Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by turbonium1

The Concorde's technologies have been replaced or refined over the years, no?

Do you know why the Concorde itself was permanently grounded? Hint: for the same reason it hasn't been replaced.

Erm, because one of them caught fire and then crashed, making safety conversions horribly expensive. And people weren't flying much at the time either. And finally British Airways realised that they could make more money flying people subsonically.

My point was that a technology is used until a superior technology is developed, which then replaces it, and so on. The Concorde's technology is no different, as I said.

The specific type of aircraft - a supersonic passenger jet - has not been replaced. So what?

reply to post by turbonium1


Because like the Saturn V, it hasn't been replaced because there has been no demand for it. If there had been a demand for a Saturn V type rocket, then NASA would have worked on it much sooner. There wasn't, so they didn't. It has nothing to do with not having the technology, it has to do with having a need for it, and a seriously limited budget, so they didn't spend the money on it.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


stealth LRV haha

heres what happens when you take a 50cm per pixel and compare it with a 25cm per pixel

your "stealth" LRV 50cm per pixel height of 50km


newer 25cm per pixel height of 21-22km

Originally posted by Zaphod58

turbonium1
Why do you need so much money to develop it? You wouldn't

Really? Try telling Boeing that it won't cost as much to develop a new airliner.

As of September 24, 2011, the Boeing 787 was at $32B in development costs. They won't make a profit on it until sometime in the 2020s. The first three planes were written off as unsellable, with $15B for R&D, with another $16B to build the first 40 planes. They're looking at paying $4B a year through 2015. They would have to build 1900 aircraft to recoup the $16B, and after that they start to recoup the $15B in R&D.

Compare that to the Constellation program. They spent about $11.5B over a period of 5-6 years, with almost nothing to show for it How would the problem be a "lack of adequate funds" here? $11.5B already wasted, and no idea how much more money would get it done..

So long as ithey get "enough" of it!!

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by turbonium1

 

Because like the Saturn V, it hasn't been replaced because there has been no demand for it. If there had been a demand for a Saturn V type rocket, then NASA would have worked on it much sooner. There wasn't, so they didn't. It has nothing to do with not having the technology, it has to do with having a need for it, and a seriously limited budget, so they didn't spend the money on it.

Let's see-

For 40+ years, there was just "no demand" to explore the other 99.9% of the lunar surface.

There was, however, a great demand to loop around Earth over and over again!


Sure.

That makes sense.


And if you buy that one, you'll buy anything.

We go to the moon, then we just keep looping Earth for about 40 years, then we decide we'd like to go to the moon again. But we need to use newer technology, so we need a lot of money, but we don't know how much money we'll need, But we need it, or else we can't fly to the moon again. And we don't know how many years we'll take to do it, either.

So what's the problem,, then?

In reality, there has never been a demand, a dream, a desire, to loop around Earth hundreds of times. If we really walked on the moon, we would not go backwards and just loop around Earth for the next 40 years! That notion is utterly ridiculous on any level. It is not a logical progression, and if we landed men on the moon, we'd have done many more moon missions, perhaps a moon base, etc. That's exactly what they wanted to do after the (supposed) moon landings, and it's what they wanted to do with the Constellation program.

Because that is how we REALLY WOULD progress!

Apollo's plan was...

'After we land on the moon, the next step is long-stay missions, then a moon base. And perhaps in time we'll go to Mars'

We loop around Earth for 40 years.

Contellation's plan was..

'After we land on the moon, the next step is long-stay missions, then a moon base. And perhaps in time we'll go to Mars'


Now, what's wrong with this picture?

Originally posted by turbonium1
In reality, there has never been a demand, a dream, a desire, to loop around Earth hundreds of times. If we really walked on the moon, we would not go backwards and just loop around Earth for the next 40 years! That notion is utterly ridiculous on any level. It is not a logical progression, and if we landed men on the moon, we'd have done many more moon missions, perhaps a moon base, etc. That's exactly what they wanted to do after the (supposed) moon landings, and it's what they wanted to do with the Constellation program.

Because that is how we REALLY WOULD progress!

Apollo's plan was...

'After we land on the moon, the next step is long-stay missions, then a moon base. And perhaps in time we'll go to Mars'

We loop around Earth for 40 years.

Contellation's plan was..

'After we land on the moon, the next step is long-stay missions, then a moon base. And perhaps in time we'll go to Mars'


Now, what's wrong with this picture?

