Our Entire Space Program Is A Hoax And A Massive Deception

reply to post by Helious

I'm alot better at math then anything they had in 69, in fact I bet I can calculate equations twice as fast as the "computer" they used on that mission.

I'm pretty sure that's not true. Computers are faster today, yes, but even a vintage computer based on transistors and ferromagnetic memory would calculate faster than a human being. In any event, the computing power they had available was more than adequate to the task.

There are so many things we still have no clue about when it comes to the moon, there are gravitational anomalous spot all over that would destroy any planned mission such as the one from 69. There are other gravity factors that we didn't know exist in 69 that would play on trajectory and telemetry.

The gravitational anomalies, "mascons" were discovered in the course of preparing for Apollo. They were mapped sufficiently well to plan around. No new "gravitational factors" have been discovered. There are no black holes or neutron stars between here and the Moon.

Landing a spacecraft that amounts to a wire frame with tinfoil on it with hand sewn uniforms taking that kind of pictures and that amount of data all with the the power of a calculator on the first try with resounding success and presentation goes against the very fabric of Occam's Razor..... Does it not?

But there was a very steep learning curve. All of the necessary techniques and technology were developed over the course of the Mercury, Gemini and early Apollo missions. They didn't just cobble something together at random and hope it worked. On the other hand, having half a million people working together on a massive, complex project spread across numerous states and costing billions of dollars, a project which involves designing and building very real equipment that can actually perform the tasks it was designed to do (for otherwise all the thousands of other workers in the field would be able to detect the deception) and then not using it for its intended purpose? Now that breaks Occam's Razor into shards.

reply to post by Illustronic


Here is what is hard to "figure out". our president said we would go to the moon by the end of the decade even though every scientific mind on Earth said....... "um no".

That aside, we went to the Moon didn't we? We did so in the very height of the cold war, in the very face of our enemy and in fact, the whole world.

We went to the Moon.................. We launched people from the Earth, landed them on the moon, allowed them to enjoy a time share, bounce around take hundreds of pictures, collect moon rocks, revel in our glory and all was just fine. We did all of that, no problem, piece of cake, absolutely no problem, this is witnessed by all of our stellar photographs, videos, live communications and memories. American Pie.

How come we have an ISS? How come if it was child's play as evidenced by our first attempt we don't have a moon base? We know there is water right? We know we can go and come back in tinfoil craft with hand stitched suites, should be a joke to to do these days right? How come we aren't all set up launching missions from there now? How come? Too expensive? Wrong......... So why?

All of you that are claiming science as your basis for fact are robbing yourself of the most basic facts, what tends to be the simplest solution is probably correct. Instead of trying to figure out all of the above, perhaps you should consider that the most viable answer is that we were never there in the first place.

reply to post by Helious


There are gravity fluctuations on earth than can effect your body weight by a few ounces, and the moon has 1/6th the gravity of earth, straw man argument.

You don't think NASA or the hundreds of contractors had people that can do math? Asian kids can also be amazing at math 'techniques'.

reply to post by Helious

There are so many things we still have no clue about when it comes to the moon, there are gravitational anomalous spot all over that would destroy any planned mission such as the one from 69. There are other gravity factors that we didn't know exist in 69 that would play on trajectory and telemetry.

Those anomalies were discovered and sufficiently corrected for before the manned Apollo program:
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...(astronomy)

debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com...

Percy gives us his uninformed opinion as to the "compelling reason" why Apollo had to be faked. He tells us that apart from the radiation risks(instilling in the viewer a sense of excessive danger to the astronauts), there would be unknown magnetic and gravitational anomalies that could cause taking off from the Moon "very dangerous indeed". He "stuns" us with his knowledge by referring to mascons, areas of greater mass and stronger gravity on the Moon.

What he fails to point out(probably deliberately) is that these mascons were identified already by NASA's unmanned program and were less than half a percent variation of gravity! For a long orbiting satellite, that would be a problem eventually, but for the short stay of Apollo they would hardly notice, with the capacity to perform simple corrective thrust burns for any deviations. Percy does not tell us the consequence for any Lunar magnetic anomalies, yet the viewer is left with his assertion.

