Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
The destination was not terribly important, but the act of getting there FIRST was important. Now that the U.S. has already been to the Moon, there are not as many reasons to go back. If, for example, China does it, it will be a case of "been there, done that" in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Yeah, this is the sentiment that I vehemently disagree with. It's a good 'excuse' to not go back. But, I see too many reasons TO go back.

Thanks for the input.

The U.S. was ready to go back, and developed the Constellation Program about 10 years ago as a means to do so (with new launch vehicles, new landers, Moon bases, etc). Again, the people footing the bill (taxpayers) didn't seem too excited about the idea, and the Constellation program was cut back so much that the trips back to the Moon were again cancelled.

Basically, NASA was told that there is only so much money they will be given, period; they would NOT be given a bunch of additional money to fund Constellation. If NASA decided to spend all of the money they are normally given on going to the Moon via the Constellation Program, then they would have no money for any other programs during that time. Therefore, NASA decided to end the Constellation program.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
The destination was not terribly important, but the act of getting there FIRST was important. Now that the U.S. has already been to the Moon, there are not as many reasons to go back. If, for example, China does it, it will be a case of "been there, done that" in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Yeah, this is the sentiment that I vehemently disagree with. It's a good 'excuse' to not go back. But, I see too many reasons TO go back.

Thanks for the input.

The U.S. was ready to go back, and developed the Constellation Program about 10 years ago as a means to do so (with new launch vehicles, new landers, Moon bases, etc). Again, the people footing the bill (taxpayers) didn't seem too excited about the idea, and the Constellation program was cut back so much that the trips back to the Moon were again cancelled.

Basically, NASA was told that there is only so much money they will be given, period; they would NOT be given a bunch of additional money to fund Constellation. If NASA decided to spend all of the money they are normally given on going to the Moon via the Constellation Program, then they would have no money for any other programs during that time. Therefore, NASA decided to end the Constellation program.

edit on 8/9/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

Yes Obama cancelled the initiative to return to the moon set up by Bush. However Nasa still plans to go to mars by 2035. Congress has approved initial funding because not to do so pretty much means NASA is shut down. Theres somecool stuff being developed to get to mars such as VASIMR rocket should make the trip to mars in about 40 days. Heres a cool video of NASA test firing notice something strange?

reply to post by dragonridr

Here this is from apollo 11 landing it was recorded by Bochum observatory.What they did was face there radio antenna towards the moon and picked up the astronauts transmission back to earth. So please explain to us all how radio transmissions came from the moon but yet we didnt go there im interested to find out how that works?????

Is it that easy? Wow. All you have to do is point a dish at the moon, listen to pre-recorded conversations picked out the airwaves, and with a little bit of magical thinking, proved the moon landings were real.

Congratulations on that one.

How easy would it be to pay Bochum to step away from the telescope while a serious minded team of Bellcomm contractors "assisted" in tuning into the "apollo signals"?

How easy would it be for the people of Bochum to participate in the Kristallnacht? Eh?
en.wikipedia.org...

In 1938, the people of Bochum, good christians, looked the other way to a genocide happening right in front of them. In 1969, the people of Bochum flocked to the observatory in West Germany because the dome represented the heralding of the 'space era' and that included 'Apollo', too.

How easy would it be for "privately funded" Bochum Observatory to get funds from and participate in hoaxes for the Soviets AND the Americans... effectively playing both sides.

I don't know what kind of local laws they have for disclosure of funding sources in Germany. It would be interesting if they ever told where they get the money for "privately funded" could mean CIA, NASA or the Nazi's.

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
- Nothing is too expensive - pricetag is irrelevent - have you seen how our governement operates?
- so really it just boils down to desire: and, there should be plenty on OUR end, nevermind other nations' to duplicate this feat (for many, many reasons)

This is a good point in the thread to chat on the Apollo costs arguments. Usually, when we all get together to talk about Apollo total costs of the program, these are figures generally range from $22-25 billion dollars. Am I right? Some figures are like $23.5 billion.