Nasa has spent the last 50 years studying the universe. Look at what tehy have done space based telescopes the international space station. Launched satellites to explore earth and the planets.Built things which made massive benefits to science such as Chandra and Hubble . Sent craft outside our solar system and things you never thought of apparently. They employ scientists to tackle problems such as global warming weather predictions oceanography biology i can keep going. NASA holds thousands of patents and as a federal institution anyone can license and develop products based on these technologies.they work with computer science on things like artificial intelligence. And people forget there also called the aeronautic administration they are constantly working to make plane flights cheaper and safer Hundreds of companies have done so.and yes circled the earth.

However to you they just been circling the planet for 40 years. Here since nobody really thinks what NASA has contributed to our lives go check this out.

www.nasa.gov...

reply to post by turbonium1


no demand to explore the 99% of the moon?? you want human exploration to explore the moon??

im sure glad you are not incharge of finances..

they have satellites that have been studying the moon for a long time already.. at least 3 countries have imaged the entire surface of the moon with satellites already.. exploration done..

the apollo lunar missions told us very little about the moon.. it did however change alot of concept prior to the missions.. but most of our knowledge of the moon has come from satellites that have since been studying the moon. selene for one.

so get your facts straight.

and next are you actually saying the ISS is backwards??? just because you know nothing about it??

seriously get your facts straight.

Originally posted by Zaphod58

ppk55
Are we really to believe 45 years after the supposed moon landings we can't just take one image that looks like this ..

Really?

If NASA wants to blow their budget making a picture that hoax believers won't believe anyway, sure they could. That satellite cost somewhere around a billion dollars to launch. That's a big chunk of NASA's operating budget, for almost no return. Why should they? To make you happy? So you can say "I still don't believe it."

Yup. Wasting money is the last thing one would associate with NASA!!

Good one.

Originally posted by turbonium1

Yup. Wasting money is the last thing one would associate with NASA!!

Good one.

you would know all about wasting money.. especially considering you want humans to physically explore the moon instead of satellites.

Originally posted by turbonium1
In reality, there has never been a demand, a dream, a desire, to loop around Earth hundreds of times. If we really walked on the moon, we would not go backwards and just loop around Earth for the next 40 years! That notion is utterly ridiculous on any level. It is not a logical progression, and if we landed men on the moon, we'd have done many more moon missions, perhaps a moon base, etc. That's exactly what they wanted to do after the (supposed) moon landings, and it's what they wanted to do with the Constellation program.

Because that is how we REALLY WOULD progress!

So really, your problem here is "Because they didn't do things in they way I think they should have done it, they didn't do it".

Apollo's plan was...

'After we land on the moon, the next step is long-stay missions, then a moon base. And perhaps in time we'll go to Mars'

Then they cut the funding and changed our priorities so that in our manned space missions

We loop around Earth for 40 years.

Contellation's plan was..

'After we land on the moon, the next step is long-stay missions, then a moon base. And perhaps in time we'll go to Mars'

as long as they don't cut the budget and change our priorities again

Fixed that for you.

Originally posted by turbonium1

Originally posted by Zaphod58

ppk55
Are we really to believe 45 years after the supposed moon landings we can't just take one image that looks like this ..


Really?

If NASA wants to blow their budget making a picture that hoax believers won't believe anyway, sure they could. That satellite cost somewhere around a billion dollars to launch. That's a big chunk of NASA's operating budget, for almost no return. Why should they? To make you happy? So you can say "I still don't believe it."

Yup. Wasting money is the last thing one would associate with NASA!!

Good one.

Do you know why NASA wants to return to the moon now has nothing to do with exploring been there done that. Want they want to do is set up colonization on the moon. This would make exploring the solar system much easier they look at the moon as a base of operations to push further into space. There is nothing more to be learned taking people there. But its an excellent place to assemble rockets and refueling operations. So the biggest flaw in your logic is this we arent trying to repeat Apollo. It was all ways planned to colonize the moon that hasnt stopped they just didnt have the budget to pull it off. But ill say this i have little doubt that within a hundred years there will be thousands living on the moon.Because the benefits are becoming worth the risk and if its not a space agency it will be a private company.

