Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: DJW001

The Russians have not been over 475km in space altitude. They made that record in 1965 and they haven't sent a human, monkey or mammal over 475km since 1965.

OBM is being disingenuous by mentioning "biological payloads".

Well, I highly recommend this to the Apollo Defenders: don't rely on the "biological payloads" argument because it's not valid.

Do you agree or disagree?

so if someone went 476km they would immediately melt from the radiation is that right?? since your glass ceiling is at 475km are you suggesting it is impossible to reach 476km??

and how much of the zond 5 payload died after 30 days from radiation exposure??

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Well, I highly recommend this to the Apollo Defenders: don't rely on the "biological payloads" argument because it's not valid.

Do you agree or disagree?

What are you asking, exactly? You're the one arguing about "biological payloads." All I am saying is that the Russians themselves believe it is possible for humans to travel safely through the ERBs, as my source indicates. The only reason they haven't is because they don't have a powerful enough rocket.

There is no glass ceiling, it is a complete and utter fabrication totally unsupported by anything remotely resembling what educated people like to call 'facts'.

just to stir the pot :

WHY did the soviets never put a man above 475 km ?????

this is not a trick question - but it is aimed squarely at hoax believers

if you can answer this simple question honestly - you might gain a degree of underrstanding

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

Second, the Ford Motor Company didn't need to stage annual "Build Us a New Automobile" contests, and give million-dollar prizes for vehicles that don't even work.

Ford and Lawrence Tech University (LTU) have again teamed up for a design competition asking prospecting students to reinterpret the Ford Cortina for the year 2030. The prizes include over $100,000 in scholarships.
www.carbodydesign.com...

i guess this means the ford were building fake cortinas.. or maybe they forgot how to build them..

Your comparison would be valid if the Ford Cortina was the first and only car ever built by mankind, and Ford stages a contest 40 years later - but not just to re-design the existing Cortina, but to invent a totally new vehicle with all-new technologies. And they hold the contest annually. And over $1 million in prize money, instead of 100 grand in scholarships to a University which co-sponsors the contest.


Oh well, nice try.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
just to stir the pot :

WHY did the soviets never put a man above 475 km ?????

this is not a trick question - but it is aimed squarely at hoax believers

if you can answer this simple question honestly - you might gain a degree of underrstanding

Partly covered that topic here The Russians never duplicated Apollo 8.

That thread is basically asking the same question as you are asking. Why did the Russians stop going up and why have they stayed in low earth orbit for 50 years? Why wouldn't they send an all-female crew for maximum propaganda on a cis-lunar orbital mission?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Amongst the Apollo Defenders there was a general consensus that the Russians were too stupid to figure out how to build a heavy launch vehicle -- which is contrary to what James Webb said when he was ousted from LBJ's NASA administrator position in late 1968... just a few weeks before Apollo 8 which gave us the tv Bible readings from the book of Genesis on the birthday of Howard Hughes...

Amongst the Apollo Defenders there is still a prevalent attitude that Russia can't build a heavy lift rocket for any reason! And that the US is/has been/and will be the only country with the industrial "magic" who can do heavy lift.

I will help you stir that pot!

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
just to stir the pot :

WHY did the soviets never put a man above 475 km ?????

this is not a trick question - but it is aimed squarely at hoax believers

if you can answer this simple question honestly - you might gain a degree of underrstanding

Partly covered that topic here The Russians never duplicated Apollo 8.

That thread is basically asking the same question as you are asking. Why did the Russians stop going up and why have they stayed in low earth orbit for 50 years? Why wouldn't they send an all-female crew for maximum propaganda on a cis-lunar orbital mission?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Amongst the Apollo Defenders there was a general consensus that the Russians were too stupid to figure out how to build a heavy launch vehicle -- which is contrary to what James Webb said when he was ousted from LBJ's NASA administrator position in late 1968... just a few weeks before Apollo 8 which gave us the tv Bible readings from the book of Genesis on the birthday of Howard Hughes...

Amongst the Apollo Defenders there is still a prevalent attitude that Russia can't build a heavy lift rocket for any reason! And that the US is/has been/and will be the only country with the industrial "magic" who can do heavy lift.

I will help you stir that pot!

Really haven't heard that since of course they had one. Now the only problem is they tended to blow up but when they worked could indeed leave orbit. How do you think they got the probes to the moon magic??

Sounds to me you are just making that up to bring up a point no one can argue And creating a false nara tive to make you sound better. They were ahead of NASA until they had an accident that killed alot of there people setting there program behind.

