Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

page: 10
52
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Ove38
 


Ok, then feel free to provide proof on how it was possible to film a scene in 1/6 gravity in a vacuum on Earth. Also why would they go through the trouble of designing and building something intended to be crewed by people and then send it empty? I mean they can get the LM to the moon, why not toss 3 guys in there and win the space race?




posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Ove38
 


They slept in the LEM. They had a hammock that attached to the walls that they slept in at night. For Apollo 11, they slept on the floor wherever there was room.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
I sense it's getting close to when the moon landing hoax is finally revealed.


There is a new "Race to the Moon" and NASA is clearly at a critical dilemma. Should NASA reveal the Apollo landings were a hoax they would have to introduce a valid, national security reason for the 1969-1972 hoax ... this would allow NASA, in 2013, to introduce the idea of E.T. or Ancient Astronauts and so the integrity of NASA would be increased by about a ten-thousand-fold . You can quote me on that.



If I were a Hollywood screenwriter that's how I write the next phase of disclosure. Carol Rosen part of the ongoing disclosure? Was Werner von Braun giving Carol Rosen disinformation? Well... it's 2013 and we still have yet to see any astronauts or cosmonauts or taikonauts spend any significant amounts of time outside of low earth orbit or outside the Earth Radiation Belts.

Carol Rosen met Werner von Braun and disclosed a lot of things.



As a matter of fact, a mission to the moon only takes 6-7 days. With present technology anybody can duplicate the Apollo 8 lunar orbit ... and they could be back safe at home in 6-7 days.

The only problem is that no nation under God, no space program outside of Richard Nixon's presidency (1969-1974), has ever been able to duplicate or demonstrate the ability to perform this extraordinary scientific and engineering effort. This means that the moon landings were simulations.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



As a matter of fact, a mission to the moon only takes 6-7 days. With present technology anybody can duplicate the Apollo 8 lunar orbit ... and they could be back safe at home in 6-7 days.


I will quote you on this. You have just admitted that it is possible to go to the Moon safely. From here on, your arguments are based only on your estimation of Richard Nixon's character.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding
reply to post by Ove38
 


Ok, then feel free to provide proof on how it was possible to film a scene in 1/6 gravity in a vacuum on Earth. Also why would they go through the trouble of designing and building something intended to be crewed by people and then send it empty? I mean they can get the LM to the moon, why not toss 3 guys in there and win the space race?


Why do you think it's "in 1/6 gravity in a vacuum" ? it's a film trick !

Because they couldn't return them safely back to earth, they still can't.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Ove38
 


And yet no one has been able to perfectly recreate said film trick in all the years since then? The only time they've been able to do it is the few seconds of near weightlessness on the Vomit Comet. That only lasts about 25-30 seconds every minute or so. It would have taken them years to film everything.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Ove38
 


They slept in the LEM. They had a hammock that attached to the walls that they slept in at night. For Apollo 11, they slept on the floor wherever there was room.


There's no room for that in the LM. What about the temperature ? They would need a air conditioner ! The air conditioner would need electricity and a drain line. Where is all that ?



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
As a matter of fact, a mission to the moon only takes 6-7 days. With present technology anybody can duplicate the Apollo 8 lunar orbit ... and they could be back safe at home in 6-7 days.

The only problem is that no nation under God, no space program outside of Richard Nixon's presidency (1969-1974), has ever been able to duplicate or demonstrate the ability to perform this extraordinary scientific and engineering effort. This means that the moon landings were simulations.

I think I will agree, it's so easy and yet no one has been able to duplicate it.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Ove38
 


And yet no one has been able to perfectly recreate said film trick in all the years since then? The only time they've been able to do it is the few seconds of near weightlessness on the Vomit Comet. That only lasts about 25-30 seconds every minute or so. It would have taken them years to film everything.


