-
I'm at a disadvantage in trying to determine whether or not the moon landings happened. Most of the arguments I've seen arguing in favor or against rely on the audience having scientific literacy. I have zilch. What are a few arguments that could be made to someone with no scientific literacy that the moon landings were fraudulent?
-
I recommend watching Bart Sibrel's docuмentary " A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon."
It has the "smoking gun" footage of the astronauts faking the ball earth image in the window.
-
I recommend watching Bart Sibrel's docuмentary " A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon."
It has the "smoking gun" footage of the astronauts faking the ball earth image in the window.
Yeah, that's pretty good.
I've seen a lot of evidence, plus a good dose of common sense, which has convinced me firmly that we never went to the Moon. There is a belt of radiation around the earth that, if passed through, is lethal to humans. That is why NORMAL, real, repeated, ongoing space exploration by NASA and every other space agency is 100% done in LOW EARTH ORBIT. Anything further out than that is ALWAYS (100%) done by machines.
If someone submitted their morning weight for the past month and it looked like this:
...
200
201
202
201
200
10,500
202
201
200
...
What would you do with that "10,500" reading? Anyone with a brain, common sense, or training in Science or Statistics would tell you: you throw it out as an aberration. When you have a single datum which is ridiculously above the norm, and has never been even CLOSE TO repeated, you cast it out as an anomaly or an aberration.
And my numbers are appropriate, too. Tooling around in Low Earth Orbit would be a 200, going to the Moon and back would be a 10,500. That's a pretty good proportion I think. If anything, that 2nd number should be larger!
We have years of history to prove it now -- that the so-called moon landings in the early 1970's never happened. You're telling me NO OTHER COUNTRY has managed to go there in almost 50 years? There are a lot of advanced countries that should have the technology to do so (remember the Apollo computer was less powerful than most people's digital watches today). Russia, Japan, China, Europe just for starters.
It was a huge fake, a psy-op. That's all it ever was. Oh, and of course the greatest and most successful hoax to ever be perpetrated.
-
It was a huge fake, a psy-op. That's all it ever was. Oh, and of course the greatest and most successful hoax to ever be perpetrated.
Aside from the h0Ɩ0h0αx.
-
1. Agreed. There have been many hoaxes perpetrated on the world, especially in the 20th Century alone. It's debatable which was the largest, most significant, most important, etc.
2. Any discussion of Flat Earth MUST be taken to the designated subforum.
-
I don't put it past the government to fake moon landings. I see no reason to consider them honest and trustworthy. So I find that sort of argument plausible.
On the other hand, the argument which I find strongest in favour of the moon landings is the nature of the Cold War. Because I am old enough to remember what it was like, I find it hard to hard to believe that the Soviets wouldn't have gotten hold of the evidence of fraud and exposed it. The "space race" was a big deal and the Soviets had an effective spy system.
-
Any talk of going "back" to the Moon, or to Mars, is a huge joke. We haven't even left Low Earth Orbit yet!
Even if you take the leap of faith that we went to the Moon in 1969 and the early 70's, that would still be the equivalent of, "I know we've been staying in the wading/kiddie end of the pool for the last 50 years, but now we're proposing to swim across the Atlantic ocean -- and back!"
How about you swim a few hundred feet first -- where your feet can't touch the bottom -- before you talk about swimming from New York to France and back!
We don't have any human outposts, any human journeys, any ANYTHING further away than Low Earth Orbit. That is a fact. I'd rather talk about that, than talk about all the other proofs that the Moon Landings were a hoax.
It's a law of experimental science, as well as Statistics, that when you have a far-and-above exception to 99% of the data, it must be considered an aberration to be dismissed. I didn't come up with this argument, but MAN is it rock-solid and the most compelling argument why the Moon Landings were a hoax. The truth of it resonated with me, and burrowed deep into my brain.
-
Statistics, and data, just don't work this way:
Fastest 100-meter dash: 1.5 seconds
Second fastest 6.05 seconds
Third fastest: 6.13 seconds
Fourth fastest: 6.35 seconds
...
etc.
You NEVER, EVER have a datum "in a whole different league" than the runner-up and the 2nd runner-up. It just doesn't happen. If anyone wishes to prove me wrong I'm all ears!
Or phone processors:
Fastest 5,000 GHz
2nd fastest: 1.8 GHz
Third fastest: 1.7 GHz
etc.
-
Interesting graphic. Look at the bottom of the graphic, to see how far away the moon is.
-
In other words, here is the data:
Human Spaceflight Number, Distance from Earth Traveled
1. 1,200 miles, USA
2. 1,200 miles, Russia
3. 1,100 miles, Russia
4. 1,150 miles, USA
(repeats like this, then...)
450. (Moon Landing) 238,900 miles
451. 1,200 miles, EU
452. 1,175 miles, Japan
453. 1,190 miles, China
454. 1,170 miles, USA
455. 1,160 miles, Russia
(goes on like this, for the next 50 years!)
See what I mean?
-
In other words, here is the data:
Human Spaceflight Number, Distance from Earth Traveled
1. 1,200 miles, USA
2. 1,200 miles, Russia
3. 1,100 miles, Russia
4. 1,150 miles, USA
(repeats like this, then...)
450. (Moon Landing) 238,900 miles
451. 1,200 miles, EU
452. 1,175 miles, Japan
453. 1,190 miles, China
454. 1,170 miles, USA
455. 1,160 miles, Russia
(goes on like this, for the next 50 years!)
See what I mean?
A lie investigated cannot hold out against the truth. Dig a little get a lot.
-
I don't put it past the government to fake moon landings. I see no reason to consider them honest and trustworthy. So I find that sort of argument plausible.
On the other hand, the argument which I find strongest in favour of the moon landings is the nature of the Cold War. Because I am old enough to remember what it was like, I find it hard to hard to believe that the Soviets wouldn't have gotten hold of the evidence of fraud and exposed it. The "space race" was a big deal and the Soviets had an effective spy system.
I don't have a good answer to that objection. But just because I don't know everything, especially secret deals made in dark rooms, terms of blackmail, and all the machinations of bad guys worldwide, doesn't mean I'm allowed to throw out the laws of Science and Statistics.
If you can't reproduce an experiment, you throw it out. Aberrations from the norm must be dismissed.
Maybe we'll know the answer to your question someday. Perhaps we'll never know. But what we DO know for sure is what I've stated above, about science and statistics.
-
I don't have a good answer to that objection. But just because I don't know everything, especially secret deals made in dark rooms, terms of blackmail, and all the machinations of bad guys worldwide, doesn't mean I'm allowed to throw out the laws of Science and Statistics.
If you can't reproduce an experiment, you throw it out. Aberrations from the norm must be dismissed.
Maybe we'll know the answer to your question someday. Perhaps we'll never know. But what we DO know for sure is what I've stated above, about science and statistics.
Consider the antarctic treaty of 1959. Nearly all nations signed it, US and Russia, included. And it remains to this day. Why? The banksters dictate. And yes, that means on some upper level, the US and Russia have been on the same side.
-
Consider the antarctic treaty of 1959. Nearly all nations signed it, US and Russia, included. And it remains to this day. Why? The banksters dictate. And yes, that means on some upper level, the US and Russia have been on the same side.
Exactly. I could accept that "there is an answer" to the mystery of why the US and Russia, apparent enemies, would have stayed silent about the Moon Landing Hoax. I might not know the particulars or the specifics, but it's REASONABLE to believe that there's a good explanation, but it's simply not within our grasp.
However, I'm not going to believe something that violates common sense, or the laws of science and Reality in general (see my data lists above).
-
Exactly. I could accept that "there is an answer" to the mystery of why the US and Russia, apparent enemies, would have stayed silent about the Moon Landing Hoax. I might not know the particulars or the specifics, but it's REASONABLE to believe that there's a good explanation, but it's simply not within our grasp.
However, I'm not going to believe something that violates common sense, or the laws of science and Reality in general (see my data lists above).
I agree that it is a reasonable approach, but, perhaps because my personal memories of the Cold War are so vivid, that argument casts enough doubt in my mind that I cannot commit to believing it is a hoax. I am left not being prepared to argue either way on this issue.
-
I agree that it is a reasonable approach, but, perhaps because my personal memories of the Cold War are so vivid, that argument casts enough doubt in my mind that I cannot commit to believing it is a hoax. I am left not being prepared to argue either way on this issue.
I agree with another poster that many of the top actors in both countries were on the same team. One need merely investigate who were the real powers behind the Russian Revolution as well as the top levels of the U.S. government. Both groups owed their allegience to the government of Kazharia ... ahem. Neither country would have had any credible space program at all were it not for the kidnapped German scientists.
In addition, both countries probably had some secrets of other countries that they mutually agreed not to reveal in a kind of stalemate or blackmail.
-
I agree with another poster that many of the top actors in both countries were on the same team. One need merely investigate who were the real powers behind the Russian Revolution as well as the top levels of the U.S. government. Both groups owed their allegience to the government of Kazharia ... ahem. Neither country would have had any credible space program at all were it not for the kidnapped German scientists.
In addition, both countries probably had some secrets of other countries that they mutually agreed not to reveal in a kind of stalemate or blackmail.
Based on everything I know about the way the world REALLY works behind the scenes, this seems not only possible or reasonable, but even probably or highly likely.
-
Moonlandings were definitely faked as a psyop to the Soviets who first succeeded at orbiting a dog in Sputnik above the earth, and to convince the world through this deception that the U.S. space program was technologically superior.
-
Moonlandings were definitely faked as a psyop to the Soviets who first succeeded at orbiting a dog in Sputnik above the earth, and to convince the world through this deception that the U.S. space program was technologically superior.
A Psy-op aimed at the Soviet and American peoples, perhaps.
But I'm sure the Soviet higher-ups knew the truth -- especially since they sent so many men into orbit in the years running up to the Apollo "moon landings". They weren't newbies to space. They would have known about the lethal nature of the Van Allen Belt, for example -- probably with first hand experience. (They probably lost a few cosmonauts to gain that particular knowledge)
-
How many BILLIONS (probably trillions at this point) have US taxpayers given to NASA over the decades, because we believed we went to the moon? Where does that $ really go? To develop top-secret military tech that isn't public (i.e. HAARP, bluebeam, chemtrails, etc, etc)? Probably. To develop surveillance tech (like implantable chips, GPS tracking, facial recognition) so that the govt can spy, track and find us? Probably.
-
How many BILLIONS (probably trillions at this point) have US taxpayers given to NASA over the decades, because we believed we went to the moon? Where does that $ really go? To develop top-secret military tech that isn't public (i.e. HAARP, bluebeam, chemtrails, etc, etc)? Probably. To develop surveillance tech (like implantable chips, GPS tracking, facial recognition) so that the govt can spy, track and find us? Probably.
There are so many possibilities, all reasonable.
But what is NOT reasonable is that we had this miraculous trip to the Moon in 1969 with a few follow-ups in the 1970's, and then NOTHING for the next 50 years -- not from America, or any other technologically advanced country. Oh, and no country has ventured beyond low earth orbit for the almost 5 decades since then. Yeah right!
I love their lame excuse why we haven't gone back -- people got bored with it; people even complained when ______ (some old show) was pre-empted to broadcast one of the later "moon landings". That's when they knew it was over.
