Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
The new technology is for a different type of mission as you well know.

I know it's a popular Apollo-ite excuse, and I also know why it doesn't hold up (see below).

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
Erm..hang on, I thought we didn't have the technology?

You're quite correct, we didn't (and still don't) have the technology.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
Again, different mission profiles needs new equipment, which means money.

Yes, they were VERY "different missions". Apollo missions never flew beyond LEO, and just pretended to land men on the moon, while Constellation missions were an attempt to actually land men on the moon!

Of course, you meant "different missions" in another way, right?

You think Constellation missions were all planned to have much longer stays on the moon than Apollo (supposedly) had, etc...

You are wrong on that...

"Lunar sortie missions of up to seven days will be conducted from a lunar lander that will include a habitable crew cabin that will support a short surface stay on the moon."

 www.nasa.gov...

NASA itself stated the missions would be - "up to seven days". "UP TO seven days" doesn't mean 'WILL be seven days', btw. So a mission could be 3 or 4 days, or even 3 or 4 minutes. But, no missions will be more than 7 days. Up to a maximum of 7 days.

Same short-stay lunar missions as Apollo (supposedly) did.

The purpose(s) of those missions, from the same source..

"Lunar sortie missions will establish the capability to conduct human exploration missions to any location on the moon without a pre­existing surface structure. These missions might be used to conduct human exploration of potential lunar outpost sites before more permanent surface
infrastructure is delivered."

Nothing here that couldn't be accomplished with NASA's "heritage technology".

The only notable difference is Constellation planned to have at least 4 astronauts instead of 3. Trying to develop all new technologies because they'd like at least 4 guys instead of 3, now that's a good one!

One more thing - Apollo had the same long-term goals as Constellation did, after the short-stay lunar missions - to have longer stays on the moon, and perhaps moon bases.

Overall, Constellation was much the same program as Apollo, except it actually tried to land men on the moon instead of faking it. With superior technology, and with twice as much time, we still couldn't do it, for real. Apollo was such a magnificent success, because it was a massive fake.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

Now, did NASA have the technology to land there or not?

Not.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
Specifically which technology wasn't available?

NASA said they already had all the technology available, and said they would emphasize that technology for a 'return' to the moon. As I've just shown you, those initial missions were essentially the same as Apollo missions (supposedly) had been. That is, NASA could use the EXACT SAME technology as Apollo, since they claim it is available, and works, for Constellation's initial missions.

When NASA tried to 'return' to the moon, and failed so dismally, they unwittingly revealed Apollo didn't have the technology to land men on the moon.

There is no way out of this.

You can keep living in denial, or you can see Apollo for what it really was - a hoax.

Up to you.

a reply to: turbonium1

You've shown me nothing but ignorance of what NASA has said, what it means, and what technology is required for what type of mission.

Once again, specifically, which technology was not available?

Rocket, Spaceships? What?

Out of all the questions I listed which things could not be done, given that the USSR did everything on it at the same time as Apollo - including sending a biological payload to the moon and back?

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
Let's be more specific to help Turbonium out.

- Did the technology to launch a rocket exist?

- Did the technology to launch something to the moon from orbit exist?

- Did the technology to orbit the moon exist?

- Did the technology to land something on the moon exist?

- Did the technology to return back to Earth exist?

- Did the technology to keep someone alive in space exist?

Which answer is no?

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Orbiting the Moon is one thing; landing on it is a completely different thing.

I don't really have a strong opinion on this subject one way or the other, except to say; if people wanted to fake the Moon landing, it would have been relatively easy to do. The key reason why is because all the comms from the lunar surface had to be relayed through the command module, which was in orbit, back to Earth. So, all the folks who say "the Russians would have known" because of the radio comms and delays really aren't correct. The only thing the Russians (or anyone else for that matter) could prove, beyond a doubt, was that there was something orbiting the Moon, not actually ON the Moon.

What about the (radio) reflectors placed on the surface? Well, even the Russians put items on the Lunar surface so that was no tall order. Successfully landing a human being on the Moon, and returning him back, was a different matter altogether!

Personally, I think they did do it, but I also think they cancelled Apollo because they realized they got really lucky and weren't going to push their luck any further (that, and for funding reasons). However, to the question of 'if it could have been a hoax'; it surely could have. To the question of, 'but too many people would have known', I say not necessarily. Even the folks in Mission Control would have only known the Command Module was orbiting the Moon, not that someone was actually on the surface.

