More Moon fakery

CaptainBeno
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Ok mate, pick up your dummy.

Christ, why not tar us with all the same brush?

I can read government websites too. Gosh, it must all be true.

Sorry, I have checked now and a stand corrected. Thanks for the info. You have totally changed my belief.


It's like a revelation people. I have seen the light!

I didn't tar you all with the same brush I said MOST not ALL so be more careful when you read a post

reply to post by CaptainBeno


I'm old enough to remember social climate of the early 1970s, and the way people felt that the Apollo program became a massive waste of money.

Apollo 11 and 12 were popular, and 13 became popular because of the accident, but public support waned quite a bit after that, until the point that the was quite a public outcry against spending money on yet another Moon mission when the U.S. was racked with social upheaval and societal woes. The American public became bored with moon missions, and they didn't want to spend the money on more of them when there was rampant homelessness, poverty, and crime back on earth.

The political climate in the 1970s is why NASA's budget was slashed, and why they could only afford the Space Shuttle (which was began the design and early testing phases in the mid 1970s). They could not afford the space shuttle AND the next phase of Moon exploration, so they went with the shuttle.

I think they expected to eventually get back to the moon, but it just never happened. They tried again 10 years ago with the Constellation program, which proposed Moon bases as a stepping stone to Mars, but the current administration shut down the Constellation program, re-targeting that money for other NASA programs.

Soylent Green Is People

atomsmasher
I was wondering about the Apollo 11 moon landing..... Imagine trying to shoot up some module from earth and dock it with an airplane.... it would be pretty hard nowadays.

Trying to dock an airplane with something in the earth's atmosphere is harder than trying to dock two spacecraft in space.

There are too many variable forces acting on the plane in the sky (wind resistance being a big one) that we don't have in space. For the most part, the only force acting on spacecraft in orbit is the gravitational pull of the object they are orbiting -- but that force would be basically the same on BOTH craft, so any variables associated with that would be negligible.

Put it this way: in space, if two craft are moving at the same speed and in the same direction -- even if that speed is 17000 mph, to the people in those two spacecraft, the two craft would seem to not be moving at all relative to each other. And that is why they can dock, even at 17000 mph.

edit on 12/2/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

reply to post by darkorange


Plane in the sky? What are you talking about? I did not even smoket yet to tell you that a manuouver in space is more permanent then in the air.

Air gives you more room in manurability. Space....once shot wrong, you are on your way to leave ecliptic to follow Pioneer space crafts only with humans on board.

To actually send humans to the Moon would be a deliberate homicide attempt.


If I was a US government, I would secretly send humans to the Moon and only then televise it. Not possible in the 60th, do you get my drift? Back in 60th...With every year passing those Appolo missions look funny.

reply to post by CaptainBeno

If we went to the moon, why haven't we returned with bigger and better technology?

If they went to the Moon then, well, they went to the Moon.
Here's how it might have been possible...
Nowdays we kinda know the technology is way ahead of our time, 50 maybe 100 years ahead.
I mean who knows what is hidden from us and what technology they're dealing with.
Same back then, what if they had the technology which we are using it now.
Which begs the question what achievements they accomplished nowdays that we aren't aware of?

reply to post by wmd_2008

I said MOST not ALL so be more careful when you read a post

Be careful what you read on government websites

reply to post by zilebeliveunknown


No they didn't.

It's available to view in space museums.

I have more technology in my calculator.

CaptainBeno
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

I said MOST not ALL so be more careful when you read a post

Be careful what you read on government websites

There is PLENTY of evidence none of which you have to read!

reply to post by wmd_2008

Do you all know that when the Astronauts were on the Moon and pictures were taken the distance to objects and features were recorded.

These distance and features can be checked on the LRO QuickMap site also very small craters and rocks
seen in the pictures taken on the surface can be matched up as well and could only been taken if the Astronauts were on the surface because NOTHING we had then could have photographed them!!!

I think I understand now...
Astronauts have taken all the distance measurements so they could lately tamper LROC pics

to think they went is completely assanine

reply to post by CaptainBeno

I have more technology in my calculator.

