Why the Moon Landings Could Have Never EVER Been Faked: The Definitive Proof

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by 1nquisitive


1. rocket exhausts may well look different on the moon as opposed to earth, due to atmospheric pressure, but I think you'll find that red exhaust fumes don't suddenly become INVISIBLE on the moon.

First on the Moon what atmospheric pressure !

Well lets have a look at what some REAL experts say!!!

Fuel used by Apollo

First in the Saturn V

FIRST STAGE FUEL RP-1/LOX
SECOND STAGE LH2/LOX
THIRD STAGE LH2/LOX

LEM Descent stage
Aerozine 50/N2O4
LEM Ascent Stage
Aerozine 50/N2O4

A question asked a few years ago

-all artists impressions of landing LMs show a bright engine exhaust... >

>This is a common error in space art...
>In fact, of the commonly-used propellants, only solid propellants and
>LOX/Kerosene seem to have very luminous plumes (owing to exhausts rich in >particulates or carbon). N2O4/UDMH and LOX/Hydrogen both give almost >transparent exhaust plumes.
So does H2O2/Kerosene, which somewhat >surprises me: I would have expected an appearance similar to that with LOX >as oxidiser.

The first stage of Saturn used 5 F-1 engines. The single-chamber F-1 used liquid oxygen (lox) and RP-1, a kerosene, and was the largest and most powerful single liquid-fuel rocket engine ever built

The bright yellow flame of a LOX/kerosene rocket is definitely from carbon particles in the exhaust. Current opinion is that they form when fuel is cooked while still in the form of droplets; the glow is largely absent when the fuel is introduced into the chamber as vapor.

So your assumption seems to be wrong!

Why do you go on at length about artist impressions and stage one saturn V engagement? I didn't put forward either of these two notions.

The lunar exit modules, when engaged for LUNAR EXIT would burn with a deep red thick gas, which should block the camera. In fact there was ZERO fumes emitted on the supposed exit, so did they use a fumeless fuel?

[If argument = X; rebutting 'argument' ≠ X] = straw man.

You're using a strawman rebuttal.

Originally posted by eriktheawful
reply to post by 1nquisitive

 

Except you are leaving out that Y also launched the same type of campaign.

Both the USSR and the USA used to use things against each other, even publicly to try and make each other look bad. Here are some highlights:

U-2 Incident, 1960

Cuban Missile Crisis

Berlin Crisis of 1961

Vietnam War (Soviet Involvment)

I could go on with things like the US involvement in the USSR's Afghanistan war, etc.

Leave no doubt: if the USSR even THOUGHT the US was faking any part of the lunar landings, they would have spared no expense at all to tell the rest of the world about it.
Because: we, the USA would have done the very exact same thing to them, if we thought they were faking any part of their lunar program.

edit on 22-1-2013 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)

The fact that Y did the same only increases the ineptitude; and since X and Y jointly control all evidence of said activity who is to say it isn't an example of collusion.

Originally posted by Pinke

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
I'm sorry, but you have your premises incorrectly calibrated.

The 'scientific consensus' denied the existence of Rwandan mountain gorillas; nonetheless, in due course 'scientific consensus' turned out to be wrong.

The discovery of evidence for a new species is not even in the same ball park as the moon landing.

As far as I can tell, there was rumors of wild persons attacking people. There was then evidence of mountain gorillas. There was then agreement that mountain gorillas existed.

Just the same as, there was no moon landing. It was thought not to be possible. Then it was proven that it was. Just the same as flying etc etc ...

The moon landing astronauts have been used in radiation studies etc ... with scientists having direct access to them. The results are available online, and as of yet no one has disputed the data.

By your logic, scientists make mistakes therefore nothing science says can be accepted. I'd disagree strongly with that. The actual quantative analysis all seems to point to the moon landing having happened.

The burden of proof is different from one individual to the next. No, my logic, for the second time, is that a repetition of a given assertion by a group does not create validity (or lack of thereof).

