Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Why is the pro-Apollo apparently so uninterested in finding these two missing Apollo modules? Why don't you all find this interesting??

Because it's really boring.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Why is the pro-Apollo apparently so uninterested in finding these two missing Apollo modules? Why don't you all find this interesting??

Score 2 points for the Apollo investigators.

The Moon is a big place, and they don't have the details as to the exact nature of these modules orbit decays. Therefore, they don't really know where they are.

I'm sure they would love to find them, but taking all the time and enegry required to find a needle in a moon haystack just for the sake of posterity and history is not a good way for NASA to be spending resources. I think if they thought they could find them without spending a lot of time, they would.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Why is the pro-Apollo apparently so uninterested in finding these two missing Apollo modules? Why don't you all find this interesting??

Score 2 points for the Apollo investigators.

This seems to be the current angle you're sticking with. I'm sure I'm not the only one in this thread who is confused by this. Would you be able to explain what you think is the significance of these two modules? I mean, they were essentially space junk that was left in lunar orbit to decay and crash. There was no timed re-entry burn or any calculations made, it was just left to the laws of physics. It's not missing in the sense that they couldn't find it if they really wanted to, it's just missing in the sense that they just don't care.

reply to post by captainpudding


I agree, and let me clarify my post above yours by saying that while I think NASA would love to know where they are, I think that is true in only a space-geek sort of way.

It certainly isn't important for the space program to know where those LMs crashed, but I'm sure it's something that the space geeks would like to know. having said that, the no-burn decay of the orbit and the variables involved (tumbling spacecraft plus the "graininess" of lunar gravity) would make it virtually impossible to calculate where they ultimately crashed.

Look at what the pro-Apollo crowd has to say ITT about the two missing Apollo modules :

"missing junk" & "it's boring". "the moon is a big place". WOW



I am not about to get into any of the straw man arguments that the pro-Apollo side is promoting in this thread. The pro-Apollogists are getting lazy. They won't recognize the real questions and answers here. Earlier in the thread I suggested a method for the Apollo cheerleaders to 1. use Apollo seismographic data that was collected until September 1977. 2. use the NASA accurate weight and last known trajectory records for all the modules. 3. Compute and simulate possible trajectory scenarios. 4. Confirm by using LRo images as they exist on the servers right now.

Why are none of the believers are interested in solving this critical question? The Apollo defenders have an Achille's heal..... It's the Eagle and the Orion.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


because the errors in calculation compound up together as time goes by.

ie. the greater the time period the greater the error.

we are not looking at an event that happens in a few hours. we are looking at an event that will take maybe a year or more.

the seismometers on the moon were generally placed on only one side of the moon. how are they going to tell the difference between a very large meteor/LM striking the moon on the other side of the moon as opposed to a smaller one nearby?? and to go through about 1700 different possibilities?

how much man power and money will be needed to find effectively space junk? or did you forget what they done with the other modules?

and yes im going to keep calling them junk as that is what i believe them to be. others can say otherwise but to me, if you are going to deliberately crash/demolish it there is no longer a need for it, therefore it is junk.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Straw man? For someone who is stacking up a pile of straw the size of the Statue of Liberty and taking a tilt at it, you sure have a nerve. It's only you who has decided the LM issue is an achilles heel. Nobody else cares that much.

It's like saying the Titanic didn't sink because you can't find Lady Derbyshire's silver brooch in the wreckage.

I guess I'm still back there on page 1 ... trying to get over the idea that it's somehow accepted Man never landed on the moon. Golly... The whole section I've built into one of my websites on the Apollo program, Saturn V Rockets and wonder of wonders ...the Moon Rovers..must be all wrong! I'm just speechless.

I must go ponder the error of my ways, I believe. How could nearly the entire world have been so completely fooled and so few have been right all along?

(...and yeah..it really was as hard as some think to keep a straight face while typing that..so I can't anymore)

(pssst.... We really DID go to the Moon ..and the sky is real too. It's not a HUGE ceiling to a Truman Show like sound stage, where life is all a show or something.. but shhh... A few don't know that. )

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
how did you lose the Apollo 11 Eagle and Apollo 16 Orion (lunar ascent) modules?

They are not lost, NASA know where they are - so why are you worried about their location? You do not even think they were used by men, so why the concern for their location?