Then I got some news for you




posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Ove38
 


Ok, so what you're saying is you have no proof other than to say "it's a film trick" Just because you say something that you believe doesn't mean that others will believe it without any kind of proof. Even with today's technology, short of making the entire scene out of CGI it's just not something that can be faked.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Ove38
 


There's plenty of room for a hammock to be stretched across from one wall to another. And if there's enough room for that, there's enough room for someone to stretch out on the floor.

You really think they didn't have environmental systems? They needed them for space, and they were there. Hamilton Standard built the environmental systems, which included air conditioning/heating systems.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Ove38
 


One video, of them standing still and dropping two objects? Wow, I'm convinced. I've seen videos of people trying to recreate them walking on the moon, and the rover driving on the moon, and they weren't close. So they've managed to recreate a video with very little movement and make it look the same. Impressive, let's see the perfect recreations of the walks, and drives, and everything else they did while up there.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Go ahead and quote what I wrote but don't misrepresent what I said.

And don't forget to quote me here too:

The only problem is that no nation under God, no space program outside of Richard Nixon's presidency (1969-1974), has ever been able to duplicate or demonstrate the ability to perform this extraordinary scientific and engineering effort. This means that the moon landings were simulations.


Apollo 8.

Launch date 12:51:00, 21 December 1968 (UTC)
Lunar orbits 10
CSM time in lunar orbit 20 h 10 m 13 s
Landing 15:51:42, 27 December 1968 (UTC)
North Pacific Ocean
8°8′N 165°1′W[3]
Mission duration 6 d 03 h 00 m 42 s


This is a very simple mission profile. And I find it very suspicious that only NASA has sent manned missions outside the ERB in the last 43 years of space history.

At any moment during the 1960's or 1970's the Russians were very experienced in space. This is a very simple mission. It's just a boost, a trajectory, some orbits, and a return. Very simple, very easy. Why didn't they do it?

NASA could have used one Space Shuttle to do this same mission!... As we may recall... the journey through the Earth Radiation Belts is always a quick one.


If Howard Hughes were alive today, well, he'd fly to the moon himself. And that would end the conspiracy once and for all. But we don't have a Howard Hughes today. We have Elon Musk, Dennis Tito... maybe Richard Branson?

Well you can all get the picture. It's been 43 years and nobody nobody in the world today, can demonstrate a simple Apollo 8 mission. Nobody.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

This is a very simple mission profile. And I find it very suspicious that only NASA has sent manned missions outside the ERB in the last 43 years of space history.


Because it's not that simple. If it was, everyone with a rocket would be going.


NASA could have used one Space Shuttle to do this same mission!... As we may recall... the journey through the Earth Radiation Belts is always a quick one.


Except that the shuttle was designed as a truck, not a deep space flyer (deep being a relative term here). It didn't carry enough fuel to go that far, and the boosters couldn't propel it far enough out to get started on the trip, unlike the Saturn V.

Russia was working on a rocket that would get them to the moon, but they couldn't get a successful launch with it. Once Apollo made it, they gave up, because the entire point of going was to be first and show up the Americans. There was no "money" in it to be second.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
The only problem is that no nation under God, no space program outside of Richard Nixon's presidency (1969-1974), has ever been able to duplicate or demonstrate the ability to perform this extraordinary scientific and engineering effort. This means that the moon landings were simulations.


So according to that stupid reasoning as we do not have a SST now the Concorde was just a simulation.... because we have no battleships now all previous battleships were just simulations....



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 11:43 PM
link   
The Carol Rosin/Werner von Braun disclosure seems to be coming true in the headlines these days:

Russians plan asteroid shield


www.washingtontimes.com...

According to the Rosin/von Braun disclosure timeline... the next disclosure will be aliens.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 12:13 AM
link   
There are so many reasons to believe the moon missions were faked: the lost footage, the conflicting reports about star visibility, the ridiculous stunts they did in suits that would kill them immediately if they were damaged, not to mention most of the pictures look like they took 1950's grainy satellite photos and superimposed foreground shots over them.