Originally posted by Helious

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Helious

 

I, believe it or not am a graduate and a science major and with that said, considering all aspects of the situation I can not realistically convince myself that we "landed" on the moon in 69. In fact, it is so laughable to me, I just can't believe sometimes that there are actually people who believe we could of done it.

What aspects, specifically, do you find laughabl?. You talk about the "technology of the time" as though it were stone knives and bear skin. Clearly, you were not yet born, or you would realize that all of the technology you take for granted was invented during that time; in fact, there have been no notable technological advances in half a century. Thanks to the space program's size and weight concerns, solid state technology was miniaturized and made inexpensive enough for the mass market, but the computers and telecommunications that dazzle people these days are simply variations on what was done in the 1960's.

For Gods sake man, they were wearing space suites that were hand stitched........... Come on.....

Ill grant you that I was a fire science graduate and while I'm ok with math I am not "real good" and have always had to work at it although I can do it. I just have come at it a thousand ways and from my perspective...... There realistically is just no fing way.......... Not any at all, so much so that it kind of makes me chuckle.....

If you're not real good at math, I submit that you're not in a position to know what is "realistic." If you feel the need to disparage others' accomplishments in order to feel better about yourself, you may want to work harder at achieving your own "impossible" goals.

I'm alot better at math then anything they had in 69, in fact I bet I can calculate equations twice as fast as the "computer" they used on that mission.

There are so many things we still have no clue about when it comes to the moon, there are gravitational anomalous spot all over that would destroy any planned mission such as the one from 69. There are other gravity factors that we didn't know exist in 69 that would play on trajectory and telemetry.

Landing a spacecraft that amounts to a wire frame with tinfoil on it with hand sewn uniforms taking that kind of pictures and that amount of data all with the the power of a calculator on the first try with resounding success and presentation goes against the very fabric of Occam's Razor..... Does it not?

you are better at maths than anything they had in 1969?? thats a pretty bold claim, are you a mathematics professor or something?

they did have plans to keep going to the moon, first something to do with the ISS (cant rememeber) than build a permanent base on the moon. however that was very very expensive, those plans were rejected for the cheaper shuttle missions.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Helious

 

There are so many things we still have no clue about when it comes to the moon, there are gravitational anomalous spot all over that would destroy any planned mission such as the one from 69. There are other gravity factors that we didn't know exist in 69 that would play on trajectory and telemetry.

Those anomalies were discovered and sufficiently corrected for before the manned Apollo program:
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...(astronomy)

debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com...

Percy gives us his uninformed opinion as to the "compelling reason" why Apollo had to be faked. He tells us that apart from the radiation risks(instilling in the viewer a sense of excessive danger to the astronauts), there would be unknown magnetic and gravitational anomalies that could cause taking off from the Moon "very dangerous indeed". He "stuns" us with his knowledge by referring to mascons, areas of greater mass and stronger gravity on the Moon.

What he fails to point out(probably deliberately) is that these mascons were identified already by NASA's unmanned program and were less than half a percent variation of gravity! For a long orbiting satellite, that would be a problem eventually, but for the short stay of Apollo they would hardly notice, with the capacity to perform simple corrective thrust burns for any deviations. Percy does not tell us the consequence for any Lunar magnetic anomalies, yet the viewer is left with his assertion.

WTF are you talking about, NASA or any other agency didn't have any craft orbiting the moon at the time of the Apollo mission, they could not and did not not know about the lunar gravitational anomalous areas on the moon, this has been only explored in the last 2 decades.........

reply to post by Helious

How come we have an ISS? How come if it was child's play as evidenced by our first attempt we don't have a moon base?

Simple lack of political will, not due to technical problems. If we wanted to do it and continued the Apollo programs instead of LEO only Shuttle, we could already have permanently manned Moon colony.