Yeah, I know -- all the visits to other celestial bodies all the time, it's almost a blur. GIVE ME A BREAK. You have to be old enough to RETIRE now to even remember the original alleged "moon landing". A boy or girl 8 years old in 1969 would be 57 years old today!
-
Thanks for the replies. I've seen the Bart Sibrel docuмentary a few times. I don't have an answer for that footage you mention. If the moon landings were faked why would they fake it 9 times? More funding? The Apollo astronauts would have to have been in on it, and yet they seem too low-level for the conspirators to trust them to not divulge things. They also must be master actors because I've seen many interviews with these astronauts and they seem honest. But perhaps I'm naive.
But to the question of the impossibility of humans surviving a pass throught the Van Allen Belts, is the following not a good explanation?
4. Some people believe that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax because astronauts would have
been instantly killed in the radiation belts. According to the US Occupation Safety and Health Agency (OSHA) a lethal radiation dosage is 300 Rads in one hour. What is your answer to the 'moon landing hoax' believers?
Note: According to radiation dosimeters carried by Apollo astronauts, their total dosage for the entire trip to the moon and return was not more than 2 Rads over 6 days
A. The total dosage for the trip is only 11.4 Rads in 52.8 minutes. Because 52.8 minutes is equal to 0.88 hours, his is equal to a dosage of 11.4 Rads / 0.88 hours = 13 Rads in one hour, which is well below the 300 Rads in one hour that is considered to be lethal.
Also, this radiation exposure would be for an astronaut outside the spacecraft during the transit through the belts. The radiation shielding inside the spacecraft cuts down the 13 Rads/hour exposure so that it is completely harmless.
--https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwipn7vIjYbbAhVtw1kKHZmJBmYQFggpMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nasa.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Ffiles%2FSMIII_Problem7.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3HpSBt7Uhth4e5K-VlXKLe
-
•Reuters: The original recordings of the first humans landing on the moon 40 years ago were erased and re-used NASA officials said on Thursday, July 16, 2009.
•NASA also admits the Apollo 11 moon trip telecast in its raw format on telemetry data tape of the first Moon landing in 1969 was subsequently lost.
• NASA says there are 600 boxes, weighing over one ton, of telemetry data missing from EVERY Apollo mission.
-
Yeah, that's pretty good.
I've seen a lot of evidence, plus a good dose of common sense, which has convinced me firmly that we never went to the Moon. There is a belt of radiation around the earth that, if passed through, is lethal to humans. That is why NORMAL, real, repeated, ongoing space exploration by NASA and every other space agency is 100% done in LOW EARTH ORBIT. Anything further out than that is ALWAYS (100%) done by machines.
If someone submitted their morning weight for the past month and it looked like this:
...
200
201
202
201
200
10,500
202
201
200
...
What would you do with that "10,500" reading? Anyone with a brain, common sense, or training in Science or Statistics would tell you: you throw it out as an aberration. When you have a single datum which is ridiculously above the norm, and has never been even CLOSE TO repeated, you cast it out as an anomaly or an aberration.
Leaving aside the actual question for a moment, this argument is complete nonsense. No competent scientist would throw out that reading without a second glance, because it says in huge, glaring red letters "SOMETHING UNUSUAL HAPPENED HERE!!!!!!". In this case, what happened is that there is a whole lot of nothing between the distances used for orbital satellites and the moon, so why on earth would anyone want to go to "500" or 2000 in your example? There's NOTHING there. So you skip past all that until you get to something of interest (the moon).
There are some actually reasonable arguments regarding whether the moon landing happened or not. This is not one of them.
-
Did you not see the video I posted of the NASA guy? He was saying they need to come up with a way to shield astronauts going through the Van Allen belts, as in they haven't invented that yet. No knowledge of science required to get that. Just the knowledge that the Van Allen belts are deadly, as per that video, and the knowledge that they supposedly already went through them in the 60's and 70's gained from common "knowledge".
I just looked at both your links. The link about Von Braun saying we would need a rocket the span of the empire state building to get straight to the moon preceded by some years Houbolt's LOR. And the earth-orbit rendezvous method was considered as well:
--https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/Rendezvous.html
Your other two videos could be explained away as Nasa having lost the technology it once had for shielding from the Van Allen rays. This is a hard-to-believe explanation, as you'd think the government would realize how important was NASA's work and keep detailed records of everything the organization did. The facts happenby's post above mentions are mighty suspicious.
Another explanation is that they simply want to try a new approach to shielding using modern materials and he just didn't mention due to oversight that they have earlier shielding technology.
-
Leaving aside the actual question for a moment, this argument is complete nonsense. No competent scientist would throw out that reading without a second glance, because it says in huge, glaring red letters "SOMETHING UNUSUAL HAPPENED HERE!!!!!!". In this case, what happened is that there is a whole lot of nothing between the distances used for orbital satellites and the moon, so why on earth would anyone want to go to "500" or 2000 in your example? There's NOTHING there. So you skip past all that until you get to something of interest (the moon).
There are some actually reasonable arguments regarding whether the moon landing happened or not. This is not one of them.
When I read Matthew's post the Egyptian Pyramids popped into my head. Aren't modern engineers still wondering how the Pyramids were erected using the tools available at the time? Giant leaps seem possible.
-
But what is NOT reasonable is that we had this miraculous trip to the Moon in 1969 with a few follow-ups in the 1970's, and then NOTHING for the next 50 years -- not from America, or any other technologically advanced country. Oh, and no country has ventured beyond low earth orbit for the almost 5 decades since then. Yeah right!
Exactly. Makes no sense. I love space movies even though they're fake; that's what the moon landing was - a movie.
-
St. Nilus' prophesy applies:..."And when they have achieved all this, these unhappy people will spend their lives in comfort without knowing, poor souls, that it is deceit of the Antichrist. And, the impious one! -- he will so complete science with vanity that it will go off the right path and lead people to lose faith in the existence of God in three hypostases.
Mark Twain aptly observed: “The glory which is built upon a lie soon becomes a most unpleasant encuмbrance. … How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and how hard it is to undo that work again!” – Autobiographical dictation, 2 December 1906. Published in Autobiography of Mark Twain, Volume 2 (University of California Press, 2013)
-
Exactly. Makes no sense. I love space movies even though they're fake; that's what the moon landing was - a movie.
It makes perfect sense. There is no reason to go back. If you do something like that once, what's the reason to go back? It's not like there's any practical reason to do it other than as a giant vanity project. Again, there are arguments to be made, but this isn't one of them.
-
A Psy-op aimed at the Soviet and American peoples, perhaps.
But I'm sure the Soviet higher-ups knew the truth -- especially since they sent so many men into orbit in the years running up to the Apollo "moon landings". They weren't newbies to space. They would have known about the lethal nature of the Van Allen Belt, for example -- probably with first hand experience. (They probably lost a few cosmonauts to gain that particular knowledge)
True.
-
Apollo 11 Press Conference (aka: The Three Deer Caught in the Headlights)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI_ZehPOMwI
-
There is no reasonto go back. If you do something like that once, what's the reason to go back? It's not like there's any practical reason to do it other than as a giant vanity project.
No practical reason to go back? Haha, do you live under a rock? NASA makes a big deal about exploring mars and you don’t think that a space station/city on the moon would be a good “half way” point to explore mars, instead of going all the way back to earth every time? In 70 years we’ve gone from black-n-white tube tv technology to HD cell phones where a 10 yr old can film a movie from the palm of his hand...and there’s no space station where hundreds/thousands of people are living, training and studying space?
Again, I don’t believe we went to the moon or anywhere close, but if you believe it, then it makes no sense why a govt agency, with TRILLIONS of dollars and the brightest minds, after 70 years, has done nothing but send satellites to space. It’s laughable. I’d feel better if I found out the $ was wasted on cocaine and prostitutes in some massive scandal. At least THAT would explain the lack of results.
-
Relatively serious efforts to send a manned expedition to Mars are a pretty recent thing. NASA has done many, many things with all that money in the last 50+ years. Among them unmanned probes to Mars, deep space probes which just shoot off until they are out of range (sending back data in the meantime), building a space station (which is your "halfway house" you want to put on the moon. It's easier and more practical to put it in orbit for a variety of reasons)... Heck the European equivalent landed a probe on a comet, which is a mindbogglingly impressive feat. Oh there's also the Hubble telescope and other things like it. Again, they probably could've stuck it on the moon, but it's easier to maintain if you have it in low orbit, and it achieves the same effect (getting above the atmosphere for clearer vision).
So to say NASA has done nothing with all that money is patently false. Whether or not that was a good use of trillions of dollars is a different question entirely.
-
Exactly. Makes no sense. I love space movies even though they're fake; that's what the moon landing was - a movie.
A movie directed by Stanley Kubrick.
-
4. Some people believe that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax because astronauts would have
been instantly killed in the radiation belts. According to the US Occupation Safety and Health Agency (OSHA) a lethal radiation dosage is 300 Rads in one hour. What is your answer to the 'moon landing hoax' believers?
Note: According to radiation dosimeters carried by Apollo astronauts, their total dosage for the entire trip to the moon and return was not more than 2 Rads over 6 days
But to the question of the impossibility of humans surviving a pass throught the Van Allen Belts, is the following not a good explanation?
Hahaha you gotta be kidding. You call that a rebuttal?
Sure, 300 rads/hour is probably lethal. I'll concede that point. But how do we know how much radiation is REALLY in the Van Allen belt? The next sentence "Note: during the (disputed) Apollo missions, their total dosage..." that's a logical fallacy, I don't know the exact name (perhaps begging the question? circular reasoning?) but I know it's ridiculous.
Matthew: I am king
Joe: No you are not!
Matthew: Yes, I am king. Because I just issued a royal decree and I can't issue a royal decree without being king, now, can I?
The fact is that ALL COUNTRIES have avoided the Van Allen belts like the plague OFFICIALLY for almost 50 years -- and probably longer than that in actuality. Why? They have no good reason.
-
No practical reason to go back? Haha, do you live under a rock? NASA makes a big deal about exploring mars and you don’t think that a space station/city on the moon would be a good “half way” point to explore mars, instead of going all the way back to earth every time? In 70 years we’ve gone from black-n-white tube tv technology to HD cell phones where a 10 yr old can film a movie from the palm of his hand...and there’s no space station where hundreds/thousands of people are living, training and studying space?
Again, I don’t believe we went to the moon or anywhere close, but if you believe it, then it makes no sense why a govt agency, with TRILLIONS of dollars and the brightest minds, after 70 years, has done nothing but send satellites to space. It’s laughable. I’d feel better if I found out the $ was wasted on cocaine and prostitutes in some massive scandal. At least THAT would explain the lack of results.
This.
If human space travel beyond the Van Allen belts were possible, we'd at least have space stations a bit further away than Low Earth Orbit -- just for baby practice if nothing else. Remember, once a rocket escapes Earth's gravity, it will keep going indefinitely without reverse thrusters of some kind. It's not like there's air or drag in space. So it wouldn't take super big rockets or anything to build a space station, say, 1/4 or even 1/2 of the way to the Moon. Why are we treating the Van Allen Belt like "There Be Monsters Here" from the middle ages? No one will so much as dip their big toe in this radiation belt.
Again: WHY?
