Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

Originally posted by turbonium1

Originally posted by choos

to claim they didnt have the technology to reach the moon but ignore the point that they didnt have the technology to fake a moon landing is very inconsistent..

We could land men on the moon 40 years ago. We couldn't fake it, however.

Now, we're capable of imaging our landing sites, with those utterly amazing little dots and blobs.

Bizzaro-world.

bizzaro-world?? like using stanley kubricks front screen projection method to do the wide pan videos from the apollo lunar missions??

bizzaro-world like how they were able to stitch together hundreds of 30 seconds records to film hours of slow footage flawlessly?

bizzaro-world where they have to use super advanced transforming hopping/tracked surveyor probes to set up the actual landing sites for future generations since man could not do it??

bizzaro-world where 132cSv per year of GCR's will make you sick or even kill you within one week??

bizzaro-world where scientists publishing reports deemed as rubbish are telling the truth and not telling the truth at the same time??

Originally posted by turbonium1

You didn't show where these numbers come from..

Now, if you'd tell me....

repost the report and ill see what i can find out..

but given this is a published report, backed by the scientists who have published it, proof read by other scientists that see nothing wrong with it, followed up by other scientists to write their own reports..

you are going to say the numbers are rubbish??
if anyone is going to believe you, then you must publish or at least show the numbers that make you believe the reports are wrong. raving about like the mad man holding the dooms day sign saying the world is going to end wont get you anywhere.

you want to prove us wrong, then you better back up your claims and show us your numbers.

reply to post by turbonium1


You keep repeating how dangerous aluminum is, but have yet to prove that it would kill or even sicken an astronaut on a 12 day mission. Your word, or even someone saying "aluminum is dangerous" doesn't prove a damn thing. You want to prove Apollo didn't happen, quit parroting things you don't understand, and prove it.

Of course NASA is refining the data. If we're going to live and work in space for years at a time don't you think we should know as much as we can about it?

How many animals did the USA send into space before they put humans up there? Is the data from those experiments readily available? Or did they just ask the Russians what happened to that dog they sent up? I'm pretty sure I've seen a chimp in a US astronauts suit somewhere, but I'll concede that may well have been a movie.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


As early as the 1940s the US was launching fruit flies into the lower regions of space on V-2s to study radiation effects, and moved up to monkeys not long after.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter


The ascent modules? Discarded?

If you say the ascent modules were discarded then you won't mind when some other party (not NASA) sends a manned/unmanned probe to collect all of NASA's 'discarded' scrap metal and return it to sell for a mighty profit.

So you're saying that someone should put in the billions needed for a moon mission, including building an ascent module big enough to retrieve the other ascent modules, so they can sell them? And this will make them money? Are you crazy?

If you say 'discarded' then you are talking about space rubbish plain and simple.

Are you really suggesting that the Apollo 11 Eagle and the Apollo 16 Orion are discarded, space rubbish?

Pretty much. What else would you call them?

Originally posted by choos

repost the report and ill see what i can find out..

but given this is a published report, backed by the scientists who have published it, proof read by other scientists that see nothing wrong with it, followed up by other scientists to write their own reports..

So you don't even know where the numbers come from, but keep posting them as your evidence? Good one!

And you want me to post the report as well?

Are you serious??

Originally posted by choos

if anyone is going to believe you, then you must publish or at least show the numbers that make you believe the reports are wrong. raving about like the mad man holding the dooms day sign saying the world is going to end wont get you anywhere.

you want to prove us wrong, then you better back up your claims and show us your numbers.

As I said, they may not even have all the numbers yet, or if they do, they haven't published them, afaik.

But there is a number I found on the VA Belts....

" Spaceflights above 300 nautical miles enter the Van Allen belts with a dramatic increase in radiation levels, an item of concern for astronauts. An astronaut in the Van Allen belt without shielding could be exposed to over 500 ųSv/Hr."

www.faa.gov/.../Section%20II.2.14%20Exposure%20to%20Radioactive

Link isn't working. Search for FAA doc "2.14 Exposure to Radioactive Agents - FAA"


So "over 500 ųSv/Hr" is a safe level to you?

1 mSv/h NRC definition of a high radiation area in a nuclear power plant, warranting a chain-link fence

en.wikipedia.org...

We aren't even talking about using aluminum here, which would - as we all know - make the radiation even worse.

Originally posted by turbonium1

So you don't even know where the numbers come from, but keep posting them as your evidence? Good one!

And you want me to post the report as well?

