An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

I think Howard hit the nail on the head guys, no-one worth their salt would carry on in this manner, ignoring the information they have been given and continuing to use childish, innaccurate terms for things in order to try and create the impression they are less than they are.

I see that the anomoly has also failed to answer the simple question - what exactly would cause the coverings to fall off anyway throughout the procedure? Not that it matters... We know the answers, there is no point wasting time with it any further.

If everyone else agrees I don't think we need to waste any more time on the matter and we should continue discussing the important aspects amongst ourselves.
We are wasting an incredible amount of time on trivial matters instead of addressing any serious ones - I wonder if this is an accident or perhaps the real motivation.

[edit on 8-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by resistance
Sad Elf -- You miss the point. NASA claims the astroNOTs flew down from the mother ship and landed on the moon with cardboard, tape and foil already assembled on the outside of their spacecraft. It's not like they got down on the moon and then decided they'd better insulate things and got busy covering things up. They flew down to the moon with this stuff (supposedly, snicker) -- and what's more they took off from the moon and beamed back up to the mother ship with their cardboard and gold foil and the special textile stuff that looks like black cloth draped all around the top. (The nasascam website used to have some good pics of the lunar lander as displayed in the Space Museum, but that page has been closed down on their site. I don't know why they closed it down.)

[edit on 7-11-2005 by resistance]

You keep repeating your own pont of view here, stating that you think it was cardboard and 'special textile stuff' while at the same time ignoring posts that explain it. You have also fallen into a logical trap of your own making. You keep saying that we can't go to the moon because we don't have the technology, but when you put up posts about the primitive nature (relatively speaking compared to today) of the LEM you are in fact admitting that you were wrong in your first statement. Please come back when you have a consistent position with regard to technology. And by the way, the Illuminati? Repeat after me: THEY. DO. NOT. EXIST. Repeat three times every hour on the hour for the next two days and then you'll feel a lot better.

Agent -- I'm not ignoring the information at all. It's you guys who ignore everything. No matter what we bring to you -- even the lunar lander covered in cardboard and plastic wrap with masking tape or mylar tape, wahtever -- that's just fine. It's some special scientific cardboard or tape or whatever, and it doesn't faze you a bit to think that was what we used to land men on the moon. www.aulis.com... Can't you see it's all torn and it's obviously fragile, paper, hunk-a-junk. Take a look. This pic on this link shows it a lot better than Agent's pic.

Sky blue out the window? Must be gas coming out of the windshield.

The astroNOTs saw no stars? Well, they couldn't tip their heads up. Besides they weren't on vacation. Or rather they could tip their heads up but they'd be looking at the top of their helmets. (of course I guess astroNOTs aren't able to bend their knees or lean back. Agent will say they might fall over. They also can't just look straight ahead? www.erichufschmid.net...

www.erichufschmid.net...

No tracks in the moon dust behind the Rover? Oh, the astroNOTs must have blown some dust over the tracks. (i.e. how did the dust land under the wheels since it's supposed to fall straight down? And why would there be no indentation at all? Maybe a blurred indentation of the tracks but NO indentation? And why do all the footprints around the rover look nice and sharp, not like somebody was kicking any dust around, scuffing their moonboots, just stepping down in one place?)

www.aulis.com...

Any stagelights? Oh, that's just flaws in the film. (look at the top edge of the photo and see the row of about eight stage lights)

www.aulis.com...

True, you guys have come up with answers to everything. But I am questioning these answers you've given. They seem exceedingly lame to me, so if you don't mind I am rebutting some of your rebuttals here.

The biggest reason of all, beyond masking tape, cardboard covered lunar landers and hokey coolpacks not connected by a lifeline, is that WE HAVE NOT GONE BACK AND NOBODY HAS GONE BACK IN 35 YEARS. Your reasons for that are not acceptable either, make no sense. We cannot go to the moon today. We do not have the technology. NASA claims in five years or so they will be sending an exploratory mission to hte moon to try to figure out how much radiation there is on the moon. Then if all goes well, maybe in another 10 or 15 years from there they might go to the moon -- they say.

Well, nobody went to the moon. Nobody is EVER going to go to the moon except in the movies. And even in the movies they don't send people to the moon in cardboard spacecraft with gold-plated plastic wrap.

