Why the Moon Landings Could Have Never EVER Been Faked: The Definitive Proof

Originally posted by Bakatono

Originally posted by golemina

Obviously you are INCAPABLE of dealingwith someone... Who might have just a little MORE horsepower than you apparently seem to be able to deal with...

(That would be me Bakatono

)

For someone who likes to toss around "ad hominem" in their response your above grammatical error, tautological error to be specific (well pretty close to one anyway, even if you didn't use two words which mean the same thing), is pretty funny. That and "hominem" sounds like hominy; anyone up for a snack?

Oh, and I don't have any problem dealing with someone with the horsepower to deal with them while dealing the deal. Deal?

So when it's pointed out that this supposedly WORKING ARTIFACT at best generates a 2 lumen return... Count them... 1, 2 LUMENS!

Now surely a guy with you mad SKILLZ can explain to our fellow threadmates EXACTLY why this presents a problem.

You still with me there?

Yup, still with you, you can count to two.

Nasa can count to one.

Here's how it works: A laser pulse shoots out of a telescope on Earth, crosses the Earth-moon divide, and hits the array. Because the mirrors are "corner-cube reflectors," they send the pulse straight back where it came from. "It's like hitting a ball into the corner of a squash court," explains Alley. Back on Earth, telescopes intercept the returning pulse--"usually just a single photon," he marvels.

NASA Source

So, it doesn't appear that you are the sole possessor of some great knowledge. Especially since it doesn't appear that they are measuring luminous flux. BTW, I may have misunderstood you earlier in the thread where I thought you were attempting to say that they weren't measuring visible light; however, you seem to be fixated on lumens, which are a measurement of visible light. Here is a link to the definition of a lumen.

It appears, based on NASA's details regarding the mirrors, that they 1) are affected by heat from the sun, probably like everything else in the universe and 2) that they aren't looking for lumens but for the return of a particular wavelength and may only receive a single photon. It is possible for them to measure this of course.

When you're taken to task cuz the 'web site' you offered is using FALSIFIED representations... that what? It's somehow my fault?

Huh?

Your comments remind me of this:

And falsified representations based on...?

Dude... these were simple observations I was making.

Finally, you're 'explanation' as to why the 'mirror arrays' are not working...

That is also 100% FAKE.

If you understand the inherent design of the 'array', you would understand that 'fluctuations' in temperature isn't a factor...

Think I will trust NASA on this one. Besides, your grammar and lack of proper sentence structure don't really help with your argument. Nor do all those LOL faces throughout the thread. Kind of childish.

At least get the COVER STORY right about the 'why' of the suddenly 'WE CAN'T'!

So... Bottom line is Bakatono...

When the smoke clears... And the sound of your emotional outbreak stops ringing in nice folks ears...

You've got NOTHING.

That is REALLY unfortunate...

So, you really don't seem to be making a point. You are just repeating the same thing over and over and putting a bunch of LOL faces in it. Oh, and capitalizing words unnecessarily.

Hey Bakatono, this has been great fun.

Look me up, we could talk physics, AI, Ah... WHO am I kidding... We can talk about ANY of the 'ologies.

Serious.

Somehow I don't really believe you are serious.

Call me crazy

edit on 22-1-2013 by Bakatono because: (no reason given)

It took you long enough to get back to us...

What is SO fascinating is why you would go to such efforts to ATTEMPT to provide such a distraction...

As a quick aside, I DO enjoy your SUDDEN lurches forward in your 'understanding' of the underlying basis of what the 'mirror arrays' is really about.



So you REALLY believe that Apollo astronauts rode rockets to the Moon and back as spoon fed to the public?



Oh that's right... YOU trust NASA.

Let me see... Say, doesn't that then imply your pretty much believe EVERYTHING they say.. Have ever said... (and of course everything they ever WILL say).

And let me guess they never ever could have even thought possibly even 'shading' the truth...



I'm sorry that these ( ) seem to distress you so... You're just one seriously FUNNY dude!



Serious?

Oh my... Sounds like you might have some kind of serious 'TRUST' issues.

