I know some here will be saying right now-to them selfs-->not another !did we go to the moon ! thread.
Well in the light of EMdevices thread on the flat earth,and how NASA,and the American government has lied to us,i think it time that we (as a group) that pride our self's on looking at well presented evidence to prove claim's being made by other's,can put this one to bed.
Although the above is true in most cases,i have seen first hand how !some! put aside logic,and forget about presented proof when it come's to the !apparent! moon missions. It would seem that there need to believe in something so great out weighs any evidence presented that go's against that need to believe.
So-as a group that requires proof to back up claim's,are we able to come to a conclusion as to weather or not man did go to the moon. Has NASA and the American government pulled of the biggest hoax in human history?. If they did,then what are the ramifications of this hoax,and what would the world think of the American government and NASA if the moon missions were found to be a hoax?. Would this lead to a very tainted 9/11 outcome?. We know that the American government has produced red flag events before to achieve there objective-->well try anyway.
So i guess that this is your chance to have your say--present your evidence for both against and for the moon landings. What evidence is there that we went to the moon?. As far as i can tell,it is !because we seen it on television!. Do you have more than this to show proof of NASA's and the American government's claim that we went to the moon?.
It would seem that as the years pass,both NASA and the government are doing a good job at shooting them self in the foot on this one. So lets start at the bottom-a close look at the suit's worn by the Apollo 11 moon walkers.
Not to long ago,the Smithsonian Institution ran a kickstarter fund raising campaign to raise money to preserve Neil's original apollo 11 space suit. They raised over $719.000,and achieved there goal.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/smithsonian/reboot-the-suit-bring-back-neil-armstrongs-spacesu
But in doing so,they also(probably unknowingly) bought to light a serious problem--that being some clear pictures of Neil's original suit worn on the apollo 11 mission. So lets have a look at the problem.
Below is a picture of a foot print,and the boot that made that !apparent! foot print on the moon-->picture 1.
I would like you to pay careful attention "not only to the foot print left on the moon by the boot",but also the boot it self. Then in picture 2,we have a very clear image of what is !suppose to be! Niels original suit that is to be preserved.
Dose any one see the problem here?
So dont take my word for it-go and dig up all the images you can from any site(even NASA's own archive site),and see if you find anything different to the tread pattern(foot print) that is depicted as being left on the moon,and the actual boot tread pattern of Neil's original suit that he was !apparently! wearing during the moon mission.
This was actually noted by NASA,who were quick to add some strap on tread's for the boots on the suit. All changes were made after they realized there over sight.
Would it be possible to actually "see" the lunar module on the moon surface with a telescope ?
I can not imagine why not ??
Somebody must have a pic somewhere ?
There is a scientist that I visited a few years back who had a magnet motor claim , he was on the team which designed the suits.
It would be a bit of a trip to go see him again ,might try to call ...but that would be an awkward conversation to say the least.
I
I was at gruman Aerospace and saw the lunar module being built by tons of highly skilled fellows
My father in law and uncle where part of that project at a management level.
I have to say I have seen sooo many things on the net on different topics claiming things to be true which
Were total fabrications .
It would be an amazingly expensive hoax...and towards what goal ??
Tens of thousands of highly paid people for a few decades building this thing all over the country ??
Talk about a big con....
What's the pay off ?
Quote from: Chet K on 2016.01.12, 03:21:23
Would it be possible to actually "see" the lunar module on the moon surface with a telescope ?
I can not imagine why not ??
Somebody must have a pic somewhere ?
There is a scientist that I visited a few years back who had a magnet motor claim , he was on the team which designed the suits.
It would be a bit of a trip to go see him again ,might try to call ...but that would be an awkward conversation to say the least.
I
I was at gruman Aerospace and saw the lunar module being built by tons of highly skilled fellows
My father in law and uncle where part of that project at a management level.
I have to say I have seen sooo many things on the net on different topics claiming things to be true which
Were total fabrications .
It would be an amazingly expensive hoax...and towards what goal ??
Tens of thousands of highly paid people for a few decades building this thing all over the country ??
Talk about a big con....
What's the pay off ?
Here is where the bullshit really starts to flow Chet.
Below is a picture of heathrow from a satellite that orbit's the earth at around 200 mile's. It has to deal with the earths atmosphere as well,but look how clear the image is-->and at 200 miles up. The picture is from Digitalglobe's world view 3 satellite,and it can resolve down to 35cm O0
Here is the best we get from NASA,and it is from there Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) at a distance of only 25 miles. Dose any one actually believe this crap?.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTeM4ZqEKR4
Quote from: Chet K on 2016.01.12, 03:21:23
Would it be possible to actually "see" the lunar module on the moon surface with a telescope ?
I'm not too sure about this but I think the answer involves Dawes Limit.
recovered lunar satellite photos:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/30/world/hackers-nasa-lunar-photos/
8500 moon photos recently went online:
http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2015/10/every-photo-taken-apollo-moon-missions-are-now-online
EDIT:
private space exploration project:
http://www.space.com/28064-private-moon-drilling-mission-crowdfunding.html
The Lunar Mission One project is designed to land a probe on the moon that is capable of drilling
at least 65 feet (20 meters) below the lunar surface, and hopefully reach a target depth
of 328 feet (100 m) inside the moon.
The probe will bore down to unexposed rock and draw up core samples to transport back to Earth.
They plan to get to the moon by 2024:
http://www.space.com/27807-private-moon-mission-lunar-one.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Mission_One
Some pretty "shoddy" research there, TinMan.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/Apollo_11_space_suit.jpg/1024px-Apollo_11_space_suit.jpg)
I think the boot COVERS used for the actual walking about on the moon were probably left behind there. You don't want all that alien dust inside your tiny cramped cabin, after all. Don't you leave your galoshes in the mud room when you come in from a walk in the rain, or do you just wear them on into the kitchen and bedroom?
(http://images.spaceref.com/news/2011/ooapollo17-left-670.jpg)
There is a big difference between mapping/widefield cameras and the pinpoint spy cameras that are in Earth orbit, but nevertheless the Apollo landing sites have been clearly imaged by the mapping cameras on the LRO.
You know... I don't see a single _person_ in your Heathrow "satellite" image. That proves it's just a fake picture of a toy layout with miniature models. Doesn't it?
cool video of Apollo 17 mission and article on possible private mission in 2017:
http://www.space.com/30720-moon-express-private-lunar-launch-2017.html
The photograph of Armstrong's _complete_ suit was taken well _before_ the launch of the Apollo 11 mission. Funny how they were so clever back then, to include the boot covers. Or maybe those were photoshopped in.
How can you possibly argue with someone who will simply tell you that all your evidence is faked? Well, that silly strategy works both ways. The Heathrow image is obviously faked since it doesn't contain any people -- anyone who has ever been to an airport knows that there are always lots of people walking around on the ramp, parking airplanes, fueling, handling luggage, security, etc. but there are no people in that image. Therefore it's fake and doesn't tell you anything about the capabilities of the (fake) satellites circling the Earth.
Seriously.... flat earths, hollow suns, stars not visible from space, NASA fakery.... sometimes I wonder about you people. You must be just doing the wind-up, because I can't believe that you lot are so deficient in critical thinking skills, research ability, and general knowledge.
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2016.01.12, 20:55:52
The photograph of Armstrong's _complete_ suit was taken well _before_ the launch of the Apollo 11 mission. Funny how they were so clever back then, to include the boot covers. Or maybe those were photoshopped in.
How can you possibly argue with someone who will simply tell you that all your evidence is faked? Well, that silly strategy works both ways. The Heathrow image is obviously faked since it doesn't contain any people -- anyone who has ever been to an airport knows that there are always lots of people walking around on the ramp, parking airplanes, fueling, handling luggage, security, etc. but there are no people in that image. Therefore it's fake and doesn't tell you anything about the capabilities of the (fake) satellites circling the Earth.
Seriously.... flat earths, hollow suns, stars not visible from space, NASA fakery.... sometimes I wonder about you people. You must be just doing the wind-up, because I can't believe that you lot are so deficient in critical thinking skills, research ability, and general knowledge.
Ditto, I once thought there were intelligent people here too, it just goes to show you how much of this BS is spread around out there and the fools that believe it. Obviously everything we know has been faked, probably the faked moon landing was faked as well.
Room
Ahh the boot covers, lol. When I first looked at the smooth boot soles I wondered if they would use some kind of magnetic boot soles with treads due to the sections of the suit soles that look different, then I scroll down and sure enough there they are in Tinsels post. Common sense should allow us to consider some kind of treaded boot covers maybe with a magnetic component to make them stay on better.
My questions are. Can the Lunar module or any other man made objects be seen on the moons surface ?
And even if the first landing with Armstrong was faked but they actually did land on the moon in later missions, does it really matter that they may have faked the first landing ?
I say with a powerful enough telescope the equipment should be visible, and it doesn't matter if the first landing was faked but some of the later landings were real.
Personally my opinion means little as I have not done any research into the issue because I could not care less about it. We can forget all about the moon landings even happening and not be missing much useful information. There are more important things to think about.
We all know our governments lie to us and are very corrupted. There is ample evidence to show the world is mostly run by the elite bankers and corrupted evil people with agenda's not for humanity in general.
..
Quote from: Room3327
Ditto, I once thought there were intelligent people here too, it just goes to show you how much of this BS is spread around out there and the fools that believe it. Obviously everything we know has been faked, probably the faked moon landing was faked as well.
Room
Indeed, there are intelligent people who participate
in this amazing forum. Wouldst thou and thy friend
TK be placing thyselves upon a pedestal?
Doubting the veracity of "official sources" is a
characteristic of those who seek TRUTH and it
is also a trait of a sane mind.
Gullibility is a terrible waste of the human mind.
Judging those who may disagree with your beliefs
to be less than intelligent says much about your
own.
Quote from: EMdevices on 2016.01.12, 04:16:19
I recently watched this video that I thought was pretty good.
http://youtu.be/vPRyo4cSESQ
The duplicate Apollo 16 scenes are a great proof of falsification, but so is the bag that falls at same rate as on earth, awesome! (Around minute 32:20)
Anyway there are a lot of arguments the evidence NASA presented is problematic, I.e photos and videos, etc, but that could be argued that it was to hide the true nature of the moon from the competition. Supposedly now they have images taken from orbit showing the sites. That's like trusting a liar when he says, ok now I'm not going to not lie to you anymore. Well, too late, our faith has been shuttered. We need independent confirmation now! I think they should defund NASA and privatize everything. Things may progress faster and cheaper at the same time.
EM
Loved the video EM. And the music playing in the back ground in the LEM--what happened to no sound in a vacuum ?-or maybe the LEM was pressurized ?. And wire's that can be clearly seen holding up the moon walker's lol-even lifting them back up when they fell lol.
Quote from: Farmhand on 2016.01.12, 22:54:14
Ahh the boot covers, lol. When I first looked at the smooth boot soles I wondered if they would use some kind of magnetic boot soles with treads due to the sections of the suit soles that look different, then I scroll down and sure enough there they are in Tinsels post. Common sense should allow us to consider some kind of treaded boot covers maybe with a magnetic component to make them stay on better.
My questions are. Can the Lunar module or any other man made objects be seen on the moons surface ?
And even if the first landing with Armstrong was faked but they actually did land on the moon in later missions, does it really matter that they may have faked the first landing ?
I say with a powerful enough telescope the equipment should be visible, and it doesn't matter if the first landing was faked but some of the later landings were real.
Personally my opinion means little as I have not done any research into the issue because I could not care less about it. We can forget all about the moon landings even happening and not be missing much useful information. There are more important things to think about.
We all know our governments lie to us and are very corrupted. There is ample evidence to show the world is mostly run by the elite bankers and corrupted evil people with agenda's not for humanity in general.
..
The biggest problem looking from earth with telescopes is the heat haze-even on cold crisp(good seeing) night's,at high magnification you can still see heat haze. I find that once i go above 250x on my 12 inch Dob,the haze kicks in badly.
But this is not the problem,as the LRO is quite capable of high res pic's--but it seem's only in area's they want you to get a clear picture of-such as the one's posted below-->all from NASA's own site.
Another interesting video--seems the tracks from the rovers just vanish C.C
Oh-and the US gov to introduce no fly zone's near the landing site's lol. Wonder why. C.C
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc2kijG8YdY
I'm thinking we need some more fake and misleading topic headings i.e.:
ISIS is being faked, U.S. soldiers are pretending to be ISIS.
Christians are pretending to be Islamic to give islam a bad name.
The Sun does not exist, it has been faked by zionists.
CIA guilty of building a atom bomb in Iran against Iyatolla's wish's.
We've been lied to again, the Moon is an Alien spaceship.
Ghandi was a secret CIA agent, faked it all.
Mother Teresa ran a bordello pretended to be holy.
Putin pretending to fight ISIS while slaughtering millions of christians.
Free energy being stopped by U.S. They have many known ways to do it.
Anyone want to pick one and we'll start a new thread to debate it scientifically and at length. I'm sure if we think about it we can come up with many more, being reality has nothing to do with it, and I don't want anyone snickering, this is serious stuff. So lets get to work!
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2016.01.12, 20:55:52
The photograph of Armstrong's _complete_ suit was taken well _before_ the launch of the Apollo 11 mission. Funny how they were so clever back then, to include the boot covers. Or maybe those were photoshopped in.
How can you possibly argue with someone who will simply tell you that all your evidence is faked? Well, that silly strategy works both ways. The Heathrow image is obviously faked since it doesn't contain any people -- anyone who has ever been to an airport knows that there are always lots of people walking around on the ramp, parking airplanes, fueling, handling luggage, security, etc. but there are no people in that image. Therefore it's fake and doesn't tell you anything about the capabilities of the (fake) satellites circling the Earth.
Seriously.... flat earths, hollow suns, stars not visible from space, NASA fakery.... sometimes I wonder about you people. You must be just doing the wind-up, because I can't believe that you lot are so deficient in critical thinking skills, research ability, and general knowledge.
Here you go TK--watch from 9 minute's on for some nice clear satellite pics--with people,from 700km"s
Now are you telling me that we can get clear images of objects as small as people from 700km up,but cant get a clear image of something much larger at only 25km's up lol.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr3YrmTOQaY
Brad
Quote from: muDped on 2016.01.12, 22:58:25
Indeed, there are intelligent people who participate
in this amazing forum. Wouldst thou and thy friend
TK be placing thyselves upon a pedestal?
Doubting the veracity of "official sources" is a
characteristic of those who seek TRUTH and it
is also a trait of a sane mind.
Gullibility is a terrible waste of the human mind.
Judging those who may disagree with your beliefs
to be less than intelligent says much about your
own.
I should clarify myself, I am not saying all members here are less then truly intelligent, only some. The most intelligent people rarely comment or say anything, guys like Point99, Peterae, ION, Physicsprof, just to name a few, we have many, but guys like you and some others are giving this forum a bad name.
I am certainly not on a pedestal, I have very little standing here or respect, but that allows me to say things that many others are thinking without them getting the BS I do and believe me when I say I am not the gullible one here, yes some people are endowed with more intelligence then others sorry, that is just the way it is reality if you will. I would recommend you start looking at reality, soon I hope.
Whatever you think, this (http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm) is some very clever analysis of the Apollo imagery.
Clever perhaps, but is his method rigorous?
And one example only?
Quote from: Room3327 on 2016.01.12, 23:55:57
I should clarify myself, I am not saying all members here are less then truly intelligent, only some. The most intelligent people rarely comment or say anything, guys like Point99, Peterae, ION, Physicsprof, just to name a few, we have many, but guys like you and some others are giving this forum a bad name.
I am certainly not on a pedestal, I have very little standing here or respect, but that allows me to say things that many others are thinking without them getting the BS I do and believe me when I say I am not the gullible one here, yes some people are endowed with more intelligence then others sorry, that is just the way it is reality if you will. I would recommend you start looking at reality, soon I hope.
I see you named Physicsprof as one who you deem highly intelligent-and i agree. Now why dont you ask him about the moon landing and maybe 9/11 while you are at it.
It would seem to me that the truth is something that scares you,and you would prefer to live the lie,as it's what you feel more comfortable with. We cant go to the moon now,so how was is possible back in 1969?. There are several NASA employees(including astronauts) that have admitted we do not have the techknowledgey to go to the moon today--so we certainly did not go in 69.
Quote from: verpies on 2016.01.12, 23:59:01
Whatever you think, this (http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm) is some very clever analysis of the Apollo imagery.
Nice find verpies,although i feel it will fall on deaf ears.