Further scrutiny in the total costs of Apollo shows that those figures do not include other necessary precursor programs such as Mercury, Gemini, Lunar Orbiter and Surveyor.

What people often don't remember is, $23.5 billion is about how much Viet Nam War cost per year during the hot parts of the conflict '66-'70. And that war was willfully promulgated on the fraud of Tonkin Gulf .

Nixon's carpet bombing of Viet Nam (to encourage the peace talks) was discretionary spending. Apollo was discretionary spending. The war in SE Asia was discretionary spending. At any time they could have diverted money into Apollo to keep it going, to keep the factories open for massive Saturns V blasting off all through the decade of the 1970's. Just like Werner von Planner had talked about getting to Mars by 1984 or 5.

So because Vietnam and Kristallnacht, therefore no Apollo.

Those arguments are not arguments, they are philosophical points about politics.

You have two big budget items, one has achieved its aim of landing on the moon, the other is an ongoing ideological battle that would make your administration look pretty stupid if you failed at it. Which one do you spend your limited resources on? With hindsight we know how that turns out, at the time they didn't. The idea that Apollo was a diversionary tactic for Vietnam also gets floated around from time to time, but anyone who has seen the newspapers and media of the time will know which one got the major headlines on most days.

Using political decisions to discredit Apollo is pointless - it does not prove that Apollo never happened.

As for how one area of Germany behaved during WWII, what does this have to do with Apollo? How does this in some way stop the science and engineering working? It's a non-argument.

And yes, it really is as simple as pointing a dish at the moon and receiving the signal, which amateurs and observatories alike managed to do. If somehow all of those people had NASA staff twisting their arms up their backs while they pointed their antennae somewhere else, then let's have the names involved, witnesses and statements to that effect, otherwise it is (as usual) just resorting to "I don't believe it".

Originally posted by choos

thats all assuming that the US government ordered the assassination of JFK.. which you seem to be implying.. but what if the KGB ordered it? what if only one man ordered it, or what if some crazy guy just wanted to do it without telling anyone?.. your point on the JFK and the soviets are null and void.

You don't understand the point.

The official story was that a lone nut named Oswald did it - just one day after it happened!

But it wasn't accepted by many people as the true story, as we know.

Many Americans became very skepitcal and leery of their government.

Thus, it was the perfect event for the USSR to pounce on, with their propaganda machine.- because many Americans had already assumed their government was involved in the assassination, in some way or other.

It makes no difference what part the US government played in the murder. It doesn't matter if they played no part in it. It doesn't matter if the KGB did it. The only thing that matters is that many Americans believed their own government played a part in it.

Get it now?

Originally posted by choos

an assassination does not require a huge man power therefore secrets are much better hidden.. the lunar landing hoax requires an enourmous man effort which is near impossible to hide.. let alone impossible to fake due to technology not really existing to fake it.

The assassination of the US President in public, and subsequent cover-up, would require significant manpower.

But this has nothing to do with the issue at hand, anyway.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by turbonium1

 

At the time of JFK's death, the USA and the USSR were engaged in a cold war. Both countries were trying to outdo the other. Look at the development of military technologies of the time. Both countries were very much interested in the technologies of the other. And while the arms races were on, there was the other aspect, where the use of propaganda was used heavily around the world. What better propaganda than to prove before the entire world that the greatest achievement of the scientific world was nothing more than a hoax, and having the proof to back it up.

We knew that the Soviet Union sent a probe to Venus, we listened into the signal and saw the pictures, just as the Soviet Union monitored and listened into the signals from the probes and crafts that we sent into space. And if it was a hoax, the USSR would have came out immediately, along with the proof to back it up.

No, because they should have done the same thing with JFK's murder. and didn't say a word about it.

And they already had a skeptical American public with the JFK issue. Almost everyone in America believed the moon landings were real. Therfore, JFK would've been a MUCH easier sell.

OK...we've reached 80 pages in this discussion, so, at risk of repeating myself, I simply have to ask a question.

What would be considered proof that the Apollo program successfully landed men on the Moon and returned them to Earth in 1969?