This simulator could be used to make fake videos of orbiting the moon, and since the moon orbital and landing videos look fake I see no reason to doubt that they were.

Honestly, when some pictures look too good to be true and others look completely bogus that should make any thinking person have second thoughts.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Ove38
 


perhaps during the test they should have dropped the feather more horizontally like apollo 15, so that a larger surface area is exposed to the motion of the feather.. just saying.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001

Please stop repeating statements that have been shown to be untrue. Radiation exposure is a matter of exposure over time. The Apollo astronauts spent less than two weeks outside of Earth's magnetosphere. The shielding provided by the structure of the spacecraft was adequate for that period of time.


That's a bit like trying to stay dry in a rainstorm by running through it. You'll still end up getting soaked.

There was no "adequate" shielding in the Apollo spacecraft, because it was mostly aluminum.



Originally posted by DJW001
You cherry picked a source. In fact, both aluminum and epoxy are ideal shielding materials due to their low Z.


One of us is cherry picking, but it's not me.

My source is very clear about aluminum being a poor choice for radiation shielding beyond LEO. Let's see your source, next...


Originally posted by DJW001

There you go again. Here:


Good laboratory practice is important to keep radiation doses low. To reduce bremsstrahlung, (90)Y should not be shielded by lead but instead perspex (10 mm) or aluminium (5 mm). Bremsstrahlung radiation can be further reduced by adding a millimetre of lead on the outside of the primary shielding material. If suitable shielding is used and larger numbers of handlings are divided among several persons, then handling of beta emitters can be a safe procedure.


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

This was literally the first thing to come up on google. I can cite countless papers.


Talk about cherry picking a source, this takes the cake!

"Good laboratory practice" is the first clue, and it all comes down like a house of cards from there.

Your source refers to beta emitters. And to quote a source on that...... ...

"Beta particles travel several feet in open air and are easily stopped by solid materials."

www.epa.gov...

If your other so-called 'sources' are similar, then you really have nothing at all.


Originally posted by DJW001

You sound like a broken record. Here, read this:

w3.tue.nl...


So post a source, and tell me to read it. What's the point ? Or you have no point, just pompous prattle


Originally posted by DJW001
Repeat: every spacecraft is constructed of aluminum. It is the ideal material. It is light weight, and its low density is a safeguard against secondary radiation.



We know aluminum is a poor radiation shield, specifically beyond LEO, You can't admit to it, but you know it.
(sidenote: such an internal conflict may explain the anger, as we discussed earlier.)

Sure, all of the existing spacecraft are constructed of aluminum. None of these aluminum spacecraft ever go beyond LEO with any humans. Only unmanned craft go beyond LEO.

Aluminum is known to be a poor radiation shield, beyond LEO, and that's the reason for this discrepancy.

You can make excuses for almost anything, but that doesn't make it true ..





edit on 16-3-2013 by turbonium1 because: edit for punctuation



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonbeleiver77
What's the problem? Why am I angry?

I'll say it again "the greatest achievement by mankind EVER"
Saying it was a hoax is not only an insult to the thousands that worked on it but an insult to all of us everyone the human race as a species!


It is merely an opinion. It is my opinion.

You take it as an insult. You are offended by it. You are upset. You get angry.

Uh, oh, I've somehow insulted the enture human race!

Do you see anything bizarre about all this?


If you truly believed Apollo was 100% genuine fact, you wouldn't care who disputes your view, or how many!

Look at any event, any issue. How many with 100% agreement, worldwide, or even nationwide?

Would you be furious if someone said no human has ever climbed Mt. Everest? That it was all a big hoax?

You wouldn't care a bit about someone's kooky claims, right? Even if it's one of mankind's greatest achievements?

Now, with that in mind, ask yourself - Why iam I stirred up into a frenzy when anyone disputes the Apollo story?

It might be very enlightening....





top topics
 
52
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join