BTW, did you notice the thread about the new backyard telescopes that take nice clear pictures way better than the hunk-a-junk Hubble does?

www.abovetopsecret.com...




[edit on 8-11-2005 by resistance]

I think they really went to the moon, just the BROADCAST was FAKE cuz there was stuff on there they didn't want people to see.(spaceships)Would love to see the real footage though out of curiosity

Originally posted by resistance
Agent -- I'm not ignoring the information at all. It's you guys who ignore everything. No matter what we bring to you -- even the lunar lander covered in cardboard and plastic wrap with masking tape or mylar tape, wahtever -- that's just fine. It's some special scientific cardboard or tape or whatever, and it doesn't faze you a bit to think that was what we used to land men on the moon.

Well as they arn't made from cardboard and I understand their function and how they achieve it, no it doesn't 'faze' me.

Sky blue out the window? Must be gas coming out of the windshield.

The astroNOTs saw no stars? Well, they couldn't tip their heads up.

They could tip their heads up, but they would be looking at the top of their helmets and would still have the bright landscape in their peripheral vision.

Besides they weren't on vacation.

No, as I said they weren't - so they would not be spending their time turning all the cabin lights off and peering out of the window the few times if any they were not in light.

True, you guys have come up with answers to everything. But I am questioning these answers you've given. They seem kinda lame to me, so if you don't mind I am rebutting some of your rebuttals here.

Blah blah blah..... Well that's why we're scientists and you are... well you.

So you carry on enjoying the fruits of scientific minds like ours, like the Internet, your computer, electricity in your house, clean water, sewage disposal, your TV, car, the aircraft when you fly away on holiday, etc, etc.

I suggest you don't try and discuss scientific subjects any longer, you have no learning ability or desire to understand, you fail to grasp basic principles and yet continue to try and and compete with educated people, when you should be taking a step back and learning.

What was annoying is now actually becoming quite amusing, I actually pity you now....

There there kiddo, it'll be alright..... *pats Resistance's head*...

Resistance, every piece of evidence brought up by people that states that we went to the moon and then came back again is clear, consistent and logical. Your statements have either ignored them or denigrated them. I'd like to see what you think a LEM should have looked like based on 1960's technology.
We can send people to the bottom of the oceans, in areas where an unprotected person would be instantly crushed. We've been able to do that since the 1950's. Why do you think that we can't send people to the moon? We have the technology - the fact that we're sitting around computers at the moment all over the world is a great example of the use of technology derived from the Apollo missions. Getting to the moon is a matter of simple physics. Getting to the moon in a lander and bringing the guys back alive is harder, but again, we have done it. You keep reiterating the same facts, in a kind of mantra, telling people that if you believe it you must be right. You do not seem to be able to change your mind and admit that you're wrong. The radiation issue about a trip to the moon is a good case in point. The NASA trip will monitor long-term radiation levels on the moon. The Apollo missions were very short. Read some of the posts on this issue. They're good ones.

Originally posted by Darkmind
The radiation issue about a trip to the moon is a good case in point. The NASA trip will monitor long-term radiation levels on the moon. The Apollo missions were very short. Read some of the posts on this issue. They're good ones.

Quite, most HB seem to get confused between long-term and short-term risks, which is what they are addressing. Future missions have an objective of setting up permanent bases and spending very long periods of time in unprotected space. While the Apollo missions only lasted around 10 days, we are now looking at spending months and years in space. As I pointed out earlier, even after 2.5 years in space, take away any solar flares, an astronaut would only have absorbed their maximum dose for their career. (Obviously 2.5 years service time is unacceptable and so are the increased risks).

Originally posted by Darkmind
Resistance, every piece of evidence brought up by people that states that we went to the moon and then came back again is clear, consistent and logical. Your statements have either ignored them or denigrated them. I'd like to see what you think a LEM should have looked like based on 1960's technology.
We can send people to the bottom of the oceans, in areas where an unprotected person would be instantly crushed. We've been able to do that since the 1950's. Why do you think that we can't send people to the moon? We have the technology - the fact that we're sitting around computers at the moment all over the world is a great example of the use of technology derived from the Apollo missions. Getting to the moon is a matter of simple physics. Getting to the moon in a lander and bringing the guys back alive is harder, but again, we have done it. You keep reiterating the same facts, in a kind of mantra, telling people that if you believe it you must be right. You do not seem to be able to change your mind and admit that you're wrong. The radiation issue about a trip to the moon is a good case in point. The NASA trip will monitor long-term radiation levels on the moon. The Apollo missions were very short. Read some of the posts on this issue. They're good ones.

