NOT aluminum, since - AS WE SHOULD ALL KNOW BY NOW - aluminum has proven to be worse than no shield at all, as it actually intensifies the radiation.

only thin layers of aluminium intensified GCR's and even then it was only by a small amount.. but i think you still havent grasped the concept of particle radiation shielding.. any material is shielding against particle radiation, and that includes your own skin..

i dont think you have grasped the fact that GCR's is low level radiation.. even when its intensified by aluminium it is still low level.. unless you can prove otherwise.

So they are trying to develop radiation shielding for the Orion, as proven by the following sources (and many others)...

yes because Orion is planned to be in deep space for long periods of time not 2 weeks maximum.

NASA has to study this area of radiation before they can send a manned spaceflight through it

That is EXACTLY what I've been telling you, for crying out loud!! So now, you know even THEY are admitting it.

that is incorrect.. you need to re read the article again.. the author is half wrong in what he wrote..

price said
"In deep space the challenges are zero gravity and a radiation environment. So bone loss, muscle loss and the radiation as you don’t have the atmosphere of the Earth to protect you"

when price says radiation environment he is referring to deep space radiation. ie. GCR's and SEP's. he is NOT referring to the VAB radiation environment.

author writes:
"Price is talking about the Van Allen Belt"

half yes and half no.. price is referring to the VAB and atmosphere that protects us from the deep space radiation environment, he however is NOT saying that the VAB radiation is the radiation environment that is the challenge they are facing as the author has implied.

The most important point is - if NASA has to study the VAB "before they can send a manned spacecraft through it", then the Apollo spacecraft NEVER flew men to the moon!

have you been paying any attention to what anyone was saying about how Apollo avoided the more dangerous areas of the VAB in your years as a hoax believer or have you always kept your fingers in your ears??

There would be no need for NASA to study the VAB "before they can send a manned" craft through it, since NASA's Apollo manned craft would have already gone through it - 18 times, on 9 missions, perfectly safe and sound - over 40 years ago!!

the Apollo craft didnt go through the most intense areas, it went through the outer edges which isnt always practical depending on target location..

I was referring to the figures in the documents I cited.

You know that, of course. You also know I'm right about those figures being 'geusstimates', too.

That's why you didn't use those figures in your argument, as you know the figures are not genuine.

Still trying to spin around my arguments, hey?? ....no go, bub.

you are joking right?? you think im spinning your arguments with a comment like this??

do you deny that GCR data exists and was collected in deep space?

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

Building mounds, then building the great pyramids, and then back to building mounds again?? Hilarious, really!

so if the egyptians were building mounds and then built the great pyramids and then back to building mounds again..

you would believe that the great pyramids were not real, perhaps maybe a hologram?? hilarious indeed.

p.s. if you dont like the pyramids ill use skyscrapers:

Burj Khalifa UAE height 828.0 m completed 2010
23 Marina UAE 395.0 m completed 2012
Princess Tower UAE 392.0 m completed 2012
The Index UAE 328.0 m completed 2009

seems in the UAE the were only capable of about 328m in 2009 and then in 2010 they go right upto 828m!!!!!!! and then 2 years later they go back DOWN to 395 m and 392 m.. do you believe the burj khalifa to be a hoax also??

If the people who built mounds were also the people who built the pyramids, and went back to building mounds forever after, you'd need to account for a completely illogical set of events.

What makes you even think it actually happened in that way, when you have zero evidence to support it?

and yet that is what historians believe.. perhaps you should argue with them and tell them they are wrong..

You were that desperate to find a comparison to 'LEO, to manned moon landings, and back to LEO forever since' story!?

And your skyscraper comparison is just as ridiculous, too..

and looks like you dont understand..

Do you not realize that, in fact, skyscrapers have actually been built taller and taller over the years, and not built small, then very tall, and then back to only building small ones, forever after?

that doesnt explain the Burj Khalifa..

Do I really need to show you the undeniable proof of that?