Once apollo went to the moon to continue to spend money just to be the second nation was probably not the best idea to them considering the coat.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

One piece at a time, because of the limitations of the delivery method. Are you now claiming that the Saturn V was not capable of getting things to the moon because later missions planned on getting more things to the moon using the Saturn V? The system was still to do a 'launch and go' method to get straight to the moon, not launch to Earth orbit then go from there. See? Different approaches to getting to the moon.

Yes, one approach was just faked, while the one 40 years later was trying a genuine approach

Indeed, we'd expect a 40 year-old fake moon landing to be VERY different than with a real attempt of today.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
If you read that page you'll notice that it talks about new equipment and technology several times, and the number of Saturn V launches would be huge. Gee, do you think this might be why they wanted to try and develop a different way of getting all that bigger heavier gear out of orbit and on to the moon and mars?

Not when they first assumed Apollo was all-genuine technology, and stated they'd 'emphasize' this technology again, and stated their primary goal was to achive a manned moon landing by 2018/2020.

No other goal was set in motion here, no matter how long you keep on denying it.

Haven't you looked at NASA's own documents on this?

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
Precisely, they didn't stop developing the car. The produce concept cars. They try new technology and different designs. The basic idea is still 4 wheels and an engine. Are analogies too difficult for you to deal with?

You have the real problem with this...

Lunar landers don't exist yet. You say that one does exist, the LM.

The LM would be one of the most important vehicles ever built, for sure.

It would have been used 24/7 since then - to develop other landers, to study by scientists around the world, perhaps look to apply some of the LM's technology elsewhere.

IT WOULD BE STANDARD KNOWLEDGE TAUGHT IN OUR UNIVERSITIES.

IT WOULD NEVER BE DUMPED LIKE SO MUCH TRASH, FOR ALL ETERNITY.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
I doubt you've looked, but if have and you can't see by looking at proposed new designs that the fundamental principles are the same, then you still haven't looked.

Show me relevant sources for it....if you can.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
You can look at all the archive footage of the technology in action, both in earth orbit, lunar orbit and all points in between. You can look at my website comparing the LRO images of that technology actually on the moon with photographs taken before it was on the moon. You can look at all the photographs of the technology on the moon by astronauts including time and date specific images of Earth. You can look at all the experimental data sent by the technology that went to the moon and returned data for several years after Apollo finished. I can tell you about the eyewitness accounts, both in print and in my presence, of the people that the technology sent to the moon and bought back. You can read all the technical documentation that explains the development and function of the technology. All of this is out there. Should be easy for you to find - especially my site it's in my sig.

No evidence of Apollo technology being genuine. It's just the same old claptrap...as I expected.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

Where did it fail? We did go to the moon, all of the evidence supports it, none of your claims hold water. The fact that we have not been back is down to money, not equipment failure.

The documents state NASA lacks - sorely lacks, the technologies required for a manned moon landing.

They don't make an exception for Apollo's technology, however.

To wit, they don't state NASA lacks new technologies required for a manned moon landing.

The documents just use the term "heritage technology", to emphasize those "heritage technologies", in going forward.

How odd!


I've explained many times why it is NOT a lack of money causing this sad display to unfold.

They state it is NASA's severe lack of technologies required for the mission which caused it to fail.

We know that a lack of technology is the fundamental problem.

How can NASA go about solving that problem, is two-fold...

Money is one of the requirements in trying to develop the technology.

Time spent on trying to develop the technology is the other requirement.


You believe that NASA would not have failed if they had received 'enough money', right?

What amount of money is 'enough money', to you???

A ballpark figure is fine and dandy, thank you...


Why did NASA have no idea, while you do?

You must be a genius, so please, do enlighten us...

originally posted by: dragonridr
Really haven't heard that since of course they had one. Now the only problem is they tended to blow up but when they worked could indeed leave orbit. How do you think they got the probes to the moon magic??

Sounds to me you are just making that up to bring up a point no one can argue And creating a false nara tive to make you sound better. They were ahead of NASA until they had an accident that killed alot of there people setting there program behind.

Once apollo went to the moon to continue to spend money just to be the second nation was probably not the best idea to them considering the coat.

I think what SJ means is that no manned Soviet craft has flown beyond LEO. An unmanned craft, like a probe, is entirely different. A manned craft is the issue here.

The first one to the moon wins the 'Space Race', because that is where space ends!!

A gigantic ribbon was held across the lunar surface, as the grand 'finish line' of space!

