Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

originally posted by: Bigcid
If the moon landing was real why has it taken us so long to go back and explore the moon properly?

If Concorde was real why can you no longer travel on a SST?

originally posted by: Misinformation
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Undoubtedly another erroneous delusion the propagandists consortium would like to perpetuate...

Ephemerides are updated deep within the recesses of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory more often than once every 20 years based upon hypothetical conjectures resulting in lunar orbit accuracies known only to the submeter, with certain specific planetary orbit uncertainties ranging from variations of a few hundred meters to inaccuracies of several thousand kilometers.

But the entire point of ephemerides was brought up because the idea was that the Earth is not rotating at a constant velocity -- and more to the point -- the assertion that those changes in Earth's rotational velocity should be felt by people.

So the question is this: do the inaccuracies in ephemerides show that the rotational velocity (or even the orbital velocity) of the Earth changes enough that a human would be able to feel those changes in velocity as the Earth rotates and orbits? The answer seems to be "no", but you are still bringing up the precision of ephemerides.

Does the Earth's velocity change enough that it would be felt?

originally posted by: Bigcid
If the moon landing was real why has it taken us so long to go back and explore the moon properly?

In 1960, two men (Jacques Piccard and Don Walsh) took a submersible craft and visited the deepest known part of the oceans -- the "Challenger Deep" in the Pacific Ocean's Marina Trench. In the 56 years since then, no one has taken a manned submersible back there.

If that trip to the deepest part of the oceans was real, why has it taken us so long to go back and explore the deepest part of the oceans properly?

I always had a few questions about the Apollo missions. For example radiation, materials that the craft was designed from could probably sustain half an hour of barbartment from ionizing particles, before the radiation would eventually absorb and have secondary effects, taking out navigation, life support, filtration systems and so on first, within a half an hour in low lvls of even beta radiation, but at the speeds they supposedly were traveling at would make their exposure time in the Ven Allen belts of around one hour, and they had to do it twice.

Let alone picking up and dragging rocks and dust from a surface that had an unimaginable exposure time to god knows what and they dragged it back into the craft, i am not even going to start on about earth looking exactly the same in every photo. Not going to even mention the X-35 high altitude tests, i mean what in the world do they need rockets for if they had that tech in the 50's.

People talk about it being to expensive to fake, but i think they all forgot that lying is easy, people do it all the time. Reasons are simple, money and power.

Don't forget the Russians you say? they discovered the dangers first and did exactly the same, lie. It was an excellent propaganda piece for both nations and a promising future for others who were willing to join the big boys table.

a reply to: SerpentMoon87

For example radiation, materials that the craft was designed from could probably sustain half an hour of barbartment from ionizing particles, before the radiation would eventually absorb and have secondary effects,

What is the basis for this claim?

i am not even going to start on about earth looking exactly the same in every photo.

Good. Because it doesn't.

Not going to even mention the X-35 high altitude tests, i mean what in the world do they need rockets for if they had that tech in the 50's.

The X-35 did not exist in the 50s. Jet engines need air. Above 75 miles or so, there ain't none to speak of. Did the X-35 get close to that?

(Did I just reply to a troll? Doh!)

a reply to: SerpentMoon87

The X-35 was the prototype of the F-35 fighter. The X-37, unmanned space craft didn't exist until a few years ago.

If you were trying to refer to the X-15, that flew in the 60s, it wasn't capable of reaching orbit or carrying any payload besides pilot and fuel.

a reply to: Zaphod58

If you were trying to refer to the X-15, that flew in the 60s, it wasn't capable of reaching orbit or carrying any payload besides pilot and fuel.

Not to mention that it was powered by...a rocket.
And I don't believe that rocket was nearly as powerful as a single Saturn V engine.

In the 56 years since then, no one has taken a manned submersible back there
If that trip to the deepest part of the oceans was real, why has it taken us so long to go back

Looks like the propaganda bar has sunken quite low

a reply to: SerpentMoon87

Your comment about Earth looking the same in every photo is complete and utter nonsense.

Now that I'm not posting from a smart phone, let's dissect some of the other parts of this:

originally posted by: SerpentMoon87
materials that the craft was designed from could probably sustain half an hour of barbartment from ionizing particles, before the radiation would eventually absorb and have secondary effects, taking out navigation, life support, filtration systems and so on first

Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us as to this radiation would take out navigation, life support and so on. What specifically would happen?