Are you serious??

the reason i can vouch for the numbers in the report is because IT IS A PUBLISHED REPORT are you even able to comprehend what that means??

are you even able to comprehend that hundreds of other scientists will be using similar data for their reports?? are you even able to comprehend that hundreds of engineers are and will be using the data to design probes and satellites??

but oh no in your world apparently engineers can design crafts for certain purposes without knowing the conditions at all. thats like a civil engineer designing a bridge but not knowing the length.. nice world you live in.

As I said, they may not even have all the numbers yet, or if they do, they haven't published them, afaik.

so then given that engineers and scientists use the published data frequently.. why do you think the data is wrong? and what gives you the right to say they are dangerously underquoted??

But there is a number I found on the VA Belts....

" Spaceflights above 300 nautical miles enter the Van Allen belts with a dramatic increase in radiation levels, an item of concern for astronauts. An astronaut in the Van Allen belt without shielding could be exposed to over 500 ųSv/Hr."

www.faa.gov/.../Section%20II.2.14%20Exposure%20to%20Radioactive

Link isn't working. Search for FAA doc "2.14 Exposure to Radioactive Agents - FAA"


So "over 500 ųSv/Hr" is a safe level to you?

VA belt is vastly different from GCR's.. where as the VA belt have been collecting all sort of particles for billions of years.. GCR's come and go.

1 mSv/h NRC definition of a high radiation area in a nuclear power plant, warranting a chain-link fence

en.wikipedia.org...

We aren't even talking about using aluminum here, which would - as we all know - make the radiation even worse.

thats nice.. first you try to pass off SPE's as evidence of GCR's being too high and now you are using the VA belt as evidence that GCR's are too high?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
I'm wondering why we had to fake a landing on the moon when there's currently a robot on Mars streaming footage back to NASA? How did we snap pictures of the flag on the moon if we'd never actually been to the moon? Honestly, is it so hard to believe we're able to make it to the moon?

Why would people even want to believe that the moon landing was faked? Seriously, I doubt we had anything but the technology to actually do it.

Precisely. I believe we did go to the moon. However, I believe a lot of purported footage of this feat is (unfortunately) poorly recreated, and I'm not sure why this was necessary - not all of it, but enough to give 'hoaxers' ammunition.

I see no reason that we can't put a rover on the moon and have it run around and look at stuff. I believe there IS enough interest of people here to warrent such a project. Any "What's the point, we've already seen everything" argument is bull#.

Besides, did you know that you can hunt online, now? Yeah, from the comfort of your underwear on the couch? That's right - thru webcams, remote-controlled rifles(!)

How simple would it be - let's make this a private venture, if neccesary - to put a rover on the moon that a 'commoner' could pay money to control for $xxx/hr?!? Simple concept. Easy to do.

And, this is my pre-emptive 'because it's too expensive' argument: B U L L S H I T. Don't give me that crap. No one wastes more money on senseless # than we do. And, as much money as was spent in the 60s and 70s, and as FAR as technology has come, since then... I don't wanna hear it.

It CAN be done. Why isn't it, is the question everyone should be asking.

Anyone took 1 000 000 $ from this guy yet?

heiwaco.tripod.com...

reply to post by SquirrelNutz


Because there's something up there, that we aren't supposed to see, and any privately funded mission to place a remote controlled rover on the Moon (great idea by the way) will mysteriously 'malfunction' before it gets within range of seeing the Moon as larger than a beach ball in its viewfinder.

By 'malfunction', I mean it will be blown out of the sky. Covertly of course. A bit like when the Phobos probe was mysteriously 'hit by something & went into a spin' just before turning its viewfinder to zoom in on a cigar-shaped UFO-like object hovering above Phobos.

The reason footage was recreated, giving ammunition to the 'Moon landing was a hoax-ers' is that something is already there, and it doesn't want us there, and it would be extremely bad for business if some lunar ruins, or modern Lunar 'ET' craft, were seen on any of the photos (oops, they already have been I forgot).

We (Humanity's representatives on the Apollo excursions) were warned off any long-term investigation of the Lunar body, and had to go the long way round in the public perception debacle, even (imho) hypnotising astronauts on one occasion to remove some memories.

It would take me long hours which I don't have to prove this all to anyone, but many other talented people have already made the presentations, if you search carefully enough.

My own humble beliefs are as follows:

- Yes, we went.

- Yes, there is something there we aren't supposed to know about.

- Yes, we were told not to come back.

- No, they are not friendly. We (our black ops) have spent many years figuring out what's going on.

- No, the entire Apollo program wasn't faked.

- Yes, we left a few token bits of equipment up there, which the Others don't care about.

- Yes, there is light-bending tech which can make the Others' bits of equipment disappear from the sight of mere mortals. We (our black ops) have been experimenting for a good deal of time with it.

- Yes, we (our black ops) have airbrushed just about every darn picture of the Lunar surface before allowing it near the public - utilising software in many instances, so mistakes were made and some anomalies remain, particularly in the early Clementine data (plenty of fodder for conspiracy theorists).