Let me make it easier for you to formulate an answer by listing things that have already been dismissed as insufficient by those who think the whole thing was a sham:

Photographs and film taken on the original missions.
First-hand accounts by the men who designed, built, and launched the rockets, and by the men who flew the missions.
Evidence presented by medical doctors, physicists, engineers of varying stripes, and pilots, all saying that the missions were possible (albeit risky).
Photographs and video footage from post-Apollo missions into lunar space by organizations other than NASA (I'm thinking most specifically of JAXA) that provide support for the "we really did it" interpretation of history.
Geological evidence that lunar samples didn't come from an Earthly source.
Evidence presented by professional film makers that any attempt to fake the landings would have been either impossible, or more expensive than actually going to the Moon.

In this very thread, it's even been put forth that physically revisiting the landing sites would prove nothing, since the sites have been staged via remote operations.

So...what evidence would be good enough? Please provide a definitive answer, because the moving goalposts and out-of-hand dismissals are beginning to make me think that Apollo Moon Landing Denial has become some odd sort of neo-religious fundamentalism, where anything, no matter how well supported by fact, that does not toe the Church line will simply be shouted down as heresy, blasphemy, and an attempt to mislead the Faithful Flock from the True Way.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

The U.S. was ready to go back, and developed the Constellation Program about 10 years ago as a means to do so (with new launch vehicles, new landers, Moon bases, etc). Again, the people footing the bill (taxpayers) didn't seem too excited about the idea, and the Constellation program was cut back so much that the trips back to the Moon were again cancelled.

Basically, NASA was told that there is only so much money they will be given, period; they would NOT be given a bunch of additional money to fund Constellation. If NASA decided to spend all of the money they are normally given on going to the Moon via the Constellation Program, then they would have no money for any other programs during that time. Therefore, NASA decided to end the Constellation program.

edit on 8/9/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

Wrong.

You need to read this document...

www.gao.gov...

It's titled...

Constellation Program Cost and Schedule Will Remain Uncertain Until a Sound Business Case Is Established

The report states..

"Gaps in the business case include

• significant technical and design challenges for the Orion and Ares I vehicles, such as limiting vibration during launch, eliminating the risk of hitting the launch tower during lift off, and reducing the mass of the Orion vehicle, represent considerable hurdles that must be overcome in order to meet safety and performance requirements; and

• a poorly phased funding plan that runs the risk of funding shortfalls in fiscal years 2009 through 2012, resulting in planned work not being completed to support schedules and milestones. This approach has limited NASA’s ability to mitigate technical risks early in development and precludes the orderly ramp up of workforce and developmental activities."


"The Constellation program has not yet developed all of the elements of a sound business case needed to justify entry into implementation. Progress has been made; however, technical and design challenges are still significant and until they are resolved NASA will not be able to reliably estimate the time and money needed to execute the program."


Do you understand the primary problems with Constellation now?

This isn't all about a lack of money. NASA's problem is a significant lack of required technologies

That's the show-stopper here. A sound business case cannot be made because they don't have any of the required technologies. Hell, they don't even know what those technologies are! They're still in the design stage.

As I've said before, it's just like building a 'time machine'. It doesn't exist. We have the same problem as Constellation has - [ba significant lack of required technologies.

Money is not the reason we can't build a time machine, or a spacecraft that flies humans the moon. Or to Mars, or another solar system.

They can't be built because we lack the technologies to build them.

reply to post by Brother Stormhammer

What would be considered proof that the Apollo program successfully landed men on the Moon and returned them to Earth in 1969?

That's not exactly how I view it. NASA, under Richard Nixon, made the claims which deserve to be closely re-examined. NASA hasn't been very helpful with some things such as the missing modules, the missing telemetry tapes, the missing moon rocks.... hmmmm.... did you notice a trend there?

NASA is also systematically removing the iconic cross hairs from Apollo images, declaring Keep Out Zones and a National Parks bill to "preserve and protect" the American patriotic sites on the lunar surface.

The question you are asking is kind of like asking "What would it take to convince somebody that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone?"

'Moon rock' given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin is fake
www.telegraph.co.uk...