Let alone picking up and dragging rocks and dust from a surface that had an unimaginable exposure time to god knows what and they dragged it back into the craft,

It's precisely that exposure to God knows what that allows geologists - you know, the people who actually know that they are talking about - to be certain the samples they brought back are actually from the moon.

i am not even going to start on about earth looking exactly the same in every photo.

Already dealt with, but let me tell you (in the event you ever return to the thread) that the photographs of Earth are different, as are the 16mm and TV footage, that contain very specific clues that they were actually taken when and where history has documented. Your proof that they are "exactly the same" is eagerly awaited.

Not going to even mention the X-35 high altitude tests, i mean what in the world do they need rockets for if they had that tech in the 50's.

Dealt with by others - you obviously have confused the development of an aircraft with going to the moon.

People talk about it being to expensive to fake, but i think they all forgot that lying is easy, people do it all the time. Reasons are simple, money and power.

Lying is easy. Like the people promoting the moon hoax lie who don't bother to check their facts and hope their readers and viewers won't either.

Don't forget the Russians you say? they discovered the dangers first and did exactly the same, lie. It was an excellent propaganda piece for both nations and a promising future for others who were willing to join the big boys table.

Your understanding of history is deeply flawed.

Yeah sorry about that, the x-15 not 35 (wrote this when it was late) and the Lockheed u2, honest mistake.

Making stuff up isn't nice, any one of us could take a look at the pictures and see, that the cloud formations don't change at all.

About radiation, look at their new Saturn v project, NASA admitted they cannot duplicate the Apollo missions, because the radiation would destroy the electronics first, the life blood of the craft, and some simple investigation into radiation will also tell you, that there is no way to actually stop it completely ( not all) but ionizing particles especially, and all it would take is just one particle to penetrate and destroy the navigation system, that alone is dangerous, just a simple search is all it takes.

Which is funny, because it is the believers who wont do any investigation into the matter, but automatically condemn the information provided. I think there's a name for it...

The moon rocks were faked, one was given to the Dutch prime minister by Apollo 11 crew, and turned out to be petrified wood, once it was worth over 300,000 dollars, and now is worthless.

Politics is simple, don't have to be a genius to see that both nations were working together, in 1957-1959 both US military and Soviet Military were working together in Antartica, among other nations.
They made a treaty that lasted to this day and more nations are joining, in 1961 the treaty became effective. During that time NASA was created. During a time that Russians broke earth's ''gravity'', and both organizations started sending man into low orbit, i can keep going, but countries are all in the same boat, they just devided the people. So now we have these endless arguments about nothing while TPTB are free to do as they wish.

out of 7.5 billion people on this planet, i think around 511 people have been to ''space''. I have to trust that incredibly small percentage of people? No, nope nope nope.

originally posted by: SerpentMoon87
Yeah sorry about that, the x-15 not 35 (wrote this when it was late) and the Lockheed u2, honest mistake.

Making stuff up isn't nice, any one of us could take a look at the pictures and see, that the cloud formations don't change at all.

I have. Every one of them. I matched them to satellite photos. They change.

onebigmonkey.com...

About radiation, look at their new Saturn v project, NASA admitted they cannot duplicate the Apollo missions, because the radiation would destroy the electronics first, the life blood of the craft, and some simple investigation into radiation will also tell you, that there is no way to actually stop it completely ( not all) but ionizing particles especially, and all it would take is just one particle to penetrate and destroy the navigation system, that alone is dangerous, just a simple search is all it takes.

I didn't ask you to tell me what you have misunderstood about the Orion project. I asked you to tell us how you think radiation is going to affect the navigation and life support systems of Apollo.

Which is funny, because it is the believers who wont do any investigation into the matter, but automatically condemn the information provided. I think there's a name for it...

You haven't actually provided any information.

The moon rocks were faked, one was given to the Dutch prime minister by Apollo 11 crew, and turned out to be petrified wood, once it was worth over 300,000 dollars, and now is worthless.

~sigh~

No, it wasn't. No moon rocks were given out by the Apollo 11 crew, and certainly not to someone who was in bed when they visited. It was never insured for $300k.

Politics is simple, don't have to be a genius to see that both nations were working together, in 1957-1959 both US military and Soviet Military were working together in Antartica, among other nations.

And?

They made a treaty that lasted to this day and more nations are joining, in 1961 the treaty became effective.

And?