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Originally posted by eriktheawful
reply to post by 1nquisitive

 

Except you are leaving out that Y also launched the same type of campaign.

Both the USSR and the USA used to use things against each other, even publicly to try and make each other look bad. Here are some highlights:

U-2 Incident, 1960

Cuban Missile Crisis

Berlin Crisis of 1961

Vietnam War (Soviet Involvment)

I could go on with things like the US involvement in the USSR's Afghanistan war, etc.

Leave no doubt: if the USSR even THOUGHT the US was faking any part of the lunar landings, they would have spared no expense at all to tell the rest of the world about it.
Because: we, the USA would have done the very exact same thing to them, if we thought they were faking any part of their lunar program.

edit on 22-1-2013 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)

The fact that Y did the same only increases the ineptitude; and since X and Y jointly control all evidence of said activity who is to say it isn't an example of collusion.

In your opinion.

On the other hand, again, I lived through part of this time period. The animosity between each country was there, and was very real.

The links I gave, and history itself proves beyond a doubt that either side would have "ratted" the other out in a eye blink.

Your argument against this holds no water at all I'm afraid.

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Originally posted by eriktheawful
reply to post by 1nquisitive

 

Except you are leaving out that Y also launched the same type of campaign.

Both the USSR and the USA used to use things against each other, even publicly to try and make each other look bad. Here are some highlights:

U-2 Incident, 1960

Cuban Missile Crisis

Berlin Crisis of 1961

Vietnam War (Soviet Involvment)

I could go on with things like the US involvement in the USSR's Afghanistan war, etc.

Leave no doubt: if the USSR even THOUGHT the US was faking any part of the lunar landings, they would have spared no expense at all to tell the rest of the world about it.
Because: we, the USA would have done the very exact same thing to them, if we thought they were faking any part of their lunar program.

edit on 22-1-2013 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)

The fact that Y did the same only increases the ineptitude; and since X and Y jointly control all evidence of said activity who is to say it isn't an example of collusion.

In your opinion.

On the other hand, again, I lived through part of this time period. The animosity between each country was there, and was very real.

The links I gave, and history itself proves beyond a doubt that either side would have "ratted" the other out in a eye blink.

Your argument against this holds no water at all I'm afraid.

I'm using logic to interpret actions; you're relying on anecdotes.

You're the one relying on opinion.

It not illogical to suggest that certain actions of X and Y seem to contradict the supposed hostility between X and Y.

A 'cold war' to keep the plebeians busy, if you will.

reply to post by 1nquisitive


No, I'm relying on history. Recorded history:

Cold War.

Clear, documented evidence of each nation's attitude towards each other.

You, on the other hand, or not offering anything but a logic principle that does not always apply correctly to real people, real nations and real life. In other words:

Reality.

Originally posted by eriktheawful
reply to post by 1nquisitive

 

No, I'm relying on history. Recorded history:

Cold War.

Clear, documented evidence of each nation's attitude towards each other.

You, on the other hand, or not offering anything but a logic principle that does not always apply correctly to real people, real nations and real life. In other words:

Reality.

Do you mean people are sometimes illogical in real world scenarios?

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Why do you go on at length about artist impressions and stage one saturn V engagement? I didn't put forward either of these two notions.

The lunar exit modules, when engaged for LUNAR EXIT would burn with a deep red thick gas, which should block the camera. In fact there was ZERO fumes emitted on the supposed exit, so did they use a fumeless fuel?

[If argument = X; rebutting 'argument' ≠ X] = straw man.

You're using a strawman rebuttal.

edit on 22-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: typo

And you are ignoring what was presented to you (goodness......your demeanor is reminding me of a certain moon hoaxer that was banned from here, but I digress):

The Moon landers used Aerozine 50 (fuel) and dinitrogen tetroxide (oxidizer) propellants, chosen for simplicity and reliability; they ignite hypergolically –upon contact– without the need for a spark. These propellants produce a nearly transparent exhaust.[95] The same fuel was used by the core of the American Titan rocket. The transparency of their plumes is apparent in many launch photos. The plumes of rocket engines fired in a vacuum spread out very quickly as they leave the engine nozzle (see above), further lessening their visibility. Finally, rocket engines often run "rich" to slow internal corrosion. On Earth, the excess fuel burns in contact with atmospheric oxygen. This cannot happen in a vacuum.