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by turbonium1

That's like saying 'What you don't know can't hurt you!'

People also believed it was safe to watch atomic bomb tests in street clothes, too, but that didn't protect them from the radiation.

Ignorance is no defense.

edit on 28-4-2013 by turbonium1 because: typo

theres still nothing stopping them from reaching the moon though. beyond the VA belts, apart from large solar particle events directed at the mission aluminum is good enough protection.

edit on 28-4-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)

No, aluminum is clearly NOT "good enough protection".

I've cited several experts who state aluminum is not only a poor shield, it's probably hazardous to astronauts!! .

You choose to ignore these facts. You can go on living in denial, but I prefer dealing with reality..

Originally posted by XaniMatriX

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by XaniMatriX

NASA didn't start tracking, or lets say were not able to track solar flares until 1972, and that technology was improved in 1977, so they wouldn't even know what they are going into, which would be the FIRST priority, ahh but why bother, you guys enjoy your Hollywood story, done with this post. peace.

for real??? who told you this?

look up SPAN (heres a hint: SOLAR PARTICLE ALERT NETWORK)

Honestly, you just gave me information that comes from NASA, saying they could look at the flares, and guess what their about to do?? completely ignoring what i said eh? i mean i did word it wrong, it was really early in the morning

not track, but predict one (which they couldn't), well let alone properly track one, since studies are still ongoing.

Even the recent probes sent into Van Allen Belt discovered new types of radiation.... ahhh why am i even replying, dude, no ongoing studies of humans outside LEO, not even 1000 miles away from this planet have ever been made, or even an attempt to do so, because NASA says it's to risky, and unpredictable, you are all ignoring today's findings, and cling on to inconclusive data from the past.

Honestly, DONE, peace out.

It's very frustrating to deal with Apollo-ites, that's for sure. ,

I've made every effort to get a legitimate rebuttal to what the experts said on aluminum shielding, to no avail.

They want to live in denial, it seems.

Originally posted by turbonium1

No, aluminum is clearly NOT "good enough protection".

I've cited several experts who state aluminum is not only a poor shield, it's probably hazardous to astronauts!! .

You choose to ignore these facts. You can go on living in denial, but I prefer dealing with reality..

Aluminum was good enough for what they done in the time they done it, NASA was playing a numbers game effectively.

you are mixing up todays OHS standard with that time period. they were there for only a short amount of time. all these dangers from aluminum being hazardous is true but it wont stop them from reaching their goals.

aluminum can protect against certain types of radiation, not all but some and does it well enough. this is what you are failing to see. the apollo mission were lucky enough to not get exposed to a major solar event.

p.s. perhaps i can word it like this:
"Aluminium is a bad shield against radiation. The ISS is built primarily from Aluminium. so in theory the ISS, which passes through the SAMA, part of the inner VA belt, should kill everyone on board every time it passes through the SAMA"

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by turbonium1

No, aluminum is clearly NOT "good enough protection".

I've cited several experts who state aluminum is not only a poor shield, it's probably hazardous to astronauts!! .

You choose to ignore these facts. You can go on living in denial, but I prefer dealing with reality..

Aluminum was good enough for what they done in the time they done it, NASA was playing a numbers game effectively.

you are mixing up todays OHS standard with that time period. they were there for only a short amount of time. all these dangers from aluminum being hazardous is true but it wont stop them from reaching their goals.

aluminum can protect against certain types of radiation, not all but some and does it well enough. this is what you are failing to see. the apollo mission were lucky enough to not get exposed to a major solar event.

p.s. perhaps i can word it like this:
"Aluminium is a bad shield against radiation. The ISS is built primarily from Aluminium. so in theory the ISS, which passes through the SAMA, part of the inner VA belt, should kill everyone on board every time it passes through the SAMA"

edit on 4-5-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-5-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)

The SAA is on the lower fringe of the VA Belts, and it's much less hazardous. The experts are describing 'beyond LEO', and 'past LEO'. The ISS does not go beyond LEO. The SAA is withing LEO.

The experts are clear on this. The moon is beyond LEO. Aluminum won't shield a crew.beyond LEO. In fact, it may be hazardous to a crew. Apollo was aluminum, so it couldn't go to the moon. Just like any other aluminum craft with a crew cannot go,to the moon, either

That's what the experts are really saying here.

