Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
By the way, the launch vehicle that carried Sputnik into low Earth orbit (LEO) in 1957 could put a payload of 1100 pounds into LEO. The Saturn V launch vehicle that sent the Apollo equipment plus astronauts to the Moon in 1969 could put a payload of 310,000 pounds into LEO. That's a little less than 300 times more payload.

Of course that's to LEO, not TLI (translunar insertion), nor does it take into account the mass of the fuel sent to the Moon with the craft so they could make a return trip after launching all of that weight from the moon...

...but you can see that there was quite an improvement from 1957 to 1969 in the amount of payload a rocket could launch.

You are still stuck on the point of complete trust in MSM. Do you think that whatever they tell you is true? There was no more energy in the rocket fuel in 1969 than in 1957. Do you think there was a magic bullet that suddenly made rocket fuel 300 times more powerful? Look at a car, how many times more energy efficient is a car today compared with 100 years ago? Yes, many things have improved the cars but the fuel had no improvement and the other factors could improve the car a bit but here we are mainly talking raw power to lift things into space. I am a physicist, there is no 1+1 = 100 - that is just fantasies.

Did the MSM ever give a mathematical explanation to why the rockets could lift so much more payload suddenly? Where was the magic bullet? Nobody ever told us and that makes it so much more likely that the moon trip was complete nonsense. If they ever went there it should have been with alien tech never this primitive stuff. If they would have said that they did it with secret tech I would have believed them.

WIthout studying the global marxist conspiracy its impossible to imagine their lies. I wont argue more now. Everyone creates their own world view depending on their own character and abilities.

a reply to: Gaussq

You are still stuck on the point of complete trust in MSM.

Your agenda is showing. It has nothing to do with news media. The technical specifications and engineering details are available to anyone who is interested. No-one with an understanding of science has ever questioned them, including Soviet scientists. An exchange of samples between the United State and Soviet Union revealed no discrepencies. It has only been since the rise of Vladimir Putin that Russian media have been calling the historical record into question. Da zvidanya, tovarich.

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

Again, the problem is that there is no blast zone, no bright regolith, which you claim is around the dark soil, in ANY of the Apollo surface images.

That's why you cannot outline the blast zone, in any of the surface images - because there is absolutely nothing to outline!

thats because the blast zone extends out beyond the image..

NONE of the surface images show a blast zone, that's the problem.

Many of the surface images extend PAST where the supposed blast zone would end, with undisturbed soil beyond it. But the surface is unchanged, throughout.

You can't show this supposed blast zone in any of the surface images, because the images are fakes. They were taken on Earth.

a reply to: Gaussq

And you're still stuck on the "it had to be 300 times more powerful".

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Gaussq

You are still stuck on the point of complete trust in MSM.

Your agenda is showing. It has nothing to do with news media. The technical specifications and engineering details are available to anyone who is interested. No-one with an understanding of science has ever questioned them, including Soviet scientists. An exchange of samples between the United State and Soviet Union revealed no discrepencies. It has only been since the rise of Vladimir Putin that Russian media have been calling the historical record into question. Da zvidanya, tovarich.

They never question anything about the Apollo story, but they know it's a farce.

It was assumed to work as claimed. That was the reason Constellation's plan was to use Apollo technology as much as possible, for a 'return' to the moon.

This was going to prove that Apollo technology was genuine.

In fact, they proved it did NOT work, at all.

Nobody ever admitted this, of course.

Their actions proved it was a complete fake, beyond any doubt.

a reply to: turbonium1

They never question anything about the Apollo story, but they know it's a farce.

Who are you talking about? The Soviet engineers? You are not making sense.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: turbonium1

They never question anything about the Apollo story, but they know it's a farce.

Who are you talking about? The Soviet engineers? You are not making sense.

The NASA engineers never question it.

They were supposed to use Apollo's technology for the 'return' mission.

It failed, obviously, since they tried to develop new technology for the mission.