Nobody knows how severe the radiation is on the moon. That's the whole point. You don't send people to the moon without knowing those things. They don't have a clue. Not a clue. If they went there already six times they should have SOME information about that. All we have are a box a rocks. And there's nothing logical about thinking we'd send men to the moon in a lunar lander that is covered in torn paper and gold covered plastic wrap. Look at the picture in the link I put up. If I knew how to put stuff up I'd do it myself. I actually will put it up when my computer assistant is available to help me. I can admit I'm wrong, when I AM wrong. But truth is not determined by polls. Truth is truth. And the truth is, we never went to the moon.

BTW, did you notice the thread about the new backyard telescopes that take nice clear pictures way better than the hunk-a-junk Hubble does?

Ok this is that last time dude.
Hubble is a long range telescope, it is not built to view things in close range (the moon is the closest thing to earth)
It is like compairing a magnifying glass to binoculars. You won't get sharp image of your foot with binoculars but you will with a magnifying glass. And you won't get a good pic of the tree in the distance with mag glass but you can with the bionc's. Do you understand or do I have to spell it out?

Originally posted by resistance
Nobody knows how severe the radiation is on the moon. That's the whole point. You don't send people to the moon without knowing those things. They don't have a clue. Not a clue. If they went there already six times they should have SOME information about that. All we have are a box a rocks. And there's nothing logical about thinking we'd send men to the moon in a lunar lander that is covered in torn paper and gold covered plastic wrap. Look at the picture in the link I put up. If I knew how to put stuff up I'd do it myself. I actually will put it up when my computer assistant is available to help me. I can admit I'm wrong, when I AM wrong. But truth is not determined by polls. Truth is truth. And the truth is, we never went to the moon.

Yes, we do know. Here's a piece from the Health Physics Society:

Q: What are the radiation levels on the moon and Mars?
A: The radiation levels on the moon and Mars are similar and change with the approximate 11-year variation in the solar cycle. At present we are near the maximum solar activity part of the cycle. Radiation levels on Mars are probably lower than on the moon's surface because Mars has a thin atmosphere, composed mainly of carbon dioxide, that acts as a radiation shield. Estimates of radiation levels in deep space for thinly shielded spacecraft resulting from galactic cosmic rays range from ~ 0.3 Sv per year during solar maximum activity (about now) to ~ 1 Sv per year during solar minimum periods (L.W. Townsend, F.A. Cucinotta, and J.W. Wilson, "Interplanetary Crew Exposure Estimates for Galactic Cosmic Rays," Radiation Research 129, 48-52; 1992). On a planetary surface the mass of the planet provides shielding from about half of the cosmic rays, resulting in estimated exposures that are about half of those given above. Solar particle events (sometimes called flares, which is not correct terminology) result from eruptions on the sun and can provide very high levels of radiation exposure (up to several Gy from energetic protons) unless adequate shielding (10-20 cm thickness of water or equivalent) is available for protection. A recent study of radiation levels and dose rates for a very large solar particle event is found in J.L. Parsons and L.W. Townsend, "Interplanetary Crew Dose Rates for the August 1972 Solar Particle Event," Radiation Research 153, 729-733; 2000.

Larry Townsend, PhD

And here's the link to the above: hps.org...

We know what radiation levels are like up there. The vast majority of the moon's radiation comes from the sun and we can monitor that pretty well. Radiation is not this terrible instant death that many people think it is. The human body can handle small doses pretty well, and the Apollo astronauts were only exposed to a small amount of radiation during their trip.
Further more the boxes of moon rocks they brought back have contributed to our knowledge of how the moon was formed - the Earth hit a Mars-sized bolide, the two merged and in the process the slate was wiped clean on Earth and a new body was formed in Earth orbit, mostly made up of mantle rocks.
As for the "lunar lander that is covered in torn paper and gold covered plastic wrap" you seem to think that the LEM was up of this. Nope, it wasn't. Grumann built it to go to the moon. It did. It even landed. Then it took off. The point is, no matter what it looked like, it did the job.
So what's your point?

