Video compilation of NASA admitting they can't fly past low earth orbit

a reply to: choos

Yeah sorry, you just come off as rude and unwilling to have a civilised discussion.
Sorry no time for folks like you.

And yes we all have opinions. Just like you seem to have. So if opinions are bad......

a reply to: Zaphod58

That's a rather naive assumption, a lunar synchronous relay satellite would have the same result...

Jaden

a reply to: Masterjaden

If they were able to put one up. That's just one piece of evidence though that adds up to people having been to the moon.

a reply to: Wolfenz

Do you realize the irony of that statement? Ummm, what is your reply to the hoax believers?

Well, the people that they believe didn't go to the moon, reported that they only experienced 2 rads over 6 days on their way to the moon. LOL

So iow, he's stating, well we say they did it and they only experienced this much radiation while they did it. It's a ridiculous, circular argument.

How much radiation SHOULD they have experienced based on known data that doesn't include what they would've been faking, if they WERE faking it?

Jaden

a reply to: Zaphod58

You must have misunderstood my statement. A low earth orbit satellite that has an orbit synchronous with the trajectory the apollo mission would've had to follow, much easier to do than successfully land a person on the moon and return them to earth.

Here's my take on the apollo missions. Apollo 11....Faked... it had to be. We could not geopolitically afford a failure. My guess is that they DID launch into earth orbit and did land in the ocean. My father was stationed on the USS Hornet and picked them up. However, I do not believe they left earth orbit, nor did they even attempt to make it to the moon.

Future apollo missions are up for grabs. Considering the problems encountered with Apollo 13, my guess would be that that one was the first actual attempt to make it there, if there was one.

Everyone at the time told them they were crazy and that it couldn't be done.

Kennedy insisted that it not only be attempted, but that it had to succeed as well. Enough people thought it was impossible and knew that at best it was unlikely to succeed that the fake option had to be brought to bear and was then likely determined to be the easiest best way to succeed with something thought to not be possible.

Jaden

originally posted by: AtomicKangaroo
a reply to: yuppa

lol bash the U.S thread? Nothing to do with nationality for me. If Mongolia claimed to have gone to moon and I had doubts I'd question it also. Now if I came along and said "U.S.A IS EVIL, IT MUST DIE, LOOKIT THESE LIES" Then yeah I guess it could be considered U.S bashing. But I am asking questions, asking for evidence either way. Something new other than the "Well NASA says it is true so it is."
It's like saying I dislike a particular policy of the Israeli government therefore I must hate all Jews.
Complete logical fallacy approach.
Sorry my world view is much greater than US vs THEM.

Also I am not refering to "star maps" I am refering to it appearing that they are not filming the Earth through the window from halfway to the moon, but appear to be filming the window from the other side of the capsule which gives the impression they are half way to the moon. Or is star maps your explanation for the Astronaut seemingly holding a stencil that looks like it is being used to add shadow to the Earth to make it look more to scale instead of a complete blue disc. That he needs to hold a curved starmap against the window to see it and it just happens to make it appear like a stencil?

I mean why would they be fliming the Earth from the other side of the capsule instead of having the camera hard against the glass as is the way it was presented in previous public releases?
Why was the "map" not removed for a clear shot of the Earth and that released?

lol GASP telescopic, you'd honestly get further and make a better point without being a dick.

This is a subject I am genuinely curious and sceptical about. I am not trolling or being abusive to anyone, just asking questions I consider genuine. By all means I am happy to hear any ones opinions but leave the histrionic dramatics out.

Anyway why would they be filming from the other side of the capsule with a telescopic lens? The astronauts in the footage as the camera pans back don't appear to be magnified.

And yes your opinion on radiation makes some sense. But how much would it take to kill them, how long would they need to be exposed? Either Cosmic or Van Allen. I thought the main issue is the metal components even with the basic shielding they had, convert the radiation to X-Rays which in turn upped the lethality of it?

I had also heard this is why Russia never pursued moon travel as they felt you'd need a 2 meter thick wall of lead around you to survive a trip there, and they seemed to be leaps and bounds in front of the U.S when it came to space travel.

Anyway while I am not convinced by your answers I do appreciate you taking the time to share your views. Thanks

Edit: Oh and what is your explanation for the landers feet being completely dust free? Not seen a good answer for that one anywhere.