As i said in my opening post,there are those that insist evidence must be provided when making a claim of such caliber. But it would seem that when it comes to the so called !moon landings!,then the need to believe outweighs the need for evidence. The only evidence that man went and walked on the moon,is what was seen on television,and the provided photograph's from NASA--no photographs from any other source other than NASA.
NASA engineer admits they can't get past the Van Allen Belts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlXG0REiVzE
Canadian Astronaut Chris Hadfield Blunder On BBC About Going To The Moon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pp1KoW5-mQ
Moon Landing 1969 vs Scientific Evidence
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8ZzFemBUJQ
Hahaha
Oh yes, they went to the moon just like 12 arabs bowled down the WTCs and ISIS is not a Saudi financed terror group.
Take the cost of actually going to the moon, less the cost of faking it and you have millions of reasons to fake it.
Man just look at the reentry capsule and raise you hands on who would like to go next.
Look you guys. We cannot fix this and should just stop wasting damn time, so much time on crap. These are not our problems, they are the worlds problems and we cannot fix them so better we stick to what we are good at and that is, working towards OU.
None of this is helping our benchworks.
wattsup
Quote from: TinMan on 2016.01.13, 13:21:13
Canadian Astronaut Chris Hadfield Blunder On BBC About Going To The Moon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pp1KoW5-mQ
What did he say after that? Seems the clip was cut off.
Quote from: WattsUp
...so better we stick to what we are good at and that is, working towards OU.
The only man on Planet Earth who is publicly able to
summon OverUnity from its source with any sort of
consistency and regularity is Daniel Pomerleau.
And Daniel does it without any electrical or electronic
devices - he uses just coils of wire.
One may wonder whether this reveals anything about
the true nature of OverUnity? Or Free Energy?
The "real" space program which operates as a very
deep Black Project under the U.S. Navy (that portion
of it which is
officially non-existent) has established
liaison with "inter-dimensionals." Those are the ones
who have shown the way. With strings attached...
NASA is a very costly "show" intended to create the
illusion that their technology is present "cutting edge."
The "show" has been quite effective...
Quote from: poynt99 on 2016.01.14, 00:13:29
What did he say after that? Seems the clip was cut off.
I will dig the whole interview clip up for you tonight-but it is long.
Brad.
Quote from: muDped on 2016.01.14, 02:45:47
The only man on Planet Earth who is publicly able to
summon OverUnity from its source with any sort of
consistency and regularity is Daniel Pomerleau.
And Daniel does it without any electrical or electronic
devices - he uses just coils of wire.
One may wonder whether this reveals anything about
the true nature of OverUnity? Or Free Energy?
The "real" space program which operates as a very
deep Black Project under the U.S. Navy (that portion
of it which is officially non-existent) has established
liaison with "inter-dimensionals." Those are the ones
who have shown the way. With strings attached...
NASA is a very costly "show" intended to create the
illusion that their technology is present "cutting edge."
The "show" has been quite effective...
Indeed
NASA is a diversion that keeps people looking in the wrong direction---they are the magicians that project the elusions.
Quote from: muDped on 2016.01.14, 02:45:47
The only man on Planet Earth who is publicly able to
summon OverUnity from its source with any sort of
consistency and regularity is Daniel Pomerleau.
And Daniel does it without any electrical or electronic
devices - he uses just coils of wire.
Can you explain / provide a link? this is quite a claim you make here.
Quote from: muDped on 2016.01.14, 02:45:47
The only man on Planet Earth who is publicly able to
summon OverUnity from its source with any sort of
consistency and regularity is Daniel Pomerleau.
I wonder where the electricity that feeds his home comes from. Probably EDF.
Quote from: Paul-R
I wonder where the electricity that feeds his home comes from. Probably EDF.
Good question. I suspect his home is powered with
electricity from the grid. For some reason "Free Energy"
manifestations provided to low level Earthlings are only
for short term time frames to enable demonstrations.
It is real and it performs work. Unfortunately,
"Science*"is not prepared yet to accept how it is made to manifest.
* The
"Science" which is made available for Public Consumption.
14,000 reels of telemetry data missing C.C
The most important mission in man's history,and 14,000 reels of data have just gone missing???.
Aint that a hoot ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9bkxbwsc-Q
I guess we could just solve this the same way we insist on doing here when !big! claims are made.
Do we have any third party verification that we went to the moon?-->Is there any one else other than NASA that can prove we went to the moon?. O0
Brad
And yet another slip up by another astronaut
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51DED8dcNkA
And the well trained,and well informed Alan Bean.
One would think that the astronauts them self would know about the Van Allen belts--but apparently not C.C
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrxpqn3Gb20
Flag waving on the moon from astronaut bouncing past it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUBMBKYTegc
Now,here is a little research project for all the moon walker believers.
I would like you to find the best footage(original footage from the NASA web site) of the lunar rovers moving on the moon. Then post that video here,and i will show you that it is absolute rubbish,and explain why.
Brad
Brad
I must admit that these you tube examinations bring up interesting observations , I did see a fellow with a fairly large telescope
posting images of objects floating over craters on the moon, which were clear enuff to actually get a feel for his claims [his claim being something's up there :o
so if this fellow can see things on the moon with a 12 inch amateur reflective telescope ,we should be able to see with our own eyes
[ not NASA photo's] images of the tire tracks and Lunar Module left behind on the moon.
personally the best guy I know for Amateur astronomy here is Tinsel.
?
or do we have any members that can visit an observatory and ask the operators if they have any evidence ?
This is a post that TK posted on OU.com,that i would like to post here as well.
The link provided was suppose to provide third party proof that man walked on the moon. But what it did do was the exact opposite.
QuoteTK: Here's a lot more evidence for TinMan to deny:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
Here's some information about LROC that you may not have realized, TinMan:
Quote
Images taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mission beginning in July 2009 show the six Apollo Lunar Module descent stages, Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package (ALSEP) science experiments, astronaut footpaths, and lunar rover tire tracks. These images are the most effective proof to date to rebut the "landing hoax" theories.[42][43][44] Although this probe was indeed launched by NASA, the camera and the interpretation of the images are under the control of an academic group — the LROC Science Operations Center at Arizona State University, along with many other academic groups.[45] At least some of these groups, such as German Aerospace Center, Berlin, are not located in the USA, and are not funded by the US government.[46]
Of course all these academic groups and even the German Aerospace Center are in on the Hoax, and images from LROC are being doctored every day to keep up the big lie. Aren't they, TinMan? There are secret classrooms full of graduate students at ASU, being paid by NASA, to perpetuate the myth, year after year ..... right.
And of course the retroreflector ranging data is faked, isn't it, even though anyone with the right equipment can fire a laser at the moon and get the same data back, proving there are man-made objects sitting on the moon.
This strange fixation of yours, TinMan, makes you look pretty silly, I must admit.
After reading the entire page,i could not find one shred of evidence that showed that man walked on the moon. But as i looked closer at the provided information and pictures,i made yet another discovery that proves the moon pictures are fake. But first my reply to TK in regards to the link he provided.
This strange fixation of yours, TinMan, makes you look pretty silly, I must admit.
Really?.
Lets look at your provided !third party! proof of the moon walkers. And this will be from the link you provided.
QuoteAnd of course the retroreflector ranging data is faked, isn't it, even though anyone with the right equipment can fire a laser at the moon and get the same data back, proving there are man-made objects sitting on the moon.
Quote from your link.
Quote: Strictly speaking, although the reflectors are strong evidence that human-manufactured artifacts currently exist on the Moon, and their locations are consistent with NASA's claims, they do not prove humans have visited the Moon.
Evidence that man went to the moon=0
QuoteHere's some information about LROC that you may not have realized, TinMan:
Of course all these academic groups and even the German Aerospace Center are in on the Hoax, and images from LROC are being doctored every day to keep up the big lie.
Where are these nice clear images from the LRO of the equipment left behind on the moon?. -There are none-oh,except for the one below-pic 1. Is this the best you have?.
Evidence that man went to the moon=0
Now for a bit more from your link.
Quote 1-In this section is evidence, by independent researchers, that NASA's account is correct. However, at least somewhere in the investigation, there was some NASA involvement, or use of US government resources.
Lol-NASA and government involvement.
Evidence that man went to the moon=0
2-SELENE photographs[edit]
In 2008, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe obtained several photographs showing evidence of Moon landings.[1] On the left are two photos taken on the lunar surface by the Apollo 15 astronauts August 2, 1971 during EVA 3 at station 9A near Hadley Rille. On the right is a 2008 reconstruction from images taken by the SELENE terrain camera and 3D projected to the same vantage point as the surface photos. The terrain is a close match within the SELENE camera resolution of 10 metres.
With a resolution of 10 meters ::)
Where is the lunar rover in the picture taken from SELENE ?,or even the ruddy great rock next to the rover in the original apollo pictures?
Pictures 2 and 3 are the original pictures !apparently! taken on the apollo 15 mission. Picture 4 is from the SELENE -->that has a resolution of 10 meters :D
Evidence that man went to the moon=0
3-The light-coloured area of blown lunar surface dust created by the lunar module engine blast at the Apollo 15 landing site was photographed and confirmed by comparative analysis of photographs in May 2008. They correspond well to photographs taken from the Apollo 15 Command/Service Module showing a change in surface reflectivity due to the plume.
What engine blast--what plume of dust?.
Show me one original video that shows any sort of blast crater under the lunar lander module.
If this plume of dust that is suppose to exist,or was created,covered the ground so as to change surface reflectivity,then why isnt there any of this dust from this plume on the lander foot pad's?. The foot pad's(which are bowl/dish shaped) would have caught some of this dust from the plume. But no-nothing to be seen in any photo showing the foot pad's in any of the apollo missions.
Evidence that man went to the moon=0
4-Chandrayaan-1[edit]
As with SELENE, the Terrain Mapping Camera of India's Chandrayaan-1 probe did not have enough resolution to record Apollo hardware.
Evidence that man went to the moon=0
5-Chang'e 2[edit]
China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2, which was launched in 2010 is capable of capturing lunar surface images with a resolution of up to 1.3 metres. It claims to have spotted traces of the Apollo landings, though the relevant imagery has not been publicly identified
Lol-aint that a hoot :D
Evidence that man went to the moon=0
6-Kettering Grammar School[edit]
A group at Kettering Grammar School, using simple radio equipment, monitored Soviet and U.S. spacecraft and calculated their !!orbits!!.[10][11] In 1972 a member of the group "picks up Apollo 17 on its way to the Moon
Evidence that man went to the moon=0
7-This event can be traced with the Apollo 8 Flight Journal, noting that launch was at 0751 EST or 12:51 UT on December 21
Dr. Michael Moutsoulas at Pic du Midi Observatory reported an initial sighting around 17:10(4 hours and 19 minutes after lift off) UT on December 21 with the 1.1-metre reflector as an object (magnitude near 10, through clouds) moving eastward near the predicted location of Apollo 8
!!Now TK,as you are a bit of an amateur Astronomer,tell us how well you could spot or track an object that small,traveling at the speed that the apollo space craft was travelling at,and through cloud's at that ?.!! ;)
Justus Dunlap and others at Corralitos Observatory (then operated by Northwestern University) obtained over 400 short-exposure intensified images, giving very accurate locations for the spacecraft
The 2.1m Otto Struve Telescope at McDonald Observatory, from 01:50–2:37 UT on December 23, observed the brightest object flashing as bright as magnitude 15, with the flash pattern recurring about once a minute
The Lick Observatory observations during the return coast to Earth produced live television pictures broadcast to United States west coast viewers via KQED-TV in San Francisco.
At Jodrell Bank Observatory in the UK, the telescope was used to observe the mission, as it was used years previously for Sputnik.[16] At the same time, Jodrell Bank scientists were tracking the unmanned Soviet spacecraft Luna 15, which was trying to land on the Moon.[17] In July 2009, Jodrell released some recordings they made
Rachel, Chabot Observatory's 20-inch refracting telescope, helps bring Apollo 13 and its crew home. One last burn of the lunar lander engines was needed before the crippled spacecraft's re-entry into the Earth's
Apollo 14[edit]
Main article: Apollo 14
Corralitos Observatory photographed Apollo 14<--thats great :D
Apollo 16[edit]
Main article: Apollo 16
Jewett Observatory at Washington State University reported sightings of Apollo 16.[6]
At least two different radio amateurs, W4HHK and K2RIW, reported reception of Apollo 16 signals with home-built equipment
Apollo 17[edit]
Main article: Apollo 17
Sven Grahn describes several amateur sightings of Apollo 17<--Where?.
And the list go's on and on.
Total evidence that man went to the moon from the provided link by TK=0
I have no problem believing that they could have been in earth orbit at that time in history,and i have no problem believing that we could have sent a craft to the moon, But man never went,because they just could not,and still cannot today-as has been described by NASA engineers and astronauts them self.
So i see no evidence what so ever in the link you provided TK,that proves man went to the moon.
In fact,most of what is described on that page is comical.
I think that page TK is making you look pretty silly if you think there is any proof what so ever provided in that link that proves man went to the moon.
Brad
P.S
I have to add this TK.
If some one provided this kind of !!so called!! evidence to back up a claim of an overunity device,you would laugh in there face.
Please read next post
Brad
A closer look at the pictures in the !!proof!! link provided by TK
My post from OU.com
TK,this is a picture from that link you posted that was suppose to show proof-or third party proof that man did walk on the moon--which it did not.
But what it did do,is once again show that the pictures taken on the !!moon!! are fake.
I wonder if you really take a good hard look at !!what is suppose to be! this proof you provide-->or do you prefer to turn a blind eye due to the need to believe.
It is ironic that the link your provided to show evidence that man was on the moon,ended up being a link that show's the pictures taken on the !!moon!! are fake.
The picture in the link you provided is quite good quality,and you can blow it up quite a lot on windows picture viewer,and it will still remain quite clear.
So after you have done that,could you please show us all where the wheel tracks for the rover are ???. I mean,i can clearly see the foot prints left by the moon walkers,but see no wheel tracks for the rover. Did the rover fly to that position?--maybe the moon walkers carried it there? :D
Here is the link TK posted to show the third party proof that man walked on the moon,and also the source for the image below -->for those interested in the truth.
So go ahead,copy and save the image from the provided !!proof!! link,and enlarge the image to see if you can find the rover wheel tracks.
There are no wheel tracks to either the front,rear or in between the wheels them self. This clearly shows the rover was lowered by some sort of winching device into place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
Brad
Some more pics from NASA showing trackless lunar rovers. O0
Here is an interesting quote by NA,and he made this statement in several interviews.
Listen to the answer he gives in regards to seeing stars from the moon.
Quote: we were never able to see stars from the moon without looking through the optic's
What optic's?
1st--the view finders on the camera's were removed for the moon missions.
2nd--if you could see the stars through the optic's,then why do they not show up on the film
3rd--the reason the view finders were removed from the camera's,was because the astronauts could not look down on that angle to look through the camera in the first place. C.C
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG7HjyuDP9w
Wires on the moon.
In the below video,we can see that these astronauts have got better moves than Michael Jackson.
Pay close attention from 1:30 onward. There is something else i noticed when watching the video carefully.
There is a white object that falls out of the astronauts back pack,and it falls to the surface of the moon very fast. Why did it fall so fast to the surface of the moon,when everything else they show falls in slow motion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pqi5ckFr1Ow
Quote from: EMdevices on 2016.01.16, 03:31:47
This guy filmed some interesting shock wave across the moon, or holographic refresh rate type of anomaly.
http://youtu.be/9jK5Nq08r1g
Apparently he's had collaborating evidence from others. I'm thinking what if this is a shockwave in our upper atmosphere? Where were the other people?
http://youtu.be/xUGxysKSGEM
He's got a video of an object moving across the moon, very interesting.
http://youtu.be/EC6MlZ8ib0s
Looking closely at the last video, there is a distortion field around the object.
Also, this field around the object extends further behind the object than in front of the object.
Does this imply that the object is tilted forward?
Quote from: TinMan on 2016.01.19, 14:26:00
Wires on the moon.
In the below video,we can see that these astronauts have got better moves than Michael Jackson.
Pay close attention from 1:30 onward. There is something else i noticed when watching the video carefully.
There is a white object that falls out of the astronauts back pack,and it falls to the surface of the moon very fast. Why did it fall so fast to the surface of the moon,when everything else they show falls in slow motion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pqi5ckFr1Ow
Hi Tinman, I do see the object fall rather quickly, but I must disagree on the fallen Astronaut having no help to stand up. What I see is the fallen Astronaut has his left arm extended and the standing Astronaut uses his right hand to assist the fallen Astronaut by grasping the fallen guys extended left hand, the fallen guy uses the standing guys right hand (and maybe his thigh also) as a support to help him stand up, this is partially obscured by the standing guy, it seems, but I believe there is help given and support taken to stand the fallen guy back up.