There is more, but I guess you'd be better placed looking it up elsewhere than asking me, as I don't have the requisite frame references to hand.


FITO.

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz

Precisely. I believe we did go to the moon. However, I believe a lot of purported footage of this feat is (unfortunately) poorly recreated, and I'm not sure why this was necessary - not all of it, but enough to give 'hoaxers' ammunition.

The Apollo 15 trans-earth TV press conference is the perfect example of that 'ammunition' you speak of. There are no floating objects... there are no solid indications in this video that could prove that it was filmed in 0G.


The Apollo 15 trans-earth TV press conference is not listed in the official NASA published timeline, SP-4029

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz

It CAN be done. Why isn't it, is the question everyone should be asking.

Nobody has ever demonstrated a human outside of LEO except for Richard Nixon's NASA.

You are asking for the impossible!

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


So what are you going to do when someone goes up there, and all the Apollo landers are sitting there, with boot prints, tracks, etc? Oh wait, you'll just come up with another theory as to how they did it I'm sure. You could be standing on the moon looking at them, and still say they faked it with robots.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz

Precisely. I believe we did go to the moon. However, I believe a lot of purported footage of this feat is (unfortunately) poorly recreated, and I'm not sure why this was necessary - not all of it, but enough to give 'hoaxers' ammunition.

The Apollo 15 trans-earth TV press conference is the perfect example of that 'ammunition' you speak of. There are no floating objects... there are no solid indications in this video that could prove that it was filmed in 0G.

if you completely ignore the astronauts floating about..

The Apollo 15 trans-earth TV press conference is not listed in the official NASA published timeline, SP-4029

ah yes.. the one man (who doesnt even work for NASA) who compiled all the data in his own time over about 10 years, forgets to put in a detail this obviously means it was all a hoax..

now back to reality please tell us how they faked all the lunar footage?? you know those wide video pans on the moon?? the lowered gravity videos..

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

So what are you going to do when someone goes up there, and all the Apollo landers are sitting there, with boot prints, tracks, etc? Oh wait, you'll just come up with another theory as to how they did it I'm sure. You could be standing on the moon looking at them, and still say they faked it with robots.

We will never get a chance to examine those landing sites, choos. NASA has plans to destroy them, with asteroids.

41 years is a long amount of time to wait for independent confirmation, don't you think?

Why did the Indians switch sides, going with Chandrayaan-1 'NASA' and 'US NAVY' and now switching to the Russian space program assistance with Chandrayaan-2?

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

So what are you going to do when someone goes up there, and all the Apollo landers are sitting there, with boot prints, tracks, etc? Oh wait, you'll just come up with another theory as to how they did it I'm sure. You could be standing on the moon looking at them, and still say they faked it with robots.

We will never get a chance to examine those landing sites, choos. NASA has plans to destroy them, with asteroids.

you mean zaphod58???

also NASA could not have predicted how long it will take another nation to image the sites with rovers or with satellites.. therefore the sites absolutely must have been setup at or before the time of each apollo lunar mission. and they must be exactly as they are on video (this is all assuming they had a magical way of faking it all). plus there is no way that asteroids will destroy ALL the landing sites..

china and japan have already imaged the moon and found evidence of the lunar landing sites so why didnt NASA send the asteroids to destroy the sites before they had the chance to do so?

41 years is a long amount of time to wait for independent confirmation, don't you think?

Why did the Indians switch sides, going with Chandrayaan-1 'NASA' and 'US NAVY' and now switching to the Russian space program assistance with Chandrayaan-2?

dont think it really matters.. russia are in on the moon hoax landing remember??.. you are always inconsistent with this. seems they are in on the hoax and not in on the hoax only when it suits you.

p.s. im beginning to think you worship NASA a great deal more than anyone else on the planet.. the ability to control asteroids at will is such a great power, almost like magic.. this must scare you, how great your 'GOD' is.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
There are no floating objects

Apart from the floating astronauts you mean.... why do you ignore them?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Oh right, you're privy to their ultra secret plans thanks to con Braun.

I love how you say in one breath NASA can't land someone on the moon, and in the next say they are going to be able to steer asteroids with pinpoint accuracy into the landing areas. Amazing how the technology doesn't exist for a man to walk on the moon, but it does to steer asteroids. That's quite the leap there.

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
There are no floating objects

Apart from the floating astronauts you mean.... why do you ignore them?

I'm looking forward to your qualitative and quantitative study on how much Dave Scott bobs up and down in that Apollo 15 trans-earth TV press conference video. yeah. Really looking forward to that.

Do you have it worked out to the centimeter?