Food for thought.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

In which case how did the Surveyor probes land on the moon?

How did the Soviet probes land on the moon AND come back again? Wait, you already are happy with the fact that they did, so the technology to land something on the moon obviously did exist.

Your understanding of the communications from the surface is incorrect.

The LM radio comms, as well as the TV transmissions, weren't relayed via the CSM, as the CSM was in orbit and was only overhead for a short while in any one orbit. The astronaut suits relayed their radio to the LM, which then broadcast back to Earth. The Apollo 11 surface transmissions were picked up by radio hams on Earth.

The laser reflectors (not radio reflectors) were placed on Russian rovers, which is fine, but we also have film and photographs of the Apollo ones being set up an the signals are returned from exactly where film, photographs and TV images show that they were.

In order to fake someone being on the moon they would also have needed to fake rocks and craters on the lunar surfce that they did not know about it advance but were shown in the LRO images later, and they would also have had to get colour images of Earth's weather live on TV that matched satellite weather images that they didn't have.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
Your own post contradicts itself. You start by saying the technology to land on the moon didn't exist and you then say that the Russians landed retroreflectors on the moon, you can't have it both ways. You're also mistaken about the the broadcasts being relayed from orbit. Since the command module was orbiting the moon it would lose contact with earth every 45 minutes (if memory serves) so all the live broadcasts wouldn't be possible using that method, the data was transmitted directly from the LM to Earth.

This page describes Baysinger's recordings:

legacy.jefferson.kctcs.edu...

These two documents describe the communications:

legacy.jefferson.kctcs.edu...

legacy.jefferson.kctcs.edu...

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

The LM radio comms, as well as the TV transmissions, weren't relayed via the CSM, as the CSM was in orbit and was only overhead for a short while in any one orbit. The astronaut suits relayed their radio to the LM, which then broadcast back to Earth. The Apollo 11 surface transmissions were picked up by radio hams on Earth...

True. And this is obvious if you think about it, considering the Command Module was orbiting at the time, meaning there would be times that the CM would be on the far side, in a communication blackout with both the Earth and the Astronauts walking on the moon. The Moon-walking astronauts were on the side of the Moon facing Earth, and thus were always in direct communication with Earth.

I stand corrected.

After a bit of research, the LEM also had an S-band antenna for Earth comms. I had thought the LEM only had a VHF antenna for comms to CSM, which then used S-band for comms back to Earth. VHF comms were used during the landing phase, but S-Band was available once on the surface. Keep in mind though, the Earth is rotating so there were communication black outs.

I can remember them saying the moon was coming up over the "hump" which I took to be Guam.

In any case, I stand corrected.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

That's why they had ground stations all over the world.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
Keep in mind though, the Earth is rotating so there were communication black outs.

They used receiving antennas in California, Australia, and Spain. There would always be at least one of those locations that could communicate with the Apollo astronauts.

These antennas are part of NASA's "Deep Space Network", or DSN. The same antennas used for the DSN during the Apollo era are still the backbone of the DSN today.

Wikipedia -- Deep Space Network

a reply to: turbonium1

from your own link:

"The initial sortie missions will last up to seven
days, performing science investigations,
resource utilization experiments and technology
demonstrations on the surface, before safely
returning the crew to Earth."

upto 7 days on the lunar surface..

NASA has never put 3 men on the lunar surface at a time and never more than 75 hours.. if constellation was planning to put 3/4 astronauts on the lunar surface at a time for upto 7 days.. straight away they dont have that capability... from 2 men to 4, its not just an extra 75kg/150kg of mass of the astronaut its not that simple..

you have all the mass of the consumables to support the two extra astronauts (food, air, water etc), the extra mass from the added living space, the extra fuel required to support the extra mass to return everyone to lunar orbit, proper waste management for 4 astronauts (not adult diapers for two astronauts)..

but anyway your article is more or less talking about lunar surface operations and you are using that as explaination of the missing technology..

so im guessing that you are trying to tell everyone that the missing technology is the lunar module or capability to soft land on the moon??

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

It's refreshing to see someone admit an error, so thanks for both that and for checking the facts for yourself. If others would do the same this thread would be a lot shorter.

As far as the Earth rotating is concerned, others have pointed out that there were stations in Australia and Spain - the Honeysuckle Creek website has lots of information about their role in the missions:

www.honeysucklecreek.net...