Source

Fuel type was Aerozine 50, Oxidizer was dinitrogen tetroxide, visible in earth's atmosphere, but not in a a vacuum (moon) when it burns.

So the question you asked about why we did not see an exhaust from the burn as been answered. You've yet to refute the answers.

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Originally posted by eriktheawful
reply to post by 1nquisitive

 

No, I'm relying on history. Recorded history:

Cold War.

Clear, documented evidence of each nation's attitude towards each other.

You, on the other hand, or not offering anything but a logic principle that does not always apply correctly to real people, real nations and real life. In other words:

Reality.

Do you mean people are sometimes illogical in real world scenarios?

No, what I actually mean is you are completely ignoring recorded history and the evidence for the animosity at the time, and are instead using this to both deflect and change the subject.

If you are not deflecting or trying to change the subject, then please show us evidence that both the USSR and the USA did not have the animosity that recorded history shows, and that neither country would ever expose each other trying to fake a lunar lander.

So far you have offered absolutely NO evidence that would support that, where as I have shown more than enough evidence that either country would have used information like that very publicly to humiliate the other side.

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Why do you go on at length about artist impressions and stage one saturn V engagement? I didn't put forward either of these two notions.

The lunar exit modules, when engaged for LUNAR EXIT would burn with a deep red thick gas, which should block the camera. In fact there was ZERO fumes emitted on the supposed exit, so did they use a fumeless fuel?

[If argument = X; rebutting 'argument' ≠ X] = straw man.

You're using a strawman rebuttal.

edit on 22-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: typo

And you are ignoring what was presented to you (goodness......your demeanor is reminding me of a certain moon hoaxer that was banned from here, but I digress):

The Moon landers used Aerozine 50 (fuel) and dinitrogen tetroxide (oxidizer) propellants, chosen for simplicity and reliability; they ignite hypergolically –upon contact– without the need for a spark. These propellants produce a nearly transparent exhaust.[95] The same fuel was used by the core of the American Titan rocket. The transparency of their plumes is apparent in many launch photos. The plumes of rocket engines fired in a vacuum spread out very quickly as they leave the engine nozzle (see above), further lessening their visibility. Finally, rocket engines often run "rich" to slow internal corrosion. On Earth, the excess fuel burns in contact with atmospheric oxygen. This cannot happen in a vacuum.

Source

Fuel type was Aerozine 50, Oxidizer was dinitrogen tetroxide, visible in earth's atmosphere, but not in a a vacuum (moon) when it burns.

So the question you asked about why we did not see an exhaust from the burn as been answered. You've yet to refute the answers.

I can only refute your claims regarding the supposed properties of the lunar module propellant if you cite your source, thus enabling me to corroborate it (if this so be the case).

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Originally posted by eriktheawful
reply to post by 1nquisitive

 

No, I'm relying on history. Recorded history:

Cold War.

Clear, documented evidence of each nation's attitude towards each other.

You, on the other hand, or not offering anything but a logic principle that does not always apply correctly to real people, real nations and real life. In other words:

Reality.

.

Do you mean people are sometimes illogical in real world scenarios?

No, what I actually mean is you are completely ignoring recorded history and the evidence for the animosity at the time, and are instead using this to both deflect and change the subject.

If you are not deflecting or trying to change the subject, then please show us evidence that both the USSR and the USA did not have the animosity that recorded history shows, and that neither country would ever expose each other trying to fake a lunar lander.

So far you have offered absolutely NO evidence that would support that, where as I have shown more than enough evidence that either country would have used information like that very publicly to humiliate the other side.

Apollo-Soyuz contradicts supposed USA-USSR hostilities

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Originally posted by eriktheawful
reply to post by 1nquisitive

 

No, I'm relying on history. Recorded history:

Cold War.