I hope not, for your sake....

did you miss what i wrote??

perhaps if i put it in chronological order you might see it:

2009 tallest building finished in dubai is 328m high
2010 tallest building finished in dubai is 828m high
2012 tallest building finished in dubai is 392m and 395m high

you logic says this is absolutely impossible after having built a skyscraper 828m high they should be building higher and higher, absolutely no one goes backwards unless its a hoax.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Good video... Which reminds me of this video...



Shepard hits the golf ball and says, "Miles and miles and miles..." regarding the distance the golf ball travelled. As you can see in the video, he hits a fair amount of sediment when he hits the ball. The ball goes on for miles and miles but the sediment settles back down fairly quickly (which doesn't look right to me). Like your video demonstrates, the two objects react the same to the gravity. So how does he hit two objects with the same instrument at the same time and get two vastly different results?

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Good video... Which reminds me of this video...

Shepard hits the golf ball and says, "Miles and miles and miles..." regarding the distance the golf ball travelled. As you can see in the video, he hits a fair amount of sediment when he hits the ball. The ball goes on for miles and miles but the sediment settles back down fairly quickly (which doesn't look right to me). Like your video demonstrates, the two objects react the same to the gravity. So how does he hit two objects with the same instrument at the same time and get two vastly different results?

Why does a golf ball hit on Earth travel hundreds of meters, while the clod of dirt plops to the ground nearby?Because of the resiliency and compactness of the structures. The golf ball is a resilient solid, the lunar dust acts as a liquid.

This is the perfect example of Moon Hoax believers being puzzled by something they see in lunar videos that they could also observe on Earth!

a reply to: Zaphod58

I see it the exact opposite. With no atmospheric friction to slow it down, it should continue much longer. But it doesn't. That doesn't make sense. If the difference is atmosphere and no atmosphere, why does the sediment act the same on the moon as it does on Earth? It should be very different.

If you look at the sediment coming off the golf club in the video in the previous post, the sediment begins with an upward trajectory, then slows considerably after only about a foot of travel and drops almost straight down onto the moon again. That is what I would expect to see on Earth where the velocity of the sediment was reduced by friction, not on the moon. In a complete vacuum the velocity would remain almost constant until gravity brought it back down. With no other force acting on it any object propelled in a vacuum will continue travelling the same direction and the same velocity. The sediment clearly does not. I cant explain that...

a reply to: DJW001

I see what you are saying, but you are describing liquid behavior on Earth as being the same on the moon and it wouldn't be. Consider one golf ball and one grain of lunar dust. Hit them both with the same force and the same trajectory. The result should be the same. Like the hammer and the feather falling at the same speed, the golf ball and the grain of dust should fall at the same speed. But in the video they don't.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

OK< now try comparing what you see of Shephard's shot with what you see in a classic bunker shot on Earth.

Are they the same or not?

What you see are particles of all sizes (and that is important) behaving in a way entirely consistent with both lunar gravity and zero atmosphere: they are entrained, they travel a distance appropriate to their size, they settle in ad dictacted by lunar gravity. At no point is there any billowing or dust cloud.

What you see when the landers touch down (or get at least before the engine shuts off is lunar material disappearing at high speed almost horizontally in a way that would not, and could not, happen on Earth. As soon as the engine is turned off, the particulates stop being picked up and scene clears almost instantly, again in a way that does not, and could not, happen on Earth.

If you want to be really sure they are behaving in a consistent way, you can view the footage taken from China's lunar lander and you will notice that the dust behaves in exactly the way as the dust in the Apollo footage.

it's also worth remembering that if there is still dust blowing as it lands, then self-evidently not al the dust has been blown away by the engine exhaust.

Space is a complete vacuum, a frictionless environment. Ballistic motion should be a perfect arc. The angles of ascent and descent should be mirror images of each other. The only force acting on the moving object once it begins moving is gravity. Since gravity remains constant, the force on the moving object would remain constant. When you drop a hammer and a feather on the moon they land at the same time because it is a frictionless environment and the only force acting on the objects is gravity. And if you toss them in the same direction with the same force, the result should still be the same. With no atmosphere, no friction, why does the dust visibly slow and fall back to the surface so quickly?

