Apollo Moon Landings a Hoax? Then Read This

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by playswithmachines

 

Now you are really losing all credibility. You first buy the stories of some poor photo analysis, then you claim science is wrong, well let me tell you something, 'The Bomb' works, and has for over 60 years. If science is so off what are the chances of detonating a nuclear reaction such as the ones in the first bombs? Do you have any idea of the precision necessary to detonate a nuclear/atomic/hydrogen bomb?

Not at all.
Some of the photo's have been deliberately airbrushed, this is not 'poor analysis' it's a blatant fact.
Yes, the bomb works, pity we can't use it for anything other than destruction, what kind of technology is that?
Are you so proud of your bomb that you can't see it's useless?
The precision necessary to detonate a hydrogen bomb is as follows;
1. Take a large drainpipe, drill some holes in it to let the air out
2. Get some uranium or weapons grade plutonium (dont forget the beryllium initiator disc) and make 2 balls or slugs, each just over half the 'critical mass' weight.
3. Get some dynamite or cemtex, put this behind the 2 slugs each at one end of the pipe (seal it in good
4. Detonate the 2 charges simultaneously by using an electric detonator, hey presto, you've just created an atom bomb

Originally posted by playswithmachines
The precision necessary to detonate a hydrogen bomb is as follows;
1. Take a large drainpipe, drill some holes in it to let the air out

2. Get some uranium or weapons grade plutonium (dont forget the beryllium initiator disc) and make 2 balls or slugs, each just over half the 'critical mass' weight.
3. Get some dynamite or cemtex, put this behind the 2 slugs each at one end of the pipe (seal it in good

4. Detonate the 2 harges simultaneously by using an electric detonator, hey presto, you've just created an atom bomb

Are you sure you have described a hydrogen bomb?

reply to post by syrinx high priest


Do this in a vacuum tank. Without air resistance, the feather will fall as fast as the hammer (and all done right here on earth). Slow the film a little, what do you see?
How's that for a school science project
Edit to add; I'm not saying it was faked, i'm saying it can be.....

reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli


The initiator disc is basically the only difference....
Most of the electronics was to ensure that it detonated at the programmed height.

So my science is wrong?
This Wiki page even supports my claims, read carefully;


Penrose–Hawking singularity theoremsFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
The Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems are a set of results in general relativity which attempt to answer the question of when gravitation produces singularities.

A singularity in solutions of the Einstein field equations is one of two things:
1.a situation where matter is forced to be compressed to a point (a space-like singularity)
2.a situation where certain light rays come from a region with infinite curvature (time-like singularity)
Space-like singularities are a feature of non-rotating uncharged black-holes, while time-like singularities are those that occur in charged or rotating black hole exact solutions. Both of them have the following property:

geodesic incompleteness: Some light-paths or particle-paths cannot be extended beyond a certain proper-time or affine-parameter (affine parameter is the null analog of proper time).
It is still an open question whether time-like singularities ever occur in the interior of real charged or rotating black holes, or whether they are artifacts of high symmetry and turn into spacelike singularities when realistic perturbations are added.

The Penrose theorem guarantees that some sort of geodesic incompleteness occurs inside any black hole, whenever matter satisfies reasonable energy conditions. (It does not hold for matter described by a super-field, i.e., the Dirac field) The energy condition required for the black-hole singularity theorem is weak: it says that light rays are always focused together by gravity, never drawn apart, and this holds whenever the energy of matter is non-negative.
Hawking's singularity theorem is for the whole universe, and works backwards-in-time: in Hawking's original formulation, it guaranteed that the Big Bang has infinite density. Hawking later revised his position in A Brief History of Time (1988) where he stated "There was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe" (p50). This revision followed from quantum mechanics, in which general relativity must break down at times less than the Planck time. Hence general relativity cannot be used to show a singularity.

Penrose's theorem is more restricted, it only holds when matter obeys a stronger energy condition, called the dominant energy condition, which means that the energy is bigger than the pressure. All ordinary matter, with the exception of a vacuum expectation value of a scalar field, obeys this condition. During inflation, the universe violates the stronger dominant energy condition (but not the weak energy condition), and inflationary cosmologies avoid the initial big-bang singularity, rounding them out to a smooth beginning.

OOps!

Originally posted by Frira
I have the advantage of having lived through the moon missions and some of my peers, as a child, had parents and family friends working on Apollo, my own Dad a major player in a minor role.

To the generation after my own, the man on the moon missions "just happened" as if out of the blue—just something the news media reported. Ah! But many lives were involved of real people, not actors.

For my generation… we were connected to the whole process of it. We were aware of the steps and stages, the failures and the successes progressing toward the goal-- and not just from the news,

Unless you intend to tell me that I am in a scenario like the Truman Show and everyone in my life was, and remains, merely an actor perpetuating a hoax, then reality is as I know it to be—and, therefore, we went to the moon.

What I expected: facts.
What I read:

HEARSAY
CONJECTURE
HEARSAY
UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS based on;

"Do you really think all of these people would be in on a conspiracy when someone MUST have
ratted them out or divulged some kind of correlative evidence, right?"