Originally posted by dragonridr

Nasa has spent the last 50 years studying the universe. Look at what tehy have done space based telescopes the international space station. Launched satellites to explore earth and the planets.Built things which made massive benefits to science such as Chandra and Hubble . Sent craft outside our solar system and things you never thought of apparently. They employ scientists to tackle problems such as global warming weather predictions oceanography biology i can keep going. NASA holds thousands of patents and as a federal institution anyone can license and develop products based on these technologies.they work with computer science on things like artificial intelligence. And people forget there also called the aeronautic administration they are constantly working to make plane flights cheaper and safer Hundreds of companies have done so.and yes circled the earth.

However to you they just been circling the planet for 40 years. Here since nobody really thinks what NASA has contributed to our lives go check this out.

www.nasa.gov...

This is a great example of how we really progress!.

We send probes to explore our vast unsiverse, step by step, to planets, etc, We use telescopes to see stars that are lightyears beyond. We are seeing the surface of planets in ever-greater detail, as well..

Now, compare that to human space exploration/ We sent man into near Earth orbit, then into LEO. The next step is (suposedly) the moon, and a massive leap in the field of manned space exploration. This is progress, and how..

They had progressive steps - to stay longer on the moon, and to eventually build a moon base.

But it just stopped. They said it was too expensive. And, we already did it a few times - it is barren and dry, very boring.indeed.

The next 40 years can only be seen as real progress if we did NOT land on the moon.. Nothing else makes a bit of sense.

It makes sense as to why no other nation - like Russia - has even attempted the feat. .

It makes sense as to why we said it would take years longer to do it again.

It makes sense as to why we failed to do it with far superior technology.

.

reply to post by turbonium1


onebigmonkey is correct about you..

you are basically saying that since NASA has not done what you want them to do.. it proves that they didnt land man on the moon..

or in a more general sense, if something is done in a way that turbonium deems incorrect, it proves that that something is a hoax.

and then we have the other hoax believer who believes landing on the moon was too fantastic to him personally, that proves that it was a hoax..

i see a pattern here.. if something occurs not to the way that HB imagine things to occur then it absolutely must be fake..

Originally posted by dragonridr

Do you know why NASA wants to return to the moon now has nothing to do with exploring been there done that. Want they want to do is set up colonization on the moon. This would make exploring the solar system much easier they look at the moon as a base of operations to push further into space. There is nothing more to be learned taking people there. But its an excellent place to assemble rockets and refueling operations. So the biggest flaw in your logic is this we arent trying to repeat Apollo. It was all ways planned to colonize the moon that hasnt stopped they just didnt have the budget to pull it off. But ill say this i have little doubt that within a hundred years there will be thousands living on the moon.Because the benefits are becoming worth the risk and if its not a space agency it will be a private company.

It's never been about a lack of money. Not for the Apollo project.Not for the Constellation project.

NASA spent almost $200B to just fly around Earth, over and over again, ad nauseum. To do this AFTER landing on the moon makes no sense at all. It is absurd. It only makes sense to do this if we didn't go to the moon.

And it clearly shows that it is not about a lack of money. .

Originally posted by choos
reply to post by turbonium1

 

onebigmonkey is correct about you..

you are basically saying that since NASA has not done what you want them to do.. it proves that they didnt land man on the moon..

or in a more general sense, if something is done in a way that turbonium deems incorrect, it proves that that something is a hoax.

and then we have the other hoax believer who believes landing on the moon was too fantastic to him personally, that proves that it was a hoax..

i see a pattern here.. if something occurs not to the way that HB imagine things to occur then it absolutely must be fake..

edit on 1-9-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-9-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)

It's based on evidence, or lack of it. It's not about what I personally want them to do. But it should make some sense to do it. And it doesn't make any sense.

It makes no sense to spend 40 years looping Earth after landing men on the moon..They had money for it, as I've noted already.

Why would they go backwards? It would be nonsense.

And what did they want to do? They want to go to the moon, and then longer stays on the moon, and then build a moon base. I want that too.

So we want the very same things..

Originally posted by turbonium1

It's based on evidence, or lack of it. It's not about what I personally want them to do. But it should make some sense to do it. And it doesn't make any sense.

It makes no sense to spend 40 years looping Earth after landing men on the moon..They had money for it, as I've noted already.

Why would they go backwards? It would be nonsense.

And what did they want to do? They want to go to the moon, and then longer stays on the moon, and then build a moon base. I want that too.