If the object had some force on it going down just prior to detaching from the backpack it would be kind of thrown to the surface not simply dropped.
Also it is possible that the Astronaut might be inclined to stand on his toes a bit in low gravity.
Not trying to take any sides, just giving another perspective. I don't think the video is much proof of anything, neither for nor against. Inconclusive I say.
As for the explanations I say we must run a line of questioning in our heads and ask things like - What could cause an object to go to the surface quicker than gravity alone ? Answer = exerted downward force + gravity.
.
P.S. I just had a pang of deja vu. Not sure why, maybe a false sense of it.
.
Oh and "the optics" could be as simple as different filters on the helmets, or other hand held optics, other than camera's.
..
Quote from: Farmhand on 2016.01.20, 22:25:53
Hi Tinman, I do see the object fall rather quickly, but I must disagree on the fallen Astronaut having no help to stand up. What I see is the fallen Astronaut has his left arm extended and the standing Astronaut uses his right hand to assist the fallen Astronaut by grasping the fallen guys extended left hand, the fallen guy uses the standing guys right hand (and maybe his thigh also) as a support to help him stand up, this is partially obscured by the standing guy, it seems, but I believe there is help given and support taken to stand the fallen guy back up.
If the object had some force on it going down just prior to detaching from the backpack it would be kind of thrown to the surface not simply dropped.
Also it is possible that the Astronaut might be inclined to stand on his toes a bit in low gravity.
Not trying to take any sides, just giving another perspective. I don't think the video is much proof of anything, neither for nor against. Inconclusive I say.
As for the explanations I say we must run a line of questioning in our heads and ask things like - What could cause an object to go to the surface quicker than gravity alone ? Answer = exerted downward force + gravity.
.
P.S. I just had a pang of deja vu. Not sure why, maybe a false sense of it.
.
Oh and "the optics" could be as simple as different filters on the helmets, or other hand held optics, other than camera's.
..
All input welcome Farmhand O0,and my aim here is to look for things that have not yet been seen or asked by the !!so called !!skeptics.
It is odd to see the object fall so fast,when the hammer and feather test seem to show the hammer falling slower than what that object did from the astronauts backpack in that video.
Anyway,bit by bit we can analyse all the data provided by NASA,and !!if!! those here are able to put aside the !!need to believe!! attitude,and use the science and methodology they do to look into other extraordinay claim's,then we may get to the truth.
Below is a blown up view of one of the lunar rover wheels,and the picture from NASA that the exploded view came from. As we know the lunar surface soil is void of any water/moisture content due to the vacuum and the astronauts descriptions,we have to ask our self as to why the soil sticks to the wheels like it dose ???. This cannot happen when there is no moisture content in the soil.
Brad
Could it be electrostatic effect ? Or depending on the make up of the dust maybe even magnetic effect ? Dunno, it seems odd that no (or little) dust is on the sidewalls or treads. And I might look into actually how the rover was launched from the landing module ect. I would have though there would be tracks to the tyres.
..
Well it seems as though the Lunar Rover was able to be carried by two men on the moon so that would explain how it got to a spot with no tracks leading to it, it was carried. So it would seem.
..
This is really sad.
TinMan, you can just claim that _all_ the evidence is faked, just as I said you would.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/revisited/
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html
All fake, of course.
QuoteThis cannot happen when there is no moisture content in the soil.
Utterly and completely wrong, as anyone with experience with electrostatics can confirm.
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2016.01.23, 07:50:59
QuoteThis is really sad.
TinMan, you can just claim that _all_ the evidence is faked, just as I said you would.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/revisited/
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html
All fake, of course.
What is really sad ,is the fact that all your information is from NASA.
QuoteUtterly and completely wrong, as anyone with experience with electrostatics can confirm.
Ah C.C
I was wondering how long it was going to take for the good old !electrostatics! to come into it.
Are we going to overlook the fact that the wheels are all steel,and always grounded. :D
My motor vehicles have these rubber strap's(static straps) that have steel braided wire impregnated in the rubber. These straps make contact with the very lowly conductive surface of my concrete driveway when we pull into our home to eliminate any static charge the vehicle may have built up while traveling, before we touch any metallic part of the car--so as we do not get a static shock.
P.W first said it may be due to some lubricant leak as to why the dust was sticking to the wheels. But then after he posted about how well the rovers were engineered,and how everything about them was perfect,he to had to revert to the good old !! static charge!! explanation O0.
Im thinking more along the lines of very cold frosty nights in the desert's of America,and a moisture build up on the steel surfaces of the wheels being the reason for the dust sticking to the wheels. O0
As we have already shown you, the LRO was _launched_ by NASA but is not operated by NASA. Just because the images from the ASU team which operates the cameras and processes the photos are hosted on a NASA website doesn't mean the images "come from NASA".
And the rest of your statement about electrostatics only continues to reveal that you don't have much experience with electrostatic phenomena, and/or that you (as you often do) are misinterpreting what you have seen.
Men from Earth have walked on the Moon, Brad. Face the _facts_ and quit letting yourself be seduced by quackery. Every one of the claims of "fakery" have been debunked, many times over.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/photogalleries/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-pictures/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examination_of_Apollo_Moon_photographs
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/18/apollo-11-fake-proof_n_5599372.html
http://www.relativelyinteresting.com/the-moon-landing-hoax-debunked-again/
And especially:
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/truth-behind-moon-landings/
NASA
Document R2 77 ??
mentioned here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmRwQCoK_XY
some of us are a bit more suspicious of why the long and sudden stop in exploration of a most obvious asset.
The silence is deafening
http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/10apr_moondustinthewind/
April 10, 2008: Moondust is dry, desiccated stuff, and may seem like a dull topic to write about. Indeed, you could search a ton of moondust without finding a single molecule of water, so it could make for a pretty "dry" story. But like the dust in your mother's attic, moondust covers something interesting – the moon – and even the dust itself has curious tales to tell. A group of NASA and University of Alabama researchers are what you might call "active listeners": Mian Abbas, James Spann, Richard Hoover and Dragana Tankosic have been shooting moondust with electrons, levitating moondust using electric fields, and scrutinizing moondust under an electron microscope. All this is happening at the National Space Science and Technology Center's "Dusty Plasma Lab" in Huntsville, Alabama.
Why such attention? Spann explains: "Humans will return to the moon in a few years and have to know what to expect. How do you live and work in a place filled with moondust? We're trying to find out."
"Moondust was a real nuisance for Apollo astronauts," adds Abbas. "It stuck to everything – spacesuits, equipment, instruments." The sharp-edged grains scratched faceplates, clogged joints, blackened surfaces and made dials all but unreadable. "The troublesome clinginess had a lot to do with moondust's electrostatic charge."
Dust on the moon is electrified, at least in part, by exposure to the solar wind. Earth is protected from the solar wind by our planet's magnetic field, but the moon has no global magnetic field to ward off charged particles from the sun. Free electrons in the solar wind interact with grains of moondust and, in effect, "charge them up."
etc..
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/30mar_moonfountains/
That took me about 2 minutes to type "moon dust electrostatic charge" into a search engine, and about 8 minutes to copy edit a couple of NASA top picks to post here. Nice pictures too O0
Soo all we need is an extension cord to Plug into the moon ?
the "charge" is everywhere !!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-T7tCMUDXU&list=PLGXvKGgTcvRZ0VqdYnc2owKJ_8ZZ4OtH_
This Vid is a must see regardless !!
[Elapse time 27 seconds...on one leg with both eyes closed 8)]
with Brevity and Much respect
Chet K
If we didnt go to the moon how do we know about the alien bases? (See what I did there)
Quote from: Chet K on 2016.01.25, 17:26:48
Soo all we need is an extension cord to Plug into the moon ?
the "charge" is everywhere !!
Kind of yeah..
The Earths electrical potential is huge:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_electricity
Experiments have shown that the intensity of this electric field is greater in the middle of the day than at morning or night and is also greater in winter than in summer. In 'fine weather', the potential, aka 'voltage', increases with altitude at about 30 volts per foot (100 V/m), when climbing against the gradient of the electric field.[3] This electric field gradient continues up into the atmosphere to a point where the voltage reaches its maximum,
in the neighborhood of 300,000 volts. This occurs at approximately 30–50 km above the Earth's surface.[4] From that point in the atmosphere up to its outer limit, nearly 1,000 km, the electric field gradient produced in the lower atmosphere either ceases or has reversed.
UNIT 21: ELECTRICAL AND GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL
http://www.sfu.ca/phys/141/ActivityGuide/pdf/Unit21.pdf
Approximate time two 100-minute sessions
"I began to think of gravity extending to the orb of the moon,
and . . . I deduced that the forces which keep the planets in their
orbs must be reciprocally as the squares of their distances from
the centres about which they revolve: and thereby compared the
force requisite to keep the moon in her orb with the force of
gravity at the surface of the earth, and found them to answer
pretty nearly. All this was in the two plague years of 1665 and
1666, for in those days I was in the prime of my age for
invention, and minded mathematics and philosophy more than
at any time since." –
Isaac Newton
Quote from: JimBoot on 2016.01.25, 20:10:14
If we didnt go to the moon how do we know about the alien bases? (See what I did there)
Point of view (philosophy)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_of_view_%28philosophy%29
In philosophy, a point of view is a specified or stated manner of consideration, [1] an attitude how one sees or thinks of something, [2] as in "from doctor's point of view". This figurative usage of the expression as attested since 1760.[3] In this meaning, the usage is synonymous with one of the meanings of the term perspective.[4] [5]
What is the source material for your alien base existence belief ?
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2016.01.25, 10:43:41
As we have already shown you, the LRO was _launched_ by NASA but is not operated by NASA. Just because the images from the ASU team which operates the cameras and processes the photos are hosted on a NASA website doesn't mean the images "come from NASA".
And the rest of your statement about electrostatics only continues to reveal that you don't have much experience with electrostatic phenomena, and/or that you (as you often do) are misinterpreting what you have seen.
Men from Earth have walked on the Moon, Brad. Face the _facts_ and quit letting yourself be seduced by quackery.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/photogalleries/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-pictures/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examination_of_Apollo_Moon_photographs
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/18/apollo-11-fake-proof_n_5599372.html
http://www.relativelyinteresting.com/the-moon-landing-hoax-debunked-again/
And especially:
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/truth-behind-moon-landings/
Quote
Every one of the claims of "fakery" have been debunked, many times over.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNWs-vlIhdM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lfkta0IT26w
They claim the crosshairs were removed when the false horizon for this moon picture was created at 9:25 in this video.
If the earth is really "flat",
Yet we find ourselves circling around it, regularly...
Must we conclude, that the earth is therefore: A Cube ?
Did we go to the moon?
Absolutely.
Those that think otherwise, either have no comprehension of rocket science,
or are majorly deluded by propaganda, and uneducated rumors...
I can tell you from personal experience, that NASA possesses photos and video of lunar missions that
were NEVER made public. even to this day, they deny they ever went BACK!
This data was taken from a "secure" NASA server,
not public info, and we went over and over the situation.
there is no reason for them to have faked the extra footage, then catalog and store it among real mission files.
and there was found no evidence of editing, or altering of the footage or photos in any manner.
I had 3 professionals look at the images.
I have watched 3 lunar landing videos.
two of them were accompanied by UFO(s) following the landers to the surface.
in the unedited footage, astronauts and mission control can be heard discussing extraterrestrial entities watching their mission.
more than once during the 3rd landing, there was noted a large spacecraft sitting on a ledge, observing them.
The known moon landing videos, the UFO's were edited OUT of the footage, so they are not shown to everyone.
There are laws in the U.S. that supersede, even the President, on this issue.
There are other issues - weapons and technology so far beyond our current accepted knowledge, so as to produce mass panic.
Certain details of our current accepted knowledge, that we don't want the general public to know about.
I could go on, but basically what I am saying is,
similar to the media 'black-outs',
the government decides what we do and do not know about. period.
When they decide "we are ready",... then they will tell us.
Until then, we are left to our own discord.
Some of us know just enough to know they aren't telling us everything they know.
Others know what they are not telling us
and others still, know why.
You have to understand, much like everything else they feed us,
there are at least three sides to this issue.
Those that believe/know
Those that do not
and those that are not sure.
Divide et impera - a concept that is as old as government itself.
Are you "republican" ? "democrat" ? "don't care/don't vote"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule)
In addition to this, there is a recent report from Chinese Intelligence, indicating the finding of an active US AirForce base,
ON "THE MOON"!!!!!
add that to telescope images from 3 spots on the planet, that clearly show a 160ft satellite dish,
in a lunar crater.
It seems NASA wants us to debate conspiracies,
doubt that we ever left the planet,
so no one thinks about what they are REALLY doing up there.....
When you look into the sky, there is an object 30x brighter than the north star.
brighter than any satellite, and anything else in the sky, save the sun itself.
This is the ISS. People live there, year round.
Without the Apollo missions,
this never would have been possible.
It is difficult for the many to even contemplate that there
may be a space exploration program presently conducting
operations within our solar system and beyond.
The program is a component of the United States Navy.
It exists because of "technology" provided by certain
"Alien Races" and mutual assistance agreements.
Quote from: muDped on 2016.03.31, 14:38:19
It is difficult for the many to even contemplate that there
may be a space exploration program presently conducting
operations within our solar system and beyond.
In the absence of heavy duty evidence, Yes.
Reboot
Seems Dave is on the !proving the moon landings! hunt.
I would have expected better from Dave--not very scientific.
Who see's the faults in this video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYPmitSg268
P.S-a quote from smokey2
Did we go to the moon?
Absolutely.
Those that think otherwise, either have no comprehension of rocket science
So,who has the rocket science smarts to explain as to why there is no blast crater under any of the lunar landers ?
Brad
When did the camera appear on the outside of the lunar lander for the FIRST step? Wouldnt somebody have to install it first. There were no windows at that level and the shot was level to low. Like attached to the lander part. I guess it could have been the same one that videoed the landing itself?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/76/Ap11-S69-31575HR.jpg/800px-Ap11-S69-31575HR.jpg)
QuoteStarting with Apollo 7, a camera was carried on every Apollo Command Module (CM) except Apollo 9. For each lunar landing mission, a camera was also placed inside the Lunar Module (LM) Descent Stage's Modularized Equipment Stowage Assembly (MESA). Positioning the camera in the MESA made it possible to telecast the astronauts' first steps as they climbed down the LM's ladder at the start of a mission's first moonwalk/EVA. Afterwards, the camera would be detached from its mount in the MESA, mounted on a tripod and carried away from the LM to show the EVA's progress; or, mounted on a Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV), where it could be remotely controlled from Mission Control on Earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_TV_camera
Quote from: TinMan on 2017.07.28, 13:09:56
(snip)
P.S-a quote from smokey2
Did we go to the moon?
Absolutely.
Those that think otherwise, either have no comprehension of rocket science
So,who has the rocket science smarts to explain as to why there is no blast crater under any of the lunar landers ?
Brad
This guy does:
http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/LMcrater.htm
Quote from: TinMan on 2017.07.28, 13:09:56
Reboot
Seems Dave is on the !proving the moon landings! hunt.
I would have expected better from Dave--not very scientific.
Who see's the faults in this video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYPmitSg268
(snip)
Brad
So you claim to believe that the original video frames from the ascent, and the LRO photo taken 40 years later, are actually from the original hoax project and that's why they match up so well? Or that some unmanned robotic vehicle actually left the tracks and no humans actually went there?
Well, I for one do not believe that
you actually don't believe in the manned lunar landings. Prove me wrong!
Note all the dust kicked up by the lander as it was about to touch down:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_OD2V6fMLQ
I'm old enough to remember watching this stuff on television in 1969.
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2017.07.30, 17:53:14
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_OD2V6fMLQ
I'm old enough to remember watching this stuff on television in 1969.
QuoteSo you claim to believe that the original video frames from the ascent, and the LRO photo taken 40 years later, are actually from the original hoax project and that's why they match up so well?
I am asking as to why the screen shot from the original footage,taken from a camera back in 1969,looks clearer than the picture taken from the LRO,a satellite designed solely for taking pictures of the moons surface.
And why dose it look like the tracks have been eroded away in the LRO picture-some 40 years later-->wind? C.C
The pictures from the LRO,where taken at a altitude of only 25km.
Below i have included a picture taken from the GeoEye 1,at an altitude of 681km.
GeoEye 1 also has to contend with the earths atmosphere,where as the LRO dose not.
QuoteOr that some unmanned robotic vehicle actually left the tracks and no humans actually went there?
We are going on the assumption that these tracks are actually on the moon.