-
NASA has done many, many things with all that money in the last 50+ years. Among them unmanned probes to Mars, deep space probes which just shoot off until they are out of range (sending back data in the meantime), building a space station (which is your "halfway house" you want to put on the moon. It's easier and more practical to put it in orbit for a variety of reasons)... Heck the European equivalent landed a probe on a comet, which is a mindbogglingly impressive feat. Oh there's also the Hubble telescope and other things like it. Again, they probably could've stuck it on the moon, but it's easier to maintain if you have it in low orbit, and it achieves the same effect (getting above the atmosphere for clearer vision).
I notice none of those things involve humans going beyond the Van Allen belt. How convenient.
Too bad the claim isn't that we sent robots to the Moon for the Apollo missions...
-
To avoid being needlessly confrontational, I will also note that the comment you quoted was in response to the claim that NASA hasn't done anything with their trillions, so I listed a bunch of things, none of which have anything to do with manned moon travel. There is NO REASON to go to the moon unless you're completing a vanity project (which there is no real point in repeating), or are establishing a base of some sort there. There is no good reason to establish a base there currently, since low earth orbit works much, much better if you want a base to serve as a "launchpad". I could see them wanting to put a base on the moon as practice for a Mars habitat, assuming they ever get that far, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.
Note I haven't said anything about Van Allen belts. As I said, there are reasonable arguments to be made (and that's one of them). I disagree with you, but if you want to make that argument at least you have a leg to stand on.
-
Hahaha you gotta be kidding. You call that a rebuttal?
Sure, 300 rads/hour is probably lethal. I'll concede that point. But how do we know how much radiation is REALLY in the Van Allen belt? The next sentence "Note: during the (disputed) Apollo missions, their total dosage..." that's a logical fallacy, I don't know the exact name (perhaps begging the question? circular reasoning?) but I know it's ridiculous.
Matthew: I am king
Joe: No you are not!
Matthew: Yes, I am king. Because I just issued a royal decree and I can't issue a royal decree without being king, now, can I?
The fact is that ALL COUNTRIES have avoided the Van Allen belts like the plague OFFICIALLY for almost 50 years -- and probably longer than that in actuality. Why? They have no good reason.
You dispute that multiple probes, starting in 1958 with Explorer 1, have measured the level of radiation in the belts?
-
It's odd that I'm getting thumbs down for questions. It reminds me of the curse of ham thread.
I simply don't know yet whether the moon landings happened. It's a fact-finding thread.
-
I just looked at both your links. The link about Von Braun saying we would need a rocket the span of the empire state building to get straight to the moon ...
Yes, the amount of fuel required to achieve escape velocity from the earth would not have fit on any rocket that we had at the time. These guys went into low earth orbit, went around for a few days, sending fake telemetry back to Mission Control, and some pre-taped videos ... and then came back down. There's no doubt about it.
-
Yes, the amount of fuel required to achieve escape velocity from the earth would not have fit on any rocket that we had at the time. These guys went into low earth orbit, went around for a few days, sending fake telemetry back to Mission Control, and some pre-taped videos ... and then came back down. There's no doubt about it.
Yes, but that was a rocket needed to fly straight to the moon. The Apollo missions didn't fly straight to the moon. Later eor and lor were developed as alternatives. Do you think it not possible that lor could have worked for Apollo?
-
Yes, the amount of fuel required to achieve escape velocity from the earth would not have fit on any rocket that we had at the time. These guys went into low earth orbit, went around for a few days, sending fake telemetry back to Mission Control, and some pre-taped videos ... and then came back down. There's no doubt about it.
This is outside my area of engineering, so I'm far from an expert, but it's possible that the statements about the size of the rocket needed were with reference to the known methods at the time, and advances changed that. The easy one that gets you part of the way there is better fuel with better power/weight ration, but things like multiple stage rockets and possibly using "slingshot" effects of orbital dynamics could also have been developed afterwards. I admit I am speculating here, but those are the first things that come to mind if I look for an explanation.
-
Apollo 11 Press Conference (aka: The Three Deer Caught in the Headlights)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI_ZehPOMwI
If Armstrong had done what he claimed to have done his hero status would have been far greater than that of Charles Lindbergh. He'd probably be on par with Christopher Colombus. But instead of one of mankind's greatest cult heros, he acts like the cat who ate the canary or the schoolboy called to the principal's office. His emotions seem so flat as if he had been given some tranquilizing drug to help him lie with a straight face.
Too bad we couldn't have subjected all three of these individuals to the best polygraph experts in the country. Not that the results would necessarily be perfect, but I bet they would be fairlly interesting.
You can only wonder why this "incredible hero" goes off into semi-oblivion as a semi-recluse on a farm in Ohio. Aside from all the other major problems in trying to prove a manned moon landing, just the human element alone seems so highly questionable. And, of course, you may have seen the extreme negative reaction (and downright refusal) of these and other moon astronauts when asked to swear on a bible that they had landed on the moon. Not a pretty sight!
-
If Armstrong had done what he claimed to have done his hero status would have been far greater than that of Charles Lindbergh. He'd probably be on par with Christopher Colombus. But instead of one of mankind's greatest cult heros, he acts like the cat who ate the canary or the schoolboy called to the principal's office. His emotions seem so flat as if he had been given some tranquilizing drug to help him lie with a straight face.
Too bad we couldn't have subjected all three of these individuals to the best polygraph experts in the country. Not that the results would necessarily be perfect, but I bet they would be fairlly interesting.
You can only wonder why this "incredible hero" goes off into semi-oblivion as a semi-recluse on a farm in Ohio. Aside from all the other major problems in trying to prove a manned moon landing, just the human element alone seems so highly questionable. And, of course, you may have seen the extreme negative reaction (and downright refusal) of these and other moon astronauts when asked to swear on a bible that they had landed on the moon. Not a pretty sight!
I've seen this video before. While the behavior exhibited is a bit strange it doesn't make me conclude that something nefarious is going on.
I've seen the Bart Sibrel video many times. Some of the astronauts do swear on the bible, mainly the ones he's able to get to do sit-down interviews with him. The astronauts he chases after refuse to do so, likely peeved by his gonzo approach.
-
I've seen this video before. While the behavior exhibited is a bit strange it doesn't make me conclude that something nefarious is going on.
I've seen the Bart Sibrel video many times. Some of the astronauts do swear on the bible, mainly the ones he's able to get to do sit-down interviews with him. The astronauts he chases after refuse to do so, likely peeved by his gonzo approach.
One video alone doesn't prove anything, however taken in a larger context the pieces that fit together just don't go with the official NASA story. Start with the freemasonic background of NASA, then look at the suspicious deaths of the astronauts and you will begin to see the big picture.
-
If Armstrong had done what he claimed to have done his hero status would have been far greater than that of Charles Lindbergh. He'd probably be on par with Christopher Colombus. But instead of one of mankind's greatest cult heros, he acts like the cat who ate the canary or the schoolboy called to the principal's office. His emotions seem so flat as if he had been given some tranquilizing drug to help him lie with a straight face.
Too bad we couldn't have subjected all three of these individuals to the best polygraph experts in the country. Not that the results would necessarily be perfect, but I bet they would be fairlly interesting.
You can only wonder why this "incredible hero" goes off into semi-oblivion as a semi-recluse on a farm in Ohio. Aside from all the other major problems in trying to prove a manned moon landing, just the human element alone seems so highly questionable. And, of course, you may have seen the extreme negative reaction (and downright refusal) of these and other moon astronauts when asked to swear on a bible that they had landed on the moon. Not a pretty sight!
THIS.
I was going to talk about this as well. The astronauts should have been transformed in a profound, philosophical way. Their transformation would NOT have resulted in the behavior you cite here, the "cat that ate the canary" as you put it. But that's precisely how most of them acted!
I guess people have no imagination, with which to imagine how astronauts SHOULD have behaved, how they would have been affected, if it had been real.
I do have a decent imagination, as well as a capability for deep thought, and I see a huge discrepancy so wide that you could drive a space shuttle through it.
Let's put it another way: If the Apollo missions HAD been faked, let's just consider for the sake of argument, how would the astronauts have behaved? Well, I think that hypothetical behavior and what we actually observed in the actual astronauts is virtually one and the same!
-
The Apollo astronauts have not all behaved the way Armstrong behaved. Armstrong was unusual among Apollo astronauts in becoming reclusive. If the argument were a good one, then all the Apollo astronauts would have become recluses. That's simply not the case.
Matthew, do you dispute that probes measured the radiation levels in the Van Allen belt, starting in 1958?
Thus far I'm unimpressed with the arguments I've seen. Unlike with the h0Ɩ0cαųst, where there's clear evidence that it was a fraud, I have yet to see anything offered on this thread for me to think the moon landings didn't happen.
Which doesn't mean they did happen, of course.
Perhaps NeilObstat could chime in on this thread. He seems to have a science background and could offer better insights than others.
-
One video alone doesn't prove anything, however taken in a larger context the pieces that fit together just don't go with the official NASA story. Start with the freemasonic background of NASA, then look at the suspicious deaths of the astronauts and you will begin to see the big picture.
Well give me those other pieces. I don't see much of anything so far on this thread.
-
Don't know if it's helpful but I thought this was interesting.
http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/nasa-engineers-forgotten-admission/ (http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/nasa-engineers-forgotten-admission/)
.
Wernher von Braun filmed explaining the Space Station plan to sending manned spacecraft to the moon!
(Don't miss the charming detail of using an engineering slide rule for a pointer. Probably Keuffel & Esser (http://www.mccoys-kecatalogs.com/) - he kept it in his left jacket pocket! Put it there like a gunslinger holstering his Colt .45, ready for a quick draw!)
.
https://youtu.be/0VSajxIOpvk
.
The first voyage was supposed to go AROUND the moon, and the plan of actually LANDING on the moon is not mentioned.
.
-
Neil must work for NASA since he's such a fangirl of Werner Von Braun.
Interesting that they could realistcally fake zero gravity several years before Kubricks moon landing films.
No doubt Neil thinks the moon footage in the video is real.
-
The Apollo astronauts have not all behaved the way Armstrong behaved. Armstrong was unusual among Apollo astronauts in becoming reclusive. If the argument were a good one, then all the Apollo astronauts would have become recluses. That's simply not the case.
Matthew, do you dispute that probes measured the radiation levels in the Van Allen belt, starting in 1958?
Thus far I'm unimpressed with the arguments I've seen. Unlike with the h0Ɩ0cαųst, where there's clear evidence that it was a fraud, I have yet to see anything offered on this thread for me to think the moon landings didn't happen.
Which doesn't mean they did happen, of course.
Perhaps NeilObstat could chime in on this thread. He seems to have a science background and could offer better insights than others.
.
Why would the emblem for Apollo 11 show an eagle flapping its wings over the moon where there is no air to fly in?
(https://s14-eu5.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spacefacts.de%2Fmission%2Fpatches2%2Fapollo-11.jpg&sp=65aa42d80c88cf31e893a4dea56b4363)
Unless perhaps the "moon" was a movie sound stage where there WAS air to fly in ...
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcz0eL_bYsI
Probably one of the most glaring issues with the moon landings is the use of wires to lift the astronuts after tripping, or to recover them from a fall. This 2 minute video shows many such occurrences to the point of embarrassment for NASA. And the lyrics of the song fit perfectly with this compilation of official NASA video.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcz0eL_bYsI
Probably one of the most glaring issues with the moon landings is the use of wires to lift the astronuts after tripping, or to recover them from a fall. This 2 minute video shows many such occurrences to the point of embarrassment for NASA. And the lyrics of the song fit perfectly with this compilation of official NASA video.