So we want the very same things..

edit on 1-9-2013 by turbonium1 because: add point

it so is about what you expected them to do.. look at what you are writing.. "they goto the moon and then they follow it up with going around earth for 40 years".. you expected them to go to the moon and stay there.. since NASA hasnt conformed to the way you expect them to it means it is a hoax..

it makes no sense to you because you simply do not educate yourself before you make conclusions.. who says it is technologically backwards to "go around the earth for 40 years".. that is simply not the case..

have you any idea what the ISS consists of?? and how great a technological and engineering feat it is?? ofcourse not, to you its just going around the earth taking purty pictures

p.s. NASA doesnt only want to go to the moon.. it wants to study the universe.. it wants to go to mars.. it wants to land man on an asteroid.. it wants to find life.. it wants to find habitable planets.. it wants to know more.. it cant do everything at once even though it wants to.. i wonder why that is?? its definitely not about money right?


p.p.s

It's based on evidence, or lack of it. It's not about what I personally want them to do. But it should make some sense to do it. And it doesn't make any sense.

like the lack of evidence of your mythical GCR numbers right?? i wonder why you dont question your mythical GCR numbers.. you know they numbers which suggest GCR can make someone sick or even kill them within a week.

Originally posted by choos

it so is about what you expected them to do.. look at what you are writing.. "they goto the moon and then they follow it up with going around earth for 40 years".. you expected them to go to the moon and stay there..

No, they expected to go to the moon and stay there!! Why should I have to say this again? Sheesh.

Originally posted by choos

it makes no sense to you because you simply do not educate yourself before you make conclusions.. who says it is technologically backwards to "go around the earth for 40 years".. that is simply not the case..

No, the activity itself would be a step backwards. We haven't gone backwards in our technology. We do not go backwards in technology. We go forward in technology, which allows us to go see more, understand more, and explore more, of our universe. .

Originally posted by choos

have you any idea what the ISS consists of?? and how great a technological and engineering feat it is?? ofcourse not, to you its just going around the earth taking purty pictures

That's one of the examples I just mentioned above. It's not an excuse to just go around Earth for 40 years, however..

Originally posted by choos

p.s. NASA doesnt only want to go to the moon.. it wants to study the universe.. it wants to go to mars.. it wants to land man on an asteroid.. it wants to find life.. it wants to find habitable planets.. it wants to know more.. it cant do everything at once even though it wants to.. i wonder why that is?? its definitely not about money right?

Money is certainly required for any endeavor. But it's not all about money. Can we builld a 'Starship Enterprise' into existence with 'enough money'? Is is about a 'lack of adequate funds'? Of course not. Money is not the reason it can't be built. It is the lack of required technologies.

Same reason Constellation failed. The report clearly states this. It is the fundamental reason why NASA did not come up with a sound buisness case. The technologies required did not exist when the project first started...and still don't exist today.

NASA had plans - to 'return' man to the moon by 2020. NASA needed money to achieve that goal.

If it was done 40 years ago, it would be seen as a 'sure-thing' to achieve by 2020.

NASA said how much it would cost. As a 'sure-thing', they got the money. And so, the project went ahead..

After a year or so, iirc, they were asking for more money, They got it.

But soon, they came back and asked for even more money. This time, they didn't get it. .


Why? Because it was not all about the money..They were given about $11.5B up to that point, and they had nothing tangible to show for it. They did not have the technologies required.

They didn't even know how long it would take to acquire those technologies, or how much money it would cost to develop them.

That's why the project was canned.

Originally posted by choos

like the lack of evidence of your mythical GCR numbers right?? i wonder why you dont question your mythical GCR numbers.. you know they numbers which suggest GCR can make someone sick or even kill them within a week

The evidence is the experts statements. The numbers are not known, which is the reason they are continually revising them. They are making their best guesstimates, And showing that your Apollo numbers are completely worthless. That's why they either ignore the Apollo numbers in their reports, or if they do, they state that they make no claims as to their authenticity. What does that say about your numbers?.

It says they are garbage, actually.

Originally posted by turbonium1

No, they expected to go to the moon and stay there!! Why should I have to say this again? Sheesh.

they wanted to, but they simply could not, there was not enough funding to continue going to the moon.. do you know anything about history?? do you even know when it was that apollo 18-20 were cancelled and for what reasons?? are you even aware of the budgets from 1968-1972??

it is your expectations.. you expected them to continue going to the moon, when financially and politcally they could not..