Originally posted by Halfofone

BTW, did you notice the thread about the new backyard telescopes that take nice clear pictures way better than the hunk-a-junk Hubble does?

Ok this is that last time dude.
Hubble is a long range telescope, it is not built to view things in close range (the moon is the closest thing to earth)
It is like compairing a magnifying glass to binoculars. You won't get sharp image of your foot with binoculars but you will with a magnifying glass. And you won't get a good pic of the tree in the distance with mag glass but you can with the bionc's. Do you understand or do I have to spell it out?

Halfo -- This is pure BS. I have heard this argument over and over. It's just not the case. The stupid Hubble doesn't have enough resolution. Can't you get it? Not TOO MUCH RESOLUTION. It has NOT ENOUGH RESOLUTION.

The stupid Hubble needs MORE RESOLUTION. More, Halfo. Not less.

Do you know what that means? More resolution?

The Hubble is not a pair of binoculars trying to read a book four inches away.

I am shocked at how misinformed you are about this. But then again, I'm starting not to be so shocked. You get me something that proves the Hubble has too much resolution to see the moon. This has already been discussed. The stuff has already been researched. The facts are, the Hubble does not have enough resolution to see much on the moon.

And whatever the Hubble was "designed for," it's a piece of junk. The VLT telescope in Chili is much better than the Hubble. For that matter, these backyard things are better.

Darkmind: You said

Yes, we do know. Here's a piece from the Health Physics Society:

So since the Health Physics Society has all the answers about radiation on the moon AND on Mars both -- why do we need to authorize NASA to send a multibillion dollar exploratory mission to the moon in five years? L et's just save our money and go with the Health Physics Society.



[edit on 8-11-2005 by resistance]

Originally posted by resistance
Darkmind: You said

Yes, we do know. Here's a piece from the Health Physics Society:

So since the Health Physics Society has all the answers about radiation on the moon AND on Mars both -- why do we need to authorize NASA to send a multibillion dollar exploratory mission to the moon in five years? L et's just save our money and go with the Health Physics Society.

[edit on 8-11-2005 by resistance]

Ummm... No actually. It's to carry out a long-term survey of radiation levels, to assess the chances of a colonisation mission. But that's just part of it. It's also there to carry out detailed mapping of the surface of the moon and to look for ice deposits on some of the craters. We need the whole package you see - safe, stable site, good information on radiation levels and a source of water. Here's the link to the NASA release on the full uses of the probe: science.nasa.gov...

Dark -- The telescope in Chili already determined there's no water on the moon. We could look at the moon just fine with a telescope if we wanted to. Hubble is not the last answer to looking at space. Far from it. Hubble is worse than useless. (no information is better than bad information)

Sending a multibillion dollar mission to the moon to take pictures of the relics left behind supposedly by the Apollo landing? I don't think so. Just get a decent telescope, not that hard to do. See this new ATS thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

NASA has more BS than the Cattle Producers Association.



[edit on 8-11-2005 by resistance]

Originally posted by resistance
Dark -- The telescope in Chili already determined there's no water on the moon. We could look at the moon just fine with a telescope if we wanted to. Hubble is not the last answer to looking at space. Far from it. Hubble is worse than useless. (no information is better than bad information)

Sending a multibillion dollar mission to the moon to take pictures of the relics left behind supposedly by the Apollo landing? I don't think so. Just get a decent telescope, not that hard to do. See this new ATS thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

NASA has more BS than the Cattle Producers Association.



[edit on 8-11-2005 by resistance]

Yes, there is water on the moon. It's in the form of ice crystals deposited by comets and left in the shadow regions of deep craters at the poles.
Here's a link to the first BBC story about it in 1998: news.bbc.co.uk...

And Hubble is not useless, it's been taking some excellent pictures of deep space. Here's a link to the Hubble Heritage Image Gallery that shows you some of the most amazing images that have been taken: heritage.stsci.edu...
You seem to think that Hubble is faulty. It was, when it was launched. It's since been fixed by NASA. Working fine now!