No you don't.
If you think it's that simple, why don't you build a rocket.
And machinery in museums are fake.

CaptainBeno
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Ok mate, pick up your dummy.

Christ, why not tar us with all the same brush?

I can read government websites too. Gosh, it must all be true.

Sorry, I have checked now and a stand corrected. Thanks for the info. You have totally changed my belief.


It's like a revelation people. I have seen the light!

'Ya canna do it cap'ain. WMD('s) just donna have the pe'ar!'

reply to post by spartacus699

Dude, I watched that documentary. Blowed my mind into pieces
I recomend all of you to watch.
The film "Shining" from Stanley Kubrick was about Holocaust, extinction of native americans and faking the Moon landing.
Wow, you just reminded me.

CaptainBeno
Ok, I have said it before and I'll say it again.......
If we went to the moon, why haven't we returned with bigger and better technology?

So according to your stupid reasoning, Concorde never existed, it was all a hoax... I mean, you were able to fly a supersonic passenger transport before but you cannot now, so it must have been a fake!

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Doesn't that theory fall apart when you consider the potential profits of mining or space tourism? The government could have easily turned a profit on Moon expeditions if there wasn't some grandiose reason for not being there.

I believe that Mankind went, but they were warned off from repeatedly going back. Watchers and all that jazz.

Has anyone seen what the Apollo 11 spacecraft looks like? I cant believe humans actually believe we landed on the moon, played golf, hopped around and came back to earth. It was absolutely fake. The moon never rotates, there isn't some floating sphere up there. Its some sort of future technology only some other society has, not a hologram but in that ballpark. They faked the moon landings because its impossible to land on.

Bilk22




Well I actually didn't say we didn't land men on the moon. I merely pointed out there is a very big difference between machinery and men when considering space travel. However one has to certainly consider the type of machinery we had 50 years ago. They used slide rules then. You cell phone has more processing power than the lunar module. Hindsight is 20/20 and looking at the stuff were claimed went to the moon, certainly begs some questions at the very least.

Cell phones/mobiles are S.O.T.A. mobiles were nearly as big as a walkie talkie just a few decades ago, it is not a valid argument, just as it would not be a valid agruement comparing the Wright brothers to Whittle just a few decades later.

What the astronauts had was S.O.T.A. but yes it was limited, just like some of the crap from Rockwell sold in, "the white heat of technology" on the back of space exploration like the electronic calculators that found themselves in offices all over the world, which froze up after a 10 second memory threshold was passed, boy were they crap. However Armstrong's Texas instrument for landing was actually well prepared for the job, and the software allowed it to carry on the primary tasks, even though it was being given wrong info from elsewhere, while still giving an overload alarm.

Most of all, the men themselves. Armstrong nearly bought it twice in malfunctions. In Gemini 8, and testing the Lunar lander. Before that in 1965, this is what he told a reporter, (yes he did talk to reporters)

"I rule out the possibility of agreeing to go up if I thought I might not come back, unless it were technically indispensable. Dying in space or on the moon is not technically indispensable and consequently if I had to choose between death while testing a jet and death on the moon, I'd choose death while testing a jet."

That's the stuff these guy are made of. So what are the questions you are begging?

revolutionaryawareness
Has anyone seen what the Apollo 11 spacecraft looks like? I cant believe humans actually believe we landed on the moon, played golf, hopped around and came back to earth. It was absolutely fake. The moon never rotates, there isn't some floating sphere up there. Its some sort of future technology only some other society has, not a hologram but in that ballpark. They faked the moon landings because its impossible to land on.

The Moon never rotates Care to prove that!

On the second note I can see former USSR attempting sending a crew to the Moon. Only Russian option would be to find volunteers on one way trip to at least fake it half way. Sort of sending kamikadze, which was not a problem finding back in the USSR realm.





cheers

reply to post by onebigmonkey


right .. but.....

how can this be since the soviet union put a flag on the space station and it was destroyed with less than a year and ... our flag is still standing after 50 years & enduring cosmic radiation and being bombarded my micrometers ??