Love that video. :laugh1:
I love the one too where George HW Bush was being pushed through NASA in a wheelchair and they ride past a guy in front of a green screen who at the same time is being presented on TV as being in space. :laugh1:
-
Could some of you take a look at this video which claims to debunk Sibrel's smoking gun footage and let me know what you think?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5XkLa9RYNk
-
Probably one of the most glaring issues with the moon landings is the use of wires to lift the astronuts after tripping, or to recover them from a fall. This 2 minute video shows many such occurrences to the point of embarrassment for NASA. And the lyrics of the song fit perfectly with this compilation of official NASA video.
I'll read up on this issue. What do you think about the suggestion here (https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?1925-Apollo-14-Astronauts-suspended-by-wires-You-decide) that the footage that shows what can be interpreted as wires is actually the antennae on their backpacks reflecting?
-
I'll read up on this issue. What do you think about the suggestion here (https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?1925-Apollo-14-Astronauts-suspended-by-wires-You-decide) that the footage that shows what can be interpreted as wires is actually the antennae on their backpacks reflecting?
I'm not sure how one can blame the camera or angle of the camera, or quality of the video for guys clearly picked up by less than unnatural forces. I appreciate your desire to hold the line regarding what you believe, but the video is pretty telling. It's more about them hanging mid-air as they get up than it is about visual dynamics. Back when they took the footage we might have been fooled, or missed stuff, but looking again, it doesn't hold up anymore.
-
I'm not sure how one can blame the camera or angle of the camera, or quality of the video for guys clearly picked up by less than unnatural forces. I appreciate your desire to hold the line regarding what you believe, but the video is pretty telling. It's more about them hanging mid-air as they get up than it is about visual dynamics. Back when they took the footage we might have been fooled, or missed stuff, but looking again, it doesn't hold up anymore.
I just read through this earlier thread about the moon landing being a hoax, on which I'd forgotten I participated (as hatchc): https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/we-never-landed-on-the-moon/
I pick up a theme from that thread (and other threads I've read over the years on this topic) that is the reason I started this thread. There's lots of speculation on this thread, and on that thread. The tendency toward speculation suggests a lack of anything tangible on which to hang this claim. And a lack of science credentials, which I also lack. It's not hubristic to speculate whether or not the moon landings happened, but if you have a shoddy foundation it's hubristic to say with certainty they didn't happen. Instead of being content to speculation everyone on this thread is stating the moon landings being a hoax is fact.
On that earlier thread JohnGrey's posts are well worth reading, in that he points out basically the same thing, but does it better than I could. Matthew says in an earlier post that you need to have imagination. No thanks. I need no imagination to know the h0Ɩ0cαųst didn't happen, or that JFK wasn't murdered by a lone assassin, or that Jєωs run the West. I shouldn't need imagination to know the moon landings didn't happen. I don't have any vested interest in the moon landings being fact. Once you find out the h0Ɩ0cαųst is garbage, everything else is comparatively small-fry. If the landings didn't happen, they didn't happen. Fine with me.
Since none of you know they didn't happen, but just speculate that they didn't happen, I'll do some speculating. I speculate that the moon landing hoax is promoted by Jєωs.
There's plenty of mainstream Jєωιѕн news sources that advertise the moon landing hoax, only to lightheartedly mock it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG0vYUu0Bfc
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/wsv00s/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-total-eclipse-of-the-truth
Incidentally I do find it interesting that the Jєωy Bart Sibrel attended a Real History conference in 2002, and yet is fooled by something that is much easier to figure out:
" (https://forum.cosmoquest.org/archive/index.php/t-3170.html)Some people try to deny the h0Ɩ0cαųst Sibrel said. 'There were 100 million witnesses to World War II . . . '" (https://forum.cosmoquest.org/archive/index.php/t-3170.html)
-
Thanks for the replies. I've seen the Bart Sibrel docuмentary a few times. I don't have an answer for that footage you mention. If the moon landings were faked why would they fake it 9 times? More funding? The Apollo astronauts would have to have been in on it, and yet they seem too low-level for the conspirators to trust them to not divulge things. They also must be master actors because I've seen many interviews with these astronauts and they seem honest. But perhaps I'm naive.
But to the question of the impossibility of humans surviving a pass throught the Van Allen Belts, is the following not a good explanation?
.
I've read through this whole thread and found several references to the Bart Sibrel "docuмentary" (singular) and several questions about the Van Allen belts (plural).
.
But Sibrel has published several "docuмentaries" (plural) and there are a lot more questions about the Van Allen belts.
.
Here is a unique interview done by Sibrel, featuring perhaps the earliest Apollo-hoax author of them all, Bill Kaysing, who wrote a book in 1974 under contract with Price, Stern, Sloan: We Never Went to the Moon. (See minute 10:, 44: ) Apparently filmed in 1996 (see min. 49)
.
Skip the first 2 minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJxHnpa90w4
... 131,213 views today
.
This 1-hour interview was originally going to be included in Sibrel's "A Funny Thing Happened..." but was deleted out of time constraints. It seems odd that not even a few minutes of Kaysing were deemed relevant. Kaysing touches on many topics, most of which are not found otherwise here in this thread. I found it most interesting when he enumerates the conspicuously timed deaths of key witnesses in the years during and following Apollo. Kaysing himself died shortly after giving this interview.
.
Regarding Matthew's concern that the distance to the moon is far and away another ball game compared to 100% of the rest of manned space flight missions, Kaysing is similarly concerned, but on a much broader scale. He says that in many categories the Apollo missions were off the charts in breaking all the reasonable limits of probability (80 systems, 6 times, without fail -- min. 55). He says that the data records for the Apollo missions are not classified information, but nonetheless, nobody can get access to them (see min. 34). For example, nobody is able to explain how the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) was able to rendezvous with the Command Module after leaving the moon when the latter was orbiting (allegedly) the moon at a tremendously faster velocity. Yet this incredibly complicated maneuver was somehow performed FIRST TIME without a hitch, unrehearsed. There were MANY such first-time-unrehearsed successes in Apollo. The probability of all these things going right first time without any experience is very close to zero. But people believe it anyway.
.
One college professor Sibrel quotes as saying that even if he (Sibrel) could get one astronaut to admit that the whole moon mission thing was a hoax, he still would think that it had been real.
.
The data provided on the YouTube page for this video has the following:
.
Bart Sibrel (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2qQfHf3WlwyH7iJLildfcg)
Published on Apr 14, 2013
.
Bart Sibrel's unedited, never before broadcast, interview with, now deceased, original moon landing hoax proponent and former contractor to NASA during the Apollo moon missions, Bill Kaysing. The interview was edited out of Sibrel's "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" at the request of Fox Television to make the film fit into a one hour time slot.
.
Mr. Kaysing discusses his first hand account of the incredible atmosphere of engineering ineptitude, on-the-job drunkenness, and endless insurmountable schedule slippages that were rampant in the program, dooming it to failure. "The only way to make it, was to fake it", he said was the underground motto of the staff.
.
Never before in all of recorded aviation has a flying machine worked on its first attempt, much less the most complicated one ever imagined, landing on another heavenly body on its maiden voyage, and returning roundtrip with a crew that lived to tell, all with 1960's technology. (More computing power today is found in a $10 watch).
.
According Kaysing, a classified interdepartmental memo rated the odds of a successful and survivable manned lunar landing on its first attempt at one in ten thousand. That is why the returning men of the mission looked so dejected rather than triumphant at their press conference, as they were blackmailed into lying about the alleged greatest accomplishment of mankind, to the detriment of their own souls.
.
For licensing information, contact Bart Sibrel of Sibrel.com via "bartsibrel@yahoo.com" or http://sibrel.com (https://www.youtube.com/redirect?redir_token=Km9tu4a8c-PZnqNO4VlXb7IwqOh8MTUyNjczNzkwNkAxNTI2NjUxNTA2&v=IJxHnpa90w4&q=http%3A%2F%2Fsibrel.com&event=video_description)
.
Share, Thumb's Up, and Support!
Paypal Donate:
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr... (https://www.youtube.com/redirect?redir_token=Km9tu4a8c-PZnqNO4VlXb7IwqOh8MTUyNjczNzkwNkAxNTI2NjUxNTA2&v=IJxHnpa90w4&q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.paypal.com%2Fcgi-bin%2Fwebscr%3Fcmd%3D_s-xclick%26hosted_button_id%3DVZS56C4W9NQH8&event=video_description)
.
Buy Autographed DVD
"A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon"
https://www.ebay.com/itm/232544447533 (https://www.youtube.com/redirect?redir_token=Km9tu4a8c-PZnqNO4VlXb7IwqOh8MTUyNjczNzkwNkAxNTI2NjUxNTA2&v=IJxHnpa90w4&q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2Fitm%2F232544447533&event=video_description)
.
Buy Autographed DVD
"Astronauts Gone Wild"
https://www.ebay.com/itm/232593123556 (https://www.youtube.com/redirect?redir_token=Km9tu4a8c-PZnqNO4VlXb7IwqOh8MTUyNjczNzkwNkAxNTI2NjUxNTA2&v=IJxHnpa90w4&q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2Fitm%2F232593123556&event=video_description)
.
"Did They Really Walk on the Moon 48 Years Ago?"
http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/land-... (https://www.youtube.com/redirect?redir_token=Km9tu4a8c-PZnqNO4VlXb7IwqOh8MTUyNjczNzkwNkAxNTI2NjUxNTA2&v=IJxHnpa90w4&q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thesleuthjournal.com%2Fland-moon-1960s-technology%2F&event=video_description)
.
"A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJ... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4)
.
"Astronauts Gone Wild"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr6Vc... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr6Vcvl0OeU)
.
"Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybJMu... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybJMuowl0UU)
.
"Apollo Zero"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9vaU... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9vaU-seg6o)
.
Sibrel's Conspiracy Corner Editorial Page at The Sleuth Journal
http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/consp... (https://www.youtube.com/redirect?redir_token=Km9tu4a8c-PZnqNO4VlXb7IwqOh8MTUyNjczNzkwNkAxNTI2NjUxNTA2&v=IJxHnpa90w4&q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thesleuthjournal.com%2Fconspiracy-corner%2F&event=video_description)
.
Sibrel.com
http://sibrel.com (https://www.youtube.com/redirect?redir_token=Km9tu4a8c-PZnqNO4VlXb7IwqOh8MTUyNjczNzkwNkAxNTI2NjUxNTA2&v=IJxHnpa90w4&q=http%3A%2F%2Fsibrel.com&event=video_description)
.
The Reason Why the Comments Section is Closed:
http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/consp... (https://www.youtube.com/redirect?redir_token=Km9tu4a8c-PZnqNO4VlXb7IwqOh8MTUyNjczNzkwNkAxNTI2NjUxNTA2&v=IJxHnpa90w4&q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thesleuthjournal.com%2Fconspiracy-comments-catch%2F&event=video_description)
.
.
After all this, I still have unanswered questions about the alleged BATTERIES, and the alleged AIR CONDITIONING equipment.