You ADOPTED or something?

(There are a LOT of easy pickings subjects I've put out on ATS that a guy as OBVIOUSLY technical as your are should be able to make short work of...)

reply to post by chrome413


Likewise.

I think they'll find it funny you're so offended simple because you were paraphrased.

IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS
MOD NOTE: Posting work written by others

This is getting out of hand. Just confirms my thesis: "don't argue with moon hoax believers".

Originally posted by wildespace
This is getting out of hand. Just confirms my thesis: "don't argue with moon hoax believers".

Would you care to peruse the arguments I've put forward to Erik?

reply to post by 1nquisitive


Oh I'll get back to you.

Once I cough up the $34.99 to buy the DVD's for the Apollo 10 set from the link you provided.

In the mean time, you'll have to wait, unless anyone else happens to have purchased that same set of DVDs that you linked to.

Originally posted by Pinke

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
reply to post by Pinke

 

The logical implication of your statement is that because A,B,C all question said data then D should be precluded from doing so. Since when did consensus dictate truth (moreover, lack of truth)?

edit on 21-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: grammar

No, that's not the implication, or not intended.

scientific consensus would say we went to the moon. Scientific consensus would also say we orbit the sun, and that dinosaurs existed. So would historical consensus. I know scientific consensus is different from ordinary consensus ... There are plenty of things that are in the same area of 'certainty' as the moon landing they get a much easier run.

Even the most innocuous activities by NASA get a pile of attention. It's not that I don't believe NASA wouldn't hide something if the U.S government asked, I think they would ... I just think the long term repercussions of hiding a moon landing would be far too massive to even consider.

I'm sorry, but you have your premises incorrectly calibrated.

The 'scientific consensus' denied the existence of Rwandan mountain gorillas; nonetheless, in due course 'scientific consensus' turned out to be wrong.

I will repeat.

The logical implication of your statement is that because A,B,C all question said data then D should be precluded from doing so. Since when did consensus dictate truth?

The repetition of a statement by a group of people does not impinge on the validity (or lack of thereof) of said statement.

I just think the long term repercussions of hiding a moon landing would be far too massive to even consider

IF NASA chose to misrepresent the Apollo lunar landings then they would be capable of choosing to misrepresent further statements.

I think we have a case of confirmation bias.

There are many discrepancies and irregularities with the Apollo data that the 'scientific consensus' are either incapable of addressing or demonstrably hostile towards.

The truth like most things is probably buried under loads of crap, we know we've been to the moon as we slapped mirrors etc on there and given it was at the height of the cold war theres no way the soviet regime would of allowed their most hated enemy to get away with it without some sort of PR stunt

Originally posted by Maxatoria
The truth like most things is probably buried under loads of crap, we know we've been to the moon as we slapped mirrors etc on there and given it was at the height of the cold war theres no way the soviet regime would of allowed their most hated enemy to get away with it without some sort of PR stunt

The USA and the USSR cooperated on the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP); why would one criticise the other?

And to say there was a 'Cold War' is contrary to the mood of these photos:

reply to post by 1nquisitive


A Cold War is not the same as open conflict, nor does it keep heads of states or their diplomats from meeting, and even seeming to be on friendly terms:

A cold war or cold warfare is a state of conflict between nations that does not involve direct military action but is pursued primarily through economic and political actions, propaganda, acts of espionage or proxy wars waged by surrogates. The surrogates are typically states that are "satellites" of the conflicting nations, i.e., nations allied to them or under their political influence. Opponents in a cold war will often provide economic or military aid, such as weapons, tactical support or military advisors, to lesser nations involved in conflicts with the opposing country.

Open Warfare on the other hand, normally involves military forces openly fighting from either side, and you would not normally find leaders of either nation meeting on friendly terms at all. Diplomats will meet at times to try and pursue peace agreements, and you may even see pictures of them smiling at each other.

However, your limited pictures that you have posted do not reflect the attitude of either nation towards each other during those times.

I know. I was there and lived through it.