During that time NASA was created.

And?

During a time that Russians broke earth's ''gravity'', and both organizations started sending man into low orbit,

Yes, they did, and?

i can keep going, but countries are all in the same boat, they just devided the people. So now we have these endless arguments about nothing while TPTB are free to do as they wish.

Again, your understanding of history and politics of the time is lacking.

out of 7.5 billion people on this planet, i think around 511 people have been to ''space''. I have to trust that incredibly small percentage of people? No, nope nope nope.

They really don't care what you think.

geologists - you know, the people who actually know that they are talking about

The overwhelming consensus, as informed by the Global Warming propagandists, is that the geologists work for the oil companies..

a reply to: Misinformation

You naturally have evidence of this 'consensus'? Does it include the thousands of geologists who don't work for oil companies? Does your comment have anything at all to do with the topic?

originally posted by: SerpentMoon87

About radiation, look at their new Saturn v project, NASA admitted they cannot duplicate the Apollo missions, because the radiation would destroy the electronics first, the life blood of the craft, and some simple investigation into radiation will also tell you, that there is no way to actually stop it completely ( not all) but ionizing particles especially, and all it would take is just one particle to penetrate and destroy the navigation system, that alone is dangerous, just a simple search is all it takes.

First of all, Apollo's systems were more electromechanical than they were electronic. Even the software used was a physical item (Core-rope memory).

The signal from a word line wire passing through a given core is coupled to the bit line wire and interpreted as a binary "one", while a word line wire that bypasses the core is not coupled to the bit line wire and is read as a "zero"...
...Software written by MIT programmers was woven into core rope memory...

The new Orion spacecraft needs to be more hardened against radiation because it uses a greater amount of modern electronics than did Apollo, which are more susceptible to radiation that the more electromechanical Apollo hardware and software.

The Apollo guidance system's gyroscope was also an electromechanical device, not purely electronic. It was a physical ball suspended in lubricant which would remain stable when the craft (and casing) around it moved. Those physical movements don't require modern electronics to be read, and are done so electromechanically. If the craft wants to simple remain in one attitude (with no pitch, yaw, or roll), and any slight change in attitude is read by the gyro, then an electrical signal is sent to a reaction control thruster to counteract the movement, keeping the craft in the desired position.


Secondly, are you trying to say that there is no such thing as spacecraft with modern electronics flying anywhere is space? Are you saying that, say, the Chinese, Russians, Indians, Japanese or the Europeans never put a spacecraft any father than Earth's orbit without their electronics getting fried?

Lets make this easier, break it down one by one.

Apollo missions, carried an AGC, Apollo Guidance computer, which they communicated with using one DSKY system, it was the first ''integrated circuit based computer'' which used silicon chips, and they all only had one which absolutely had to function 100%, radiation, especially ionized particles be it alpha or beta, nuclei and others literally fry silicon based electronics.

Yes they had a gyroscope, and visual guidence, which all had to be translated through the DSKY to the AGC system electronically to operate the craft.

Let's start with that okay, one thing at a time.

Small edit, the lunar crafts used tempered and annealed glass, and glass only blocks against UV radiation partially.

a reply to: Phage

The image of the ''earth'' rotates, but the clouds remain quite still for a long period of time considering mission times were days not hours, looking at Apollo 11 missions, the photos taken during the trip to the moon around and back, not low earth orbit, show the same weather pattern. Again, not including obviously low earth orbit photos.

originally posted by: SerpentMoon87
a reply to: Phage

The image of the ''earth'' rotates, but the clouds remain quite still for a long period of time considering mission times were days not hours, looking at Apollo 11 missions, the photos taken during the trip to the moon around and back, not low earth orbit, show the same weather pattern. Again, not including obviously low earth orbit photos.

Proof?

Or are we supposed to take a random person on the internets word for it?

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

The only reason i mention those missions and ones i did not mention which is nick named operation ''Dew Line'' is that they are large operations involving thousands of people, millions of dollars and massive civilian contracts, where in the end the true purpose of those missions is only known to a small military and political group, everyone else is just building stuff, making their wages.

Large areas on earth developed by military during Apollo era in the south and north poles? Perfect places, secluded from civilization and protected by the elements. Perfect places to film and stage anything you wish, don't need a studio, just a place 99.9% people will never go to.

a reply to: TerryDon79

You have internet, and a search engine, i can walk you through it if you want?