Lead acid batteries were the only type in use at the time, but how do they work in a VACUUM? They would have to be dry cell batteries or else the electrolyte would boil off without ambient air pressure. So the lunar rover for example would have to be powered with something like a very long stack of nickle-cadmium D cells (that was the rechargeable variety of that time).
.
Ask any air conditioning technician or engineer about how it works. You need to have a heat sink or an environment where you can dump the BTUs from the cooled volume. If you want to cool off a LEM or a space suit, you need a cooler place where the heat can be disposed of. On the sunlit surface of the moon the 250-degree environment has no such cool place where the heat can be dumped off. Plus, there is no air or atmosphere on the moon so no evaporator coil would have anything to cool it off, no matter how hot it gets. The only way to dispense with the heat would be by radiation like infrared radiation. It would require a refrigerant to be upwards of 300 degrees so it could lose heat in a 250-degree moon surface. No one has ever explained what refrigerant could be used that operates at 300 degrees F.
-
There's plenty of mainstream Jєωιѕн news sources that advertise the moon landing hoax, only to lightheartedly mock it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG0vYUu0Bfc
Rivera's mother is of αѕнкenαzι (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/αѕнкenαzι) Russian Jєωιѕн (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Jєω) descent. He was raised "mostly Jєωιѕн" and had a Bar Mitzvah (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Mitzvah) ceremony.
-
After the "statistical aberration" argument, I think the next most powerful argument is the one about air conditioning the space suits/LEM, as well as the batteries that supposedly powered the rover:
After all this, I still have unanswered questions about the alleged BATTERIES, and the alleged AIR CONDITIONING equipment.
Lead acid batteries were the only type in use at the time, but how do they work in a VACUUM? They would have to be dry cell batteries or else the electrolyte would boil off without ambient air pressure. So the lunar rover for example would have to be powered with something like a very long stack of nickle-cadmium D cells (that was the rechargeable variety of that time).
.
Ask any air conditioning technician or engineer about how it works. You need to have a heat sink or an environment where you can dump the BTUs from the cooled volume. If you want to cool off a LEM or a space suit, you need a cooler place where the heat can be disposed of. On the sunlit surface of the moon the 250-degree environment has no such cool place where the heat can be dumped off. Plus, there is no air or atmosphere on the moon so no evaporator coil would have anything to cool it off, no matter how hot it gets. The only way to dispense with the heat would be by radiation like infrared radiation. It would require a refrigerant to be upwards of 300 degrees so it could lose heat in a 250-degree moon surface. No one has ever explained what refrigerant could be used that operates at 300 degrees F.
I will personally add:
I know a bit about solar power and batteries myself. The one thing you almost can't do, without huge banks of lead batteries, is air conditioning. The process of air conditioning simply draws too much power to make off-grid A/C feasible.
I've also seen diagrams of the lunar rover -- where were the batteries stowed? Did it operate on magic power?
-
They claim there were 2 small "silver zinc" batteries on the rover.
I seriously doubt that would power that vehicle longer than 8 minutes. Have you seen the battery bank in a modern electric car? And the "lunar rovers" were built in the late 60's. They didn't have modern battery technology -- or efficient integrated circuit-based electronics to gently consume that battery power. Everything drew more power back in the 60's and 70's. Every light bulb was a power-sucking incandescent, etc. All the electronic gear in the diagram would have drawn WAY MORE POWER than the modern equivalent, AND such electronic equipment wouldn't have used a single milliamp less because they were on the moon "where gravity is 1/6 that of Earth".
They broadcast data with antennae! How many of you noticed how soon your phone battery goes dead when you use a lot of wifi or 3G? That's the biggest power drain on any phone -- even more than the screen.
You can see in the diagram how small the batteries were. Not must potential for power storage there.
-
I've already pointed out how the "statistical aberration" argument is complete nonsense, so we've leave that aside until someone addresses that argument and talk about your misunderstandings of how heat transfer works.
Air conditioning is necessary on earth because the AIR gets hot, and heats us by convection. The moon has almost no air, so a person (or object) on the moon's surface will be heated directly by radiation (direct transfer of energy from the sun's rays). This effect also occurs on earth obviously, but is highly mitigated by the atmosphere which absorbs much of the radiation.
So on the moon, the most effective form of "cooling" is to wear a reflective suit, so the sun's energy simply bounces off and never heats you up in the first place. Thence the shiny white suits.
So what's the problem here exactly?
-
I've already pointed out how the "statistical aberration" argument is complete nonsense, so we've leave that aside until someone addresses that argument and talk about your misunderstandings of how heat transfer works.
Air conditioning is necessary on earth because the AIR gets hot, and heats us by convection. The moon has almost no air, so a person (or object) on the moon's surface will be heated directly by radiation (direct transfer of energy from the sun's rays). This effect also occurs on earth obviously, but is highly mitigated by the atmosphere which absorbs much of the radiation.
So on the moon, the most effective form of "cooling" is to wear a reflective suit, so the sun's energy simply bounces off and never heats you up in the first place. Thence the shiny white suits.
So what's the problem here exactly?
The astronauts themselves also generated heat, being warm blooded. They can't "open a window" instead of running the A/C while they run around in their space suits. Having no air for convection is a double edged sword.
And their suits were not bouncing off 100% the suns rays or heating ability. They didn't look like mirror-men. They were just wearing white. Go out in the Texas mid-day sun sometime in white long pants and a white long sleeve shirt, with a white hat and a white shirt hanging from the hat to block your neck. Sure, you won't get cooked AS MUCH by the sun, but you will still heat up.
Then move to a well-shaded place like under a carport, and note that it wasn't the air that was warming you -- it was the sun. That's why I prefer working outside in the last hour before dark (when the air barely off the day's high, or around 95) to working in full sun at 10:00 AM when the air is only 79 degrees. It's the radiant heat that proverbially kills you.
See, as a Texan, I know much more about "hot" than you :)
P.S. Whatever I noted, above, about radiant heat experienced by a Texan, is even more true on the Moon -- as you pointed out, the Earth has an atmosphere to help mitigate the heating power of the Suns' rays, the Moon does not.
-
For all you know I'm from sub-saharan africa. And on that topic, there's a reason people in the middle east tend to cover themselves completely despite the intense heat.
The body heat inside the suit would take a while to become an issue, and it would also be mitigated by the fact that they were probably venting some air out (compressed air from the oxygen tank would need to be vented after they breathed it).
Either way, the point here is that you are cherry-picking factoids and twisting them to support your already drawn conclusion, rather than look for the easily available explanations for why they aren't actually a problem.
-
Either way, the point here is that you are cherry-picking factoids and twisting them to support your already drawn conclusion, rather than look for the easily available explanations for why they aren't actually a problem.
I could say the same about you. Any sane person knows we didn't go to the Moon. I say the burden of proof is on you. It's clearly a fairy tale and a huge psy-op, experienced by our parents, that most of their descendants take on faith and the authority/credibility of our Government.
But there's certainly no evidence for it! Just a few props in a museum that fall apart under the slightest scrutiny applied to them. On the contrary, there is only evidence that we couldn't have gone to the Moon.
Anyone dismissing the "we -- and all the other advanced countries, including those who never went -- haven't been back" argument obviously has an emotional investment in the whole package deal that is the Moon landing hoax (hooray for science, let's go to the planets, etc.)
-
You are the one making an rather extraordinary claim here, namely that every single scientist and engineer involved in an enormous project was either a liar (i.e. "in on it") or simply too stupid to tell the difference. All that to say nothing of every engineer and scientist who has seriously studied the relevant technologies in the 50+ years since (and I imagine there have been a few). But no, the burden of proof is on me. K then...
And each so called "proof" you have thus far demonstrated was either a non-argument based on bad statistics, or an easily explained bit of heat physics most people learn in high school.
I am also unsure how you accuse me of cherry-picking factoids when I haven't actually presented any. All I've done is comment on the things others have presented and offer reasonable alternative explanations to "it was all a colossal lie".
-
Rivera's mother is of αѕнкenαzι (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/αѕнкenαzι) Russian Jєωιѕн (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Jєω) descent. He was raised "mostly Jєωιѕн" and had a Bar Mitzvah (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Mitzvah) ceremony.
Just a side note. Gerald Rivera (he changed his name to Geraldo) was a super strong mouth piece in pushing the official 9-11 narrative and has vehemently ridiculed those who don't buy it as conspiracy nuts.
-
Any sane person knows we didn't go to the Moon. I say the burden of proof is on you. It's clearly a fairy tale and a huge psy-op, experienced by our parents, that most of their descendants take on faith and the authority/credibility of our Government.
THIS ^^^
-
For all you know I'm from sub-saharan africa. And on that topic, there's a reason people in the middle east tend to cover themselves completely despite the intense heat.
The body heat inside the suit would take a while to become an issue, and it would also be mitigated by the fact that they were probably venting some air out (compressed air from the oxygen tank would need to be vented after they breathed it).
Either way, the point here is that you are cherry-picking factoids and twisting them to support your already drawn conclusion, rather than look for the easily available explanations for why they aren't actually a problem.
.
Body heat inside the suit would be a problem before the moon-walkers exited the LEM. The entire LEM would be subject to the oven-like environment of A) being in direct sunlight which is 250 deg. F. on the moon. Plus, B) the moon's surface is heated to the same 250 deg. F. so it's like landing in a pre-heated oven. Cookies can bake at that temperature. Try wrapping cookie dough in aluminum foil in a hot oven and see what they're like after a half hour.
.
Compressed oxygen would provide some cooling all right, but how much? The astronauts never said their suits were cooled by oxygen, they said "air conditioning" equipment in their back packs. If the oxygen tank was in the pack, the tank itself would be what cools when liquified gas under 20,000 psi +/- would boil off for breathing, and the back pack itself would be heated by the sun. The amount of cooling that would arrive via the air being breathed would be heated by the hose connecting the space suit to the backpack. It's all pretty vague stuff here. None of the explanations for cooling say anything about cooling the space suit by evaporating liquid oxygen. They say "air conditioning."
.
How would breathing air help to cool your feet or legs for example?
.
When Elon Musk or any other private venture tries to go to the moon we're going to become informed a lot better, it seems to me.
.
In the videos I linked above, Bill Kaysing said it's not any ONE THING that makes the difference, rather it's the total collection of all the various topics and systems raising red flags that discredits the official story. And notice when NASA spokesmen pretend to answer the questions, they go broad and general, making sweeping statements without answering any individual specific points in particular. They never say what type of batteries were used (Matthew found one "silver zinc" which is usually used for watch batteries) and whatever they were they never made it into commercial production for automotive use. We went directly from lead-acid automotive batteries to lithium-ion, but the latter was not invented until 17 years after Apollo (1980).
.
And how would they have charged the batteries, with solar cells? Where are the solar cells on the LEM photographs? They would have had to use an enormous array, which could have served as a sun shade but none of the photos have that. Never mind that solar cells were still in their infancy in the 1960's, very inefficient.
.
-
.
Body heat inside the suit would be a problem before the moon-walkers exited the LEM. The entire LEM would be subject to the oven-like environment of A) being in direct sunlight which is 250 deg. F. on the moon. Plus, B) the moon's surface is heated to the same 250 deg. F. so it's like landing in a pre-heated oven. Cookies can bake at that temperature. Try wrapping cookie dough in aluminum foil in a hot oven and see what they're like after a half hour.
.