The fact that there were only a small number of stations used during Apollo's lunar missions is also evidence that they were definitely not in LEO - if you read the transcripts for Apollos 7 and 9 (and the Earth orbit phases of the others), they changed tracking stations around every 10 minutes. As soon as they head for the moon, the time spent communicating through each station extends to hours.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: turbonium1

You've shown me nothing but ignorance of what NASA has said, what it means, and what technology is required for what type of mission.

Once again, specifically, which technology was not available?

Rocket, Spaceships? What?

Out of all the questions I listed which things could not be done, given that the USSR did everything on it at the same time as Apollo - including sending a biological payload to the moon and back?

If the USSR sent biological life-forms out to the moon and back, as you say, your whole argument looks even worse than it did before..

How do you know that the USSR sent biological life-forms to the moon and back? Because the USSR said so?

You don't have any proof for this claim, right?

And if you could somehow really prove such a claim, so what?

What is your point, then?


As for technology, we only need to see what they can't resolve now, as what things are still 'not done'.

originally posted by: turbonium1

If the USSR sent biological life-forms out to the moon and back, as you say, your whole argument looks even worse than it did before..

As opposed to your claim that the technology didn't exist to do so?

You are arguing that the technology didn't exist to do this, yet there is evidence from both the USA the USSR that they did. You also claim that radiation would kill things in space, yet it didn't - not on a NASA craft, but a Soviet one.

Zond 5 is the probe you're looking for. Try Google - it's amazing.

How do you know that the USSR sent biological life-forms to the moon and back? Because the USSR said so?

Yes. They also reported their findings publicly, including radiation data:

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

cds.cern.ch...

You don't have any proof for this claim, right?

Well actually I do - as well as the papers published by the Soviets, there's also the fact that the weather patterns shown on the Zond images of Earth taken from above the moon are matched by the US weather satellite data.

onebigmonkey.comoj.com...



So far all you're offering "I don't believe it", which isn't really good enough is it?" "They were in it together" also won't work as an excuse for your failing to support your argument with facts, in case you fancied going down that route.

And if you could somehow really prove such a claim, so what?

What is your point, then?

I'm proving you wrong. Again. You claim the technology didn't exist in the 1960s to get things (anything!) to the moon and back, based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Lots of other evidence - not just American, shows that the technology did exist and that your claim is therefore bogus and stupid.

What is your point then? What spurious nonsense will you dig up now to bury this latest gaffe?

As for technology, we only need to see what they can't resolve now, as what things are still 'not done'.

This sentence makes no sense.

E2A: Checking my facts says the Zond 5 image was taken at 90000 miles out on the way back from the moon, not from lunar orbit. The mission was tracked by many western countries.

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: turbonium1

from your own link:

"The initial sortie missions will last up to seven
days, performing science investigations,
resource utilization experiments and technology
demonstrations on the surface, before safely
returning the crew to Earth."

upto 7 days on the lunar surface..

NASA has never put 3 men on the lunar surface at a time and never more than 75 hours.. if constellation was planning to put 3/4 astronauts on the lunar surface at a time for upto 7 days.. straight away they dont have that capability... from 2 men to 4, its not just an extra 75kg/150kg of mass of the astronaut its not that simple..

you have all the mass of the consumables to support the two extra astronauts (food, air, water etc), the extra mass from the added living space, the extra fuel required to support the extra mass to return everyone to lunar orbit, proper waste management for 4 astronauts (not adult diapers for two astronauts)..

but anyway your article is more or less talking about lunar surface operations and you are using that as explaination of the missing technology..

so im guessing that you are trying to tell everyone that the missing technology is the lunar module or capability to soft land on the moon??

The main purpose was - to land humans on the moon, and return them safely to Earth.

You think at least 4 people are required for any of their moon missions, so that's why they needed to develop all-new technologies.

A crew of 3, well, that is simply not enough..anymore! They must now have crews of 4, at the very least!


Nice try...

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: turbonium1

from your own link:

"The initial sortie missions will last up to seven
days, performing science investigations,
resource utilization experiments and technology
demonstrations on the surface, before safely
returning the crew to Earth."

upto 7 days on the lunar surface..

