Moon landings - faked, met with aliens or the official story?

a reply to: HowAreTheyDoingThat

In a change of perspective, I believe the proof we went to the moon is in the realm of faith, photos, and unproven science. Not that you're wrong, maybe we did go, but I don't think so.

originally posted by: IwillbeHONEST
a reply to: HowAreTheyDoingThat

I believe it's all disinfo. Most people who believe that aliens are messing with the earth or near here are also very open-minded folks. What better way to make them believe we went to the moon than to start alien disinfo from Apollo and subsequent satellite missions?

Now, they have the everyday average Joe, authority worshipers (people that don't question), and the alien believers will now check in as people that believe Apollo astronauts stepped foot on the moon.

Just peer through the thread and you'll also find the other type of Apollo reviewer and that's the know it alls. Who, haven't stepped foot in space but know everything about it and will tell you how a trash-can with optics can survive the rigors of deep-space or even the near earth orbit.

I bet YOU always feel like that when others show YOUR assumptions where wrong, makes you feel kinda silly.

No comments on the film post then as it works with a red blue & green layer as well

Oh and we question as well, every idiotic assumption made regarding this.

a reply to: wmd_2008

I know how the film works as I can read too. I never questioned that. I merely pointed out it is considered by everyone to be a composite, no matter how all of you church it up.

I'm choosing to ignore you. Any post beyond this point by you in my direction will not merit response

a reply to: IwillbeHONEST

Th Moon isn't a big ball of loose dust. The loose dust on the surface is due to dust being kicked up and thrown about by billions of years of impacts. The rock-hard parts of the moon were that way because it was once molten and solidified.

Also, even after the original molten state solidified, future large impacts over the millennia could have been powerful enough to create localized areas of molten material that solidified to become rock-hard.

originally posted by: IwillbeHONEST
a reply to: wmd_2008

I know how the film works as I can read too. I never questioned that. I merely pointed out it is considered by everyone to be a composite, no matter how all of you church it up.

I'm choosing to ignore you. Any post beyond this point any post by you in my direction will not merit response

Well then using that reasoning, every image anyone takes with a digital camera is a composite. So even if you went to the moon and took a picture of the earth with your iPhone, you would call that a composite?

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

There are many things that I'm not going to list--all the OP wanted was opinion, so I gave it.

Sorry, I'm not trying to be dismissive (although that certainly sounds like I was), I'm just lazy right now and don't feel like typing or refreshing my memory on many things in order to compile a list of reasons.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

How did the probes penetrate the rock hard surface below the dust?

I never claimed the moon was a ball of loose dust.

That clay-looking surface underneath the LEM in the picture of the blown away dust - how was that soft enough to allow a probe to penetrate? It almost has soil or clay like properties. How could that be?

And could you please prove to the casual reader that the probe could penetrate rock-hard surface? Thanks in advance.

a reply to: pfishy

Here's the pic I mentioned earlier. From the DISCOVR craft.

Well there goes the FE theory...thanks.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h


You know me, anything to help.

a reply to: IwillbeHONEST

I oversimplified my prior description for the sake of brevity.

The surface of the moon has been beaten and battered over the years, so it isn't just dust on top of solid rock. It's a combination of loose rock and dust and large swaths of solid bedrock....

....Some of the loose dust over the millennia may have become hard-packed due to the pressure of many many feet of material that was laid on top of it by millions of years of impacts, then have those many feet of material get blown away by another impact 100s of millions of years later.

a reply to: IwillbeHONEST

How did the probes penetrate the rock hard surface below the dust?

Because it was set up to be a soft landing not a hard enough one to go through the surface of the moon.

Here maybe this will help...

www.ehartwell.com...

And I don't think they were made to actually penetrate the surface of the moon.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

So those landing probes, they can penetrate rock 5ft?

I'm not seeing any loose rock in any of the photos or videos. Looks like they're playing in sand to me. I can understand how a statically charged, meteorite-pelted moon would keep dust onto a rotating rock combined with its gravity - but I think I may have just cracked Apollo for good and brought something up many haven't before.