Originally posted by xavi1000
'Moon rock' given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin is fake

if you had bothered to actually read that article you would have read that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin never gave any moon rocks out to Holland...

Originally posted by turbonium1

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

The U.S. was ready to go back, and developed the Constellation Program about 10 years ago as a means to do so (with new launch vehicles, new landers, Moon bases, etc). Again, the people footing the bill (taxpayers) didn't seem too excited about the idea, and the Constellation program was cut back so much that the trips back to the Moon were again cancelled.

Basically, NASA was told that there is only so much money they will be given, period; they would NOT be given a bunch of additional money to fund Constellation. If NASA decided to spend all of the money they are normally given on going to the Moon via the Constellation Program, then they would have no money for any other programs during that time. Therefore, NASA decided to end the Constellation program.

Wrong.

You need to read this document...

www.gao.gov...

It's titled...

Constellation Program Cost and Schedule Will Remain Uncertain Until a Sound Business Case Is Established

The report states..

"Gaps in the business case include

• significant technical and design challenges for the Orion and Ares I vehicles, such as limiting vibration during launch, eliminating the risk of hitting the launch tower during lift off, and reducing the mass of the Orion vehicle, represent considerable hurdles that must be overcome in order to meet safety and performance requirements; and

• a poorly phased funding plan that runs the risk of funding shortfalls in fiscal years 2009 through 2012, resulting in planned work not being completed to support schedules and milestones. This approach has limited NASA’s ability to mitigate technical risks early in development and precludes the orderly ramp up of workforce and developmental activities."


"The Constellation program has not yet developed all of the elements of a sound business case needed to justify entry into implementation. Progress has been made; however, technical and design challenges are still significant and until they are resolved NASA will not be able to reliably estimate the time and money needed to execute the program."


Do you understand the primary problems with Constellation now?

This isn't all about a lack of money. NASA's problem is a significant lack of required technologies

That's the show-stopper here. A sound business case cannot be made because they don't have any of the required technologies. Hell, they don't even know what those technologies are! They're still in the design stage.

As I've said before, it's just like building a 'time machine'. It doesn't exist. We have the same problem as Constellation has - [ba significant lack of required technologies.

Money is not the reason we can't build a time machine, or a spacecraft that flies humans the moon. Or to Mars, or another solar system.

They can't be built because we lack the technologies to build them.

Well, yeah. I don't mean to imply that Constellation was 100% complete, and they were "all ready" to go to the moon. Constellation certainly still had design flaws when the project was tterminated. That is a known fact...

...BUT Constellation was ended early, so any design flaws in the hardware for were not worked through -- i.,e., they never got a chance to be worked through. Heck some things never got a chance to be tested -- Constellation really had no heavy launch vehicle nor a lunar lander when it was terminated. The final design of those pieces of hardware were not very far along at all. There would be a lot more preliminary design testing that would have needed to be done.

Testing of designs (to find flaws in those designs) is a major part of any product. Most of the Apollo hardware did not work the first time they were tested. There were critical problems with the different parts of the Saturn V rocket that needed to sorted though even before the various stages were put together for a launch test -- and even THAT test found problems in the design and construction (such as vibration issues).

However, after more time, more testing, and more money was spent on the Saturn V, they got it to work.

That test phase of some of the Constellation Hardware (say the Ares V heavy lift vehicle and the Ares I launch vehicle) were never done because the project was stopped early. The Ares I had vibration issues, but those issues (like the Saturn I) would have probably been worked out eventually if testing continued.

The Orion Capsule is one piece of Constellation hardware that survived the ending of the Constellation program. That capsule will become the primary crew vehicle for NASA for the near future. However, even more than 5 years after Orion was first conceived, it is still being tested, and problems are being worked out.

Testing to fix design flaws -- That is the nature of the industry.

Originally posted by turbonium1
Do you understand the primary problems with Constellation now?

This isn't all about a lack of money. NASA's problem is a significant lack of required technologies

That's the show-stopper here. A sound business case cannot be made because they don't have any of the required technologies. Hell, they don't even know what those technologies are! They're still in the design stage.