Hmm dust free lander legs huh? There was no dust on the LM support legs or leg pads

either and no sign the engine nacelle or ground below it was burned,

singed or melted. How could that happen? A 10,000 lb. thrust engine,

even if throttled back to 3,000 lb. must blow out a crater, down to

bedrock for heaven’s sake, making a landing treacherous because of

virtually zero visibility and unknown terrain exposed. The motor would

generate heat of 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit and even if throttled back

to, say, 3,000 d.F., only 1,300-2,400 d.F. is required to melt and

fuse rock. None of what we expect happened.

Why you ask?

The exhaust is much cooler and more diffuse than that away from the

motor, because it expands so much in a vacuum. The only terrain that

would have experienced that would have been right around the landing,

and then only for the final fraction of a second of descent before the

motor cut out on touch down. That would not have heated it enough to

melt it or similar (heat and temperature aren’t the same thing), and

any dust raised there would have settled very nearby, very quickly.

now as to why it was so quiet in the lander...

There wasn’t enough sound conduction for that, and likewise rockets

don’t vibrate much in those conditions, without supersonic mixing and

resonance from a surrounding atmosphere and so on.

WHy film from the far side of the capsule? Oh Maybe the dam thing is so cramped it would had been even harder to film? Or maybe it was assigned to a specific person who was not sitting next to the window? Or maybe the filmer was just lazy and thought hey why not just use the zoom function instead?


As to "stenciling" I didnt know stencils moved and the clouds on them moved did you? And reason you dont see stars is light pollution from the sun. and the luminosity of the moon dust itself makes it hard to see anything star wise unless you look away from the sun lit moonscape and the sun.

I also DESPISE NASA for their explanations of obvious sightings. Although i am not dumb enough to totally dismiss everything they say either. remember its a SCALE of BS.

a reply to: Masterjaden

They could trace the source of the signals, which were coming from the moon. They would have had to put something around the moon for the transmissions to appear to have been from there, based on the signal distance.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Wolfenz

Do you realize the irony of that statement? Ummm, what is your reply to the hoax believers?

Well, the people that they believe didn't go to the moon, reported that they only experienced 2 rads over 6 days on their way to the moon. LOL

So iow, he's stating, well we say they did it and they only experienced this much radiation while they did it. It's a ridiculous, circular argument.

How much radiation SHOULD they have experienced based on known data that doesn't include what they would've been faking, if they WERE faking it?

Jaden

Yeah I mention the irony in quite of Few Statements in threads some Satire some not
I try to keep the Balance on the Siding ....

NASA claims the RAD recorders only showed just a little less then 2 rad ...
while passing through the Van Allen Blets

Yet some Recorded in Bare ... up to 11 and 13 rad ...

just Enough to do a little Chromosome Damage not sure of the Cancerous Effects ..

the Info in the PDF is from a legit NASA Site ..

Apollo Missions were the ONLY one's that went beyond the Van Allen Belt Barrier ( to my Knowledge )


all Thought NASA had Said The Rads Would of Increased, had it Not been moving in a Fast Rate
the Command module what Saved the crew was the movement ..
According to the PDF Article i just recently post

As I said before ... I think it was both we went and we faked ...

for the many reasons
Film was Lost , Something we should of not had seen.,

Note : The Cameras that the Astronauts HAD themselves were Classified ( as they are Hi Res and close too HD Quality ) as the what you have seen were Diluted Copies ... not originals .. those are Locked up...
The Closest Hi Quality hi Res Copies ( Backups) as Ive heard were sent to Japan were just about every Copy was sent to Japan ... for preservation... Film , Documents too Articles From the mercury to Apollo Missions ...

I call OUT the Lost Films from Being Recorded Over Bull# !
They forget,,, that there is Copies of Two of Everything by the Government
I Bet there In Japan .. hidden from Public View... just my Opinion

the Big Conspiracy is

1) Most Apollo Astronauts Remain Silent of the Missions ( not in great Detail )
2) All Claim there was a UFO Encounter or down right Believe there are UFO's or Had seen them
3) NASA Cancelled the rest of the Apollo Mission as 18 19 and ___ 20 was left to go .. and we had not been back
since .. and there were Major Plans of Placing a Lunar Base and Laboratory on the Moon on the Black board..