There are man made tracks on mar's,and yet no humans have been there.
QuoteWell, I for one do not believe that you actually don't believe in the manned lunar landings.
No chance in hell man went to the moon in 1969.
QuoteProve me wrong!
I would have thought that the one(or ones) making such a great claim,are those that should be providing the proof?.
The only proof we have so far,is provided by those that are making the claim,and the proof provided is that unclear it's almost a joke.
QuoteNote all the dust kicked up by the lander as it was about to touch down:
My 900 watt blower vac kicks up more dust than that.
Lets do this using the scientific method TK,and look at one thing at a time.
First -the absence of a blast crater.
I will go read that link you provided,and see what we find.
Brad
Ok,so lets deal with the apollo 11 mission.
You will see that i will be wording thing's,so as it sound's like we are actually talking about the moon landings as being a reality,as i just dont see any point at this time to include !apparent or apparently! in every thing i say.
As this will take a fair bit of writing,quote's,pictures and video clip's,we will do it one part at a time.
So,a quote from the link TK provided,in relation to the absence of a blast crater.
Quote: It is assumed the LM's descent during the final three seconds is vertical, which, conservatively, results in the greatest concentration of the exhaust stream. By "conservative" it is meant that the assumptions are worse than reality. For instance, if the LM were still drifting forward during the final seconds prior to touchdown, as it likely was, the exhaust stream would be sweeping across the surface rather than being concentrating on a single spot. Concentrating the exhaust into a small area produces a deeper excavation that reveals itself more conspicuously. In all cases conservative assumptions, i.e. the worst than can be, will be made to favor the argument of the conspiracy theorists. If this conservative approach shows that no conspicuous crater is produced, we can be sure that reality will be even less.
To know for sure,and leave behind assumptions,we simple look at the high res pictures from the apollo 11 mission.
Looking at the picture below,we can clearly see that the lunar lander made a vertical landing,with no sign what so ever of the landing pads skidding sideways as it made touchdown.
Had the lunar lander been traveling sideways as well as down when it made touchdown,we would see the sand/dust banked up on one side of the foot pad's,and a skid mark on the other side of each pad-but no such sign of a sideways landing is present.
You will also note the footprints left in the lunar surface,near the rocket's nozzle,indicating a soft dusty surface.
Although some of the pictures to follow in post's to come,may look like the moons surface is made of a moist sand/dust combination,we know that that is not true,as there is no way the surface could contain any sort of moisture content in a vacuum. C.C
Anyway,the sideways landing is debunked.
Continuing on with the link provided by TK,to explain away the absence of a blast crater.
http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/LMcrater.htm
Here you will see this claim-and probably true.
Quote:we find that the velocity of the lunar dust has been estimated to be between 0.6 and 1.5 miles per second (about 1,000 to 2,400 m/s). It is logical to assume the gas velocity (after losing energy to the soil) is the same as the dust. That is, the dust particles are propelled by the gas and are carried along with the gas flow at the same speed. We'll assume the low end of the velocity range, i.e. 1,000 m/s, because this is ultra-conservative.
So,the ejected mass from the moons surface is traveling at !a conservative! 1,000 m/s
To put this in a perspective that you can relate to,the average sand blaster ejects it's abrasive particles at around 200 m/s
http://www.sand-blast-machine.com/content/6-Blasting-nozzles
Now,we know what happens to a material subjected to a sand blaster,where the ejected abrasive has a speed of 200 m/s,and so what would happen to a material subjected to an abrasive traveling at 5 times the velocity to that of your average sand blaster ?. Well apparently--nothing C.C
The lite foil around the landers feet is untouched by this high velocity media being ejected at 1,000 m/s from under the lunar lander.
We are also told that the moons regolith is sharp and jagged,and so would make for one hell of a blasting media.
We are also told that the moons regolith/dust is electrically charged,and sticks to !any! surface it comes in contact with--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_soil
Quote: The dust is electrically charged and sticks to any surface it comes in contact with.
But the lander's legs remain shinny clean O0
Oh-zoom in on the picture below,and check out the lovely styrofoam cut out bits around the foot pad ball joint's.
Something is amiss here ???
Next we look at the problems associated with the weight measurements in the link provided by TK.
First hickup-why dose he use !lbm!(lean body mass) to describe the landed weight of the lunar lander?
Quote:We obtain the mass of the LM from Selected Mission Weights, where we see the mass at lunar landing was 16,153.2 lbm.
Is this what the lander weighs in lb's on the moon?,as he dose state !mass at lunar landing!,or is this what it would weigh on earth?
If this is what it's weight is on the moon,then there is a problem with his thrust calculations.
Quote example in his chart: -17 to 0-thrust=2,652lbf
So,if we have 2,652 pounds of force,acting against a weight of 16,153 pound's-how dose the lander come down slowly?,as we have a mass of 13,501 pounds that has nothing working against it's acceleration toward the moon,due to the moons gravity.
Can you clarify on this TK,before we go ahead here.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2017.07.31, 07:29:47
Next we look at the problems associated with the weight measurements in the link provided by TK.
First hickup-why dose he use !lbm!(lean body mass) to describe the landed weight of the lunar lander?
Quote:We obtain the mass of the LM from Selected Mission Weights, where we see the mass at lunar landing was 16,153.2 lbm.
Is this what the lander weighs in lb's on the moon?,as he dose state !mass at lunar landing!,or is this what it would weigh on earth?
If this is what it's weight is on the moon,then there is a problem with his thrust calculations.
Quote example in his chart: -17 to 0-thrust=2,652lbf
So,if we have 2,652 pounds of force,acting against a weight of 16,153 pound's-how dose the lander come down slowly?,as we have a mass of 13,501 pounds that has nothing working against it's acceleration toward the moon,due to the moons gravity.
Can you clarify on this TK,before we go ahead here.
Brad
He's using "lbm" meaning "pounds of mass" just as he uses "lbf" to mean "pounds of force". So the lunar lander had a mass of 16,153 pounds which weighs ON EARTH 16,153 pounds. The moon's gravitational acceleration at the surface is 1/6.0624 that of the Earth's. The mass of course doesn't change, just the weight. So on the moon, the lander weighs 16,153/6.0624=2664.45 pounds, give or take. No problem, compared to the 2652 pounds of force available according to the chart.
Don't forget that _all_ this "hoax" stuff had to be in place and working, available for examination, in 1969. We watched it live, most of it, on television back then!
Quote from: TinMan on 2017.07.31, 04:10:17
Ok,so lets deal with the apollo 11 mission.
You will see that i will be wording thing's,so as it sound's like we are actually talking about the moon landings as being a reality,as i just dont see any point at this time to include !apparent or apparently! in every thing i say.
As this will take a fair bit of writing,quote's,pictures and video clip's,we will do it one part at a time.
So,a quote from the link TK provided,in relation to the absence of a blast crater.
Quote: It is assumed the LM's descent during the final three seconds is vertical, which, conservatively, results in the greatest concentration of the exhaust stream. By "conservative" it is meant that the assumptions are worse than reality. For instance, if the LM were still drifting forward during the final seconds prior to touchdown, as it likely was, the exhaust stream would be sweeping across the surface rather than being concentrating on a single spot. Concentrating the exhaust into a small area produces a deeper excavation that reveals itself more conspicuously. In all cases conservative assumptions, i.e. the worst than can be, will be made to favor the argument of the conspiracy theorists. If this conservative approach shows that no conspicuous crater is produced, we can be sure that reality will be even less.
To know for sure,and leave behind assumptions,we simple look at the high res pictures from the apollo 11 mission.
Looking at the picture below,we can clearly see that the lunar lander made a vertical landing,with no sign what so ever of the landing pads skidding sideways as it made touchdown.
Had the lunar lander been traveling sideways as well as down when it made touchdown,we would see the sand/dust banked up on one side of the foot pad's,and a skid mark on the other side of each pad-but no such sign of a sideways landing is present.
You will also note the footprints left in the lunar surface,near the rocket's nozzle,indicating a soft dusty surface.
Although some of the pictures to follow in post's to come,may look like the moons surface is made of a moist sand/dust combination,we know that that is not true,as there is no way the surface could contain any sort of moisture content in a vacuum. C.C
Anyway,the sideways landing is debunked.
You are debunking a straw man. Who ever said the actual touchdown was sideways? That would be very dangerous; you would not want the thing to snag a leg on a rock and tip over. Ask any helicopter pilot what will happen if you snag a gear leg while sliding sideways!
You can see in the original Apollo 11 video of the final descent and landing that the _approach_ to touchdown was drifting sideways as Armstrong maneuvered the ship to a flat spot. He nearly ran the thing out of fuel, too! You can see how the dust was blown around by the engine blast. Look at the pictures of the module and notice the long "feelers" that reach down from the landing legs. The thing essentially fell from a few feet of altitude straight down once the engine shut off. Very slowly since the moon's gravity is less than 1/6 that of earth's.
Every one of your conspiracy theory "facts" has a similar history of straw-men, misunderstandings, misinterpretations of data, and more. They have all been dealt with many times over.
Quote from: TinMan on 2017.07.31, 06:23:29
Continuing on with the link provided by TK,to explain away the absence of a blast crater.
http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/LMcrater.htm
Here you will see this claim-and probably true.
Quote:we find that the velocity of the lunar dust has been estimated to be between 0.6 and 1.5 miles per second (about 1,000 to 2,400 m/s). It is logical to assume the gas velocity (after losing energy to the soil) is the same as the dust. That is, the dust particles are propelled by the gas and are carried along with the gas flow at the same speed. We'll assume the low end of the velocity range, i.e. 1,000 m/s, because this is ultra-conservative.
So,the ejected mass from the moons surface is traveling at !a conservative! 1,000 m/s
To put this in a perspective that you can relate to,the average sand blaster ejects it's abrasive particles at around 200 m/s
http://www.sand-blast-machine.com/content/6-Blasting-nozzles
Now,we know what happens to a material subjected to a sand blaster,where the ejected abrasive has a speed of 200 m/s,and so what would happen to a material subjected to an abrasive traveling at 5 times the velocity to that of your average sand blaster ?. Well apparently--nothing C.C
The lite foil around the landers feet is untouched by this high velocity media being ejected at 1,000 m/s from under the lunar lander.
We are also told that the moons regolith is sharp and jagged,and so would make for one hell of a blasting media.
We are also told that the moons regolith/dust is electrically charged,and sticks to !any! surface it comes in contact with--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_soil
Quote: The dust is electrically charged and sticks to any surface it comes in contact with.
But the lander's legs remain shinny clean O0
Oh-zoom in on the picture below,and check out the lovely styrofoam cut out bits around the foot pad ball joint's.
Something is amiss here ???
Another straw man. The lander's footpads were never exposed to the high velocity abrasive dust blast because the engine was shut off while the pads were still several feet up from the surface. The contact sensors were "spikes" that extended down some distance from the pads themselves. Once the sensors indicated contact, the descent engine was shut off and the lander "fell" a few feet straight down onto the pads. Since there is no air on the moon, no dust was kicked up by the actual pads as they "fell" vertically into contact with the surface.
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-fff5e9604803a9bd0dc6a3513b6c7b8c)
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/my549c2b16.jpg)
Note the "scoured" looking surface from dust having been blown away:
(http://www.space1.com/Artifacts/Lunar_Module_Artifacts/Surface_Sensing_Probe/AS11-40-5917_600.jpg)
That sure doesn't look like any "Styrofoam cut out bits" to me.
Besides, Styrofoam chips also electrostatically stick to just about anything don't they?
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2017.07.31, 11:06:33
You are debunking a straw man. Who ever said the actual touchdown was sideways? That would be very dangerous; you would not want the thing to snag a leg on a rock and tip over.
You can see in the original Apollo 11 video of the final descent and landing that the _approach_ to touchdown was drifting sideways as Armstrong maneuvered the ship to a flat spot. He nearly ran the thing out of fuel, too! You can see how the dust was blown around by the engine blast. Look at the pictures of the module and notice the long "feelers" that reach down from the landing legs. The thing essentially fell from a few feet of altitude straight down once the engine shut off. Very slowly since the moon's gravity is less than 1/6 that of earth's.
Every one of your conspiracy theory "facts" has a similar history of straw-men, misunderstandings, misinterpretations of data, and more. They have all been dealt with many times over.
Not so fast TK,as the evidence is stacked against man landing on the moon-not for it.
There are facts that the moon walker believers steer clear of,and never answer--we will cover those soon.
Quote: Don't forget that _all_ this "hoax" stuff had to be in place and working, available for examination, in 1969. We watched it live, most of it, on television back then!
What proof do you have that it was live?
How can you tell if you are watching something on TV that is live or pre- recorded?
Despite the fact that some idiot's got hold of this footage,and plastered foul language over it ,who would go to all this trouble-not to mention the money involved,to set up this set ,just to prove NASA faked the moon landings.
The lander is full size,and an exact match.
The picture looks the same quality as provided by NASA.
The moon looks like it dose in the NASA video's
So what go's here ?
Turn the volume off,and watch the video.
Minus a few added extra bits of crap,it looks like the real deal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YEf124g4dU
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2017.07.31, 11:17:11
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-fff5e9604803a9bd0dc6a3513b6c7b8c)
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/my549c2b16.jpg)
Note the "scoured" looking surface from dust having been blown away:
(http://www.space1.com/Artifacts/Lunar_Module_Artifacts/Surface_Sensing_Probe/AS11-40-5917_600.jpg)
QuoteAnother straw man. The lander's footpads were never exposed to the high velocity abrasive dust blast because the engine was shut off while the pads were still several feet up from the surface. The contact sensors were "spikes" that extended down some distance from the pads themselves. Once the sensors indicated contact, the descent engine was shut off and the lander "fell" a few feet straight down onto the pads. Since there is no air on the moon, no dust was kicked up by the actual pads as they "fell" vertically into contact with the surface.
In your video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_OD2V6fMLQ
it is clearly stated that the engines were shut down after touchdown-4:43-->contact lite,ok engines stop.
Your picture also says Decent engine on at touchdown.
QuoteThat sure doesn't look like any "Styrofoam cut out bits" to me.
Besides, Styrofoam chips also electrostatically stick to just about anything don't they?
Are you sure?-see pic below.
Just one point: the "contact light on, engine shutdown" happened when the _probes_ made contact, not the pads. The pads were still over 4 feet up when the contact light was triggered. Then you have to figure in the reaction time of the pilot and the system, so the engine was shut off while the pads were still a couple feet up. You are misinterpreting that graph.
I think the story of Stanley Kubrick making "backup fake videos" of a simulated landing may be true, and I know he was given some very fast video lenses by NASA (which he used to shoot "Barry Lyndon"). But that does not negate the fact of the successful landings.
For your conspiracy theory to be true there would have to be literally thousands of people in on it. And then you have to believe that all this sophisticated hoaxing went on, but they were so stupid as to leave the rather simple things that you are citing as "evidence" of a hoax. When in fact all the things you and others have cited are actually misinterpretations, misunderstandings, and the results of very shallow "research".
How can you prove to me that you _really_ don't believe in the landings? We only have your word for it. Whereas we have the words of all the people who actually did walk on the moon, all the people who worked hard and made sacrifices to get them there and return them safely, all the television anchors (like Walter Cronkite, ffs!) who reported on it in real time, all the radio Hams who monitored the comms in real time..... the evidence FOR the successful landings and returns is overwhelming. While we only have your word that you don't actually believe it. I think _you_ are hoaxing us!
Quote from: TinK
For your conspiracy theory to be true there would have to be literally thousands of people in on it.
Those who have not "lived" Government/Military Security programs
and their attendant Compartmentalization believe such fantasy.
While thousands are in fact supportive of each effort; their "need
to know" assures that they know virtually nothing about the
legitimacy of the effort or whether it is in fact deception.
Those at the level of knowing and planning the deception are
very few indeed. They are duly sworn to protect the "secrets"
under penalty of death. Very few talk.
I am far too busy at the moment to spend time on this thread.
I am surprised there are members here who feel it should be pushed to the forefront at this time. Odd..
Those members defending empirical observations are excluded from this criticism as long as they realise "they" are wasting your talented time.. time better spent on vision and progress!
Why am I posting in this thread ? ??? Laters..
and for the record:
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2017.07.31, 19:00:33
For your conspiracy theory to be true there would have to be literally thousands of people in on it.
Happens all the time, people have salaries and responsibilities and pensions and children and they don't talk even much amongst themselves, they are selected for that trait, and when they do they know little of the big picture. It's the high level analysts that get the low level intel briefed to them, and they make objective observations and recommendations.. just how it's always been and they don't say shit rarely, usually when they know death is imminent and don't care for consequences no more.
