An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

Originally posted by skeptic-friendDELTA CLIPPER?

video.google.com...

I saw a plane on the news two days ago whose landing gear collapsed upon landing...I guess (using your logic) that means the Wright Brothers were jokers for thinking the idea of heavier-than-air powered flight could work.



EDIT: Deleted those annoying laughing smilies from the quote.

[edit on 9/14/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]

skepticfriend,
Since you are making the claim that the videos are fake, PROVE IT !!

PS

I KNOW YOU CAN'T

Originally posted by jfj123
skepticfriend,
Since you are making the claim that the videos are fake, PROVE IT !!

PS

I KNOW YOU CAN'T

www.youtube.com...


This is another fake video. If in 1993 that great technology existed already, why have they announced LUNAR LANDER CHALLENGE?

With that great technology, why a Lunar Lander Challenge?

Because that great technology doesn't exist. That technology is fake and that video is fake.



Even if it was true, it would be a technology invented in 1993.

But you went to the moon in 1969.

The accounts don't balance.

reply to post by skeptic-friend



Look sunshine. They still have competitions to design cars so are you saying because of that cars dont exist?

They have competitions to design houses so, using your criteria, houses dont exist?

etcetera excetera excetera

Chorlton,
Your analogies make perfect sense which is why he'll pretend you never posted them. This way he can continue pretending

reply to post by skeptic-friend


septic-friend --

I don't understand why you keep showing a PERFECT test of the Delta Clipper and calling it proof that the LM doesn't work. It really confuses me, and causes me to not understand exactly what you are arguing about.

And about this video being fake...how do you explain the independent witnesses (including media) who were there watching this Successful test in person on that day. What exactly did they see?

Here's a news article from yet another country going to the moon.



Here's the link

www.guardian.co.uk...

I'm sure both skepticfriend and john lear will not be happy to see this

Originally posted by jfj123
Here's a news article from yet another country going to the moon.

Japan launches biggest moon mission since Apollo landings

* Justin McCurry in Tokyo
* The Guardian
* Saturday September 15 2007

Japan moved a step closer yesterday to sending someone to the moon by successfully launching the biggest lunar mission since the US Apollo flights.

The Selenological and Engineering Explorer probe left its launchpad on Tanegashima island, 600 miles south-west of Tokyo, aboard an H-2A solid-fuel rocket. A live internet broadcast showed the rocket as it headed out over the Pacific before separating from the lunar explorer over Chile about 45 minutes later.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Here's the link

www.guardian.co.uk...

I'm sure both skepticfriend and john lear will not be happy to see this

Why not? It's not gonna proof anything.
Btw, why does the journey take so long? Three weeks? The Apollo astronauts did it in 3 days.

Originally posted by Skeptic from Holland
...
Btw, why does the journey take so long? Three weeks? The Apollo astronauts did it in 3 days.
...

Interesting question.

Earth-Moon: 237,500 miles

237,500 : 3 : 24 = 3,298 miles per hour

237,500 : 21 : 24 = 471 miles per hour

I think there is something wrong about japan rocket.

why don't you ask the japanese?
Why wouldn't it prove anything?
For example, lets say it takes a picture of the USA flag left on the moon. Wouldn't that prove something?

reply to post by skeptic-friend


There's nothing wrong with the Japanese spacecraft.

Since it does not have humans on board, there is no reason to get to the Moon quickly. They are taking a slower trip, which will save them from using (and carrying) a lot of fuel. Since weight is everything to a spacecraft, they could keep the fuel weight down and increase the scientific payload.

Obviously the Japanese are clever enough to understand this, and I don't think they are deserving of your laughing smilies.

reply to post by jfj123



But, being on conspiracy forum can I ask: will US let them actually do that, if for example there is no flag?

reply to post by blue bird


And I'm sure -- this being a conspiracy forum -- someone will claim that the flag was planted there robotically sometime in the 1990's

Originally posted by Chorlton

Look sunshine. They still have competitions to design cars so are you saying because of that cars dont exist?

Is this supposed to be analogy? Not even close.

Reinventing a previous technology, suggesting it was not operational is not the same as reinventing a 'car' which does exist.

Now, if secretly, all cars were really powered by hamsters on a treadmill and someone proposed an internal combustion engine, then you might have a point by saying 'cars don't exist'.

They have competitions to design houses so, using your criteria, houses dont exist?

Again, a false analogy. You're not helping the cause.

etcetera excetera excetera

Don't give the hoax believers even more ammo by posting ridiculous comments, m'kay?

reply to post by Badge01


With all repsects, badge, nobody but the doubters have suggested that the LEM was not operational...the fact that they had a competition to create a better LEM does nothing to invalidate the actual LEM that went to the Moon.

The analogy is perfectly valid...A "competion to develop better LEM technologies and to improve on the existing technology" is analogous to a "competition to develop better automobile technologies and to improve on the existing technology"

Your logic is in error because you are assuming your premise -- that the Apollo LEM did not work -- to be true. Of course, I am assuming that the Apollo LEM did actually work, but I have more proof behind my statement. Moon hoax proponents only have cicumstantial evidence and conjecture...almost all of which can be proven false by the preponderance of the scientific evidence.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


You've restated the analogy, in a more correct format. The original by C. was not even close.

I no longer disbelieve the Apollo landings.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
...
The analogy is perfectly valid...A "competion to develop better LEM technologies and to improve on the existing technology" is analogous to a "competition to develop better automobile technologies and to improve on the existing technology"
...

Your reasoning is beyond all criticism.

The slogan could be: AUTOMOBILE WITHOUT WHEELS CHALLENGE.

Originally posted by Skeptic from Holland
Btw, why does the journey take so long? Three weeks? The Apollo astronauts did it in 3 days.

Not all rockets are equal. The Apollo missions had the advantage of having the Saturn V. The Japanese do not, obviously. The Kaguya probe is still orbiting Earth right now and it won't start heading to the Moon till Sept 19th or so. Unlike the Apollo missions which were already in a translunar injection 1.5 hours after launch.

And 3 weeks is nothing. ESA's SMART-1 probe took over a year to get to the Moon, due to using a slow accelerating solar powered ion thruster.

You can't really compair a small probe to a larger manned spacecraft. A small probe will take longer to get to the Moon simply due to the fact that it doesn't have the power to match a larger crafts thruster like the one on the Command module.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
...
The analogy is perfectly valid...A "competion to develop better LEM technologies and to improve on the existing technology" is analogous to a "competition to develop better automobile technologies and to improve on the existing technology"
...

NASA buffoons started in a very ugly way with LEM:



In 1993 rocket technology developed better with this fake rocket:



In 2006 lunar lander technology underwent a terrible radical change:



NASA jokers exulted at this biggest technological development:

reply to post by skeptic-friend


Who cares if the LEM was ugly? They were more concerned with function than form, and needed a no-nonsense craft. That's what they got.

The new LEM has not been designed yet, but here is a NASA artist's conception of what it could look like:



It looks a lot like the Apollo LEM...and why not? The Apollo LEM is a very simple concept: one main gimbaled thruster, several smaller attitude control thrusters, and a crew capsule that has its own ascent thruster. The design concept is not that complex, so why not use the same concept again in the 21st century...THE CONCEPT WORKS! Why change it? The only thing I would change is to include redundancy in the ascent thruster.

And that last photo of Sean O'Keefe has nothing whatsoever to do with an LEM. I believe that photo was taken during the landing stage of the current Mars Rover mission. I don't understand why you included it.

[edit on 9/18/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]