But they didn't mention why it failed, for obvious reasons

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: turbonium1

They never question anything about the Apollo story, but they know it's a farce.

Who are you talking about? The Soviet engineers? You are not making sense.

The NASA engineers never question it.

But the NASA engineers built the darned thing. What's your point?

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: turbonium1

They never question anything about the Apollo story, but they know it's a farce.

Who are you talking about? The Soviet engineers? You are not making sense.

The NASA engineers never question it.

But the NASA engineers built the darned thing. What's your point?

Obviously they were NASA engineers.

And they assumed Apollo worked, so they assumed it would work for a 'return' mission, many years later.

But they realized it wouldn't work, since they tried to develop new technology only months later.

You think this has nothing to do with Apollo technology not working, because these engineers would have mentioned it, and they didn't, so there!


If they thought Apollo technology was genuine, it would have been used, in their mission, just as planned ....

No reason to change this technology, if it worked.


The point is - to drop the Apollo technology meant it was NOT genuine, period.

Your argument is that the engineers would know if Apollo was genuine, or not.....

The engineers had planned to use the Apollo technology.

So if Apollo was genuine, they would have been using it, just as they had planned.

They later realized it was NOT genuine, since they dropped it, and tried to develop the technology virtually from scratch.

a reply to: turbonium1

Or, the entire mission concept changed and Apollo hardware was not up to the task.

originally posted by: turbonium1

NONE of the surface images show a blast zone, that's the problem.

no thats your opinion, ive already shown you that they took close up images of directly under the LM to see what the surface would look due to the LM engine during landing..

not my problem you choose to ignore it.

Many of the surface images extend PAST where the supposed blast zone would end, with undisturbed soil beyond it. But the surface is unchanged, throughout.

You can't show this supposed blast zone in any of the surface images, because the images are fakes. They were taken on Earth.

how can i show you something when you choose to ignore it??

many times i have asked you why we see the dark area and why the area around the dark area is brighter.. you chose to ignore it completely.. not my problem if you choose to ignore it.

you have gone to the point of admitting why the bootprints are bright because of compressed lunar regolith, you have also admitted that the dark soil is because its loose regolith.. you have pretty much already admitted that the brigther area around the dark is because that soil has been compressed.. but you continue to ignore that.. so it isnt my fault if you choose to ignore your own logic.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

Or, the entire mission concept changed and Apollo hardware was not up to the task.

No.

The actually stated plan was - to accomplish a 'return' mission, by 2018, and later revised to launch by 2020.

They planned to use Apollo's technology, for this mission, as well.


No changes were made to that plan, when it first began...

You suggest they changed their plan, but nothing supports your claim.


They are simply excuses, nothing more.

a reply to: turbonium1

The plan was to " "develop a sustained human presence on the Moon, including a robust precursor program to promote exploration, science, commerce and US preeminence in space, and as a stepping stone to future exploration of Mars and other destinations." Apollo era technology was not up to the task. By a long shot.

Apollo served to achieve "the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth" quite well.

Big, big difference.

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

NONE of the surface images show a blast zone, that's the problem.

no thats your opinion, ive already shown you that they took close up images of directly under the LM to see what the surface would look due to the LM engine during landing..

I'm specifically referring to the large 'blast zone' area, supposedly identified in images taken from lunar orbit.

I'm also referring to only the surface images showing the surface well beyond this same (supposed) 'blast zone' area..


How was it possible for them to point out a specific 'blast zone' area, in images taken from lunar orbit?

Because these images show the surface beyond this 'blast zone', which appears to be lighter (or darker) than the 'BZ' area...it is more (or less) reflective than the surface around it.

These images allow for a comparison of a feature, to the surface all around/beyond that feature.

The area called a 'blast zone', is compared to the area around it. That is how we know it is different, distinct, from all the surrounding surface...

So the 'blast zone' area must be compared with the area beyond it, to find any difference(s) between the two regions...