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Shepard hits the golf ball and says, "Miles and miles and miles..." regarding the distance the golf ball travelled. As you can see in the video, he hits a fair amount of sediment when he hits the ball. The ball goes on for miles and miles but the sediment settles back down fairly quickly (which doesn't look right to me). Like your video demonstrates, the two objects react the same to the gravity. So how does he hit two objects with the same instrument at the same time and get two vastly different results?

its a huge exaggeration.

the time difference between hitting the ball and saying miles and miles and miles is about 4 seconds.

if the ball was anywhere close to one mile it would mean the ball is travelling at about 900mph which is impossible.

also the dust you do see, is the dust that was not cleanly hit. dust would be in contact with the dust around it and those dust particles would be in contact with the dust around them so on and so on.
the dust you see not going very far would most likely be the dust that was not cleanly hit and effectively being dragged but its neighbouring dust particles or having minor contact with the club, which explains why dust on the moon usually travels varying distances.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

And if you toss them in the same direction with the same force, the result should still be the same.

Wrong! You are confusing acceleration due to gravity, which will be apparently equal due to the large difference between the Moon's mass and the mass of the falling objects, with the acceleration which would be caused by an outside force upon an object which is dependent upon the mass of the object! a=f/m!

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
With no atmosphere, no friction, why does the dust visibly slow and fall back to the surface so quickly?

You answer your own question with the first three words.

Pick a particle, any particle, in the video and show us that it is not following a ballistic arc.

a reply to: DJW001

So if the outside force acting on the object is gravity...then what? Its equal on both objects because the moon is so much larger? Then if you start making the moon smaller, at what point does the action on the two objects begin to differ?

a reply to: onebigmonkey

They are all following a ballistic arc, just not the one they should be following in a frictionless environment. They shouldn't slow so quickly with nothing to scrub off speed. Whether hit directly or indirectly, the particles should start by gaining altitude, reach apogee, then fall at the same rate they climbed. The distance from launch to apogee should be the same distance as from apogee to landing. But it clearly isn't.

Remember the old brainteaser about the two bullets? One is fired from a gun whose barrel is precisely level. The other is dropped from precisely the same height as the barrel at the exact moment the first bullet exits the barrel. Which one hits the ground first? The answer is neither. They hit the ground at the same time, only the one fired from the gun is much farther away when it lands. That distance would be much much greater in the absence of atmosphere which creates friction and scrubs off speed. The effect of the gravity does not change, but the ballistic arc would if the same experiment were done on Earth and on the moon. Or, in a vacuum you could fire a bullet from the gun and drop a feather instead of another bullet, and the results would be the same.

BTW, thank you all for engaging conversation on this subject. I know its old but as I mentioned earlier, these questions were never really satisfactorily answered for me. I am seeking out the answers as well, not just replying to responses here. You all have given me much to think about.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: DJW001

So if the outside force acting on the object is gravity...then what? Its equal on both objects because the moon is so much larger? Then if you start making the moon smaller, at what point does the action on the two objects begin to differ?

They differ all along, it's just that the ratio of the mass of the object to the mass of the Moon is so small that it can be ignored for practical purposes. When the ratio gets to be around 5 - 10% it would probably start to show noticeable effects, with the primary body showing marked reaction to the lesser body/bodies. The recent spate of asteroid "moons" being discovered will be a great boon to astro-dynamicists.

it looks like Richard Nixon is the only world leader who can land on the moon.

Russian Glass Ceiling Confirmed

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Nope, looks more to me like you're confirming your inability to interpret a graph correctly.

Nixon did not start Apollo, he ended it. Nixon was a liar and a fraud and a failed politician, not a scientist or an engineer. Apollo was a success on whose coat-tails he cheerfully rode while removing it from NASA's list of priorities.

Nixon is also not in charge of the laws of physics: There is no such thing as a glass ceiling for space missions, just orbital mechanics. No matter how many times you repeat this falsehood it will never be true. As you rightly point out, Apollo landed on the moon, ergo no ceiling.