As I've said before, it's just like building a 'time machine'. It doesn't exist. We have the same problem as Constellation has - [ba significant lack of required technologies.

Money is not the reason we can't build a time machine, or a spacecraft that flies humans the moon. Or to Mars, or another solar system.

They can't be built because we lack the technologies to build them.

it is about a lack of money.. where do you think technology comes from?? it comes from research and development.. perhaps you should do some research yourself about how much companies spend on R&D..

also what you dont understand is that orion and Ares1 were both to be new crafts.. new crafts come with their own problems that need to be overcome with new technology.. with a lack of money comes lack of technology..

By the way, as an addendum to my post above...

Like I said above, Being able to fully test the hardware in order to find design flaws is the nature of the space industry (the nature of many industries, for that matter). Constellation's hardware had flaws, but the testing of the hardware was never complete, and even started in some cases (as in the case of the Ares V heavy lift vehicle).

The same thing was true for Apollo. Testing the hardware to find/fix the flaws was a vital part of the program. There were a multitude of design/construction issues that needed to be worked out with Apollo, issues that were only found during testing.

there is a fine documentary called 'Moon Machines" that really explores the design, construction, and testing of the Apollo hardware. The documentary was in several episodes -- each episode dealing with a piece of hardware -- e.g., the Saturn V launch vehicle, the Command Module, the Lunar Lander, Space suits, The Rover, and the Navigation Computer.

One thing became obvious while watching these documantaries -- the first iteration of the designs of the various pieces Apollo hardware did not work, and had many problems that were found in the testing phase. However, those problems were found and fixed and redesigned until they DID work.

Like I said, that is the nature of it.


Here is the episode on the Saturn V Launch Vehicle:



And here is the episode on the Command Module/Service Module:

Originally posted by turbonium1
You don't understand the point.

The official story was that a lone nut named Oswald did it - just one day after it happened!

But it wasn't accepted by many people as the true story, as we know.

Many Americans became very skepitcal and leery of their government.

Thus, it was the perfect event for the USSR to pounce on, with their propaganda machine.- because many Americans had already assumed their government was involved in the assassination, in some way or other.

It makes no difference what part the US government played in the murder. It doesn't matter if they played no part in it. It doesn't matter if the KGB did it. The only thing that matters is that many Americans believed their own government played a part in it.

Get it now?

i do understand the point, im just bringing up a different way of seeing it to how you are seeing it.

you are saying that the soviets should have known about the assassination of JFK and should have said that it was a conspiracy.. but what you are failing to understand is my point that what if it was the KGB who had planned it in the first place??

get it now? so its not a perfect event for them to pounce on.

The assassination of the US President in public, and subsequent cover-up, would require significant manpower.

But this has nothing to do with the issue at hand, anyway.

incorrect.. assassinations require very few people to do so.. about 3 sometimes 2 and the victim is always one of them. it does not require a significant manpower. it only takes one mad man to pull a trigger not thousands.

and it is a bit relevant.. you are saying that its a perfect opportunity for the soviets to pounce on.. but facts remains, you have no idea who was truly behind the assassination.. it could have been the US gov, it could have been the soviets, it could have been a lone gun man, it could have been Elvis.

and so the point is how assassinations, even of unprotected public figures it can only take as little as one mad man. the Soviets may or may not have known. but you definitely do not. so your point about the soviets using it as propaganda is more or less moot.

i mean.. why didnt the russians/soviets expose who was behind the attempted assassination of Monica Seles?? or even John Lenon?

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by Brother Stormhammer

 

What would be considered proof that the Apollo program successfully landed men on the Moon and returned them to Earth in 1969?

That's not exactly how I view it. NASA, under Richard Nixon, made the claims which deserve to be closely re-examined. NASA hasn't been very helpful with some things such as the missing modules, the missing telemetry tapes, the missing moon rocks.... hmmmm.... did you notice a trend there?

What I see is a situation where NASA literally cannot win.
If NASA says nothing, then they're covering something up.
If NASA says anything that doesn't jibe with the idea that the Moon landings were faked, then, well, what else? Of course they're part of the conspiracy to fake the landings and keep it secret!