The SAA is more hazardous than elsewhere in LEO, but it can still be flown through with aluminum craft. And though it's part of the VA Belts, it is still within LEO. It is NOT beyond LEO.

It's only on the fringe of the VA Belts. Going through it is obviously much, much worse And this is the problem these experts are dealing with today.

Another point -

If Apollo flew safely to the moon and back, nine times in all, these experts would say aluminum is adequate shielding beyond LEO. But they don't say that. They say it's NOT adequate shielding beyond LEO. It is that simple. .

The experts must know Apollo was faked, but can't say it. They dare not even question it as odd. How is it dealt with?

It's not. They avoid it entirely or make a brief side-note on it.

Originally posted by turbonium1
They dare not even question it as odd. How is it dealt with?

They deal with it by ignoring the conspiracy theorists who have no clue at all about science or engineering. They know that conspiracy theorists are not interested in facts but they prefer silly made up stories.

Originally posted by turbonium1

The SAA is on the lower fringe of the VA Belts, and it's much less hazardous. The experts are describing 'beyond LEO', and 'past LEO'. The ISS does not go beyond LEO. The SAA is withing LEO.

The experts are clear on this. The moon is beyond LEO. Aluminum won't shield a crew.beyond LEO. In fact, it may be hazardous to a crew. Apollo was aluminum, so it couldn't go to the moon. Just like any other aluminum craft with a crew cannot go,to the moon, either

That's what the experts are really saying here.

so basically what you are saying is that all those articles you have posted/refering to have unequivocally proven that man cannot land on the moon as of today?
strange how all the experts who are/have been reading it have said nothing about how it proves man cant land on the moon?
and strange how NASA wont even try to hide such articles from being published.. werent these the tyrants that was able to keep every single person involved in the missions (from manufacturing to the astronauts) quiet until and beyond their deathbeds?

ill take some words from clauvius site:
"hazardous does not mean insurmountable obstacle"

the largest dangers while beyond LEO during the Apollo era in regard to radiation was major solar particle events.

Originally posted by turbonium1
Another point -

If Apollo flew safely to the moon and back, nine times in all, these experts would say aluminum is adequate shielding beyond LEO. But they don't say that. They say it's NOT adequate shielding beyond LEO. It is that simple. .

So.. Let me understand your logic. The method by which they came to learn shielding wasn't adequate, ALSO serves as the basis for your assertion that such a thing never happened?

Have you..umm..considered the nature of that argument from a few steps back? It's ..contradictory, as the nicest way I can think to describe it.

The fact they partially cooked some astronauts in the process OF discovering what wouldn't work ...*IS HOW* they can now say that is entirely insufficient to use for future trips beyond low orbit. I'd say the fact the men who went generally lived long afterward attests to their topmost levels of fitness at the time they endured what they did. I'm glad NASA was almost draconian about the screening process I've read those men went through to be selected. "The Right Stuff", indeed!

Originally posted by choos

so basically what you are saying is that all those articles you have posted/refering to have unequivocally proven that man cannot land on the moon as of today?

Yes.

Originally posted by choos
strange how all the experts who are/have been reading it have said nothing about how it proves man cant land on the moon?

It is very strange, because you don't understand the reason for their total silence.

Originally posted by choos

and strange how NASA wont even try to hide such articles from being published..

You just alluded to the reason NASA doesn't hide the articles. The experts never try to link their findings to Apollo. If they did, it would obviously crush the Apollo story. So they just mention it briefly and move along.

Originally posted by choos

werent these the tyrants that was able to keep every single person involved in the missions (from manufacturing to the astronauts) quiet until and beyond their deathbeds?

Yes they were. And that's why the experts won't speak about it, or even question it in the least. That's the reason for their silence.

Originally posted by choos
ill take some words from clauvius site:
"hazardous does not mean insurmountable obstacle"

That could be said for most things, couldn't it? For example, a manned Mars mission would be hazardous, but that does not mean insurmountable obstacle(s). But a manned mission to Mars is not possible today. Nor is a manned mission to the moon possible today. Nor a manned mission beyond LEO. We are making progress towards those goals, but it's not possible today.

Originally posted by choos
the largest dangers while beyond LEO during the Apollo era in regard to radiation was major solar particle events.

They still are the largest dangers beyond LEO (at least to our knowledge). But they certainly are not the only dangers beyond LEO.