Clear, documented evidence of each nation's attitude towards each other.

You, on the other hand, or not offering anything but a logic principle that does not always apply correctly to real people, real nations and real life. In other words:

Reality.

Do you mean people are sometimes illogical in real world scenarios?

No, what I actually mean is you are completely ignoring recorded history and the evidence for the animosity at the time, and are instead using this to both deflect and change the subject.

If you are not deflecting or trying to change the subject, then please show us evidence that both the USSR and the USA did not have the animosity that recorded history shows, and that neither country would ever expose each other trying to fake a lunar lander.

So far you have offered absolutely NO evidence that would support that, where as I have shown more than enough evidence that either country would have used information like that very publicly to humiliate the other side.

You said real actors don't necessarily act logical, did you not?

Originally posted by eriktheawful
reply to post by 1nquisitive

 

You, on the other hand, or not offering anything but a logic principle that does not always apply correctly to real people, real nations and real life. In other words:

Reality.

Originally posted by 1nquisitive


I can only refute your claims regarding the supposed properties of the lunar module propellant if you cite your source, thus enabling me to corroborate it (if this so be the case).

Apollo Lunar Module - Specifications

Lunar Descent Propulsion Systems

Lunar Modual Ascent Propulsion Systems

TRW Inc. Rocket Engines

Ball Aerospace

Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne

Aerozine 50

Dinitrogen Tetroxide

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Apollo-Soyuz contradicts supposed USA-USSR hostilities

edit on 22-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: typo

Not at all, because you are ignoring what the definition and meaning of a Cold War is.

Your example is especially bad since the Apollo-Soyuz mission happened after the Apollo lunar landings:

Apollo-Soyuz Test Project

Its primary purpose was as a symbol of the policy of détente that the two superpowers were pursuing at the time, and marked the end of the Space Race between them that began in 1957.

Note that: a policy of détente, AFTER the space race between them ended.

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Apollo-Soyuz contradicts supposed USA-USSR hostilities

edit on 22-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: typo

Not at all, because you are ignoring what the definition and meaning of a Cold War is.

Your example is especially bad since the Apollo-Soyuz mission happened after the Apollo lunar landings:

Apollo-Soyuz Test Project

Its primary purpose was as a symbol of the policy of détente that the two superpowers were pursuing at the time, and marked the end of the Space Race between them that began in 1957.

Note that: a policy of détente, AFTER the space race between them ended.

You didn't stipulate my example had to be Apollo era.

Moreover, why would you court somebody your'e supposedly hostile toward? My example stands.

If they were genuinely fearful then U.S presidents would not have been cavortimg around the USSR, and vice versa. Use your critical thinking capabilities.

.

Soviet Russia never even existed. This was a myth created by the Zionists to try and overthrow the government. The moon is fake. You can't put a reticule on it behind the thing!

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Apollo-Soyuz contradicts supposed USA-USSR hostilities

edit on 22-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: typo

Not at all, because you are ignoring what the definition and meaning of a Cold War is.

Your example is especially bad since the Apollo-Soyuz mission happened after the Apollo lunar landings:

Apollo-Soyuz Test Project

Its primary purpose was as a symbol of the policy of détente that the two superpowers were pursuing at the time, and marked the end of the Space Race between them that began in 1957.

Note that: a policy of détente, AFTER the space race between them ended.

You didn't stipulate my example had to be Apollo era.

Moreover, why would you court somebody your'e supposedly hostile toward? My example stands.

If they were genuinely fearful then U.S presidents would not have been cavortimg around the USSR, and vice versa. Use your critical thinking capabilities.

.

edit on 22-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: further typo

edit on 22-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: further typo

I never said that they were fearful. Please stop using terms that I do not use.

The cold war did not end until even after the Apollo Handshake (I watched that on TV too, all the news casters could do was go on and on about how the astronauts next time going up would be in the developing space shuttle).

You seem to have a lack of understanding of how international politics work. You instead seem to think that they work on some sort of absolute system, and nothing could be further from the truth.