Soil or any combination of dust/moisture forming a soil/clay type of ground is impossible on what we know about the moon. And this question, well, it made you squirm. Your answers are far from sufficient.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

so, no, that didn't help. That's just a blueprint. Why don't you explain how the surface probe could penetrate the hard rock surface beneath the dust? Or do you believe the moon is clay, soil or cheese?

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

How did that surface below the dust become "hard-packed" without moisture? Or is it rock? If it's rock, then the probes would have snapped and the LEM would have crashed down in 1/6th gravity from 5ft. But we're told the probes penetrated the surface so it's not "rock" now is it? So, I guess I'm confused. How did that layer of dust/sand/dirt or whatever become hard-packed?

You do know the purpose of the probes and why do you assume they should snap, also why should the Moon surface not be rock with a layer of dust.

Mounted on the bottom of the landing gear's foot pad, they were essentially five-foot-long "feelers": Once one touched the lunar surface, a lunar surface "contact light" lit, indicating to the crew that they were in close proximity to the surface and that they should cut the DPS engine.

One leg did not have a probe that was the leg the ladder would be on to get to the surface, no probe on that in case it bent up and could puncture their suits on the way down the ladder.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Maybe they weren't made to penetrate. Now I'm lead to believe the engine was shut off and the entire LEM fell 5ft to the ground. How much did that weigh on the moon?

◦The LEM control weight was 14,515 kg (32,000 lbs) and current weight was 14,333 kg (31,599 lbs), down 81.65 kg (180 lbs).

www.astronautix.com...

So it still weight 5333lbs on the moon? Would you let that fall that far? I certainly wouldn't let my car fall five feet in the air. Where was this impact noticed in the videos and transmission? I have never heard that and often questioned the little amount of stress in the astros voices.

originally posted by: IwillbeHONEST
a reply to: wmd_2008

I know how the film works as I can read too. I never questioned that. I merely pointed out it is considered by everyone to be a composite, no matter how all of you church it up.

I'm choosing to ignore you. Any post beyond this point by you in my direction will not merit response

THE PROBES BEND I posted a link a few posts back if the writing appears blue click on it.

Landing Probe

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

So those landing probes, they can penetrate rock 5ft?

Ah, sorry -- I didn't know what you meant by "probes".

The contact probes did not penetrate the surface. They were bent aside, as in this image:



history.nasa.gov...


and this one (fold up a bit more, jutting up and out toward the "10 o'clock" position from the landing pad in this image):



history.nasa.gov...

a reply to: IwillbeHONEST

so, no, that didn't help. That's just a blueprint. Why don't you explain how the surface probe could penetrate the hard rock surface beneath the dust? Or do you believe the moon is clay, soil or cheese?

Well here then...enjoy.

heroicrelics.org...

It doesn't matter what I think the moon is made of...because we have first hand knowledge of what it is made of.

originally posted by: IwillbeHONEST
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Maybe they weren't made to penetrate. Now I'm lead to believe the engine was shut off and the entire LEM fell 5ft to the ground. How much did that weigh on the moon?

The engine cut off the probes bent and guess what the legs had shock absorbers clever people at NASA , so again the drop is not what you assumed.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

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

So those landing probes, they can penetrate rock 5ft?

I'm not seeing any loose rock in any of the photos or videos. Looks like they're playing in sand to me. I can understand how a statically charged, meteorite-pelted moon would keep dust onto a rotating rock combined with its gravity - but I think I may have just cracked Apollo for good and brought something up many haven't before.

Soil or any combination of dust/moisture forming a soil/clay type of ground is impossible on what we know about the moon. And this question, well, it made you squirm. Your answers are far from sufficient.

Ah, sorry -- I didn't know what you meant by "probes".

The contact probes did not penetrate the surface. They were bent aside, as in this image:

history.nasa.gov...

acknowledged. The entire LEM fell 5ft to its landing. Unreal.