This holds for the surface images, as well. These images must show us the area beyond the 'blast zone' area, to compare the two, so the difference is seen, same way it is found in lunar orbit

You keep on showing images that are not relevant, not showing the area beyond the 'blast zone' area...to see if it's different, as you claim.

It is not different, of course. You know it, too. That's why you avoid it, in any way possible.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

The plan was to " "develop a sustained human presence on the Moon, including a robust precursor program to promote exploration, science, commerce and US preeminence in space, and as a stepping stone to future exploration of Mars and other destinations." Apollo era technology was not up to the task. By a long shot.

Apollo served to achieve "the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth" quite well.

Big, big difference.

No.

This is merely their 'vision' statement, how they wish to see it as a starting point in all future manned space exploration...

They didn't make actual plans for manned Mars missions. It's a dream, really..


The plan was a 'return' to the moon by 2020. Using Apollo technology, and calling it 'heritage' technology, instead. Nobody is the wiser, right?

Apollo worked so perfectly back in the 60's, though....

The plan was another Apollo-type mission, with Apollo's technology...nothing could go wrong....


If it was genuine technology, no problem...


If not, it's a total disaster. Just as it was, for Constellation..

originally posted by: turbonium1

I'm specifically referring to the large 'blast zone' area, supposedly identified in images taken from lunar orbit.

I'm also referring to only the surface images showing the surface well beyond this same (supposed) 'blast zone' area..

How was it possible for them to point out a specific 'blast zone' area, in images taken from lunar orbit?

because the ones where we see it very obviously were taken at the right time to provide the best contrast between the dark and bright areas.

Because these images show the surface beyond this 'blast zone', which appears to be lighter (or darker) than the 'BZ' area...it is more (or less) reflective than the surface around it.

These images allow for a comparison of a feature, to the surface all around/beyond that feature.

The area called a 'blast zone', is compared to the area around it. That is how we know it is different, distinct, from all the surrounding surface...

So the 'blast zone' area must be compared with the area beyond it, to find any difference(s) between the two regions...

wasnt it you that said that the bootprints can be sort of like a mini blastzone?? what happened to that argument of yours??

im showing you the blast zone right next to the LM, with loose soil to compare the contrast to.. you choose to ignore it.

This holds for the surface images, as well. These images must show us the area beyond the 'blast zone' area, to compare the two, so the difference is seen, same way it is found in lunar orbit

so what you want is one image near the LM and one image far from the LM to compare??
you want to completely ignore sun position, contrast settings etc.. is that right??

if i took an image of a dark room while standing outside in bright sunlight what will the room look like?
what if i now entered the dark room and took another image??

You keep on showing images that are not relevant, not showing the area beyond the 'blast zone' area...to see if it's different, as you claim.

It is not different, of course. You know it, too. That's why you avoid it, in any way possible.

you are wrong.. i am comparing compressed soil with uncompressed soil..

what is the soil within the blastzone?? compressed or uncompressed soil??
what is the undisturbed soil far from the LM landing sites? compressed or uncompressed soil?

you choose to ignore this simple fact.

originally posted by: turbonium1
No.

This is merely their 'vision' statement, how they wish to see it as a starting point in all future manned space exploration...

They didn't make actual plans for manned Mars missions. It's a dream, really..

oh you know this do you??
im sorry we didnt know that you were in charge of the entire mission.. we didnt know you were the one making the decisions.

you wouldnt be making stuff up about what their intentions were now would you? like when someone writes their goal is a manned mission to the moon, it really means its just a dream.

The plan was another Apollo-type mission, with Apollo's technology...nothing could go wrong....

If it was genuine technology, no problem...

If not, it's a total disaster. Just as it was, for Constellation..

you have still failed to point out what Apollo technology didnt work.. saturn V launched, it was able to do rendezvous in space, it was able to re-enter earth it was able to keep its occupants safe..

but according to you, it failed to do any of these.