The US won the Space Race, as the capsule broke across the 10000 mile-long finish line!

The Soviets said 'Zis sucks, comrades. Ve vill not be second place to the evil Amerikan pigs. Pass the vodka, Igor, space is now completely vorthless to explore any further!


Any actual planets, like Mars, would not be something the Soviets might aim for, after losing interest in being second to the moon.


That's why the Soviets haven't gone beyond LEO, folks!



Good one...

originally posted by: turbonium1

Your comparison would be valid if the Ford Cortina was the first and only car ever built by mankind, and Ford stages a contest 40 years later - but not just to re-design the existing Cortina, but to invent a totally new vehicle with all-new technologies. And they hold the contest annually. And over $1 million in prize money, instead of 100 grand in scholarships to a University which co-sponsors the contest.


Oh well, nice try.

you again completely missed the point on these competitions.. these competitions are like talent shows, they are looking at the participants more than the technology or designs.. are you seriously this convoluted?? why would they require the technology of participants in a competition when their own R&D are well in the billions??

also, you previously said that Ford doesnt need to stage annual build new automobile contests.. to refresh your short memory:

originally posted by: turbonium1
Second, the Ford Motor Company didn't need to stage annual "Build Us a New Automobile" contests, and give million-dollar prizes for vehicles that don't even work.

and yet you said my argument is invalid because they have annual build new automobile contests..

good one, your handwaving and goalpost shifting is getting better and well hidden..

and why did you put in the prize money there to try to support your argument?? you are not aware of the differences in complexity between a car and a rocket??

originally posted by: turbonium1

That's why the Soviets haven't gone beyond LEO, folks!

all because you said so is that right??

everyone must believe you because thats what you believe and what you said and so therefore everyone must agree with you??

Imagine it..

NASA: We will 'return' man to the moon, if we can get X amount of money.

Govt: Great, here's the money you need to do it!

Soon after...

NASA: We spent all the money, so we need more.

Gov't: How much more money do you need?

NASA: We need Y amount of money, and for sure, that will do the job..

Gov't: Okay, then, here's the extra money.

Soon after...

NASA: Sorry guys, but we've spent all the money once again. We need much more money, a lot more.

Gov't: No more money, you can't be trusted anymore.

The GAO asks NASA for an exact amount of money that is..'enough money'. NASA says they have no idea how much money would do it.

GAO: Why didn't you use the Apollo technology that worked so well, instead of flushing all the money down the toilet trying to develop new technologies?

NASA: Because we DID need to develop new technologies.

GAO: Why?

NASA: We designed the craft for 4 to 7 people, instead of just 3 like Apollo.

GAO: Why couldn't you just have 3 people?

NASA: Good question. I'm not sure why we decided on 4 to 7 people. 4 to 7 people would seem better than having just 3, like Apollo had.

GAO: Do you know what your main goal is?

NASA: To fly 4 to 7 people to the moon?

GAO: No, it is to land a man on the moon once again, by 2020.


NASA: Um, okay. And how many people in the craft?

GAO: 3 people.

NASA: Not 4?

GAO: Just 3 will be fine.

NASA: And we did it with 3, so they say.

originally posted by: turbonium1

Yes, one approach was just faked, while the one 40 years later was trying a genuine approach

Saying it does not make it so - you have no evidence to support that - none.

Indeed, we'd expect a 40 year-old fake moon landing to be VERY different than with a real attempt of today.

Why? Strip away the technological advancements of the last half century and give yourself the techniques and materials available in the 1960s. Now go design a mission to get the moon for a few days. The Russians were doing the same thing and the equipment they designed was very similar. You still need a rocket to get there, a means of landing, a means of staying alive. Why would it be so different? Design a method, using any technology you like, to get a man to the moon and back that is in no way similar at all to the way Apollo did it.

Not when they first assumed Apollo was all-genuine technology, and stated they'd 'emphasize' this technology again, and stated their primary goal was to achive a manned moon landing by 2018/2020.

And if they hadn't scrubbed the budget maybe they would have. Which part of Apollo wasn't genuine technology? Which part didn't work? The Saturn V? CSM? LM? What?

No other goal was set in motion here, no matter how long you keep on denying it.

Who is denying they were trying to get to the moon?

Haven't you looked at NASA's own documents on this?

A lot more than you have.

You have the real problem with this...

Lunar landers don't exist yet. You say that one does exist, the LM.