Originally posted by 1nquisitive


1. rocket exhausts may well look different on the moon as opposed to earth, due to atmospheric pressure, but I think you'll find that red exhaust fumes don't suddenly become INVISIBLE on the moon.

First on the Moon what atmospheric pressure !

Well lets have a look at what some REAL experts say!!!

Fuel used by Apollo

First in the Saturn V

FIRST STAGE FUEL RP-1/LOX
SECOND STAGE LH2/LOX
THIRD STAGE LH2/LOX

LEM Descent stage
Aerozine 50/N2O4
LEM Ascent Stage
Aerozine 50/N2O4

A question asked a few years ago

-all artists impressions of landing LMs show a bright engine exhaust... >

>This is a common error in space art...
>In fact, of the commonly-used propellants, only solid propellants and
>LOX/Kerosene seem to have very luminous plumes (owing to exhausts rich in >particulates or carbon). N2O4/UDMH and LOX/Hydrogen both give almost >transparent exhaust plumes.
So does H2O2/Kerosene, which somewhat >surprises me: I would have expected an appearance similar to that with LOX >as oxidiser.

The first stage of Saturn used 5 F-1 engines. The single-chamber F-1 used liquid oxygen (lox) and RP-1, a kerosene, and was the largest and most powerful single liquid-fuel rocket engine ever built

The bright yellow flame of a LOX/kerosene rocket is definitely from carbon particles in the exhaust. Current opinion is that they form when fuel is cooked while still in the form of droplets; the glow is largely absent when the fuel is introduced into the chamber as vapor.

So your assumption seems to be wrong!

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by 1nquisitive


1. rocket exhausts may well look different on the moon as opposed to earth, due to atmospheric pressure, but I think you'll find that red exhaust fumes don't suddenly become INVISIBLE on the moon.

First on the Moon what atmospheric pressure !

Well lets have a look at what some REAL experts say!!!

Fuel used by Apollo

First in the Saturn V

So your assumption seems to be wrong!

I was referring to atmospheric pressure on earth.

reply to post by 1nquisitive



I would think it may be more to do with whats in the atmosphere rather than pressure, any comment about exhaust colour sorry your assumption about it

Originally posted by eriktheawful
reply to post by 1nquisitive

 

A Cold War is not the same as open conflict, nor does it keep heads of states or their diplomats from meeting, and even seeming to be on friendly terms:

A cold war or cold warfare is a state of conflict between nations that does not involve direct military action but is pursued primarily through economic and political actions, propaganda, acts of espionage or proxy wars waged by surrogates. The surrogates are typically states that are "satellites" of the conflicting nations, i.e., nations allied to them or under their political influence. Opponents in a cold war will often provide economic or military aid, such as weapons, tactical support or military advisors, to lesser nations involved in conflicts with the opposing country.

Open Warfare on the other hand, normally involves military forces openly fighting from either side, and you would not normally find leaders of either nation meeting on friendly terms at all. Diplomats will meet at times to try and pursue peace agreements, and you may even see pictures of them smiling at each other.

However, your limited pictures that you have posted do not reflect the attitude of either nation towards each other during those times.

I know. I was there and lived through it.

Yes, I know what a cold war is.

Let me explain my point more succinctly - if X launches a proxy war on Y using subterfuge, sanctions, hostility and propaganda, wouldn't X then be undermining both his credibility and efforts by then publicly courting Y?

If critical thinking is employed then the conclusion is yes, X would diminish his credibility. However, the factor at play here is that there is a possibility the public (audience) tend not to use their critical thinking skills.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by 1nquisitive

 

I would think it may be more to do with whats in the atmosphere rather than pressure, any comment about exhaust colour sorry your assumption about it

Atmospheric pressure is directly related to what you refer to as "...what's in the atmosphere".

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by 1nquisitive

 

I would think it may be more to do with whats in the atmosphere rather than pressure, any comment about exhaust colour sorry your assumption about it

Atmospheric pressure is directly related to what you refer to as "...what's in the atmosphere".

Avoiding the exhaust colour question says it all !

reply to post by 1nquisitive


Except you are leaving out that Y also launched the same type of campaign.