Compressed oxygen would provide some cooling all right, but how much? The astronauts never said their suits were cooled by oxygen, they said "air conditioning" equipment in their back packs. If the oxygen tank was in the pack, the tank itself would be what cools when liquified gas under 20,000 psi +/- would boil off for breathing, and the back pack itself would be heated by the sun. The amount of cooling that would arrive via the air being breathed would be heated by the hose connecting the space suit to the backpack. It's all pretty vague stuff here. None of the explanations for cooling say anything about cooling the space suit by evaporating liquid oxygen. They say "air conditioning."
.
How would breathing air help to cool your feet or legs for example?
.
When Elon Musk or any other private venture tries to go to the moon we're going to become informed a lot better, it seems to me.
.
In the videos I linked above, Bill Kaysing said it's not any ONE THING that makes the difference, rather it's the total collection of all the various topics and systems raising red flags that discredits the official story. And notice when NASA spokesmen pretend to answer the questions, they go broad and general, making sweeping statements without answering any individual specific points in particular. They never say what type of batteries were used (Matthew found one "silver zinc" which is usually used for watch batteries) and whatever they were they never made it into commercial production for automotive use. We went directly from lead-acid automotive batteries to lithium-ion, but the latter was not invented until 17 years after Apollo (1980).
.
And how would they have charged the batteries, with solar cells? Where are the solar cells on the LEM photographs? They would have had to use an enormous array, which could have served as a sun shade but none of the photos have that. Never mind that solar cells were still in their infancy in the 1960's, very inefficient.
.
(https://i.imgur.com/vVRxzdn.jpg)
-
.
Watch the last 5 minutes (says "new" but it's almost a year old) :
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-qMyHyMNZw
.
There are government officials who have privately (off the record) congratulated Bart Sibrel for the work he has been doing, but they cannot come out in public for saying that because there are two factions behind the scenes at odds with each other, and have been for a long time "perhaps since the cινιℓ ωαr," and if this we didn't go to the moon were to be made public there would be a national crisis, the stock market would crash, the dollar would crash, foreign countries would lose all confidence in America and we could have a new cινιℓ ωαr on our hands. (Obviously part of the cut-out portion that did not air in England.)
.
From the Youtube page:
.
Bart Sibrel's entire unedited one hundred minute interview from England's Channel 5's recent [June 2016] national television special on the alleged "moon landings", specifically orchestrated to reassure the public, against the emerging truth to the contrary, that their number one ally, the United States, did not falsify the touted moon landings of the 1960's, even though they cannot be replicated today by anyone with five decades more advanced technology.
.
Choosing only to show two minutes of Bart Sibrel's one hundred minute interview to the public, in which he outlined in great detail how and why the missions were indeed falsified by the highly disreputable Nixon administration, for fear these revelations might otherwise convince the public of the truths therein, Channel 5 instead, by deleting 98% of Sibrel's disclosing interview, selectively steered the narrative away from the truth, in order to comply with directives from higher executives to conceal the truth, after which the producers involved resigned in disgruntlement over the censored facts they attempted to present.
.
Bart Sibrel has explained elsewhere (not on YouTube channel) that he has to disable comments on these videos in order to protect himself (because he is doing literally very dangerous work here, and gives many anecdotes to substantiate this claim - people like him end up mysteriously dead by "accident" or "heart attack" and their bodies are cremated immediately w/o autopsy) and in order not to have thousands of complaints coming in to YouTube such that his videos would be removed. All it takes is one CIA phone call to YouTube and it's a blank screen for Sibrel.
.
-
I'll read up on this issue. What do you think about the suggestion here (https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?1925-Apollo-14-Astronauts-suspended-by-wires-You-decide) that the footage that shows what can be interpreted as wires is actually the antennae on their backpacks reflecting?
.
What do you think of the Apollo 17 LEM lift-off from the moon?
.
You know, the one where astronauts have vociferously defended the camera technique as being the result of advance orders given to the TV camera robot left on the moon to start panning upwards two seconds before the liftoff so that the LEM would still be in the frame, since a robot was left on the moon to operate the camera while the astronauts all went home.
.
Oh, BTW, it's the shot that makes Dorothy's house falling on Munchkin land look like it was real. Yeah. That LEM lift-off.
And BTW, it's the lift-off that shows no plume of rocket engines firing from the module lifting off. And it wiggles like a toy.
.
That would be a robot and TV camera that are still there on the moon's surface, of course. Or......... not.
.
-
.
What do you think of the Apollo 17 LEM lift-off from the moon?
.
You know, the one where astronauts have vociferously defended the camera technique as being the result of advance orders given to the TV camera robot left on the moon to start panning upwards two seconds before the liftoff so that the LEM would still be in the frame, since a robot was left on the moon to operate the camera while the astronauts all went home.
.
Oh, BTW, it's the shot that makes Dorothy's house falling on Munchkin land look like it was real. Yeah. That LEM lift-off.
And BTW, it's the lift-off that shows no plume of rocket engines firing from the module lifting off. And it wiggles like a toy.
.
That would be a robot and TV camera that are still there on the moon's surface, of course. Or......... not.
.
So, Neil, you're admitting that NASA has been caught perpetrating fakery?
-
There are government officials who have privately (off the record) congratulated Bart Sibrel for the work he has been doing, but they cannot come out in public for saying that because there are two factions behind the scenes at odds with each other, and have been for a long time "perhaps since the cινιℓ ωαr," and if this we didn't go to the moon were to be made public there would be a national crisis, the stock market would crash, the dollar would crash, foreign countries would lose all confidence in America and we could have a new cινιℓ ωαr on our hands. (Obviously part of the cut-out portion that did not air in England.)
Another scenario is that the powers that pulled off the moon landing hoax would also only allow it to be known as a hoax when they were able to control the fallout. When I found out the h0Ɩ0cαųst didn't happened, it didn't make the Jєωs less intimidating. It made them more intimidating. Only very powerful people could pull off a lie that big. If other countries realized we didn't land on the moon it would likely make them more intimidated by our government. What resources, boldness and high intelligence such people must have at their disposal to even attempt such lies.
This quote from Robert Faurisson from the preface to Dissecting the h0Ɩ0cαųst is relevant:
I think that the co-religionists of Mr. Berenbaum will at last abandon the gas chamber as they have abandoned the Jєωιѕн soap and the Auschwitz 4 million. They will go farther than that. As in the two previous cases, they will present themselves as the discoverers of the myth and accuse the Germans, the Poles, or the Communists of having fabricated the ‘myth of the gas chambers’. In support of their impudent thesis, they will then invoke the names of Jєωs who are Revisionists totally or in part (J.G. Burg, Jean-Gabriel Cohn-Bendit, Roger-Guy Dommergue, Arno Mayer, David Cole, Christopher Hitchens, Joel Hayward ?). They will then assign themselves the starring role.
At the same time, however, transforming the ‘h0Ɩ0cαųst’ of the Jєωs into a religious belief, this time divested of all material content, they will be only the more inflexible in denouncing authentic Revisionists as ‘deniers’, or ‘negationists’, as being intolerant, heartless, basely materialistic and hostile to the free expression of religious sentiments. For those Jєωs, the true Revisionists will thus continue to be diabolical in spirit even if they must be acknowledged to be in the right from a factual point of view.
At some point in time it may be permissible to say that the nαzιs had no plan and made no attempt to liquidate European Jєωry, but only after such time as the Jєωs have managed to "assign themselves the starring role" in uncovering the duplicity.
There are government officials who have privately (off the record) congratulated Bart Sibrel for the work he has been doing, but they cannot come out in public for saying that because there are two factions behind the scenes at odds with each other, and have been for a long time
Yeah these "government officials" are probably his mailman and garbage collector. I doubt he has connections with important government people.
Sibrel gives off the whiff of a Jєω huckster.
-
Another scenario is that the powers that pulled off the moon landing hoax would also only allow it to be known as a hoax when they were able to control the fallout. When I found out the h0Ɩ0cαųst didn't happened, it didn't make the Jєωs less intimidating. It made them more intimidating. Only very powerful people could pull off a lie that big. If other countries realized we didn't land on the moon it would likely make them more intimidated by our government. What resources, boldness and high intelligence such people must have at their disposal to even attempt such lies.
That's a very good point. Sometimes they just enjoy the power rush of waving it in our faces, basically taunting us by saying "Look what we're getting away with and you're powerless to stop us."
-
.
What do you think of the Apollo 17 LEM lift-off from the moon?
.
You know, the one where astronauts have vociferously defended the camera technique as being the result of advance orders given to the TV camera robot left on the moon to start panning upwards two seconds before the liftoff so that the LEM would still be in the frame, since a robot was left on the moon to operate the camera while the astronauts all went home.
.
Oh, BTW, it's the shot that makes Dorothy's house falling on Munchkin land look like it was real. Yeah. That LEM lift-off.
And BTW, it's the lift-off that shows no plume of rocket engines firing from the module lifting off. And it wiggles like a toy.
.
That would be a robot and TV camera that are still there on the moon's surface, of course. Or......... not.
.
And how did they get that film physically out of the camera and back to earth since they just left?
-
Gee if only there were methods of wirelessly transmitting data from one point to another...
-
Gee if only there were methods of wirelessly transmitting data from one point to another...
Back then? Do you think they used a 2400 baud modem? Oh, wait, hadn't been invented yet. Maybe they broadcast TV signals and then recorded them on the other end with a VCR. Oh, wait.
-
First public TV stations started popping up in the 50s, so the technology existed.
-
It is impossible for anyone to get to the moon, and even if they could, the moon is not solid.
This just greets stranger and stranger.
-
And how did they get that film physically out of the camera and back to earth since they just left?
.
Perhaps you ought to be informed that TV cameras don't need film. That's common knowledge BTW.
.
How many other things are you ignorant of? Perhaps the earth's curvature?
-
Yeah these "government officials" are probably his mailman and garbage collector. I doubt he has connections with important government people.
Sibrel gives off the whiff of a Jєω huckster.
.
Did you watch the video, especially the last 5 minutes? Did you read the history under it, where it says British Channel 5 deleted 98% of the interview selecting only the parts that would give the OPPOSITE impression if handled carefully? Did you hear the questions the interviewer asked Sibrel during the 100 minutes? Did you hear how she kept trying to steer the material away from Sibrel's message? Are you accusing Sibrel of FAKING this whole thing and there never was any interview?
-
You people are incredibly stupid.
There was no television camers on the moon.
It was a film camera.
There was no wireless ANYTHING in 1969.
Film has always been PHYSICAL until the 90's
-
.
Perhaps you ought to be informed that TV cameras don't need film. That's common knowledge BTW.
.
How many other things are you ignorant of? Perhaps the earth's curvature?
You're so stupid, it's painful.
You think they dragged one these beasts to the moon, when weight matters so much?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOl2Yhbt_ZA
?
-
You people are incredibly stupid.
There was no television camers on the moon.
It was a film camera.
There was no wireless ANYTHING in 1969.
Film has always been PHYSICAL until the 90's
They had nothing small enough to take on the LEM that could broadcast signals through the air.
-
The first transatlantic television broadcast was done in 1928. The technology existed and antennas don't take up a lot of space. If you think it was impossible to leave behind a camera on the surface and have it send the video to the lander you are deluding yourself. Independent of the question of whether or not it actually happened, that piece was doable in the 30s.
