Proof We Didn't Go To The Moon?

reply to post by TheBirdisDone


Well....if THIS statement were factually accurate, then you might have a point.....:

I find it hard to believe we retrofitted ballistic missles and used a computer with less power then a calculator to get men safely to the SURFACE of moon and back.

But, of course....what you wrote there was hyperbolic nonsense.

Sorry.

Try again....after you have taken some time to learn, instead of spouting babble and non-sequitur.



PS: No reason to carry on, much...until the OP wakes up....seems to me...
I have more, but should let each course be savored, and digested, in due time.....

Originally posted by consigliere
While reading this article on NASA's new deep space exploration spacecraft.
Article
A pretty cool article in itself

One quote jumped right out at me,,,

"We are committed to human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit and look forward to developing the next generation of systems to take us there," NASA adminstrator Charlie Bolden said in a statement.

If I'm not mistaken this implies we have never been beyond low Earth orbit! Which to me speaks volumes regarding our "moon missions". I personally don't believe we have.

Now don't get me wrong I'm a conspiracy theorist to the heart, and maybe I'm reading too much into this,,,,or am I? What do you think?

Or he simply means as we have NOT been beyond low earth orbit for many years its time to do so AGAIN!

reply to post by consigliere


If you really don't believe in the moon landing, consider two things:

1. The mirrors we placed on the moon that reflect light back to us :O

2. People who watched the moon landing through their own telescopes

We went to the moon. Oh, and astronauts brought back some rock samples from ze moon. But I guess we got those from the space-rock-black-market, right?

1. Very precise retro-reflectors were positioned, and aimed, by hand by Astronauts during EVAs on the Lunar surface. These are still in use, today. The Moon can reflect, as well....but, the physics of the optics, even of a laser beam, have to be understood in order to appreciate the difference between just using the Moon's surface, and the precise ability of reflecting from those placed reflectors. BTW, the USSR tried to robotically position similar reflectors....they failed. The reflectors were eventually found, decades later; but, the Soviets could never locate them, back in the 1960s or 1970s...


2. To be accurate, citizens (amateur Ham radio enthusiasts) were able to follow the radio communications of Apollo....and, there were definite directional characteristics to those transmissions that proved they were originating from the vicinity of the Moon.....

Just to clear a few things up......

reply to post by weedwhacker


Since you are such an intellectual why don't you educate us about the computer technology of the mid to late 60's. Instead of writing about how we are in sore need of an education. I'm here, consider this a classroom.

Also notice I did not debunk the entire space program, I question man ON THE SURFACE OF THE MOON. Not the blasting off and Ocean retrival. How are you so absoultely sure they didn't just orbit a few days?

I am earnestly asking . . . so please take heed to watch your condesention. It turns people off and does nothing to illuminate this for any of us. I am quite aware of "photo op" missions - so talk to me and the others here like a patient adult not a condesending and dismissive parent. This must mean something to you as you have been quite active on this thread for being so highly dismissive.

I don't believe in God, but I don't get on religion threads and condesend to believers.
Me thinks thou protestest too much to the peanut gallery - you seem far too intellegent to waste your time.
Yet you are invested . . . interesting.

ps. Also about the arguement that some make that other countries would "out us" - ah, the things that go on behind doors and curtains, the deals, the pacts, the lies, the money chaging hands. Shell games

reply to post by C3RB3RU5


PEOPLE DID NOT WATCH THE MOON LANDING THROUGH THEIR OWN TELESCOPES.

Originally posted by TheBirdisDone
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Since you are such an intellectual why don't you educate us about the computer technology of the mid to late 60's. Instead of writing about how we are in sore need of an education. I'm here, consider this a classroom.

Here, build an AGC for yourself. It works.
klabs.org...
You can even use emulation to run the actual guidance software within space simulators, making the software think it's controlling an actual Apollo spacecraft on its way to the moon. It works there too.
nassp.sourceforge.net...

How are you so absoultely sure they didn't just orbit a few days?

Amateurs tracked the spacecraft on the way to and from the moon, they would have seen the fact that it never left orbit, had it not left orbit. In fact, TLI was witnessed and photographed.

I don't believe in God, but I don't get on religion threads and condesend to believers.