NASA has never put 3 men on the lunar surface at a time and never more than 75 hours.. if constellation was planning to put 3/4 astronauts on the lunar surface at a time for upto 7 days.. straight away they dont have that capability... from 2 men to 4, its not just an extra 75kg/150kg of mass of the astronaut its not that simple..

you have all the mass of the consumables to support the two extra astronauts (food, air, water etc), the extra mass from the added living space, the extra fuel required to support the extra mass to return everyone to lunar orbit, proper waste management for 4 astronauts (not adult diapers for two astronauts)..

but anyway your article is more or less talking about lunar surface operations and you are using that as explaination of the missing technology..

so im guessing that you are trying to tell everyone that the missing technology is the lunar module or capability to soft land on the moon??

The main purpose was - to land humans on the moon, and return them safely to Earth.

You think at least 4 people are required for any of their moon missions, so that's why they needed to develop all-new technologies.

A crew of 3, well, that is simply not enough..anymore! They must now have crews of 4, at the very least!


Nice try...

Feeble.

There is a difference between "required" and "wanted", just like there is a difference between a couple of days and a week.

Your bluster,posturing and deliberate blind eye will not hide the fact that the Apollo and Constellation missions have completely different objectives.

a reply to: turbonium1

and what of it??? your hand-waving doesnt deny the facts..

do you know of any lunar module that is capable of landing more than 2 people on the lunar surface and launching back to lunar orbit???

you take engineers for granted.. thats your problem.. you have no understanding of the complexities of designing and building

a cessna 152 carries 2 people.. to design it to carry 4 people will be to nearly completely re-engineer/design the entire craft..

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: turbonium1

from your own link:

"The initial sortie missions will last up to seven
days, performing science investigations,
resource utilization experiments and technology
demonstrations on the surface, before safely
returning the crew to Earth."

upto 7 days on the lunar surface..

NASA has never put 3 men on the lunar surface at a time and never more than 75 hours.. if constellation was planning to put 3/4 astronauts on the lunar surface at a time for upto 7 days.. straight away they dont have that capability... from 2 men to 4, its not just an extra 75kg/150kg of mass of the astronaut its not that simple..

you have all the mass of the consumables to support the two extra astronauts (food, air, water etc), the extra mass from the added living space, the extra fuel required to support the extra mass to return everyone to lunar orbit, proper waste management for 4 astronauts (not adult diapers for two astronauts)..

but anyway your article is more or less talking about lunar surface operations and you are using that as explaination of the missing technology..

so im guessing that you are trying to tell everyone that the missing technology is the lunar module or capability to soft land on the moon??

The main purpose was - to land humans on the moon, and return them safely to Earth.

You think at least 4 people are required for any of their moon missions, so that's why they needed to develop all-new technologies.

A crew of 3, well, that is simply not enough..anymore! They must now have crews of 4, at the very least!


Nice try...

Feeble.

There is a difference between "required" and "wanted", just like there is a difference between a couple of days and a week.

Your bluster,posturing and deliberate blind eye will not hide the fact that the Apollo and Constellation missions have completely different objectives.

No differences can excuse their complete, utter failure!

The first objective was (supposedly) to return man to the moon, with stays of up to a week, at most.

Apollo-ites won't ever admit it was the primary objective, no way, no how.

You say it was "completely different objective". It's just another excuse.


Technology to get a man on the moon, is immediately dumped like so much trash, preferring to spend nearly 40 years circling the Earth over and over, ad nauseum.

What a crock.

originally posted by: turbonium1

No differences can excuse their complete, utter failure!

The first objective was (supposedly) to return man to the moon, with stays of up to a week, at most.

Apollo-ites won't ever admit it was the primary objective, no way, no how.

Why are posting false information? The fact that the stay is for a week is pretty much the reason why people have been pointing out to you that the new hardware needs to be different: because the objective is different.

You say it was "completely different objective". It's just another excuse.

No - it's a reason, and you just cited it yourself.

Technology to get a man on the moon, is immediately dumped like so much trash, preferring to spend nearly 40 years circling the Earth over and over, ad nauseum.

No some of it is on the moon, some of it is orbiting the sun, none of it is orbiting the Earth.

I am still waiting for you to clarify which technology you believe didn't exist to get to the moon and back. Is this likely to happen any time soon?

What a crock.

Perfectly describes every post you have ever made.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: turbonium1
What a crock.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

Perfectly describes every post you have ever made.

His posts and information would need to improve greatly to reach that level!