I would ask members to consider the questions I posed in the start of this thread:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=349.0
A few of of these issues are seldom discussed.
Quote from: ION on 2017.07.31, 23:40:32
I would ask members to consider the questions I posed in the start of this thread:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=349.0
A few of of these issues are seldom discussed.
(Grr... I just made a long post addressing these issues but lost it when my browser crashed... .when will I learn?)
What is in that cigar you're smoking? And you better be careful it doesn't ignite your straw men!
Google "Apollo splashdowns" and look at the photos and videos. All faked?
Note that the Hasselblad cameras and film magazines were _modified_ with heavier metal film magazine cases and other anti-radiation features. Also note that many of the photos DO in fact show radiation traces when carefully examined.
http://www.clavius.org/envradfilm.html
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/17301/how-was-it-possible-for-the-apollo-11-to-film-and-take-pictures-with-such-radiat
(enlarge the photo and examine the sky, you will note many radiation tracks)
Note that the trajectories avoided most of the Van Allen belt areas, and note what James Van Allen himself said regarding that issue.
Note that the landings happened during solar minimum, and that they were in the lunar "mornings" when the sun's angle was low in the lunar sky.
Note that nevertheless almost all the Apollo astronauts suffered from cataracts due to radiation exposure.
All of your "seldom discussed" points have indeed been discussed and explained and refuted many times over, as a few minutes googling showed me, and will show you if you just bother to look and can avoid being saturated by all the "conspiracy faked landing" sites that pop up.
http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html
All hoaxed, fake photos? You cannot possibly be serious.
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/bec1f2ebaed1b5b1efdc67e0f74932245bcac3ab/c=0-7-1800-1361&r=x513&c=680x510/local/-/media/Asheville/Asheville/2014/07/17/1405606757003-Apollo-04.jpg)
(https://www.uss-hornet.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/apollo.jpg)
Apollo 5 unmanned LEM tests:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_5
Apollo 9 manned testing the LEM in Earth orbit:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2462/1
Yes, it was very risky for the Apollo crews to perform these missions, no doubt about that. That is exactly what test pilots do. To denigrate their courage, commitment and skills by claiming that the entire program was hoaxed is really outrageous. These men who assumed that risk, and the hundreds of thousands of men and women who supported the various space programs and made their achievements possible, are real American heroes.
Quote from: ION on 2017.07.31, 23:40:32
I would ask members to consider the questions I posed in the start of this thread:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=349.0
A few of of these issues are seldom discussed.
So i went and read that whole thread,and i see the questions were never really answered ION-and some very good questions at that.
Seems most were more interested in talking about technologies from sci fi movies,rather than that used to take man to the moon in 69 C.C,so lets look at each question here,and maybe get some form of answers.
Q1-How was the film used in the Haselblad 500EL cameras able to withstand the extreme temperatures on the moon (+250 in the sun, -378 in the shadows). We know the types of film used was
* Ektachrome EF film SO168
* Ektachrome MS film SO368 35mm film used in the stereo
* Panatomic-X recording film - this was specially developed for use on the moon:
Perhaps they were water cooled like the astronauts ?--sorry,couldnt resist :D
I guess we would have to think about how much time the camera's actually spent in direct sunlight.
Very few photos were taken with the sun pointing directly at the cameras,!BUT! a lot of the time,the cameras were in direct sunlight,as most of the photo's taken were with the sun at either side of the astronauts.
How long would it take for the camera's to heat up,if in direct sunlight-as in,on either side of the camera,or directly ahead of the camera?.
Perhaps it was some form of super film,much like that super strong family photo Charles Duke left on the moon,rapped in a super strong sandwich bag,both of which were impervious to the +250*F temperatures in the sun.
I must get me some of them plastic sandwich bag's,as i could throw my sandwich straight into the oven to toast it,without having to take it out of the bag first O0 .
Next post-next question.
Brad
Come on Brad. Haven't you ever seen "boil in bag" foods? You can take a perfectly ordinary ziplock baggie
and put it in boiling water at 212 degrees F and nothing happens to it other than it gets wet, and hot.
Nearly every day I pop a plastic bag full of vegetables into our microwave and let it cook for 4 or 5 minutes.
You don't know the exact plastic used for that particular bag but obviously it can withstand the heat
it encountered during the _lunar mornings_ when the sun was at a low angle on the lunar horizon and the
surface hasn't had time to heat up to the maximum temperatures cited which occur at lunar _noon_, some
Earth days after the crews had already left. (The Lunar day is about 14 Earth days long, noon is seven Earth days
after sunrise.)
There is no difficulty putting down this straw man.
And the Hassleblads and their film magazines were modified with heat-resistant reflective silver coatings,
and the only means of heat transfer in vacuum is radiative. There is no convection to heat stuff up. Reflect
most of the low-angle sunlight off the surface of the camera and the interior doesn't heat up much.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-hass.html
Another straw man bites the (lunar) dust.
Quotethe questions were never really answered
Perhaps you didn't actually read the _links_ that I've posted where the questions are indeed answered.
QuoteI must get me some of them plastic sandwich bag's,as i could throw my sandwich straight into the oven to toast it,without having to take it out of the bag first O0 .
See what straw men you construct? To toast a sandwich in an oven, 350 degrees F is the proper setting. Some will say "154 degrees C" which is 309 degrees F. Either way, it's a lot hotter than the surface temperature at lunar noon, and even more hotter than the temperature during the lunar mornings.
http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo/moon_hoax_FAQ.html
IONs Question #2
What type of cooling / heating system was used to protect the astronauts from the extreme cold and heat of the vacuum of space on the moon. We know that there was a nylon undergarment that circulated water for cooling or heating but there is little to no information on the mechanism used to produce the cooling or heating as required to stabilize the extreme temperatures, which could cover the rang of +253F to -378F.
Since there is a near perfect vacuum on the moon, conduction and convection can be ruled out as there is no atmosphere to exchange the heat to. The backpacks look to be sealed with no evidence of cooling fins etc. which would be useless anyway. The only mechanisms left are evaporation and radiation, but we see no evidence of any gases emanating from the backpacks that could carry away heat. The internal drawings of the backpacks show a H2O sublimation plate which would somewhat answer the cooling issue, but again we never see any evidence of outgassing. There is also no evidence of radiation e.g. pumping to a higher energy state than the surroundings and allowing it to radiate into space.
The same questions apply to the lunar landing module, which had to survive up to three days in blistering 250F heat. The all aluminum tin can construction of the lunar lander would have posed enormous problems of heat conduction to the interior.
When questioned on this Alan Bean, briefly hesitated like a deer in the headlights then said batteries were used for the cooling (yeah that's it...batteries). This is absurd as anyone who has worked in thermodynamics knows you cannot pack that much power into batteries to provide the tonnage of air conditioning required over three days.
Well,first i would have to say that the suit and lander having reflective surfaces,would mean didly squat in this situation.
Think about this.
You get your self a 500 watt incandescent bulb spot light,and a nice shinny S/S pot and lid.
You half fill said pot with water,and place spot light about 8 inches away from the pot,shining onto the pot.
Leave for a couple of hour's--will the pot and water inside get hot?,even though the shinny S/S surface of the pot is very reflective--of course it will,and even more so in a vacuum.
!BUT! as far as the batteries go,well the lander descent stage had 4 x 28–32 V, 415 A·h silver-zinc batteries,and the ascent stage had 2x 28–32 volt, 296 ampere-hour silver-zinc batteries
So we have a total of 2252 amp hours.
QuoteThis is absurd as anyone who has worked in thermodynamics knows you cannot pack that much power into batteries to provide the tonnage of air conditioning required over three days
Well if it was a domestic air conditioner,then maybe.
But it was not a domestic type heat pump air conditioning unit.
It was much the same as the suit's cooling system,where heat rejection was by radiation, supplemented by an open-cycle sublimator.
So,for this we would only need a circulation pump,and not a compressor.
So this would be doable,but only if the other systems that rely on the batteries did not draw to much power.
Obviously they did not have to leave the porch light on,as it was always daylight while they were on the moon.
But two problems arise with this,and they are
1-the amount of water used through the sublimator in that 3 day(72 hours) period of cooling-as it was always day time.
2-And AFAIK,when water is subject to a vacuum,it turns to vapor-not ice.
So where dose this ice come from that forms on the porous plates of the sublimator ?
So,i would have to say !no way! that kind of cooling system would work,unless they took 1000's of LTRs of water with them.
And like you said ION-not once do you see any of that water vapor being ejected from either the suits or the lander.
Brad
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2017.08.01, 13:27:40
See what straw men you construct? To toast a sandwich in an oven, 350 degrees F is the proper setting. Some will say "154 degrees C" which is 309 degrees F. Either way, it's a lot hotter than the surface temperature at lunar noon, and even more hotter than the temperature during the lunar mornings.
http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo/moon_hoax_FAQ.html
http://staff.diviner.ucla.edu/science.shtml
Quote:
With the exception of Mercury, the Moon has the most extreme surface thermal environment of any planetary body in the solar system. At the lunar equator, mean surface temperatures reach almost 400K (260.6 ºF) at noon and then drop to below 100K (-279.4 ºF) during the night. For comparison, the mean surface temperature on Earth is a temperate 295K (71.6 ºF).
The Earth and Moon each receive the same flux of solar radiation; the important difference is that the Moon doesn't have an atmosphere to insulate its surface.
Lol-who'd a guest :D
https://www.cnet.com/au/how-to/why-ziploc-bags-are-perfectly-okay-to-use-for-sous-vide-cooking/
Quote: Will they melt?
Well, yeah, if you subject them to high temperatures. Polyethylene plastic, which is typically used to make these bags, will start to soften at about 195 degrees Fahrenheit (90.6 degrees Celsius). If you put them in boiling water (around 212 degrees F or 100 degrees C), they will melt.
Straw man you say ;)
Don't you have radiant barrier materials in Australia? The LEMs were wrapped in multilayer reflective radiant barriers and micrometeorite shields.
https://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2008/09/07/apollo-moon-hoax-huge-temperature-variation-claims/
See page 7:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM04_Lunar_Module_ppLV1-17.pdf
And are you going to make me shoot a video of boiling a plastic ziplock bag in water, or can you just do it yourself?
QuoteAt the lunar equator, mean surface temperatures reach almost 400K (260.6 ºF) at noon
But the astronauts weren't there at noon. Another classic Straw Man !!
(and the albedo of the suits and cameras was around 90 percent, about the same as fresh snow)
Love all those questions from that link TK.
First question and answer :D
Q-Why are there no stars in the photographs from the Apollo
missions?
A-Photographic film (and the human eye as well) have a limited "dynamic
range" (range from the minimum "signal intensity" to the maximum signal
intensity). In other words, when you take a photograph you set the
various exposure parameters (f-stop, exposure time) take a picture and
then (depending on the type of film you used) there will be a maximum
and minimum brightness that will be able to be represented on the
photograph. Anything much brighter than the maximum will be overexposed
(bright), and anything much dimmer than the minimum will be underexposed
(dark). In the case of taking pictures on the Moon, the foreground
objects (the lunar surface, the astronauts, the equipment) was very
bright (in direct sunlight totally unfiltered by an atmosphere) and were
much brighter than the background stars. Thus, an attempt to capture
the background stars visible from the Moon would horribly overexpose and
wash out any of the foreground objects (the lunar surface and the
astronauts). The same effect is seen with the space shuttle and space
station(s), when the vehicles are in direct sunlight no stars are
visible because they are too dim for the photographic equipment to pick
up.
Here is some horse shit
Quote: The same effect is seen with the space shuttle and space
station(s), when the vehicles are in direct sunlight no stars are
visible because they are too dim for the photographic equipment to pick
up
This is bollocks.
There is no such thing as visible light in the middle of space.
The only time you see light,is when your either looking directly at the source,or a surface that the light impacts on.
So,unless the astronauts were looking directly at the sun(or close to),so as they could see the sun with there eyes,or if the camera's were doing the same thing,then stars would be clearly visible.
For shit's and giggles,i just took my phone outside,pointed it directly at the (nearly full) bright moon,and took a couple of shots.
Despite the fact that the camera is pointing directly at the brightest object in the sky,we can clearly see(both in no zoom and full zoom)faint stars around the moon with no problem at all-through the earths atmosphere.
Aint that a hoot. O0
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2017.08.01, 14:16:55
Don't you have radiant barrier materials in Australia? The LEMs were wrapped in multilayer reflective radiant barriers and micrometeorite shields.
https://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2008/09/07/apollo-moon-hoax-huge-temperature-variation-claims/
See page 7:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM04_Lunar_Module_ppLV1-17.pdf
And are you going to make me shoot a video of boiling a plastic ziplock bag in water, or can you just do it yourself?
But the astronauts weren't there at noon. Another classic Straw Man !!
(and the albedo of the suits and cameras was around 90 percent, about the same as fresh snow)
Can you explain as to why it would be cooler at say(what we will call) 2pm,rather than noon-on the moon?
Lets not forget-we are on the moon now,not earth.
And so,if i grab an old family photo,and place it in the oven-at let's say,a mild 100*C,nothing will happen to that photo?
Re the photography: the point is that when you photograph a bright _object_ like a spacecraft sitting on the surface, to obtain the correct
exposure for that subject, you will not have the correct exposure for the stars. Your test is another straw man. You cannot see the stars from
inside an openair football stadium at night when the lights are on, for the same reason. I have a lit-up tennis court two blocks away and it causes
enough light bleedover that it spoils my own backyard astrophotography and makes it difficult even to see dimmer stars in my telescopes by eye.
And as far as testing the ability of plastic bags to withstand heat of boiling water... do the experiment yourself! I just did. Two plastic bags, one ziplock and the other just a thin random bag, both with a paper towel inside to see if leaks happened. 5 minutes in boiling water... no leaks and certainly no "melting". The ziplock did suffer a tiny bit of shrinkage but the seal held up fine. Neither bag melted or deformed severely and neither leaked. The melting point of polyethylene can be found on the internet and it is above the boiling point of water at sea level.
Q- Wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to fake the images, audio, and
television transmissions than to actually go to the Moon?
A-In the 1960s and early 70s the technology to record (let alone
manipulate) images, audio, film, and television was very primitive.
I think it's safe to say that a program to try to attempt to fake
a Moon landing believably would be a much more ambitious and costly
program than the Apollo program was itself.
QuoteIn the 1960s and early 70s the technology to record (let alone
manipulate) images, audio, film, and television was very primitive.
And yet,they could send man to the moon,and broadcast from the moon,world wide-no problem O0
And then,in 1968(a year before the first apollo mission) 2001-a space odyssey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LAi7l3iQuE
How real dose that moon look.? O0
Quoteattempt to fake
a Moon landing believably would be a much more ambitious and costly
program than the Apollo program was itself
The total cost of the apollo missions back in 1969 was-!wait for it!
$25.4 billion :D :D :D :D O0
This just gets better,the further i dig.
Quote from: TinMan on 2017.08.01, 14:36:07
Can you explain as to why it would be cooler at say(what we will call) 2pm,rather than noon-on the moon?
Lets not forget-we are on the moon now,not earth.
At noon, by definition, the sun is at its highest point in the sky. So shadows are the smallest, shortest. So surfaces heat up to the maximum. At "2pm", which would be about one full Earth day later than lunar "noon", shadows are longer, the sun's rays hit at an angle so surfaces will be cooler. But that is another straw man! All of the Apollo landings took place early in the lunar "morning" and they were gone back to orbit well before lunar "noon" ! The lunar day is almost 14 Earth days long! Lunar "Noon" is almost seven Earth days after sunrise!
Quote
And so,if i grab an old family photo,and place it in the oven-at let's say,a mild 100*C,nothing will happen to that photo?
I dunno, try it and see. But realize that it is another straw man, since 100 C is still well above anything the astronauts experienced during the lunar morning.
Quote from: TinMan on 2017.08.01, 15:05:48
Q- Wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to fake the images, audio, and
television transmissions than to actually go to the Moon?
A-In the 1960s and early 70s the technology to record (let alone
manipulate) images, audio, film, and television was very primitive.
I think it's safe to say that a program to try to attempt to fake
a Moon landing believably would be a much more ambitious and costly
program than the Apollo program was itself.
And yet,they could send man to the moon,and broadcast from the moon,world wide-no problem O0
And then,in 1968(a year before the first apollo mission) 2001-a space odyssey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LAi7l3iQuE
How real dose that moon look.? O0
Not real enough, and not enough footage to convince a skeptic. There are many
flaws in the 2001 movie that would never withstand the kind of scrutiny that the
Apollo photos and videos have gone through.
Quote
The total cost of the apollo mission back in 1969 was-!wait for it!