-
The technology existed and antennas don't take up a lot of space.
False. NASA claims that they contracted out to RCA and Westinghouse to build something precisely because no such technology existed before that time.
-
Which technology in particular are you referring to here? If you mean the capacity to send a signal all the way from the moon back to a control station on earth, I don't doubt that at all. Obviously a trip to the moon would involve a large amount of tech with very narrow use cases that no one would have bothered to develop (because there's no other reason for an antenna system capable of broadcasting over the distances involved, for example). Developing things like that and working out all the issues is hard, so I'm not surprised they had to get someone to build something specifically for the purpose.
-
They had nothing small enough to take on the LEM that could broadcast signals through the air.
This.
-
Here is a unique interview done by Sibrel, featuring perhaps the earliest Apollo-hoax author of them all, Bill Kaysing, who wrote a book in 1974 under contract with Price, Stern, Sloan: We Never Went to the Moon. (See minute 10:, 44: ) Apparently filmed in 1996 (see min. 49)
.
Skip the first 2 minutes:
This 1-hour interview was originally going to be included in Sibrel's "A Funny Thing Happened..." but was deleted out of time constraints. It seems odd that not even a few minutes of Kaysing were deemed relevant. Kaysing touches on many topics, most of which are not found otherwise here in this thread. I found it most interesting when he enumerates the conspicuously timed deaths of key witnesses in the years during and following Apollo. Kaysing himself died shortly after giving this interview.
I watched the entire video, and I also read Baron testimony transcript. These are notes I took on just about everything he talks about.
Just to start off I'll list what I agree is suspicious:
--Baron's report being lost and the circuмstances of his death (car stalling at a railroad crossing, and kaysing claims no autopsy was performed, which was against Florida law at the time)
--The FBI taking Grissom's papers from his home after his death, and never returning them
--not taking a telescope along
--unclassified apollo records not available to the public
Kaysing got the idea to write about the moon landings being fake from a homeless vietnam vet (as a joke). He then, while still assuming the moon landings really happened, got a contract to write the book by the Jєωιѕн publishing house Price, Stern & Sloan (which specialized in joke books). So it seems he originally intended to write the book as a joke. Kind of a strange genesis, don't you think? I see from looking at his publishing output that he was part of the back-to-land movement in the early 70s.
--the set of the interview is ridiculous. a crackling fireplace, romcom lighting, cheese platter and wine for the guy to munch on.
--Baron's death is suspicious , though I read that there was a witness to his death and so no foul play was ruled. Kaysing suspects Baron was murdered, though suspicion doesn't equal fact, Baron also stated in another video I watched that he had been harassed at him home by NASA because of his work. Why didn't they also kill General Sam Phillips, who Kaysing says corroborated much of what was in Baron's report? Also Phillips was in total command of the Apollo project. It's odd that he and his wife weren't autopsied, which was against Florida law at the time. Kaysing doesn't mention the stepdaughter that was killed. Was she autopsied?
--Baron's report going missing is suspicious
--some of technical stuff he talks about i would have to study more about, from both sides, and some of it is simply above my head
--not taking a telescope up is suspicious, and plays into the idea that the landing was filmed in a studio. kaysing says that astronomers would have been able to immediately detect foul play if the conspirators had attempted to fake the stars. that's probably an arguable point. if nasa had astronomers in on the conspiracy they might have been able to cook up something which would fool other astronomers.
--the account about his contact with james irwin can't be confirmed. we just have to take his word for it.
--the account of the pilot seeing a capsule dropped out of the cargo hold of an airplane isn't confirmed. that would be a gigantic news story. why didn't the pilot inform his airline or other people in authority. even tell someone anonymously, giving the coordinates at which the capsule was dropped, other details. the pilot doesn't reveal his name or the airline he worked for, for fear that he'd be fired? sounds fishy. i'm supposed to believe the pilot kept this a secret for years or decades and decided to call into a radio show one day? kaysing should tell us what radio show and the date of the radio interview.
--as for the capsule not creating steam from the impact with hitting the ocean, kaysing says that none of the pictures taken of the landings show steam. are there any pictures taken of any of the Nasa capsules landing that were taken at the landing? it's my understanding that the specific landings location couldn't be predicted. ships and planes could only be in the general area of the capsule landings, therefore no pictures or video could be taken of impact.
--he mentions that he was doing an interview with KOME radio station in san jose, ca in dec 7, 1975 and the interview with shock jock victor boc went off the air due to someone in a helicopter dropping napalm on the radio station's transmitter. you'd think this would be noteworthy enough to include on KOME's Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KOME it may indeed have happened, i'm just surprised i can't find info. on it through a quick search. he claims that this attack was due to someone not wanting him to tell his story. earlier he said he did hundreds of interviews promoting the book when it was published. i doubt someone would bother to silence who had already told so many people that the moon landings didn't happen. it's never, ever been dangerous to talk about the moon landing being a hoax. at worst most people will view you as a harmless crank. maybe even a loveable crank who's fun to hang out with at the bar and swap tall tales.
--apollo records not classified and yet not available to the public is suspicious
--any proof that this hindman even exists, and was a "direct employee" of neil armstrong? kaysing says that hindman was "claiming to be from the manned space center in houston". What, he never confirmed this?
--the people here are doubtful that the tetra was used to fake observers into thinking the apollo spacecraft went to the moon. i don't understand this technical stuff, but the people at the link sound like they know what they're talking about and they dispute the claim: https://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=998.15
--i can't find any information on the animation expert "george powell". he says that powell worked on the movie "voyage to the moon". is he talking about the melies silent film?
--bill wood rocket scientist, seems like a fishy guy from the video i saw of him: --https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASbSBbn9JX8-- he makes a stupid mistake at one point in the video stating that explorer 1 discovered the van allen belts, when he knows explorer 1 was sent as a result of the belts being discovered in 1958. he looks and sounds like a dumb, low-quality person. kaysing puffs him up by making him sound like a super-genius. i researched this guy a bit more and found others that share my perception of him: http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=740.0
--i couldn't find any info. on van muellin. i spelled it a number of ways with "astronomer" and "leiden university" but couldn't find anything about him. kaysing says that this man "claims" stanley kubrick was hired to script apollo missions 11, 12 and 13. lots of claims. he keeps refering to stanley kubrick as "stan", as if they're buddies or something, and telling us how kubrick thinks.
--he makes the tired claim that the "public lost interest" in moon landings after apollo 11 and that nasa was going to have to buy time for the networks to cover the landings. not likely that the public lost interest, but that the Jєω tv networks decided for the american people what they would be interested in. this has never made sense to me. i hear it all the time. He says, "once you've seen something you don't want to see it again". ridiculous. i saw a beach once and never wanted to see it again.
--he talks about his libel suit against lovell for calling him "wacky", but leaves out the part where the case was thrown out of court.
The moon landing may indeed be a hoax, but you'd think there'd be higher-quality evangelizers than kaysing and sibrel, who both give off a huckster vibe. They don't help me to give the hoax theory the benefit of the doubt. They're smart enough to figure out the moon landing was a hoax, but are suddenly dumb about Jєωs?
-
https://youtu.be/3iMZ2TYIv1w
-
https://youtu.be/BJZ9sqvH9dY
-
https://youtu.be/3iMZ2TYIv1w
:laugh1:
-
https://youtu.be/3iMZ2TYIv1w
That video is both hilarious, and thought-provoking at the same time.
And some say that flat earthers have no sense of humor. As my dear southern hillbilly grandma used to say....Ha!
-
That video is both hilarious, and thought-provoking at the same time.
Now, I don't know who this guy is, whether he truly believes the stuff he sings about or whether he's seeing a market for his videos in the vacuum of the emerging flat earth demographic. In either case, the guy is hilarious ... and, as you said, thought-provoking.
-
Now, I don't know who this guy is, whether he truly believes the stuff he sings about or whether he's seeing a market for his videos in the vacuum of the emerging flat earth demographic. In either case, the guy is hilarious ... and, as you said, thought-provoking.
Well, judging from his other videos that I've seen, he does seem like a true flat earth believer, but of course one never knows for sure...
-
Fantastic!
-
Well, judging from his other videos that I've seen, he does seem like a true flat earth believer, but of course one never knows for sure...
Would be ironic if he's just an actor exposing NASA's actors.
-
Even if I knew the moon landings were a hoax I wouldn't find that huckster funny. I almost think you're pretending to find him funny.
-
- You have no sense of humor.
-
Hey Neil, what do you think of my analysis of the Kaysing video you wanted me to watch?
Two possibilities: 1) the moon landings were a fraud but the hoaxers are promoting hucksters such as Sibrel and Kaysing to discredit the critics, or 2) the moon landings happened.
-
.
I understand.
Flat-earthers are up in arms against Bart Sibrel because he's not a flat-earther too.
But they're in awe of a tinfoil cowboy hat jokester who uses Sibrel's material,
because he posts his videos under a "flat" earth title (whether he is himself or not doesn't seem to matter).
I understand.
-
:confused:
Are you responding to me or someone else? You wanted me to watch Sibrel's interview with Kaysing (https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/moon-landings-no-hard-science-knowledge/msg610302/#msg610302) and I did. Do you disagree with any of the points I made?
I'll watch England's Channel 5 interview with Sibrel tomorrow. I responded to some points you made in that post, but I haven't watched that video yet.
-
:confused:
Are you responding to me or someone else? You wanted me to watch Sibrel's interview with Kaysing (https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/moon-landings-no-hard-science-knowledge/msg610302/#msg610302) and I did. Do you disagree with any of the points I made?
I'll watch England's Channel 5 interview with Sibrel tomorrow. I responded to some points you made in that post, but I haven't watched that video yet.
.
I tried to read that but to be honest your penchant for not capitalizing the first letter of your sentences reeks of contempt for the reader.
It says you disrespect the person you are writing to.
It makes what you write very difficult to make sense since I have no idea whether you are starting a new sentence or not.
So if you want to be read, then clean up your act.
Or deal with writing and posting for nothing, because it won't be read by anyone.
-
.
I tried to read that but to be honest your penchant for not capitalizing the first letter of your sentences reeks of contempt for the reader.
It says you disrespect the person you are writing to.
It makes what you write very difficult to make sense since I have no idea whether you are starting a new sentence or not.
So if you want to be read, then clean up your act.
Or deal with writing and posting for nothing, because it won't be read by anyone.
You're quite the piece of work. (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/response-to-an-sspx-priest-by-sean-johnson/msg479297/#msg479297)
Does that link work? (https://i.imgur.com/pWCo4rg.jpg)
I'll take your lack of reply to that post on Kaysing as a vulnerability and not a strength. Come to think of it, no one else has responded to it, either. Not looking good for the hoaxing side. I don't buy for a second that you find it unintelligible. It's not immaculate, but far from unreadable.
-
You're quite the piece of work. (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/response-to-an-sspx-priest-by-sean-johnson/msg479297/#msg479297)
Does that link work? (https://i.imgur.com/pWCo4rg.jpg)
I'll take your lack of reply to that post on Kaysing as a vulnerability and not a strength. Come to think of it, no one else has responded to it, either. Not looking good for the hoaxing side. I don't buy for a second that you find it unintelligible. It's not immaculate, but far from unreadable.
.