We make jokes about how all our politicians are crooks, and would steal candy from a baby, all the while smiling and shaking your hand.
They do the same thing on an international scale.

Even after the Handshake, the animosity was still there. If you think it was not, then you obviously were not alive during this time, or old enough to remember (or were living somewhere very, very isolated from the entire world).

I don't have to keep arguing with you, because it's recorded history. You do not have to take my word for it at all. All you have to do is read and talk to people, especially those that lived during those times and can remember what it was like.

If you wish to continue to believe what you are saying, hey, it's a free country (at least it's suppose to be where I live), go right ahead, but I'm not going to argue with you on this anymore, because simply put:

There's nothing to argue about. The cold war was real. The animosity was real. And yes, either of our country's would have screamed bloody murder if they even thought the other was trying to fake things.

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Apollo-Soyuz contradicts supposed USA-USSR hostilities

edit on 22-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: typo

Not at all, because you are ignoring what the definition and meaning of a Cold War is.

Your example is especially bad since the Apollo-Soyuz mission happened after the Apollo lunar landings:

Apollo-Soyuz Test Project

Its primary purpose was as a symbol of the policy of détente that the two superpowers were pursuing at the time, and marked the end of the Space Race between them that began in 1957.

Note that: a policy of détente, AFTER the space race between them ended.

You didn't stipulate my example had to be Apollo era.

Moreover, why would you court somebody your'e supposedly hostile toward? My example stands.

If they were genuinely fearful then U.S presidents would not have been cavortimg around the USSR, and vice versa. Use your critical thinking capabilities.

.

edit on 22-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: further typo

edit on 22-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: further typo

I never said that they were fearful. Please stop using terms that I do not use.

The cold war did not end until even after the Apollo Handshake (I watched that on TV too, all the news casters could do was go on and on about how the astronauts next time going up would be in the developing space shuttle).

You seem to have a lack of understanding of how international politics work. You instead seem to think that they work on some sort of absolute system, and nothing could be further from the truth.

We make jokes about how all our politicians are crooks, and would steal candy from a baby, all the while smiling and shaking your hand.
They do the same thing on an international scale.

Even after the Handshake, the animosity was still there. If you think it was not, then you obviously were not alive during this time, or old enough to remember (or were living somewhere very, very isolated from the entire world).

I don't have to keep arguing with you, because it's recorded history. You do not have to take my word for it at all. All you have to do is read and talk to people, especially those that lived during those times and can remember what it was like.

If you wish to continue to believe what you are saying, hey, it's a free country (at least it's suppose to be where I live), go right ahead, but I'm not going to argue with you on this anymore, because simply put:

There's nothing to argue about. The cold war was real. The animosity was real. And yes, either of our country's would have screamed bloody murder if they even thought the other was trying to fake things.

I'm a revisionist.

I never said the word 'fearful'

...and I never said you did.

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

I'm a revisionist.

I never said the word 'fearful'

...and I never said you did.

edit on 22-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: typo

edit on 22-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: typo

Ah. That explains quite a bit (and also why you sound like another member I know on here).

That means we will never be able to agree on at least this part of the subject (the politics and recorded history of the cold war). So I will refrain from wasting my energy any further.

If you wish to continue with the physical evidence (such as the rocket plume) then by all means I'll continue with that.
But any of the political discussion with you would be pointless and a waste of both of our times, and I have no desire to waste yours or mine.

reply to post by eriktheawful

Ah, Erik, I do believe you are correct in thinking we have experienced this poster before in another thread under a different name. I thought the very same thing after seeing a couple of their first few posts in this thread. Stating that they are a revisionist was the clencher for me.

Hang in there Erik, you are also correct on the Cold War and the rocket fuels. Just for clarification, here are your links again:

Apollo Lunar Module - Specifications

Lunar Descent Propulsion Systems

Lunar Modual Ascent Propulsion Systems

TRW Inc. Rocket Engines

Ball Aerospace

Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne

Aerozine 50

Dinitrogen Tetroxide