$25.4 billion :D :D :D :D O0
This just gets better,the further i dig.
Brad, in 1969 a gallon of gasoline sold for around 25 cents. That 25.4 billion dollars would be nearly a quarter of a TRILLION dolllars in today's money.
Now you are just making yourself look silly.
https://christopherrcooper.com/blog/apollo-program-cost-return-investment/
Some information on the Lunar Landing Research Facility at NASA Langley:
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/Apollo.html
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2017.08.01, 15:02:38
Re the photography: the point is that when you photograph a bright _object_ like a spacecraft sitting on the surface, to obtain the correct
exposure for that subject, you will not have the correct exposure for the stars. Your test is another straw man. You cannot see the stars from
inside an openair football stadium at night when the lights are on, for the same reason. I have a lit-up tennis court two blocks away and it causes
enough light bleedover that it spoils my own backyard astrophotography and makes it difficult even to see dimmer stars in my telescopes by eye.
And as far as testing the ability of plastic bags to withstand heat of boiling water... do the experiment yourself! I just did. Two plastic bags, one ziplock and the other just a thin random bag, both with a paper towel inside to see if leaks happened. 5 minutes in boiling water... no leaks and certainly no "melting". The ziplock did suffer a tiny bit of shrinkage but the seal held up fine. Neither bag melted or deformed severely and neither leaked. The melting point of polyethylene can be found on the internet and it is above the boiling point of water at sea level.
So grab an old photo,put it in a ziplock bag,and place in the oven set at 100*C for say just 10 minute's-lets see how that go's.
Yes,i know all about light pollution here on earth,where there is an atmosphere for light to reflect off.
But where talking about space,where there is nothing for light to reflect of,until such time as that light strikes a reflective surface.
A simple test is this.
Shoot a laser beam across a room on a dry night,with the lights off.
You can see the light spot at the source,and also where it impacts the wall on the other side of the room--but you can see any light from that laser in between those two point's
Now turn on the smoke machine-and there you go-you can now see the beam between the two point's,because the light has a surface to impact on.
Light pollution dose not exist in space,because there is nothing for the light to impact on(reflect off).
And so,the bullshit about not being able to see stars in space because of the suns light pollution,is utter garbage.
Only when looking directly at the sun,or at say 10 oclock to 2 oclock from it,would you not see stars-and even that is debatable.
You telescope theory is describing light pollution,which dose not exist in space.
Brad
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2017.08.01, 15:09:39
Not real enough, and not enough footage to convince a skeptic. There are many
flaws in the 2001 movie that would never withstand the kind of scrutiny that the
Apollo photos and videos have gone through.
Brad, in 1969 a gallon of gasoline sold for around 25 cents. That 25.4 billion dollars would be nearly a quarter of a TRILLION dolllars in today's money.
Now you are just making yourself look silly.
https://christopherrcooper.com/blog/apollo-program-cost-return-investment/
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/186600-apollo-11-moon-landing-45-years-looking-back-at-mankinds-giant-leap
Quote: Back in 1973, the total cost of the Apollo program reported to Congress was $25.4 billion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program
Quote: . In January 1969, NASA prepared an itemized estimate of the run-out cost of the Apollo program. The total came to $23.9 billion,
And the list go's on.
Quote from: TinMan on 2017.08.01, 15:22:43
So grab an old photo,put it in a ziplock bag,and place in the oven set at 100*C for say just 10 minute's-lets see how that go's.
I've already done my experiment for the cause, proving that two different ordinary plastic baggies do not melt in boiling water. Let's see you do yours now.
And do not forget that the lunar surface was way below the temperature your strawman wants it to be, because all the astronaut activity on the surface was early in the lunar _morning_ and the surface was likely still cold-ish from the long lunar night.
Quote
Yes,i know all about light pollution here on earth,where there is an atmosphere for light to reflect off.
But where talking about space,where there is nothing for light to reflect of,until such time as that light strikes a reflective surface.
A simple test is this.
Shoot a laser beam across a room on a dry night,with the lights off.
You can see the light spot at the source,and also where it impacts the wall on the other side of the room--but you can see any light from that laser in between those two point's
Now turn on the smoke machine-and there you go-you can now see the beam between the two point's,because the light has a surface to impact on.
Light pollution dose not exist in space,because there is nothing for the light to impact on(reflect off).
And so,the bullshit about not being able to see stars in space because of the suns light pollution,is utter garbage.
Only when looking directly at the sun,or at say 10 oclock to 2 oclock from it,would you not see stars-and even that is debatable.
You telescope theory is describing light pollution,which dose not exist in space.
Brad
No, Brad. The stars aren't visible in the lunar photos because the _subjects_ of the photos, that is, the landers, the men, etc. are brilliantly lit and properly exposed. The stars are much dimmer and so do not show up, being _way_ underexposed. This has nothing to do with light pollution. It has everything to do with photography. What we today call High Dynamic Range (HDR) photography is a special technique and takes some little doing, including combining exposures taken at different f-stops and shutter times into a single image, or digital editing to bring out information that isn't normally visible with even "curves" (contrast and brightness adjustments) across a single exposure. You no doubt have seen such photos where a lit subject is seen in the foreground and stars are seen in the sky. This doesn't happen with casual snapshots. I have some experience in these matters, and if you do a little unbiased googling you can find out the information you need to properly understand this topic.
You are once again erecting straw men, which are easily knocked down.
If you like I can show you some of my own astrophotography, where I use a Canon Xti DSLR camera, or an Orion Parsec 8300M cooled CCD astronomical camera, to take photos of stars at night through my telescope. The original frames have very compressed histograms (all the information on the frame is between two very dim brightness values) but when edited digitally with software such as PixInsight, this compressed histogram can be expanded to full range of contrast and brightness, and a spectacular image results. This can be done with digital imagery, but not so much with film. Although I would like to try it with the original Apollo negatives....
Uh oh.... looks like the Chinese are in on it too....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1IncRZ9BiE
Somewhat off topic but I can't resist:
Here are a couple of examples of astrophotography. These are both from the same raw image from the Parsec monochrome CCD camera. This is a stack of several 5-minute exposures. The first version is what it looks like at first glance before further processing. The second version is after some work on the same image data with PixInsight to bring out the hidden detail by stretching, curving, and some other processing of the original digital image.
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2017.08.02, 19:20:58
I've already done my experiment for the cause, proving that two different ordinary plastic baggies do not melt in boiling water. Let's see you do yours now.
And do not forget that the lunar surface was way below the temperature your strawman wants it to be, because all the astronaut activity on the surface was early in the lunar _morning_ and the surface was likely still cold-ish from the long lunar night.
No, Brad. The stars aren't visible in the lunar photos because the _subjects_ of the photos, that is, the landers, the men, etc. are brilliantly lit and properly exposed. The stars are much dimmer and so do not show up, being _way_ underexposed. This has nothing to do with light pollution. It has everything to do with photography. What we today call High Dynamic Range (HDR) photography is a special technique and takes some little doing, including combining exposures taken at different f-stops and shutter times into a single image, or digital editing to bring out information that isn't normally visible with even "curves" (contrast and brightness adjustments) across a single exposure. You no doubt have seen such photos where a lit subject is seen in the foreground and stars are seen in the sky. This doesn't happen with casual snapshots. I have some experience in these matters, and if you do a little unbiased googling you can find out the information you need to properly understand this topic.
You are once again erecting straw men, which are easily knocked down.
If you like I can show you some of my own astrophotography, where I use a Canon Xti DSLR camera, or an Orion Parsec 8300M cooled CCD astronomical camera, to take photos of stars at night through my telescope. The original frames have very compressed histograms (all the information on the frame is between two very dim brightness values) but when edited digitally with software such as PixInsight, this compressed histogram can be expanded to full range of contrast and brightness, and a spectacular image results. This can be done with digital imagery, but not so much with film. Although I would like to try it with the original Apollo negatives....
Uh oh.... looks like the Chinese are in on it too....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1IncRZ9BiE
I was referring to the statement that the starts cant be seen from space-the space station and shuttle and the likes .
Brad
I believe it was very possible in 1969 to send men into orbit around the moon and back to earth safely and with a high probability of success.
From a risk assessment perspective, the most difficult part of the mission would be a successful landing on the moon and successful take off from the moons surface.
The splash down pictures are most likely real considering the above. It may have only been necessary to stage the actual landing and moonwalks etc. So I'm not saying those splashdown pictures are faked, so where did you pose that strawman? TK, as it is not something I ever implied.
You don't have to throw out the whole mission, just parts of it, which in my opinion are the most risky parts.
IMHO, the part in red of my question #7 is the one that needs the most thoughtful consideration.
Sorry, I just don't have the time to debate this topic anymore, so to each his opinions.
By the way TK, I don't smoke, that was just meant to create an image, unlike your ad hominem.
I will be posting far more infrequently if at all on this forum.
Regards
Quote from: ION on 2017.08.03, 01:55:32
I believe it was very possible in 1969 to send men in orbit around the moon and back to earth safely.
From a risk assessment perspective, the most difficult part of the mission would be a successful landing on the moon and successful take off from the moons surface.
The splash down pictures are most likely real considering the above. It may have only been necessary to stage the actual landing and moonwalks etc.
You don't have to throw out the whole mission, just parts of it, which in my opinion are the most risky parts.
IMHO, the part in red of my question #7 is the one that needs the most thoughtful consideration.
Sorry, I just don't have the time to debate this topic anymore, so to each his opinions.
By the way TK, I don't smoke, that was just meant to create an image, unlike your ad hominem.
I will be posting far more infrequently if at all on this forum.
Regards
First and foremost-why will you be posting less or maybe not at all, on !this!forum ION?.
Quote from: TinMan on 2017.08.03, 02:07:28
First and foremost-why will you be posting less or maybe not at all, on !this!forum ION?.
Hi Brad
1) Mostly because I hate typing and believe the typed word (for me) lacks the bandwidth to adequately convey the nuances of emotion and intellectual thought necessary to convey complex ideas.....not without spending an enormous amount of time crafting the text. I would rather speak directly on the phone or face to face. This is just my hangup and preference.
2) In the past I have spent a lot of time analyzing and commenting on circuits that were posted or crafting schematics and explanations of the schematics, which often are just passed over.
3) I have a large home and property to maintain, which has been neglected by me because I spent so much time in front of this screen commenting or trying to convey thoughts and ideas. I want to attend to repairing the home and property etc. I'm sure you can appreciate this as you also have a limited amount of time on your hands, considering that you have a job, a family and home etc.
That's the short list, there are a few other things to add, but maybe later.
Regards, and best of luck in your work.
Quote from: ION on 2017.08.03, 01:55:32
I believe it was very possible in 1969 to send men into orbit around the moon and back to earth safely and with a high probability of success.
From a risk assessment perspective, the most difficult part of the mission would be a successful landing on the moon and successful take off from the moons surface.
The splash down pictures are most likely real considering the above. It may have only been necessary to stage the actual landing and moonwalks etc. So I'm not saying those splashdown pictures are faked, so where did you pose that strawman? TK, as it is not something I ever implied.
You don't have to throw out the whole mission, just parts of it, which in my opinion are the most risky parts.
IMHO, the part in red of my question #7 is the one that needs the most thoughtful consideration.
Sorry, I just don't have the time to debate this topic anymore, so to each his opinions.
By the way TK, I don't smoke, that was just meant to create an image, unlike your ad hominem.
I will be posting far more infrequently if at all on this forum.
Regards
You mean this?
QuoteConsider for a moment what a huge embarrassment it would have been for the US if there was a failure that stranded the astronauts on the moon. They would have died a slow horrible death, cooked by the extreme moon temperature. Future people looking at the moon would no longer think of it as an object to inspire love and love songs, but rather a constant reminder of the horrible death of the astronauts. Would the US have taken this chance considering the calculated odds of reaching the moon and returning safely were something like 0.017%. It is one thing to lose astronauts into the void of space as with some of the space shuttle missions, but to have their deaths forever associated with the moon would be a huge black eye to the US.,
While you may be correct about the "black eye" part, I seriously doubt the "0.017 percent" odds that you cite. Can you provide some solid reference for that figure? Are you sure it's not 0.018 percent, or maybe 0.015 percent? Please show how that number was arrived at, with references. Furthermore, the losses of the two shuttle crews (one on takeoff and one on re-entry, not exactly "the void of space" since both were in the Earth's atmosphere) and some Russian astronauts, did not stop people from continuing to go into space, even if only to low Earth orbit. The prospect of losing a crew on the moon itself, or in transit, is certainly part of the risk the astronauts and the entire program undertook. Just like the huge number of ocean explorers who have been lost at sea... yet the sea still retains its allure and romance. Maybe "tricky Dick" Nixon, in his paranoia, did have some photos made in a studio set. And maybe some of those have made it out to public view and have fueled the "hoax" stories. But the evidence for the _real_ landings and returns is overwhelming.
Certainly the endeavor was tremendously risky. That is why it is incredibly insulting for you and others to promulgate your hoax accusations, when the incredibly brave men, and the hundreds of thousands of hard working men and women who supported them, have undertaken this mission and mostly succeeded. Recall the Apollo 1 launch pad fire that claimed the lives of Grissom, White and Chaffee. Hoax? Yet the program continued. Recall the amazing Apollo 13 story. Hoax? Yet the program continued. Oh... or did it? You think the _hoax_ continued, and you don't see that as being tremendously insulting?
What did all the amateur radio operators who also picked up comms from the missions actually hear? Hoaxed communications? What about the 800 pounds of moon rocks and dust returned to Earth and examined by countless scientists from all over the world? Hoax? What about the LROC images of the stuff left on the moon? Let's see.... you will acknowledge that, what, sixteen Apollo missions did achieve Earth orbit and resulted in successful manned and unmanned splashdowns. Will you also acknowledge that _something_ actually did land on the moon, left the tracks and discarded objects like landing stages and rovers behind, and returned to Earth with samples? So perhaps it is just the manned landings that you don't believe. Even though we have the comms received by amateurs (since you don't believe NASA) and all the photos and videos from the moon, as well as the testimony of the men who actually went there and the immediate ground support personnel who helped them get there and back in the NASA launch control facilities in Houston and tracking stations around the world. Hoaxes and liars all? And you don't see your calling all those people liars and hoaxers as "ad hominem" attacks against all those thousands of people, in addition to being unsupportable by actual evidence?
Let me reiterate something here. Every single bit of "evidence" for a hoaxed Apollo program has been refuted over and over by actual _evidence_. But the people who will not give up their "hoax" conjectures simply deny the truth of the actual evidence. It's a religion, because there is _no_ evidence that the "hoax believers", apparently including you ION, would accept to change their minds. You will simply say that the evidence is faked. Even the LROC photos are faked or don't show evidence of _manned_ landings, even the testimony of the people who actually went there, the people who supported them from the ground... all liars, according to you. There is nothing that could convince you! You are not scientists, you are religious zealots.
Quote from: TinMan on 2017.08.02, 23:26:06
I was referring to the statement that the starts cant be seen from space-the space station and shuttle and the likes .
Brad
What statements are those? Of course the stars _can_ be seen from space or the surface of the moon, by properly dark-adapted eyes and properly adjusted cameras. There are countless photos and videos showing this.
Apollo mission star photos:
http://lightsinthedark.com/2017/04/04/these-photos-taken-from-the-moon-show-lots-and-lots-of-stars/
http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/stars/ap17bstars.html
ISS videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiGeqsGjhoY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYZ2gHE4fjs
But nothing will convince you, since you will just say that any and all evidence that disproves your "hoax" conjecture is made up, false, a bunch of lies!
Let me ask you this: What kind of evidence _would_ be able to convince you that we did actually successfully land and return manned missions to the moon? Is there
anything that would convince you?
author=ION link=topic=3232.msg63941#msg63941 date=1501727514]
Quote1) Mostly because I hate typing and believe the typed word (for me) lacks the bandwidth to adequately convey the nuances of emotion and intellectual thought necessary to convey complex ideas.....not without spending an enormous amount of time crafting the text. I would rather speak directly on the phone or face to face. This is just my hangup and preference.
I know what you mean.
I too have trouble placing the right words in the right place,so as they make sense to others from other parts of the world--we just term things differently in different countries.
It's clear to me what im trying to convey,but pretty much mud to others at times.
Quote2) In the past I have spent a lot of time analyzing and commenting on circuits that were posted or crafting schematics and explanations of the schematics, which often are just passed over.
With electronics,i have what i call the !!20+ to hard!!
This means that if the circuit has more than 20 components,i place it in the to hard basket-unless of course it is a kit,with a printed circuit board with all the parts listed on the board.