Some athiests do. I don't recall seeing them get accused left and right of being paid to be there, yet that is what frequently happens to debunkers. What it boils down to is this, some of us enjoy debunking astronomical nonsense, in fact seeing astronomical nonsense is like nails on chalkboard to me, I can't help but speak up. I'm particularly bad at movies involving "bad astronomy." I'll nitpick it to death as soon as the credits start rolling, much to the chagrin of anyone who I happened to be seeing it with.

Originally posted by TheBirdisDone
reply to post by C3RB3RU5

 

PEOPLE DID NOT WATCH THE MOON LANDING THROUGH THEIR OWN TELESCOPES.

Quite right, instead they listened in using their own radio telescopes. Though decidedly professional, Jodrell Bank Observatory was not tracking Apollo 11 for NASA, they simply did it for themselves (while at the same time monitoring the Soviet's Luna-15 as it crashed into the moon in an apparent attempt to return lunar samples to earth before the US could). They even monitored the doppler shift and were therefore able to tell when Neil Armstrong nerve rackingly halted Eagle's descent in order to fly over the boulder field the LM was about to land them in.

reply to post by TheBirdisDone


yeah okay you got me there, stupid mix-up. with all that said though, i think i have a point. maybe. just maybe.

Originally posted by consigliere
I can understand what you guys are saying,,,but he says "Human Exploration,beyond low Earth orbit".The key word to me is "exploration". Our current mission is not exploring the universe but building an international space station.So for him to say this,makes me think we havent "explored" beyond low Eart orbit,,,,,but i could be wrong

And I also side with you on these thoughts ... NASA has slipped up many times stating things just like this but when we the ones who don’t drink the kool aid they try to make us drink we are just nut bags and I’m sick of it .

NASA also has said that there is so much space debris out in space whipping around at high speeds that no vehicle could be safe from this debris it would be a disaster and there is no way of avoiding all the space debris from crashing into one of our Rockets .. so ..

This is just one thing there are so many things that have slipped out giving us all the hints that we never did explore space beyond lower earth orbit ..IMO

The International Space Station is a cadillac compared to the Apollo capsules.

Why don't we just use some ion propulsion to gently send that on a nice long vacation to the moon and back?


Because the occupants wouldn't survive outside of Low-Earth-Orbit?

It wouldn't cost hardly anything to propel the ISS to the moon and back since it's already up in space.

Proof right there fellas.

Originally posted by Pervius
The International Space Station is a cadillac compared to the Apollo capsules.

Why don't we just use some ion propulsion to gently send that on a nice long vacation to the moon and back?


Because the occupants wouldn't survive outside of Low-Earth-Orbit?

It wouldn't cost hardly anything to propel the ISS to the moon and back since it's already up in space.

Proof right there fellas.

Uh, excuse me? Do you have any idea how long it would take to propel a mass as large as ISS to the moon using a traditional ion engine? Apollo didn't have a problem with the van allen belts because it transversed them quickly and through the thinnest section possible, it didn't linger in them for months at a time like you're proposing.

Originally posted by NorthStargal52
NASA also has said that there is so much space debris out in space whipping around at high speeds that no vehicle could be safe from this debris it would be a disaster and there is no way of avoiding all the space debris from crashing into one of our Rockets .. so ..

So you're saying ISS is fake? Because that debris is densest at low earth orbits. ISS has to dodge it all the time, in fact.

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by TheBirdisDone
reply to post by C3RB3RU5

 

PEOPLE DID NOT WATCH THE MOON LANDING THROUGH THEIR OWN TELESCOPES.

Quite right, instead they listened in using their own radio telescopes. Though decidedly professional, Jodrell Bank Observatory was not tracking Apollo 11 for NASA, they simply did it for themselves (while at the same time monitoring the Soviet's Luna-15 as it crashed into the moon in an apparent attempt to return lunar samples to earth before the US could). They even monitored the doppler shift and were therefore able to tell when Neil Armstrong nerve rackingly halted Eagle's descent in order to fly over the boulder field the LM was about to land them in.

Thats right ngchunter and here is a link to the trace.

www.jodrellbank.manchester.ac.uk...

Originally posted by Pervius
The International Space Station is a cadillac compared to the Apollo capsules.

Why don't we just use some ion propulsion to gently send that on a nice long vacation to the moon and back?


Because the occupants wouldn't survive outside of Low-Earth-Orbit?

It wouldn't cost hardly anything to propel the ISS to the moon and back since it's already up in space.