Many landers exist - the USSR and Chinese have made them as well. The only difference is that they haven't put people in them. Prove the LM was not capable of landing on the moon when it uses technology no different to any other probe. where's your evidence? Your technical papers?

The LM would be one of the most important vehicles ever built, for sure.

It is.

It would have been used 24/7 since then - to develop other landers, to study by scientists around the world, perhaps look to apply some of the LM's technology elsewhere.

If they had the money they wold be. Isn't part of your alleged point that they are using the LM as a basis for current projects?

IT WOULD BE STANDARD KNOWLEDGE TAUGHT IN OUR UNIVERSITIES.

IT IS!!! ROCKET SCIENCE IS TAUGHT TO ROCKET SCIENTISTS. THE LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE ALSO TAUGHT AT SCHOOL - THEY HAVEN'T CHANGED.

IT WOULD NEVER BE DUMPED LIKE SO MUCH TRASH, FOR ALL ETERNITY.

IT WOULD NOT HAVE SURVIVED RE-ENTRY - WHAT ELSE DO YOU THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE WITH IT?

Stop using capslock - it's ignorant.

Show me relevant sources for it....if you can.

The designs I've seen have legs, a living compartment and a rocket underneath them. This is different from the LM how? Find me a design that's radically different.

No evidence of Apollo technology being genuine. It's just the same old claptrap...as I expected.

Apart from the evidence I posted. Where is your evidence that it did not work? Still waiting for that.

The documents state NASA lacks - sorely lacks, the technologies required for a manned moon landing.

And you are cherry picking quotes to support your argument. Prove they didn't have it then.

They don't make an exception for Apollo's technology, however.

To wit, they don't state NASA lacks new technologies required for a manned moon landing.

The documents just use the term "heritage technology", to emphasize those "heritage technologies", in going forward.

How odd!

This is what is meant by using Apollo's technology as a starting point for developing new ones.

I've explained many times why it is NOT a lack of money causing this sad display to unfold.

And it doesn't mean that it is true.

They state it is NASA's severe lack of technologies required for the mission which caused it to fail.

We know that a lack of technology is the fundamental problem.

How can NASA go about solving that problem, is two-fold...

Money is one of the requirements in trying to develop the technology.

Time spent on trying to develop the technology is the other requirement.


You believe that NASA would not have failed if they had received 'enough money', right?

Who says they failed?

What amount of money is 'enough money', to you???

A ballpark figure is fine and dandy, thank you...


Why did NASA have no idea, while you do?

You must be a genius, so please, do enlighten us...

Go look at how much Apollo cost, translate that in to modern equivalents, now go persuade a taxpayer to pay for it.

Now, I have asked, several times, for to back up your ridiculous claim that the technology did not exist to get Apollo to the moon and back.

I am still waiting for a response to this so I will continue to ask it. It seems to be a fundamental underpinning for whatever logic you think you're employing, so it strikes me as pretty important that you support that statement.

Which technology did not exist during Apollo?

If you don't answer this question then I think we can assume that you don't have one, and the only reason you have for spending your time arguing in this thread is that you are relying solely on a lack of knowledge on the subject to bluster your way through and bury the parts where you have been proved spectacularly wrong.

originally posted by: choos

you again completely missed the point on these competitions.. these competitions are like talent shows, they are looking at the participants more than the technology or designs.. are you seriously this convoluted?? why would they require the technology of participants in a competition when their own R&D are well in the billions??

Because the billions they've spent on R&D did not get result in a working lunar lander, what else do you think?

You just made my point - a lunar lander does not magically appear by pouring endless billions of dollars into the project.

Such things usually are the end result. From taking up where others have taken it, building it over time, in step-by-step progression.

It is a spark of an idea, which comes from a person, or group.

You seem to believe money solves everything, when it is 'enough money'. That's utter nonsense.

People do it, over time, and failure, and effort, on and on. Money helps, but it takes people over time to get it there.


The Grumman LM is nothing but a joke. A stage prop. It cannot do anything but sit there in its goofy tin-foil. With a US flag tacked on either side. All of it is just for show.


If it was a genuine lunar lander, it would have continually be studied, and improved over time.

Lunar lander contests are held by Grumman because it the LM does NOT work, and the billions spent didn't work, so they have to reach out for any ideas for the SPARK they desperately need, to move forward.....simple as that.

a reply to: turbonium1

You just made my point - a lunar lander does not magically appear by pouring endless billions of dollars into the project.

Correct; thousands of people worked on the LM. They can testify that it worked.

Such things usually are the end result. From taking up where others have taken it, building it over time, in step-by-step progression.