Hubble is a Ritchey-Chrétien telescope or RCT.

The Ritchey-Chrétien design is free of first-order coma and spherical aberration, although it does suffer from third-order coma, severe large-angle astigmatism, and comparatively severe field curvature (Rutten, 67). When focused midway between the sagittal and tangential focusing planes, stars are imaged as circles, making the RCT well suited for wide field and photographic observations. As with the other Cassegrain-configuration reflectors, the RCT has a very short optical tube assembly and compact design for a given focal length The RCT offers good off-axis optical performance, but examples are relatively rare due to the high cost of hyperbolic primary mirror fabrication; Ritchey-Chrétien configurations are most commonly found on high-performance professional telescopes.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Hubble was built for long range viewing, the focal length was designed for long range viewing, not for focusing in on the moon landing sights.

it was built for taking pictures like this.


not lame Moon pictures I can see with a backyard telescope. Your right that the new telescopes are better at taking pics of the moon but I'd like to see them get a picture of a star forming like the one above.

Edit: The new mission isn't to take pictures of the moon sights it's to Map the ENTIRE surface of the moon, and while doing that it will prove you wrong.
[edit on 8-11-2005 by Halfofone]

[edit on 8-11-2005 by Halfofone]

Halfo -- that is literally a computer generated image. Literally. If you want to be impressed by it, fine. The plain fact is that if Hubble can't see the moon any better than a pair of binoculars then it can't see far out in space past space dust, see things that aren't visible to anyone, and be able to detect things by sensing heat waves and such. It's bologny. It's like you buy a car and it can't make it up the hill in the winter, but you think you're going to use it to pull a freight train?

Mod edit: removed quote from above post

[edit on 8-11-2005 by sanctum]

Originally posted by resistance

Halfo -- that is literally a computer generated image. Literally. If you want to be impressed by it, fine. The plain fact is that if Hubble can't see the moon any better than a pair of binoculars then it can't see far out in space past space dust, see things that aren't visible to anyone, and be able to detect things by sensing heat waves and such. It's bologny. It's like you buy a car and it can't make it up the hill in the winter, but you think you're going to use it to pull a freight train?

Ok and where is your proof, did you look at the gallery posted just before my post? The computer translates the signal sent back from hubble they don't just make the images up from that top of there head.

You create elaborate fantacies and conspiracies in order to justify your beliefs.The world is only around 6000-7000 years old right, according to the bible and "creation science" . There can't be light comming from over 7000 light years away because the universe didn't exist to send the light out in the first place right? so they must therefore be computer images. All astronamy is an elaborate plan by the evil athiests to trick people into beliving God doesn't exist right? I wonder why you didn't respond to my post in the other thread? maybe because I have a more complete theoligy that doesn't exclude science or have to rationalize things?

[edit on 8-11-2005 by Halfofone]

Hey resistance! Here's an idea... Why don't you find an astronomy club or observatory near by you and then you can actually see these things through a telescope. No, they won't be in the same detail, but you'll be able to see they are still there! Or would people be putting stuff in front of the telescope for you to see?

Originally posted by Halfofone


The computer translates the signal sent back from hubble they don't just make the images up from that top of there head.

[edit on 8-11-2005 by Halfofone]

Yep. That's my point. Computer generated images. Hubble sends out its computer-generated signal and supposedly translates "something" it "gets back." Then it comes up with an ink blot, pass it off to Calvin Hamilton for some "polishing," and people go woweee! Next thing you know it's a poster being sold in the Space Museum or people like you are putting it up on a discussion board like this to "prove" what a great thing the Hubble is. This is known as "Virtual Reality." It's not real. It's somebody's idea of what you WOULD see if you CUOLD see but you CAN'T see. wow:



[edit on 8-11-2005 by resistance]

Originally posted by resistance
Hubble sends out it's computer generated signal and translates something it "gets back."

Um... If they're just making all this up, then what would be the purpose of Hubble "sending out its computer generated signal?" Do you even know how telescopes work? Light goes in and ONLY in... The way your standard backyard telescope works is the same way your standard billions of dollars space telescope works.

Now, last time I checked this thread was on the Moon landings. Why does it keep derailing onto Hubble, huh? resistance, do you know know anything about how or why that happens?