4) The Old Former Astronauts begin to open UP about UFO Encounters
5) and they ( still Living ) Demand The US Government to go Back to the Moon
6) BuZZ Aldrin wants to Place a Lunar Base and Mine the Moon for Helium 3


7) NASA Has No Records of Blueprints Nor Schematics of the Pieces and Parts of the
Design of the Apollo Missions , Especially Saturn 5 Rockets

Reason::::

The ( Privatly Owned ) Sub Contractors working for NASA
Had them ( Owned them ( Not NASA ) and Took them with them
when the projects was completed ...
the Majority of the Contractors ( companies ) No Longer exist.
and the Records are lost... ( or someones basement or Attic ) LOL
that was involved in the Projects ..

Now NASA has to Back Engineer..
The Saturn 5 Rocket.. and Dismantle the rotting old existing Saturn 5 rocket
to reproduce it ..

This was NASA's Downfall Mistake....

There was a Whole mess Load of Subcontractors

See Here::::

Appendix E
Saturn V Subcontractors
history.nasa.gov...

Appendix F

Major Spacecraft Component Manufacturers
www.hq.nasa.gov...

SpaceCraft Assembly and Test Organization
www.ehartwell.com...

OHH JIM OBERG were are ya Buddy!!

The location of the moon allows for a trajectory that doesn't go anywhere near the main part of the belts

So the moon is due north or due south of the earth?? I think not.

Now try to explain how you could take rolls of film through the radiation belts, twice, not to mention open space, severe hot and cold temperatures, and yet not have a single flaw in the pictures???

For those who remember using film cameras, I don't think I ever had a roll that didn't have one or two messed up pictures, and that was here on earth.

a reply to: CB328

Where did I say it was? I said it's location allowed for a trajectory that went up through the thinner portions of the Van Allen Belts. For a flight that short they could go "up" and then over towards the moon. A flight to Mars or further out than the moon can't.

You do realize you can protect film from radiation, right? It's a simple matter to transport it in canisters that will protect it, especially with radiation levels as low as they were exposed to.

a reply to: Masterjaden

A low earth orbit satellite that has an orbit synchronous with the trajectory the apollo mission would've had to follow, much easier to do than successfully land a person on the moon and return them to earth.

Such an orbit is impossible.
If you disagree, please specify the altitude at which it would occur.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: CB328

Where did I say it was? I said it's location allowed for a trajectory that went up through the thinner portions of the Van Allen Belts. For a flight that short they could go "up" and then over towards the moon. A flight to Mars or further out than the moon can't.

You do realize you can protect film from radiation, right? It's a simple matter to transport it in canisters that will protect it, especially with radiation levels as low as they were exposed to.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the Russians tested exposure to radiation on animals and film that showed favorable results.

Also, Van Allen's comments about the radiation being too much for human spaceflight were made before he had a complete understanding of the nature of the radiation belts.

a reply to: introvert

There is also the full context of his statement:

"The successful operation of the solar batteries and the transmitter of Vanguard I (Satellite 1958 Beta) for over two years (as of the present date of writing) and the successful operation of similar equipment in Sputnik III (Satellite 1958 Delta) over a similar period provide the most direct evidence for the survival of electronic equipment in space vehicles. The integrated radiation exposures in these two cases are still much below the level at which serious deterioration may be expected.

"But, though mechanical and electronic equipment can operate within the high radiation areas, a living organism cannot survive this level of radiation damage. Hence, all manned space flight attempts must steer clear of these two belts of radiation until adequate means of safeguarding the astronauts has been developed."

It's true that people would not do very well in the radiation belts over a period of two years.

a reply to: Phage

Thank you.

originally posted by: AtomicKangaroo
a reply to: choos

Yeah sorry, you just come off as rude and unwilling to have a civilised discussion.
Sorry no time for folks like you.

And yes we all have opinions. Just like you seem to have. So if opinions are bad......

well when your post is full of incorrect assumptions and putting out statements that you hold as true based on those incorrect assumptions, it comes off as if you are deliberately lying.

also you sound very familiar, sock puppet.

I just wonder why you have so many supposed well informed people saying we can't go beyond low earth orbit when apparently we did back in the 60's and 70's..

Either we have become more stupid later in years which from a scientific POV would be very much against the flow or someone is telly some lies. Our supposed understanding of all things scientific has grown vastly since those time but suddenly we can't as humans go past the low earth orbit?

As for the Van Allen belt, its been plotted that some missions did go through at low levels but others went through at the highest levels. All these celestial bodies we see at night in near full are there, the question is can we actually go to any of them and live making the journey?