Wow.

Originally posted by playswithmachines
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli

 

The initiator disc is basically the only difference....

At what point in your description of a hydrogen bomb is one supposed to assume the existence of hydrogen? I'm not sure exactly what kind of weapon you're trying to describe. And are you sure you want to use plutonium in a gun-type device?

reply to post by playswithmachines


There is no such vacuum tank that large on earth. I visited the world's largest zero gravity facility during one of our NASA contracts from work, to create that zero gravity on earth you plummet for a few seconds down a 400 some tall tower. You can't fake that on earth. When they fire that thing up it uses half of the energy used to run Cleveland Ohio.

Read up on it here and learn why that hammer feather drop is one of the most daunting proofs of authenticity.

The Zero-G facility provides researchers with a near weightless or microgravity environment for a duration of 5.18 seconds.

The free fall is conducted inside of a 467 foot (142 m) long steel vacuum chamber. The chamber is 20 ft (6.1 m) in diameter and resides inside of a 28.5 ft (8.7 m) diameter concrete lined shaft, which extends 510 feet (155 m) below ground level.

Ha!

Originally posted by Chinesis

Originally posted by Frira
I have the advantage of having lived through the moon missions and some of my peers, as a child, had parents and family friends working on Apollo, my own Dad a major player in a minor role.

To the generation after my own, the man on the moon missions "just happened" as if out of the blue—just something the news media reported. Ah! But many lives were involved of real people, not actors.

For my generation… we were connected to the whole process of it. We were aware of the steps and stages, the failures and the successes progressing toward the goal-- and not just from the news,

Unless you intend to tell me that I am in a scenario like the Truman Show and everyone in my life was, and remains, merely an actor perpetuating a hoax, then reality is as I know it to be—and, therefore, we went to the moon.

What I expected: facts.
What I read:

HEARSAY
CONJECTURE
HEARSAY
UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS based on;

No, you were not expecting facts; you were looking to snipe.

You want a fact? Here is one: Men walked on the moon. An established, verified fact.

Here is another fact: Telling my own experience is not "hearsay." My telling of your experience would be hearsay. My telling of my own experience is direct testimony. Which, in case you were not aware of it, means you have no valid opinion regarding my experience. Why? Keep reading.

Here is a third fact: Your opinion of my experience is hearsay-- which is all you gave. The very thing you hold in disdain can be seen in its incarnate form in your nearest mirror.

But, don't be too hard on yourself-- you're still smarting from the fresh fall from the turnip truck.

reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli


This is not the point, my point is, it's relatively easy to build a nuclear device.
You don't need a PHD, just a garden shed & nuclear materials....
This is our wonderful high tech 'atomic age'?

reply to post by Illustronic


The RAF did it all the time, done it myself
But you can only be 'weightless' for about 40 seconds.....
Ever see a NASA film where they were weightless for longer than that?
I would like to see it.....

reply to post by playswithmachines

Ever see a NASA film where they were weightless for longer than that?

No, we saw them live, in real time:

reply to post by playswithmachines


Like how in a jet? Again, that is not on earth or outside like I required. Pictured here is one of our project managers, only they get to have fun, go to launches, and smooze with the NASA teams, not us lowly support staff.

why would they want to fake the moon landing? simple question, please reply

I realize I am a little late to this topic, so I hope I get a response. I am not a scientist, so can anyone tell me if the nuke they set off in 1962 have any effect on the radiation belts? I know the apollo missions ran from 1961 to 1972. Neil walked on the moon in 1969. Do we know what the radiation belts were like before we set off a nuke in them, did it make it better or worse? Anybody know why they did it?

www.npr.org...

Originally posted by Brotherman
reply to post by steveknows

 

So in other words the Russian space probe can be seen while American Astronauts are on the moon? I have a hard time finding any Russians that have discounted the moon landing as that is the avenue in which I would like to explore. Thank you for your help in this matter I have no doubt that mankind has been a visitor to the moon unless of course someone will try and say that the Russians were in on the "hoax" I will try and find the name of this probe and get a course of its travel as well as time and date that if corrosponds with the moon landing it will be amusing to see anyone refute that unless they claim conspiracy with no proof that, that probe was not there lol maybe even have someone call it space junk before there was space junk. Again thanks.
Bman

That's ok. I've looked as well for any russians with the scientific knowledge who have disputed it and I can't. I have seen some posts though where people claim the Russians were in on it. Haha as if the Russians at the time would be in on a hoax that makes them the loser in the space race. But no matter what is said the ne sayers will just ignore the evidence that men walked on the moon,

reply to post by Illustronic


True..because like you said it was wired...

Link

reply to post by borutp

True..because like you said it was wired...

Then why doesn't the feather flutter on the way down? And where were these wires allegedly attached?

Originally posted by borutp
reply to post by Illustronic

 

True..because like you said it was wired...

Link

I watched your video. Besides the fact that the video presenters say that wires were attached, what evidence is there that wires were actually attached?

Another thing i just noticed...Have you seen the hand waving at 0:53 on the right side?..Clearly an astronaut....
Who zoomed the camera?