I am the opposite when it comes to mechanical stuff,where the more parts it has,the more i enjoy working on it.
Quote3) I have a large home and property to maintain, which has been neglected by me because I spent so much time in front of this screen commenting or trying to convey thoughts and ideas. I want to attend to repairing the home and property etc. I'm sure you can appreciate this as you also have a limited amount of time on your hands, considering that you have a job, a family and home etc.
Now this i fully understand,as it near cost me my marriage some time back.
This is when i had my own forum,and was the reason i passed it on to another member.
I got lost in all the hype at the time,with the SSG and other type pulse motors.
Every spare moment i had,i was in the workshop,building a new motor,and it got to the point where my wife had to put the brakes on.
The worst thing was,she was right,and i had just not seen how much time i was spending in the workshop,and how little i was spending with the family.
Now,i pretty much only do this sort of stuff while my wife is at work,as she sometimes works late night's,and weekends.
Quoteand best of luck in your work.
Thank you.
I think this current project holds some promise-the carbon/hydrogen gas project O0
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2017.08.01, 15:22:43
So grab an old photo,put it in a ziplock bag,and place in the oven set at 100*C for say just 10 minute's-lets see how that go's.
Yes,i know all about light pollution here on earth,where there is an atmosphere for light to reflect off.
But where talking about space,where there is nothing for light to reflect of,until such time as that light strikes a reflective surface.
A simple test is this.
Shoot a laser beam across a room on a dry night,with the lights off.
You can see the light spot at the source,and also where it impacts the wall on the other side of the room--but you can see any light from that laser in between those two point's
Now turn on the smoke machine-and there you go-you can now see the beam between the two point's,because the light has a surface to impact on.
Light pollution dose not exist in space,because there is nothing for the light to impact on(reflect off).
And so,the bullshit about not being able to see stars in space because of the suns light pollution,is utter garbage.
Only when looking directly at the sun,or at say 10 oclock to 2 oclock from it,would you not see stars-and even that is debatable.
You telescope theory is describing light pollution,which dose not exist in space.
Brad
No, Brad. The "telescope theory" where I described that the light from nearby tennis courts and streetlamps interferes with my backyard observing, is only partly due to light pollution. Mostly it has to do with the fact that my eyes cannot become dark adapted, since there is no real dark. I step out of my back porch and see the naked porch light bulb of my neighbor. Just a brief glance in that direction means I need to spend another half-hour in real darkness in order for my eyes to adapt so I can see stars. This is the same thing that prevents or interferes with people seeing stars when they are "in space". Their eyes are not dark-adapted! But cameras set for proper exposures certainly can see stars, and so can astronauts _if_ they haven't been exposed to normal lighting for half an hour or so. And the sensitive cameras that I use also are washed out by the lack of real darkness in my backyard. This isn't the same thing as "light pollution" from light reflected from dust in the air, it's caused by the lack of real darkness because of the lights shining right into my back yard!
Again, this is an experiment you can do for yourself. Sit in your brilliantly lit kitchen for a while, looking at something that is lit up. Then go outside and look up at the night sky. Do you see stars? Maybe a few of the brightest ones. Now stay in a really dark place for half an hour to let your night vision start working. Look up at the night sky. You see a lot more stars now, don't you. Same thing with photography. If your camera is set for proper exposure of a brightly lit object at night, you will not photograph any stars. If your camera is set for proper exposure of stars and you point it at a bright foreground object, the object will be badly overexposed. Of course your cellphone camera automatically adjusts to give a proper exposure of the main subject... and even modern digital DSLR cameras are usually operated in "full auto" exposure mode unless some special purpose is needed. But the Apollo astronauts didn't have automatic exposure-adjusting cameras.
author=TinselKoala link=topic=3232.msg63944#msg63944 date=1501745003]
QuoteLet me ask you this: What kind of evidence _would_ be able to convince you that we did actually successfully land and return manned missions to the moon? Is there anything that would convince you?
OK,that we can do,and i would hope that your answers can be backed with !proof!,and common sense physics.
1- For what reason dose the lunar rover appear to be driving around in slow motion.
Now we know that the moon has 1/6th gravity to that of earth,and so the rover should come back down slower,but why would it rise up slower when it hits a big hole or mound. Being that the gravity is much less on the moon,then a given force acting upon the rover should see it rise/jump up much quicker than it would here on earth.
Even the dirt being spat out by the spinning wheels is in slow motion
the motions of the lunar rover are so unrealistic,its just a joke.
Watch it in full screen,and have a good laugh-because that is what it is--a joke.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EliLP5uEYAU
And in the same sense,why would the astronauts also be in slow motion?
Acceleration back to the moons surface after a jump-ok,due to a lower acceleration of gravity.
But why slow motion when they jump upward's?-no common sense there.
Even mythbusters them self(self acclaimed moon walker believers),inadvertently proved how the slow motion,and lower gravity could have easily been done,and the video below(puppets on a string) show this is how it was done.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23BIb_PMJ4M
Jarrah Whites video covers two of the points i have made.
See the bail out by mithbusters Adam Savage.
2- Why dose the flag wave?
And in this case,we are not talking about the waving flags that the astronauts are holding.
In this one,we are talking about the flag waving due to the draft created by the astronaut as he jumps on past it.
From 2:35 if you want to skip the rest .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1YxNx1cTWI
Then there is the astronauts defying the laws of physics.
There is simply no way some of these actions could be performed--unless your name is Michael Jackson.
The one at 2:05 is the best-both feet off the ground,just hovering there lol.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcz0eL_bYsI
And the biggest one
Can you provide any proof that an almost vertical landing/descent was possible in a rocket powered craft on the moon,when it couldnt be done in the controlled conditions of earth,where the rocket engines would also have added thrust,due to the atmosphere,making the thrusters respond much more directly that they would in the vacuum of space.
Are we to believe that 6 successful vertical descent landings,using rocket powered crafts,in the vacuum of space,were achieved one after the other,by different astronauts,when no such thing was ever achieved here on earth,and where no training at all could have taken place prior to the astronauts performing these wondrous feats.
When we look at the history of VTVL vehicles,only the apollo lunar lander is listed in the 1960's as being a VTVL rocket powered vehicle.
The next VTVL vehicle attempt was from the Soviet Union in the late 1980's,but never flew.
It wasn't until some 30 years later that McDonnell Douglas successfully flew a rocket powered VTVL vehicle--> the DC-X ,and this was an unmanned craft.
These will do for starters,but many more questions to come.
Brad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ghw_1YRXJA
Some pretty strong evidence
Regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: Centraflow on 2017.08.03, 10:46:03
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ghw_1YRXJA
Some pretty strong evidence
Regards
Mike 8)
Jarrah white has done a lot of research on the moon landing's.
Here is another of his findings regarding the camera used to broadcast back to earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCM76SV_dNg
Brad
A strong point for the moon walker believers,is the fact that there are reflectors on the moon,and the proof is that laser beams of light can be sent from earth,and reflected back from the moon,via these reflectors.
First i would say--how dose this prove that man was on the moon,when these reflectors could have been place with a rover-such as those on mars ATM.
Second-NASA !once again! shoots them self in the foot(as Jarrah puts it),and uses lasers to map the moons surface,without the need for reflectors.
Bouncing lasers off the moon,was done well before any reflectors were !apparently! placed on the moon.
Listen carefully from 7:12
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz09H_qwQ-U
Brad
Goodbye to not being able to hide the wires back in 1969.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s5KC-b8734
All of those hoax claims in those videos have been refuted many times over.
You still haven't answered the question: What evidence would it take for you to be convinced that we DID land men on the moon and return them successfully to Earth?
Let's say, for example, that you and ION say that you have clear memories of going through the astronaut training program yourselves, and you remember blasting off, making the trip, landing on the moon and jumping around, gathering samples and returning to Earth to a safe splashdown, and playing cards in the quarantine trailer aboard the USS Hornet, with him owing you ten dollars winnings.
I'll just say "Well, it's clear that you have been hypnotized, bribed to keep silent, or you are just liars. Nobody went to the moon, and your claims are just further proof of the coverup and hoax!" See what I mean? This is the attitude of the people who believe in the "hoax". There is no data that they will accept that could convince them.
Now you appear to acknowledge that the laser reflector was left on the moon. By something. This clearly requires a soft landing and some kind of robot to make the emplacement and to take photos of it and the landing craft. And you haven't bothered to try to refute the Chinese lander videos and data. So you acknowledge that a soft landing can be made using a craft very similar to the LEM, without leaving a blast crater, and all the rest such as illumination in the shadows, etc. So it seems that all we are left with, that you don't believe, is that actual live astronauts were in the Apollo landing crafts.
Let's see.... the NASA hoax involved tens of thousands of people all sworn to secrecy and never leaking, dozens of lying astronauts and ground controllers, actual orbital flights of astronauts, actual builds of all kinds of hardware, soft landings of robot crafts on the moon, sample returns, Stanley Kubrick directing hoax videos... but they weren't smart enough to keep a flag from waving in the breeze. And of course waving in the breeze is the _only_ thing that could have caused the motion of the flag. Right.
This is just silly. The real Hoaxers are people like Jarrah White and the rest of them. _EVERY_ point made in all those "proof" videos above has been addressed and refuted by actual data and actual people who really do know what they are talking about.
But just like belief in a God, there is nothing, no data whatsoever, that will convince you that your _religion_ of "hoax" is wrong. There is a Huge preponderance of evidence that the moon landings were real. But there is no data that will convince you. You will come up with all kinds of silly excuses to dismiss the actual data and testimony. You can't even be consistent in your denials when they are examined closely.
Ramon Bisque, Professor emeritus at school of mines was the geologist who did the engineering to place that reflector at that place on the moon in the Pentagon in his early twenties. He was a savant of sorts. I have known the man and his family for 40 some years. He past away some years ago. He was a grizzled, tough man to deal with. He didn't take to the ignorant at all. I also used him as a character in the book I wrote in 2016(shameful plug).
Quote from: TinMan on 2017.08.03, 10:06:57
author=TinselKoala link=topic=3232.msg63944#msg63944 date=1501745003]
OK,that we can do,and i would hope that your answers can be backed with !proof!,and common sense physics.
1- For what reason dose the lunar rover appear to be driving around in slow motion.
Now we know that the moon has 1/6th gravity to that of earth,and so the rover should come back down slower,but why would it rise up slower when it hits a big hole or mound. Being that the gravity is much less on the moon,then a given force acting upon the rover should see it rise/jump up much quicker than it would here on earth.
Even the dirt being spat out by the spinning wheels is in slow motion
the motions of the lunar rover are so unrealistic,its just a joke.
Watch it in full screen,and have a good laugh-because that is what it is--a joke.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EliLP5uEYAU
And in the same sense,why would the astronauts also be in slow motion?
Acceleration back to the moons surface after a jump-ok,due to a lower acceleration of gravity.
But why slow motion when they jump upward's?-no common sense there.
Even mythbusters them self(self acclaimed moon walker believers),inadvertently proved how the slow motion,and lower gravity could have easily been done,and the video below(puppets on a string) show this is how it was done.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23BIb_PMJ4M
Jarrah Whites video covers two of the points i have made.
See the bail out by mithbusters Adam Savage.
2- Why dose the flag wave?
And in this case,we are not talking about the waving flags that the astronauts are holding.
In this one,we are talking about the flag waving due to the draft created by the astronaut as he jumps on past it.
From 2:35 if you want to skip the rest .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1YxNx1cTWI
Then there is the astronauts defying the laws of physics.
There is simply no way some of these actions could be performed--unless your name is Michael Jackson.
The one at 2:05 is the best-both feet off the ground,just hovering there lol.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcz0eL_bYsI
And the biggest one
Can you provide any proof that an almost vertical landing/descent was possible in a rocket powered craft on the moon,when it couldnt be done in the controlled conditions of earth,where the rocket engines would also have added thrust,due to the atmosphere,making the thrusters respond much more directly that they would in the vacuum of space.
Are we to believe that 6 successful vertical descent landings,using rocket powered crafts,in the vacuum of space,were achieved one after the other,by different astronauts,when no such thing was ever achieved here on earth,and where no training at all could have taken place prior to the astronauts performing these wondrous feats.
When we look at the history of VTVL vehicles,only the apollo lunar lander is listed in the 1960's as being a VTVL rocket powered vehicle.
The next VTVL vehicle attempt was from the Soviet Union in the late 1980's,but never flew.
It wasn't until some 30 years later that McDonnell Douglas successfully flew a rocket powered VTVL vehicle--> the DC-X ,and this was an unmanned craft.
These will do for starters,but many more questions to come.
Brad
Brad there is so much wrong with what you are saying above that it isn't even worth while to try to refute you. Just the "no training at all" phrase reveals you haven't done actual research in the matter. Nor, it seems, have you bothered to look at the many references I have posted.
Read this whole article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Landing_Research_Vehicle
QuoteThe final LLRV flight at FRC took place on November 30, 1966. In December 1966 vehicle #1 was shipped to Houston, followed by #2 in January 1967. During the preceding two years, a total of 198 flights of LLRV#1 and six flights of LLRV#2 were flown without a serious accident.
The first LLRV flight by Neil Armstrong was made in vehicle #1 on March 27, 1967 from its base at a corner of Ellington Air Force Base, the headquarters for Johnson Space Center's aircraft operations. Joe Algranti, chief of JSC's Aircraft Operations Division and test pilot H.E. Ream also made flights that month. Both observed, as did Armstrong and the other astronauts, that if a serious control problem developed, the pilot had little choice but to eject since the vehicle only operated to a maximum altitude of 500 feet (200 m).
On May 6, 1968 Armstrong was forced to use LLRV #1's ejection seat from about 200 feet (60 m) altitude after a control problem, and had about four seconds on his full parachute before landing on the ground unhurt. The accident investigation board found that the fuel for the vehicle's attitude control thrusters had run out, and that high winds were a major factor. As a result, the decision was made by JSC management to terminate further LLRV flights as the first LLTV was about to be shipped from Bell to Ellington to begin ground and flight testing.
----
A high level LLTV Flight Readiness Review Board was appointed on March 5, 1969 by JSC Director Dr. Robert Gilruth. It consisted of himself as chairman with board members Chris Kraft, head of Mission Operations; George Low, head of JSC's Apollo Program; Max Faget, JSC's Director of Engineering and astronaut Deke Slayton, Director of Flight Crew Operations. The board reviewed the wind tunnel results, and on March 30 gave approval for the resumption of test flights in LLTV#2. The test program of 18 flights, all flown by H.E. Ream, was successfully completed on June 2, and the board finally gave approval on June 30, 1969 for Armstrong to resume LLTV flights. In the 16 days remaining before the Apollo 11 launch Armstrong was able to complete his LLTV flight training. He commented after his return:
"Eagle (the Lunar Module) flew very much like the Lunar Landing Training Vehicle which I had flown more than 30 times at Ellington Air Force Base near the Space Center. I had made from 50 to 60 landings in the trainer, and the final trajectory I flew to the landing was very much like those flown in practice. That of course gave me a good deal of confidence – a comfortable familiarity."
Of course you will now say that all of this was just a bunch of lies.
QuoteAcceleration back to the moons surface after a jump-ok,due to a lower acceleration of gravity.
But why slow motion when they jump upward's?-no common sense there.
It's clear that you apparently have no understanding of the physics of moving objects in a gravity field. Your "common sense" has failed you once again.
But you are really good at putting up straw men, and distorting and even misrepresenting the facts:
Quoteno training at all could have taken place prior to the astronauts performing these wondrous feats.
You are utterly and completely wrong. Sorry, but there it is.
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2017.08.03, 15:53:04
Brad there is so much wrong with what you are saying above that it isn't even worth while to try to refute you.
This is where you were inevitably going to end up, I tried to divert the inevitable, more fool me.
I think we would be better off pursuing a direction that asks 'How can we go the Moon' rather than 'Did we go the Moon'.
I like Brad his outback inventing is enthusiastic and rewarding for himself and the community, same can be said for you TK.
Are we not better off working together on significant reality changing future goals than arguing subjective or objective positions about what happened in the past ?
Well
I was plunking a comment out as EvolvingApe posted ...
-----------------------
two men enter one man leaves were the old rules....
since Peter doesn't have room for the Steel cage over here...[not in the budget!!
and since the outcome of this particular thread holds little weight on the topics which we explore in Peter's house [unless someone is planning a
"space mission"]
perhaps the sharp knives can go back in the drawer ,we can always do that , but a formal notice [challenge] would be nice ., so we can sell tickets .
these things always draw a crowd ...
but honestly...we really need all the help we can get around here...