For me the NASA missions to the moon were fantastic to see as a young boy, they really inspired my love of space and science but at that age you don't understand the politics of going in to space or landing on the Moon, the race to do these things had HUGE political and economic gains so the idea that it could be faked ISN'T as far fetched as people think. Werner said initially that the rocket needed to do the journey was MUCH bigger than the Saturn V and it was an impossibility to do it, that is what he said, not me and yet not only did it go back on course its claimed it happened and more than once. Sadly there's so many oddities that get argued about constantly that I've become one of these people that doubts it was as per the story but really wishes it did happen but I have to also take in to account the deep need in America at that time for this to both happen and it HAD to happen to boost America in dire times.

Did it happen...I really hope it did because it fuelled the minds of so many people all over the planet to do better, to explore further, to reach beyond normal boundaries, it would be so sad if it was all a miss direction...

Paul.

originally posted by: Mclaneinc
I just wonder why you have so many supposed well informed people saying we can't go beyond low earth orbit when apparently we did back in the 60's and 70's..

We did. We no longer have man-rated boosters that can do that. Because we quit developing them. And the Saturn 5 used parts that aren't made anymore, since it was using 60's electronics. And we don't make those parts now. Hell, I'm not even sure we have the plans for Saturn 5 around any more. The tooling is one with yesterday's snows.

It would be easier to re-design the thing than try to go back. It also doesn't make sense to have them lying about when we're dedicated to not doing that anymore, politically. So there aren't any. There are...reasons. Mostly, they expect you not to know or care. But spending lots of money on chemical rocket driven manned space isn't going to happen, probably ever again. Because.

Either we have become more stupid later in years which from a scientific POV would be very much against the flow or someone is telly some lies. Our supposed understanding of all things scientific has grown vastly since those time but suddenly we can't as humans go past the low earth orbit?

It's not 'suddenly'. As a yoot, Nixon had a nice TV appearance where he said we would never return to the Moon in my lifetime. It really pissed me off. I remember being surprised, incensed, throwing things. Yelling. Which is odd for me. But the reason is political. And he was right - we haven't and won't, as far as the public is concerned. I didn't understand the bigger picture then. The government is no longer interested in developing, funding, building, or testing man rated space systems that go past LEO. Thus, there are none.

As for the Van Allen belt, its been plotted that some missions did go through at low levels but others went through at the highest levels. All these celestial bodies we see at night in near full are there, the question is can we actually go to any of them and live making the journey?

You either need to go through fast, or be adept at keeping fast electrons and protons from smacking into your outer hull, or go around. Or carry a metric crapton of shielding, which is a bad choice.

For me the NASA missions to the moon were fantastic to see as a young boy, they really inspired my love of space and science but at that age you don't understand the politics of going in to space or landing on the Moon, the race to do these things had HUGE political and economic gains so the idea that it could be faked ISN'T as far fetched as people think.

Nope, it was sold as a race to beat the Soviets, once we "won", the political will to continue for scientific development was gone. There's. No. Funding. There. Won't. Be. Any. We live in an age where what underwear the Kardashians have on is a big issue, but you have people, non-stupid people, whose level of science education is so low that they actually believe the Earth is flat. This makes sense to them. You will never sell these people on developing physics. They don't understand it. They don't WANT to understand it. It becomes more productive to take their money for other reasons and spend it on advanced (!) physics behind their backs. Because it's not fun. It doesn't pop. There's no flash to it. And, truthfully, they'd want to dictate the course of its use and they're not up to it.

You see the same thing in popular entertainment. All explosions and stupid bull# now. People can't understand anything that requires attention span, introspection or retrospection, because society is being engineered to be stupid. I feel this is intentional but I don't operate in that circle, so it's all speculation. However, it certainly seems to be intentional. I'm not sure what the upside is for this one, though. It's a microwave cake world, now, baby.

So umm if we never went to the moon, could somebody please explain to me who placed those retroreflectors for the ongoing Lunar Laser ranging experiment ? Little grey men ?

Like many others have said these clips have been clearly taken out of context. I believe we've been to the moon but there must be a reason why we haven't been back. A lot of astronaut interviews seem very shady to me. Personally I believe we encountered intelligent life up there and I don't mean a super secret alien moon base

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: AtomicKangaroo
a reply to: choos

Yeah sorry, you just come off as rude and unwilling to have a civilised discussion.
Sorry no time for folks like you.

And yes we all have opinions. Just like you seem to have. So if opinions are bad......

well when your post is full of incorrect assumptions and putting out statements that you hold as true based on those incorrect assumptions, it comes off as if you are deliberately lying.

also you sound very familiar, sock puppet.

You're a real charmer. Sending you love.