In particular, NASA administrator Michael D. Griffin argued in a 2007 paper that the Saturn program, if continued, could have provided six manned launches per year — two of them to the moon — at the same cost as the Shuttle program, with an additional ability to loft infrastructure for further missions:

"If we had done all this, we would be on Mars today, not writing about it as a subject for “the next 50 years.” We would have decades of experience operating long-duration space systems in Earth orbit, and similar decades of experience in exploring and learning to utilize the Moon."[27]

reply to post by Helious

WTF are you talking about, NASA or any other agency didn't have any craft orbiting the moon at the time of the Apollo mission, they could not and did not not know about the lunar gravitational anomalous areas on the moon, this has been only explored in the last 2 decades.........

Wrong. There were unmanned missions to the Moon before the manned Apollo missions:
Moon landing sites

reply to post by Illustronic


So, in summery, in saying that the evidence is conflicting because it is, I have done all the research for and against and it is very much conflicting so I want to be clear.

Here is what we are proposing as more possible.

In 1969 while they were still listening to records we sent a spacecraft beyond Earths orbit and landed on the moon with no complications, the men that went there took hundreds of perfect photos, planted a flag, had a field day among countless anomalies that have pointed out by thousands of people. No problem, landed, took off, no hitch all on the first try with tech that couldn't power a modern day simple dollar store calculator in hand stitched uniforms.

Ok fine, that said. The reason they haven't been back is it is too expensive now? No reason to go back? We already did it, why would we do it again?

This is one of the most silly conversations I have every been a part of.....

Why not spend the 50k it would cost now to do it again with same materials and go back?

reply to post by Helious


Maybe you missed my history progression earlier, sorry I wasn't so thorough as to include lunar orbits, hint, before 1960.

Originally posted by Helious
reply to post by Illustronic

 

So, in summery, in saying that the evidence is conflicting because it is, I have done all the research for and against and it is very much conflicting so I want to be clear.

Here is what we are proposing as more possible.

In 1969 while they were still listening to records we sent a spacecraft beyond Earths orbit and landed on the moon with no complications, the men that went there took hundreds of perfect photos, planted a flag, had a field day among countless anomalies that have pointed out by thousands of people. No problem, landed, took off, no hitch all on the first try with tech that couldn't power a modern day simple dollar store calculator in hand stitched uniforms.

Ok fine, that said. The reason they haven't been back is it is too expensive now? No reason to go back? We already did it, why would we do it again?

This is one of the most silly conversations I have every been a part of.....

Why not spend the 50k it would cost now to do it again with same materials and go back?

edit on 4-4-2012 by Helious because: (no reason given)

its going to cost about 150billion to get to the moon again... back in the 60's the costs were enormous, but acceptable. how is the government going to explain such expenditures in todays world?

reply to post by Helious


You are using appeal to ignorance trying to relate two tangents, audio recording and rocket science I though my comparison of particle physics and rocket science is a comparison of greater substance. I also point out just a couple 'complications' you are trying to paint a picture that things happened first try, far from reality.

The argument of why hasn't manned lunar landings taken place since, if I should be so blunt, is an adolescent one, appealing to ignorance and disassociative comparisons some refer to as Straw Man Arguments.

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by Helious

 

Maybe you missed my history progression earlier, sorry I wasn't so thorough as to include lunar orbits, hint, before 1960.

Maybe you missed the simple and very suspect question about why no mission has ever been attempted in the recent past or present. If in fact it was done in 1969 with absolute ease then it should be childs play in 2012 and the benefits would far outweigh the cost in the world market considering the H3 fuel that was found there and the discovery of water. How come, we already wen't there, dominated and planted a flag in 69 would we not be all over it at this point?

What exactly is the best reason for this discretionary absence of action? Is it because we are "bored" of the moon, just couldn't get our jollies after 69? No reason to go back? Why did this stop in the mid 70s? Why do you make the biggest development in the history of Mankind and then just say meh, no big deal, no reason to to every do it again............

Please...

Unfortunately the mentality of the human condition from the 60' and 70's has shifted from discovery to capitalistic greed. There is no profit to be made sending anything to the moon, that has since shifted to sending paid contracts to earth orbit. It doesn't take an Einstein to figure that out, or a mathemagician.