Both the USSR and the USA used to use things against each other, even publicly to try and make each other look bad. Here are some highlights:

U-2 Incident, 1960

Cuban Missile Crisis

Berlin Crisis of 1961

Vietnam War (Soviet Involvment)

I could go on with things like the US involvement in the USSR's Afghanistan war, etc.

Leave no doubt: if the USSR even THOUGHT the US was faking any part of the lunar landings, they would have spared no expense at all to tell the rest of the world about it.
Because: we, the USA would have done the very exact same thing to them, if we thought they were faking any part of their lunar program.

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by 1nquisitive

 

I would think it may be more to do with whats in the atmosphere rather than pressure, any comment about exhaust colour sorry your assumption about it

Atmospheric pressure is directly related to what you refer to as "...what's in the atmosphere".

You do not see that type of rocket fuel exhaust in a vacuum.

It has nothing to do with air pressure, but instead, composition of the atmosphere that a rocket's exhaust is pluming in. Both a thermal and chemical reaction.

The only thing you will see, is debris and dust blowing as something with that type of rocket fuel is landing, or taking off.

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
1. rocket exhausts may well look different on the moon as opposed to earth, due to atmospheric pressure, but I think you'll find that red exhaust fumes don't suddenly become INVISIBLE on the moon.

I have yet to see "red exhaust fumes" from any rocket, but like I said in my previous post, the type of rocket propellent plays a role in the appearance of the exhaust and flame. I was hoping you'd take that as a hint and go look up the type of propellent the LM used and research that, but clearly you did not, but lucky for you wmd_2008 did it for you and bolded the relevant part in his quote.

3. believe what you want, NASA WAS compartmentalized, more than 500 individual contractor firms worked for the project.

Just because a bunch of contracted companies worked on the Apollo missions, does not automatically mean it was compartmentalized. You're assuming it does without looking deeper into how the program was managed. Look up a man named George E. Mueller to start with.

The Apollo program had to be very open between all the companies and organizations working on it

1. mere subjective opinion and based on assumption/presumption.

2. the fact that you concur numerous companies and organisations worked on the project actually adds to my argument that the project WAS compartmentalized, and it detracts from your argument that it wasn't!

1. It's a fact actually, not an opinion or assumption

2. I fail to see how numerous companies working together on a project means it was compartmentalized.

I think we have an issue here of you misunderstanding the concept of compartmentalized; either that or you've inadvertantly contradicted yourself.

Perhaps it would be nice if you clarified what you mean then. Because every time some one comes here and makes the claim that the Apollo program was compartmentalized, they mean that no one knew what they were working on or what others were working on, because they could not see the full picture. Which is an incredibly silly thing to claim.

If you just mean dictionary definition of compartmentalize, that each company worked on certain parts, then I'd have to say yes, obviously. But people who believe Apollo to be a hoax and make claims of compartmentalization, do not mean it by the dictionary definition. So what do you mean?

The three stages of the Saturn V rocket were designed and built by three different companies, (Boeing (S-IC), North American (S-II), Douglas (S-IVB)) and the CSM was built by North American and the LM by Grumman. In order to make sure everything would fit together and work properly, constant and open communication between all those companies was key to making sure it would be successful.

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
I'm sorry, but you have your premises incorrectly calibrated.

The 'scientific consensus' denied the existence of Rwandan mountain gorillas; nonetheless, in due course 'scientific consensus' turned out to be wrong.

The discovery of evidence for a new species is not even in the same ball park as the moon landing.

As far as I can tell, there was rumors of wild persons attacking people. There was then evidence of mountain gorillas. There was then agreement that mountain gorillas existed.

Just the same as, there was no moon landing. It was thought not to be possible. Then it was proven that it was. Just the same as flying etc etc ...

The moon landing astronauts have been used in radiation studies etc ... with scientists having direct access to them. The results are available online, and as of yet no one has disputed the data.

By your logic, scientists make mistakes therefore nothing science says can be accepted. I'd disagree strongly with that. The actual quantative analysis all seems to point to the moon landing having happened.