Proof right there fellas.

Just love quotes like that from people with NO EXPERTISE that basically open their mouths and let their belly rumble!

Originally posted by C3RB3RU5
reply to post by consigliere

 

If you really don't believe in the moon landing, consider two things:

1. The mirrors we placed on the moon that reflect light back to us :O

2. People who watched the moon landing through their own telescopes

We went to the moon. Oh, and astronauts brought back some rock samples from ze moon. But I guess we got those from the space-rock-black-market, right?

The Soviets placed mirrors on the Moon with unmanned missions. The US probably has too, that is not proof man landed and walked on the Moon.
No one can see from an Earth bound telescope of anyone landing on the Moon, it's just too far away.

reply to post by consigliere


lol they pretty much said it themselves.

its funny too, the people who think we have cant cover over half the gaping holes in the story, nobody can actually prove beyond reasonable doubt that we have.

reply to post by consigliere

Now don't get me wrong I'm a conspiracy theorist to the heart, and maybe I'm reading too much into this,,,,or am I? What do you think?

reading too much into it with no research. After the Apollo missions no manned space missions have gone past low earth orbit.

its funny too, the people who think we have cant cover over half the gaping holes in the story, nobody can actually prove beyond reasonable doubt that we have

no it's funny that the people who think we didn't ignore all the facts and base their assumption that we couldn't on bad science, like the Van Allen Belts, go google Van Allen and see what HE has to say about the belts.

but I'm supposed to ignore the ample video evidence, radio telescope evidence, retrieved matter from the moons surface evidence, reflecting mirrors evidence.

i have to agree, the evidence FOR the moon mission can't prove 100% that we went there (to an idiot that is) but the evidence we didn't go is simply non-existant.

And sure I'm a "debunker" so obviously NASA has paid me to say this, because YOU GUYS are that important. but in reality, I didn't believe 100% either, and watched all the movies:

"funny thing happened on the way to the moon" (sly editing tricks)
"astronauts behaving badly" (second part of the first movie, but quite funny)

and a bunch of others. I spent hours, if not days, of my life scouring the information:

Photos that show "wires" holding the astronauts up (it's a radio antenna)
Photos that show areas in shadow with detail visible (it's called ambient light idiots)
Van allen belts (see Van Allens own statement on this. Short? "Completely absurd")
Technology involved (pfft that same technology put up satellites and countless other things)
Nasa 'slips' (again, for these to be proof they require the reader to be ignorant of basic facts like the OP was)
Props and fake rocks (I see an artifact, they see a "C" making it a prop, they also see a face on mars, go figure)

Now... there are a few things I could dismiss, but they don't immediately make the moon missions hoaxes:

some images show things overlapping the cross hairs that are on the camera, which is impossible
At least 1 video shows the same backdrop from another mission but claims it was in an entirely different area (nasa said this was merely a filing error)

the real sticker, which actually made me look into this field, was that the video we all know of the moon landing, was sent to NASA in high quality. They would not share this feed, instead, they set up a projector, projecting the image on a screen, and the video we've all seen was taped from that.

There is absolutely no reason for that. There is no reason to ensure the only video of the first man stepping onto the moon, is the worst possible quality.

So evidence we went to the moon? Plenty
Evidence we didn't? Non existent, simply is not there.

Now there are very good reasons TO fake it, but reasons aren't evidence.



Side note, I find it interesting that some of the same people who say "This astronaut saw a UFO so they are real" and believe it, refuse to believe the astronauts that went to the moon, and say they did. Amazing.

If only NASA would have thought ahead and planned for the onslaught of folks who would need MORE proof than what exist today. I am sure they would have prepared a better case folder of evidence.

That being said, I think the real error NASA MAY have done is combining training footage with real footage-after the fact. Not to hide anything but to provide the best possible recounting of what happened etc.

I also think the main reason people doubt the fact we have been to the Moon is that we haven't went back-which will be settled soon enough.

OP. will you believe it when whatever country gets to the moon first and they show the stuff on the moon that was left there by visiting aliens (our guys ?

Originally posted by Chai_An
OP, I tend to agree with you. This man admitted something I'm sure went over the heads of a lot of people.

It's because the guy from NASA is only talking about the current level of space exploration instead of NASA's space exploration as a whole. My first thought before going to the link was how could he forget about the moon.