And yet you seem to believe that they should still be using the original, outdated technology. You really like to keep your cake and eat it too.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
Go look at how much Apollo cost, translate that in to modern equivalents, now go persuade a taxpayer to pay for it.

So you think taxpayers are being 'persuaded' into paying the annual military budget? Guess again.

How did you come up with that figure? Are you using Apollo's technology in it?

originally posted by: DJW001

And yet you seem to believe that they should still be using the original, outdated technology. You really like to keep your cake and eat it too.

So the LM is outdated, and we can't build anything close to it.

That takes the cake, alright.

Using some mathematics from a high school physics book you can do some basic computations which will give you an idea whether the lander was capable of doing what it did. That is the biggest challenges it has are 1. Being able to generate maintain sufficient Thrust power for the descent landing and 2. take off back to the mother craft. 3 life support 4. Ancillary systems communications, control and monitoring/

The basic formulas you will need are f = mass x acceleration , work = F x distance, velocity = distance/time, velocity = t x acceleration, Power = work done per second, energy , energy is integral of power stored in fuel for thrust and batteries for life support and ancillaries.


You will need to know weight of land. About 20000 pounds

gravity of moon

The orbital height distance from mother craft from moon surface and mother craft

The orbital speed of the lander

The average decent velocity and the average accent velocity

Time required to accelerate to average ascent velocity and Time required to achieve average decent velocity

With those formulas you will be able to work out thrust power required for accelerate, thrust power required for deceleration, thrust power required to maintain average speed for decent and thrust required to maintain average speed of ascent. The time in seconds for each them stages will be used to intergrate power.

When that is know you can work out what amount of fuel is required stored to deliver the power for the different decent and ascent vector lengths above, which you sum for final value of the energy storage requirement. It does not need to be a super accurate calc and it will give you a good indication whether the craft with its size fuel tank could do it what it did.

originally posted by: turbonium1

Because the billions they've spent on R&D did not get result in a working lunar lander, what else do you think?

because billions was spent on R&D for the lander only and nothing else right??

so the missing technology you were harking on about is the lunar lander is that right?? the ability to soft land and relaunch on the lunar surface..

You just made my point - a lunar lander does not magically appear by pouring endless billions of dollars into the project.

that wasnt even my point!! they dont spend billions on developing the lunar lander they spent billions on the entire program.. the whole point of these type of competition is to find promising young individuals and give them incentive to follow on in the field..

Such things usually are the end result. From taking up where others have taken it, building it over time, in step-by-step progression.

It is a spark of an idea, which comes from a person, or group.

You seem to believe money solves everything, when it is 'enough money'. That's utter nonsense.

money can solve landing man on the moon though..

People do it, over time, and failure, and effort, on and on. Money helps, but it takes people over time to get it there.

and spending more money means more man hours, more man hours means faster construction/developing.. why do you choose to ignore this??

The Grumman LM is nothing but a joke. A stage prop. It cannot do anything but sit there in its goofy tin-foil. With a US flag tacked on either side. All of it is just for show.

so Grumman have incompetent engineers now??

If it was a genuine lunar lander, it would have continually be studied, and improved over time.

if it had genuine investors and financial backers then it would have..

Lunar lander contests are held by Grumman because it the LM does NOT work, and the billions spent didn't work, so they have to reach out for any ideas for the SPARK they desperately need, to move forward.....simple as that.

i honestly cannot believe you just said this....... face palm of the century goes to this comment alone..

so billions spent on a solution doesnt work but a million spent on a solution will?? right now you are saying that Northrop Grumman engineers and scientists are incompetent..

the competition had goals of thrust control as its main factors and you are saying they needed this competition as the spark for ideas so apparently Grumman doesnt know how to build rocket engines

so now the missing technology is something to do with rocket engines of the lunar module.. Grumman doesnt know how to build rocket engines for the lunar module..

We're studying the VA Belts before we go to the moon, unlike Apollo, because the Belts were perfectly safe back in the day.

We're still unable to build a lunar lander, unlike Apollo, when non-existent technologies turned into a perfectly functional craft, in no time.

We need to fuel the lunar craft in LEO before going half a million miles out to the moon and back, unlike Apollo.

We are not building aluminum craft because it makes VAB radiation even worse, unlike the aluminum Apollo craft which was perfectly safe, in the same radiation.

We didn't need any animal tests before sending humans out, so if we actually do animal test flights some day, as I see happening, I can't wait to hear what excuses Apollo-ites spew out!