No, the activity itself would be a step backwards. We haven't gone backwards in our technology. We do not go backwards in technology. We go forward in technology, which allows us to go see more, understand more, and explore more, of our universe. .

it is not a step backwards.. just look at the feat of the ISS.. the ISS has more technology in it than the entire apollo program.. it is the single most expensive human project to date.. and its a step backwards because you believe it is, due to your ignorance??

That's one of the examples I just mentioned above. It's not an excuse to just go around Earth for 40 years, however..

you cant study the effects of microgravity on the moon.. its safer and cheaper to have a science lab in LEO than on the moon.. if you believe its safer and cheaper to have a science lab on the moon you do not live in reality.

Money is certainly required for any endeavor. But it's not all about money. Can we builld a 'Starship Enterprise' into existence with 'enough money'? Is is about a 'lack of adequate funds'? Of course not. Money is not the reason it can't be built. It is the lack of required technologies.

money funds technology.. how many times do i have to tell you this.. without money there is no technology.. seriously just look at research and development.. look at how much any large corporation spends on research and development..

and all the technology issues are mostly related to the heavy lift vehicle.. the only thing related to the orion casule is the automated process of manufacturing the heatshield (technology that has never existed) and reducing mass.. most of the other technology issues are related to the heavy lift vehicle and making it safer and more reliable.. read the report fully..

Same reason Constellation failed. The report clearly states this. It is the fundamental reason why NASA did not come up with a sound buisness case. The technologies required did not exist when the project first started...and still don't exist today.

no your report says the main reason it is not going as well as it can is because they cannot secure funding.. the entire report was basically saying there wasnt enough funding to support the constellation program.. have you even read past the first two pages??

NASA had plans - to 'return' man to the moon by 2020. NASA needed money to achieve that goal.

If it was done 40 years ago, it would be seen as a 'sure-thing' to achieve by 2020.

NASA said how much it would cost. As a 'sure-thing', they got the money. And so, the project went ahead..

After a year or so, iirc, they were asking for more money, They got it.

But soon, they came back and asked for even more money. This time, they didn't get it. .


Why? Because it was not all about the money..They were given about $11.5B up to that point, and they had nothing tangible to show for it. They did not have the technologies required.

They didn't even know how long it would take to acquire those technologies, or how much money it would cost to develop them.

That's why the project was canned.

everything you have listed here is money money money, and then they didnt get money and then you proceed to conclude its not about money??? they need money to pay engineers to solve the issues.. the technology exists..

The evidence is the experts statements. The numbers are not known, which is the reason they are continually revising them. They are making their best guesstimates, And showing that your Apollo numbers are completely worthless. That's why they either ignore the Apollo numbers in their reports, or if they do, they state that they make no claims as to their authenticity. What does that say about your numbers?.

It says they are garbage, actually.

no you are making up the evidence no expert has said GCR will make someone sick or kill them in a week.. yet you firmly believe it.. so to sum up, the lack of evidence proves man cant land on the moon.. however the lack of evidence proves GCR will make someone ill or kill them within a week..

double standards much??

reply to post by choos


The Stealth LRV is the unexplainable black blob with the white arrow pointing to it that says "LRV final parking spot" in the Apollo 17 image from LRO (50km, as you pointed out).

choos, you did not attempt to explain the Stealth LRV black blob . All you did do was show us another, more detailed CGI model. Keep these facts in mind:

1. NASA/ASU are removing the cross-hairs (reseau pattern marks) from the original Apollo images.
2. Remember, all NASA/ASU images are now under copyright agreements i.e. meaning that any of the lunar images they publish are no longer in the public domain.
3. NASA/ASU added CGI details to the 21km LRO images that give the illusion of NASA's 1969-1972 human activity on the lunar surface.
4. This applies to all Apollo moon landing sites.

Of course both LRO 50km and 21km landing site images were output by NASA/ASU under the special CIA contracts. That's hardly independent verification choos... in fact... it's not scientific at all... it's total propaganda.

In this scenario, you are the hoax believer because you accept any CGI that conforms to your Apollo beliefs.

Scientifically, it amounts to self-verification. Scientifically, it fails to convince. The Apollo site images from NASA/LRO/ASU do not amount to proof of a moon landings. The famous U2 images of Russians building missile sites in Cuba are no different.

NASA remains "safe" for now so long as they have the curiously-long lived LRO space weapons platform orbiting the moon operating in preserve and protect mode.