Yet somehow the American people fund NASA to send into space more missions with little to no return of investment than the rest of the world combined at least 5 times over.

Didn't Space Ship 1 spend more money to get to 62 miles high than the prize paid out?

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Helious

 

How come we have an ISS? How come if it was child's play as evidenced by our first attempt we don't have a moon base?

Simple lack of political will, not due to technical problems. If we wanted to do it and continued the Apollo programs instead of LEO only Shuttle, we could already have permanently manned Moon colony.

I think it's more about political unrest. Whatever country had a base on the moon would make the rest very nervous, and much conflict would result.

Originally posted by subject x

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Helious

 

How come we have an ISS? How come if it was child's play as evidenced by our first attempt we don't have a moon base?

Simple lack of political will, not due to technical problems. If we wanted to do it and continued the Apollo programs instead of LEO only Shuttle, we could already have permanently manned Moon colony.

I think it's more about political unrest. Whatever country had a base on the moon would make the rest very nervous, and much conflict would result.

It could be international base, just like the ISS.

I don't see what kind of a threat a lunar base poses to anything.

Expense to get there rules out any mineral mining profit. Shooting bombs from the moon would take 3 days to get to earth, ICBMs are much more efficient and cost prudent. A base to launch things further out to space threatens who? Why spy from a quarter million miles away when aircraft gets those high resolution Google images? Would other travelers have to pay a toll to use the space between? Pfft...

I see no threat whatsoever of anyone or country or corporation having and funding a lunar base of any kind to anyone including Moonpedia dot com.

HEY ~ WOW, just wow. Amazing we are having this discussion in 2012. We absolutely went to the moon, no question about it. Apollo is the result of guided manipulation from those that have guided mankind from the beginning. Around the time of WWII there was a HUGE jump in technological abilities. Which came from Germany, and somewhere beyond. One German scientest was asked how Germany became so far advanced, in such a burst. The reply came with an upwards nod, and something to the effect of never having been able to do it with out them. All thru history there has been "moments" of divine intervention which has greatly altered the direction of the human species. Joan of Arc is a prime example, some attribute the Black Plague as having served some "Alien agenda". Some of the most genius people in history was said to have received their ideas and inventions thru visions and dreams from Angels and/or God himself. Granted, topics like this promote thought and are valid to discuss, I am just amazed that some really refuse to believe that we are capable of exploring space. When we acquire the abilitiy to travel in space more economically and with more safety than at present, there will be mining operations and bases for reaching deeper in space. We will also continue to be "guided" as to how far and quickly we advance and mature. This is all just my opinion and mean no disrespect to those who hold different views...........PEACE

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by blocula

Originally posted by denver22
reply to post by blocula

 

[bloc ill ask you a question ...wot do you personally think is on the moon ? ]

I dont think any humans walked on the moon and as far as what do i think is on the moon,i'm not sure what you mean? nasa has probably fired un-manned rockets that crashed onto the moon and they may have even sent un-manned rockets there that then parachuted robotic objects down onto the moons surface,but no humans flew to the moon,walked upon its surface or flew back in 1969-72...

I think the moon is an annunaki death star,a space battleship and perhaps its even what we call noahs ark,built in orbit around mars,as that planets biosphere was dying off and its atmosphere was fading away and the craters and surface scars on the moon may have been the result of some ancient interstellar war fought long ago,which is now all but forgotten and that ancient war may have even destroyed an entire planet or moon,remnants of which we call the asteroid belt...

edit on 4-4-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)

didnt you state it is too cold to get to the moon.. you expect something at a freezing temperature which makes things super brittle, to be able to land on the moon intact?

also i dont know about you, but i have no idea what purpose parachutes have on the moon. do you even know how parachutes work?

Would an unassisted vehicle,meaning with no rockets to slow its descent down,just be thrown upon the moons surface,or just be crashed onto it? no it would destroy it and so an unmanned vehicle trying to land on the moon,the only variety that might have ever done so,would have to be preprogrammed to or remotely able to,turn itself around and make a gentle landing? theres no way our current technology is going to be able to make that happen?