Well, I agree, but what am I to do when I see claims like this:
Quoteno training at all could have taken place prior to the astronauts performing these wondrous feats.
when the Truth is this:
Quote"Eagle (the Lunar Module) flew very much like the Lunar Landing Training Vehicle which I had flown more than 30 times at Ellington Air Force Base near the Space Center. I had made from 50 to 60 landings in the trainer, and the final trajectory I flew to the landing was very much like those flown in practice. That of course gave me a good deal of confidence – a comfortable familiarity."
-- training that was witnessed by many people there at Ellington AFB at the time.
I'm not in some kind of battle with Brad, I just think it is very unfortunate that he has allowed himself to be so misled by dishonest and ignorant "hoax" claimants. It's clear that he has a lot to learn about photography, for example, and that subject, at least, I can teach.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.08.03, 16:27:09
This is where you were inevitably going to end up, I tried to divert the inevitable, more fool me.
I think we would be better off pursuing a direction that asks 'How can we go the Moon' rather than 'Did we go the Moon'.
I like Brad his outback inventing is enthusiastic and rewarding for himself and the community, same can be said for you TK.
Are we not better off working together on significant reality changing future goals than arguing subjective or objective positions about what happened in the past ?
How can we go to the moon? By stopping spending money by the ton on useless warfare and spending a trillion dollars on another Apollo-like space program, that's how. And we had better do it before the Chinese do.
Maybe SpaceX will do it as a trial for Mars ;) now that they have perfected powered rocket return from space
Regards
Mike 8)
Well i guess the answers to the questions are-thats just silly.
Thats the scientific method i guess.
Brad
How about we clean up the plastic islands in the ocean?
Oops. that might put everybody on the same accord, no?
My theory(ok i Am not an acknowledged scientist) is the swirling ocean centers are returns for carbon dioxide, like a flushing mechanism that hurricanes and tornadoes use. The main orifices to the planetary ecology are suffocated. And we have nuked them also. What a grand party this is...
Ok,perhaps one thing at a time TK.
What i presented in the mythbusters blunder,is a clear case of deception-that not even you can dispute-if you are going to be honest with your self.
We are referring to the apparent slow motion/weightlessness appearance of the astronauts movements on the apparent moon.
So first they show a video slowed down,and declare that its not the same as the astronauts movements.
Then they show a video where they are suspended by a wire,so as it resembles the 1/6th gravity of the moon to that of earth.
Once again they claim that it is not the same motion that the astronauts have on the moon.
They then make the big claim on national television that the myth is busted.
They go on to claim that this is what the skeptics are claiming,and they have busted it.
What a joke these clowns are.
The claim is that the astronautes are suspended by a wire,and then the video is played in slow motion.
As i have clearly shown,when the the video of the suspended clown from mythbusters is played back in slow motion,the result is identical (yes-identical) to that of the astronauts motion on the moon.
So,could the astronauts motions be replicated exactly here on earth?.
They very clear answer is a huge yes-and even i could show that very easily.
So lets deal with this one first.
Added-the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23BIb_PMJ4M
Brad
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2017.08.03, 17:16:37
How can we go to the moon? By stopping spending money by the ton on useless warfare and spending a trillion dollars on another Apollo-like space program, that's how. And we had better do it before the Chinese do.
But TK, the Apollo program was just a red herring.
By the end of the Second World War the Germans had anti gravity engines (flying saucers)
By 1947 this technology had been transferred (stolen?) to the States. Apollo was just smoke and mirrors to hide the real tech.
It is even rumoured the the US has a space fleet (Solar Warden)
QuoteWhen Gary McKinnon hacked into U.S. Space Command computers several years ago and learned of the existence of "non-terrestrial officers" and "fleet-to-fleet transfers" and a secret program called "Solar Warden", he was charged by the Bush Justice Department with having committed "the biggest military computer hack of all time", and stood to face prison time of up to 70 years after extradition from UK. But trying earnest McKinnon in open court would involve his testifying to the above classified facts, and his attorney would be able to subpoena government officers to testify under oath about the Navy's Space Fleet. To date the extradition of McKinnon to the U.S. has gone nowhere.
Ron
I just looked up Gary McKinnon. They let him live to become another obscure quack.
The elephant in the room here is he did get caught with his fingers in the pie (as in electronic footprint, which is undeniable) so the Government is stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Here are the basic nuggets: Nichola Tesla, Stanley Kubrick, and Gary McKinnon. You put these three in a room and you have 3 witnesses as to what is possible. One invented it, one hid it and one found it.
And you don't have a room full of quacks either. The government game is to let them disappear into obscurity. It is also the government that supplies the distractive delusions also to guarantee the guarantee that it will disappear. And it always does.. Which is why we brave internet soldiers are bearing arms against the lie every moment.
The real OU'ers are those that have studied Tesla. We know the potential and the ramifications. We also know that given time one of the monkeys will find and pull the pin on the grenade. It is just a matter of time in all cases where curiosity gets the best of itself. Our knowledge has passed our obedience. And when you throw trillions of dollars at a technology anything is possible. And there is no way to force accountability for the untold billions of dollars spent.
Aint it great?
Quote from: ronee on 2017.08.04, 17:44:37
But TK, the Apollo program was just a red herring.
By the end of the Second World War the Germans had anti gravity engines (flying saucers)
By 1947 this technology had been transferred (stolen?) to the States. Apollo was just smoke and mirrors to hide the real tech.
It is even rumoured the the US has a space fleet (Solar Warden)
Ron
GK, I don't think we can credit Tesla with this, I think it was more a re-invention of the Vril technology.
http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/HAUNEBU.htm (http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/HAUNEBU.htm)
Ron
Well now, this is very interesting! (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=155695) Perhaps very soon we'll
know for certain.
??????
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsCR05oKROA
Quote from: muDped on 2017.08.05, 19:19:12
Well now, this is very interesting! (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=155695) Perhaps very soon we'll
know for certain.
Thanks to George:
QuoteUses common sense physics and innovative thinking to prove that NASA never put a man on the moon and that the whole Apollo saga was just a Hollywood-like production done with the help of the CIA and other shadowy organizations. Did man ever land on the Moon? The Apollo Moon landings, scour every NASA film, photo and report with a growing sense of wonder, until finally reaching an awesome conclusion: America had never put a man on the Moon.
The giant leap for mankind was clearly a fake and we sure fell for it. The story lifts off in 1961 with Russia firing Yuri Gagarin into space, leaving a panicked America trailing in the space race. At an emergency meeting of Congress, President Kennedy proposed the ultimate face saver: to put a man on the Moon. With an impassioned speech he secured the plan and an unbelievable 40 billion dollars. And as the authors says, the great Moon hoax was born.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q10TvIqXNR8&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q10TvIqXNR8&feature=youtu.be)
Ron
The LEM jet nozzle and the footprints segment really inverses the truth and conspiracy view.
No crater yet perfect footprints.
Quote from: giantkiller on 2017.08.09, 22:35:30
The LEM jet nozzle and the footprints segment really inverses the truth and conspiracy view.
No crater yet perfect footprints.
!Apparently! the rocket engine was switched off before hard touchdown,and the LEM just dropped that last foot or two.
But,as can be clearly seen in the apollo 14 landing footage,the rocket engine was still blasting away for a good 2 to 3 seconds after hard touch down--but still no blast crater O0
It is said by the believers that all the evidence against the moonwalkers,has been debunked-when in fact,all the evidence supplied by the believers is debunked,and the non believers have shown just how easy it is to fake the moon landings,and the moon walker hoax.
Brad
As I recall the first folks in space looked out of their port hole and could see - Nothing . It took some time to comprehend why this should be but it transpired that there is are no transverse waves in free space. only longitudinal waves
The following rockets were fitted with refracting glass in order for anything to be seen at all.
whilst this doesn't comprehensibly prove no moon landing I suggest the pictures have been at least 'manipulated' - regards Duncan
It is also asked by the believers-->how could it have been a hoax when there were 1000's of people working on the project ?-surly that many people couldnt keep a hoax like that a secret.
Well,i work in an auto repair workshop,and the auto parts store owned by the same company is in the same building.
Nothing but a wall separates the two.
Unless one of the guys from the auto parts store comes into the work shop,they have no idea as to what we might be working on. All they know is-we work on motor vehicles.
So,there is many cases where 90% of the people working in a company have no idea what the other 10% are doing.
Even some of the astronauts had no idea where they went-->these are the well trained guys embarking on the worlds greatest endeavour .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bbPzX-dfV4
Here we listen to another !so called! ex-spurt.
The great Michio Kaku C.C
Just another !some body! that has no idea what he is talking about.
Listen from 2:50 :o
Apparently the flags were made of tinfoil O0
You clearly see that it's made from tinfoil C.C C.C C.C :D
But keep listening.
He explains away the different angle shadows O0
It's earth shine ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drSqtw0Qywk&t=229s
No wonder we have come to a stand still in physics C.C
There is definitely moon shine,and i think Michio has drank too much of it.
Brad
I should know better by now to get involved in this again ... but did you bother to watch the video lecture from Carolin Crawford that I posted in the other thread?
Watch the last part from about 41 minutes on if you don't want to watch the whole thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an85WJ3hyF8
You need to be able to explain how LROC got all those photos of the Apollo landing sites where you can actually _see_ the paths that the astronauts walked... images obtained 40 years or more after they were there. Faked? Remember that although LROC was launched by NASA, it is operated by the University of Arizona, who are responsible for the imagery. This is not some car parts sales building with a garage next door-- it's a university full of graduate students and post-docs who rotate in and out every year. There is no secret photo-fake laboratory there and it would be _impossible_ for the kind of fakery that you are postulating to be kept secret at the UofA.
And then recall the Chinese lander and rover mission. No blast crater under the lander, and clear wellformed tracks from their rover.... so the Chinese are in on the fakery too?
I do tend to agree about Kaku though. He's a bit of a flake, oversimplifying and trying to be another Carl Sagan, but missing the mark by a mile. However there are other science communicators that do a much better job, like Neal DeGrasse Tyson, and the aforementioned Carolin Crawford, among others.
"Refracting glass"? "No transverse waves in free space?" Come on Duncan, you can come up with something better than that.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/apolloSpacecraftWindows.pdf
author=TinselKoala link=topic=3232.msg64185#msg64185 date=1502366829]
QuoteRemember that although LROC was launched by NASA, it is operated by the University of Arizona, who are responsible for the imagery. This is not some car parts sales building with a garage next door-- it's a university full of graduate students and post-docs who rotate in and out every year. There is no secret photo-fake laboratory there and it would be _impossible_ for the kind of fakery that you are postulating to be kept secret at the UofA.
1-So,were the photo's taken by the LROC before or after it was handed to the university?
2-Has the university since taken any more photo's of the landing sights.
3-Do the landing sites confirm man was there,or that space craft sit on the moons surface.?.
QuoteAnd then recall the Chinese lander and rover mission. No blast crater under the lander, and clear wellformed tracks from their rover.... so the Chinese are in on the fakery too?
Would it surprise you?
What is the one mistake in all the photos of the moon, by both the USA and Chinese ?
What is the surface of the moon TK,and how was it made?.
I do tend to agree about Kaku though. He's a bit of a flake, oversimplifying and trying to be another Carl Sagan, but missing the mark by a mile. However there are other science communicators that do a much better job, like Neal DeGrasse Tyson, and the aforementioned Carolin Crawford, among others.
QuoteI should know better by now to get involved in this again
Lol,i knew you would be back--just like the terminator lol.
Quotebut did you bother to watch the video lecture from Carolin Crawford that I posted in the other thread?
Watch the last part from about 41 minutes on if you don't want to watch the whole thing.
I did watch it,and i see she just quotes nothing more than she has been told,and presents nothing more than the very low quality picture's seen all over the internet.
QuoteYou need to be able to explain how LROC got all those photos of the Apollo landing sites where you can actually _see_ the paths that the astronauts walked... images obtained 40 years or more after they were there. Faked?
As i have said before--is this the best we get?
All i see is blurry white smudges on a picture,with square shadows that in no way resemble the caster of such shadows
Brad
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Flag_Assembly
What is the surface of the moon "made of" ? SO you did not watch Carolin Crawford's video lecture then.
Quote
1-So,were the photo's taken by the LROC before or after it was handed to the university?
2-Has the university since taken any more photo's of the landing sights.
3-Do the landing sites confirm man was there,or that space craft sit on the moons surface.?
The LRO is still up there taking pictures. Somebody left those trails and tracks, they weren't left by a rover or robot!
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/main/index.html
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/revisited/
Quote
Would it surprise you?
What is the one mistake in all the photos of the moon, by both the USA and Chinese ?
So you think China is in on it too. Yes it would surprise me, because it would be a major coup for China or Russia to disprove the USA manned landings. But they can't do it, because we really did go there and return.
What is this common mistake you are talking about? Can't see stars in the black sky? We have already covered that one and put it to bed.
QuoteAll i see is blurry white smudges on a picture,with square shadows that in no way resemble the caster of such shadows
Wrong again.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-12.html
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/M175252641LR_ap15.png
Quoteshe just quotes nothing more than she has been told,and presents nothing more than the very low quality picture's seen all over the internet.
You see... no amount of real evidence can shake your opinions. It's a religion. You've been presented with photos from orbit and you criticise their quality and resolution. You have been presented with photos taken by the men on the moon and by robotic cameras left behind as the men left, and you say they are faked. No evidence will be good enough to convince you!
I've asked you before: What evidence _would_ convince you that men landed on the moon? If there is none.... then you do not have a scientific attitude about this issue.
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/posts/491
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2017.08.10, 17:37:07
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Flag_Assembly
What is the surface of the moon "made of" ? SO you did not watch Carolin Crawford's video lecture then.
The LRO is still up there taking pictures. Somebody left those trails and tracks, they weren't left by a rover or robot!
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/main/index.html
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/revisited/
So you think China is in on it too. Yes it would surprise me, because it would be a major coup for China or Russia to disprove the USA manned landings. But they can't do it, because we really did go there and return.
What is this common mistake you are talking about? Can't see stars in the black sky? We have already covered that one and put it to bed.
Wrong again.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-12.html
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/M175252641LR_ap15.png
You see... no amount of real evidence can shake your opinions. It's a religion. You've been presented with photos from orbit and you criticise their quality and resolution. You have been presented with photos taken by the men on the moon and by robotic cameras left behind as the men left, and you say they are faked. No evidence will be good enough to convince you!
I've asked you before: What evidence _would_ convince you that men landed on the moon? If there is none.... then you do not have a scientific attitude about this issue.
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/posts/491
I did watch the video TK-i was asking you the question.
She states in the video,that the top layer is dust ,caused by millions of years of meteorite bombardment.
So,what on the moon could cause a disturbance of this dust?-excluding mans interference,and further meteorite strikes.
As far as the pictures of vehicles and tracks on the moon go,how do you know that they are what is being claimed?
If some one posted an extremely clear HD video,of an apparent self running,over unity device,and said it was such-would you believe them?.
Blurry pictures that show dark lines and bright white dots,are no proof at all that man walked on the moon.
If this were anything else TK,you would be laughing at it.
To date,i have not seen a single thing associated with the moon landings,that can not be done here on earth-and with ease.
How much did NASA spend on research and development on keeping things cool in the extreme temperatures on the moon?,when your university shows pictures they claim are the flags still standing,and casting a shadow.
48 years on,and the $5.50 nylon flag still flys-must be hot in the sun C.C
There is not one thing i have seen that proves man walked on the moon-not one.
Have you ever seen pictures of a town covered in ash after a volcanic eruption?
Have you ever seen the tree's on the side of a dusty road?.
The one thing i noticed that i have never heard anyone else mention before,is that in all the HD pictures of moon landings-all the bloody rocks are clean-free from the millions of years of dust falling from meteorite impacts--NO dust on the rocks-not even the flat topped ones-and no bloody wind to blow the dust off of them.
The list go's on of the bullshit being claimed.
China's HD pictures show the same clean rocks
,
source of information regarding 'no transverse waves from the sun in free space' -
The information regarding this anomaly I find is from this lecture by Prof Eric Dollard please regard from 43min to 45 min
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHsEzPDVtog (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHsEzPDVtog)
Regards Duncan
Quote from: Duncan on 2017.08.11, 06:02:37
source of information regarding 'no transverse waves from the sun in free space' -
The information regarding this anomaly I find is from this lecture by Prof Eric Dollard please regard from 43min to 45 min
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHsEzPDVtog (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHsEzPDVtog)
Regards Duncan
Prof Eric Dollard :D
Lol.
Now that collection of interviews is funny
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pYMobWSx5E (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pYMobWSx5E)
especially from 13:30 on... :o.....ha ha
Mike