No matter what they do, they're going to get tagged as being 'not very helpful'. They've been fairly forthcoming about the fact that a lot of the telemetry tapes were recycled by later missions, but nobody wants to believe that. They've even admitted that some things dropped out of sight...of course, we all know that a bureaucracy could never lose track of something important. The shocking thing about that story is that a government agency admitted it, not that it happened.

As for missing modules, I really must have missed something there. As far as I can find, just about every piece of Apollo hardware bigger than a cufflink is pretty solidly accounted for, and most of the missing moon rocks went missing after they left NASA's custody (How in the name of St. Heinlein do you lose a Moon rock?!), which means that several states need a collective backside-kicking, but their carelessness isn't NASA's problem.

NASA is also systematically removing the iconic cross hairs from Apollo images, declaring Keep Out Zones and a National Parks bill to "preserve and protect" the American patriotic sites on the lunar surface.

I'm not in favor of doing a lot of re-touching on the photos myself...though the cross-hairs don't really prove or disprove anything, so their removal isn't really a factor in the 'did we go' discussion.

As for the 'protected zones' around the landing sites, as much as I'd like to blame NASA for that bit of errant stupidity (I'm not a big fan of NASA, believe it or not), I have to give them a pass there...that proposal came from two members of Congress who can't seem to find anything better to legislate. Like a lot of other 'special legislation' that goes through Congress, that bill isn't a serious proposal (at least, I hope not), but a symbolic one. For one, it's unenforceable, for another, it's out of Congress's jurisdiction.

The question you are asking is kind of like asking "What would it take to convince somebody that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone?"

Actually, that's an easy list, but a short form would be that if you could show me huge stacks of forensic evidence that supported the conclusion, along with thousands of photographs and several thousand feet of film that did the same, and provided the testimony of survivors, witnesses, doctors, ballistics experts, and Lee Harvey Oswald himself, I'd consider it proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

reply to post by Brother Stormhammer


Two of the ascent modules were released over the moon after rejoin. Since NASA can only say their orbits were expected to decay, and they were expected to crash into the lunar surface after about a year, that proves they were faked. Because the modules were so important NASA should have tracked them to within about three millimeters of their impact site or something.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Brother Stormhammer

 

Two of the ascent modules were released over the moon after rejoin. Since NASA can only say their orbits were expected to decay, and they were expected to crash into the lunar surface after about a year, that proves they were faked. Because the modules were so important NASA should have tracked them to within about three millimeters of their impact site or something.

Zaphod, That is not the position of Apollo investigators. You are exaggerating by far.

The two missing ascent modules seemed to have slipped into a literal black hole... (A11 in 1969, A16 in 1972) the modules are totally untraceable... even NASA says so.

And this is very meaningful to Apollo investigators because it confirms NASA is not the perfect, exact, scientific agency that the defenders say it is. They claim to track 10,000+ dangerous objects in low earth orbit!!!! They will be exact and precise only when it suits their propaganda agenda.

NASA can't find Eagle or Orion. The missing modules represent two red flags against Apollo program.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

NASA is also systematically removing the iconic cross hairs from Apollo images, declaring Keep Out Zones and a National Parks bill to "preserve and protect" the American patriotic sites on the lunar surface.

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer


I'm not in favor of doing a lot of re-touching on the photos myself...though the cross-hairs don't really prove or disprove anything, so their removal isn't really a factor in the 'did we go' discussion.

NASA has a contract with Arizona State University to digitally remove the cross hairs (reseau pattern marks) from the online catalog of Apollo images. The Hasselblad cameras which were left on the surface of the moon contained the glass plates that were etched with the reseau pattern marks.

Removing the cross hairs from these Apollo mythology images is tantamount to taking all images of Adolf Hitler and airbrushing his mustache off!!

It represents a total disregard for historical integrity. It represents a '1984' version of Apollo. And it gets a red flag.


We explored the back ground of the project in this thread here: NASA is removing the reseau marks from Apollo images,
www.abovetopsecret.com...