Read what I wrote. It is intelligible. Unlike your ramblings (q.v. -- lack of responses ought to tell you something!). If you don't like that, then tough. Go suck eggs.
-
.
Read what I wrote. It is intelligible. Unlike your ramblings (q.v. -- lack of responses ought to tell you something!). If you don't like that, then tough. Go suck eggs.
Only a pharisee would criticize the packaging to spite the content. You're another fraud, along with Kaysing and Sibrel.
-
.
I tried to read that but to be honest your penchant for not capitalizing the first letter of your sentences reeks of contempt for the reader.
It says you disrespect the person you are writing to.
It makes what you write very difficult to make sense since I have no idea whether you are starting a new sentence or not.
So if you want to be read, then clean up your act.
Or deal with writing and posting for nothing, because it won't be read by anyone.
Here's a cleaned-up version of my prior post, which was in response to the Sibrel interview with Kaysing that you asked me to watch. Have you seen the interview? Did you assume I wouldn't watch it and respond point by point to Kaysing's claims? I don't buy that the reason you avoided responding was due to the post being a bit messy. If you didn't have malicious intentions you would have shot me a friendly PM asking me to clean it up. I'd like you to respond to my points with some depth.
I watched the entire video, and I also read Baron testimony transcript. These are notes I took on just about everything he talks about.
Just to start off I'll list what I agree is suspicious:
--Baron's report being lost and the circuмstances of his death, e.g. car stalling at a railroad crossing, Kaysing claiming no autopsy was performed, which was against Florida law at the time).
--The FBI taking Grissom's papers from his home after his death, and never returning them.
--Not taking a telescope along.
--Unclassified Apollo records not available to the public.
Kaysing got the idea to write about the moon landings being fake from a homeless Vietnam vet (as a joke). He then, while still assuming the moon landings really happened, got a contract to write the book by the Jєωιѕн publishing house Price, Stern & Sloan (which specialized in joke books). So it seems he originally intended to write the book as a joke. Kind of a strange genesis, don't you think? I see from looking at his publishing output that he was part of the back-to-land movement in the early 70s.
--The set of the interview is ridiculous with the crackling fireplace, romcom lighting, cheese platter and wine for the guy to munch on.
--Baron's death is suspicious, though I read that there was a witness to his death and so foul play was ruled out. Kaysing suspects Baron was murdered, though suspicion doesn't equal fact. Baron also stated in another video I watched that he had been harassed at him home by NASA because of his work. Why didn't they also kill General Sam Phillips, who Kaysing says corroborated much of what was in Baron's report? Also Phillips was in total command of the Apollo project. It's odd that he and his wife weren't autopsied, which was against Florida law at the time. Kaysing doesn't mention the stepdaughter that was killed. Was she autopsied?
--Baron's report going missing is suspicious.
--Not taking a telescope along is suspicious, and plays into the idea that the landing was filmed in a studio. Kaysing says that astronomers would have been able to immediately detect foul play if the conspirators had attempted to fake the stars. That's probably an arguable point. If NASA had astronomers in on the conspiracy they might have been able to cook up something which would fool other astronomers.
--The account about his contact with James Irwin can't be confirmed. We just have to take his word for it.
--The account of the pilot seeing a capsule dropped out of the cargo hold of an airplane isn't confirmed. This would be a gigantic news story. Why didn't the pilot inform his airline or other people in authority. Even tell someone anonymously, giving the coordinates at which the capsule was dropped and other details. The pilot doesn't reveal his name or the airline he worked for, for fear that he'd be fired? Sounds fishy. I'm supposed to believe the pilot kept this a secret for years or decades and decided to call into a radio show one day? Kaysing should tell us what radio show and the date of the radio interview.
--As for the capsule not creating steam from the impact with hitting the ocean, Kaysing says that none of the pictures taken of the landings show steam. Are there any pictures taken of any of the NASA capsules at the landing? It's my understanding that the specific landing locations couldn't be predicted. Ships and planes could only be in the general area of the capsule landings, therefore no pictures or video could be taken of impact.
--Kaysing mentions that he was doing an interview with KOME radio station in San Jose, California on December 7, 1975. The interview with shock jock Victor Boc went off the air due to someone in a helicopter dropping napalm on the radio station's transmitter. You'd think this would be noteworthy enough to include on KOME's Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KOME). It may indeed have happened, I'm just surprised I can't find information on it through a quick search. Kaysing claims that this attack was due to someone not wanting him to tell his story. Earlier he said he did hundreds of interviews promoting the book when it was published. I doubt someone would bother to silence a guy who had already told so many people that the moon landings didn't happen. It's never, ever been dangerous to talk about the moon landings being a hoax. At worst most people will view you as a harmless crank. Maybe even a lovable crank who's fun to hang out with at the bar and swap tall tales.
--Apollo records not classified and yet not available to the public is suspicious.
--Any proof that this "Hindman" even exists, and was a "direct employee" of Neil Armstrong? Kaysing says that "Hindman" was "claiming to be from the manned space center in Houston". What, he never confirmed this?
--The people here (https://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=998.15) are doubtful that the Tetra was used to fake observers into thinking the Apollo spacecraft went to the moon. I don't understand this technical stuff, but the people at the link sound like they know what they're talking about and they dispute the claim.
--I can't find any information on the animation expert "George Powell". He says that Powell worked on the movie "Voyage to the Moon". Is he talking about the Melies silent film?
--The "rocket scientist" Bill Wood seems like a fishy guy from the video I saw:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASbSBbn9JX8
He makes a stupid mistake at one point in the video stating that Explorer 1 discovered the Van Allen Belts, when he knows Explorer 1 was sent as a result of the belts being discovered in 1958. He looks and sounds like a dumb, low-quality person. Kaysing puffs him up by making him sound like a super-genius. I researched this guy a bit more and found others who share my perception of him (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=740.0).
--I couldn't find any information on Van Muellin. I spelled it a number of ways with "astronomer" and "Leiden university" but couldn't find anything about him. Kaysing says that this man "claims" Stanley Kubrick was hired to script Apollo missions 11, 12 and 13. Lots of claims. He keeps referring to Kubrick as "Stan", as if they're buddies or something, and telling us how Kubrick thinks.
--He makes the tired claim that the "public lost interest" in moon landings after Apollo 11 and that NASA was going to have to buy time for the networks to cover the landings. It's not likely that the public lost interest, but that the Jєω TV networks decided for the American people what they would be interested in. This has never made sense to me. I hear it all the time. He says, "once you've seen something you don't want to see it again". Ridiculous. I saw a beach once and never wanted to see it again.
--He talks about his libel suit against Lovell for calling him "wacky", but leaves out the part where the case was thrown out of court.
The moon landing may indeed be a hoax, but you'd think there'd be higher-quality evangelizers than Kaysing and Sibrel, who both give off a huckster vibe. They don't help me to give the hoax theory the benefit of the doubt. They're smart enough to figure out the moon landing was a hoax, but are suddenly dumb about Jєωs?
-
Even if I knew the moon landings were a hoax I wouldn't find that huckster funny. I almost think you're pretending to find him funny.
.
It would be more comprehensible if you would be honest and say you don't find him funny because he doesn't debunk the h0Ɩ0h0αx in any of his ridicule ditties.
.
You could make it much more clear by providing a few sample lines from what you would like to see:
.
There ain't no way to go back in time
And see for sure what happened
But we can check the soil samples
At Dachau and Baden-Baden
-
No, I still wouldn't find Conspiracy Music Guru funny. As I've said before I don't have an emotional vested interest in the moon landings having happened or not. Wherever the truth rests is fine with me.
That you asked me to watch the Kaysing video suggests that you find the guy impressive. He's not impressive at all, as my post clearly demonstrates. He's a huckster, and not even a very clever one.
Although humor is an individual thing, truth is always at the core of what's funny. Humor is always at the expense of someone or something and it often depends on whether you share the appreciation for who is getting poked. I find it way-funny that Hillary didn't get the vote. Not that I cared if Trump was the winner, but to me, Hillary getting sacked was poetic justice hilarity. Music Guru is funny because everything he says is based in truth at the expense of those who think science is everything. So if you don't think his stuff is funny, you probably voted for Hillary.
-
Come to think of it, no one else has responded to it, either. Not looking good for the hoaxing side.
Nonsense, no one else responded to your post because it was so long and, in my mind, tangential to this issue. Even if you want to discredit one particular spokesman for moon hoax doesn't men that the position itself is wrong. I never really heard of the guy before this thread.
-
As I've said before I don't have an emotional vested interest in the moon landings having happened or not.
That's not what it looks like from where I sit, as you use lots of non-objective emotionally-charged language.
-
Nonsense, no one else responded to your post because it was so long and, in my mind, tangential to this issue. Even if you want to discredit one particular spokesman for moon hoax doesn't men that the position itself is wrong. I never really heard of the guy before this thread.
Do you think NeilObstat should reply to it? He's the one that asked me to watch it. If you ask someone to watch something and then don't respond to your response don't you find that a bit off?
True, if someone hasn't watched the video and doesn't know about Kaysing there's no reason for them to give me a response. I assume that there are some people participating on this thread who do know about Kaysing, though maybe not.
And I never claimed that by discrediting Kaysing I'm discrediting the moon hoax theories. Nice strawman.
-
That's not what it looks like from where I sit, as you use lots of non-objective emotionally-charged language.
Like what? In relation to the moon landings having happened or not? No I don't. I merely call people who are obvious frauds what they are.
-
Anyone with a brain, common sense, or training in Science or Statistics would tell you: you throw it out as an aberration.
Not for this topic! Quite the contrary! Anyone with "training in Science or Statistics" should quickly "tell you" that "throw[ing] it out" instead shows readers how little you really learned from "training in [...] Statistics". That's because it's highly important to understand the relationship between statistical samples, the (real-world-by-definition) populations from which they're taken, and the statistical methods that apply to them--and those that do not.
When you have a single datum which is ridiculously above the norm, and has never been even close to repeated, you cast it out as an anomaly or an aberration.
What's with your "single datum [...] never been even close to repeated"?
The U.S.A. completed flights at least as far as Lunar orbit on at least 8 occasions: Apollo 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. Plus (I think) another for testing undocking & rendezvous between the command module and Lunar-excursion module. Of those identified by number, 6 successfully landed "on the Moon" and were "returned safely to Earth".
It's a law of experimental science, as well as Statistics, that when you have a far-and-above exception to 99% of the data, it must be considered an aberration to be dismissed. I didn't come up with this argument, but man is it rock-solid and the most compelling argument why the Moon Landings were a hoax. The truth of it resonated with me, and burrowed deep into my brain.
"Rock-solid"? Really, now?
Anyone with "training in Science or Statistics" should recognize that the distances travelled during individual flights in the "Space Race" and for subsequent "Moon Landings" are obviously not simple data-points [#] for which it's valid to apply your "law of experimental science, as well as Statistics" whose indiscriminate use you're promoting.
We have years of history to prove it now--that the so-called moon landings in the early 1970's never happened.
Fascinating! Being determined to use historical records not to prove the real occurrence (thus reality) of disputed events, but instead, to prove the nonoccurrence (thus unreality) of those same events!
You're telling me no other country has managed to go there in almost 50 years?
Yes, that is what I'm telling you, as confirmed by the intervening "years of history".
There are a lot of advanced countries that should have the technology to do so [...]. Russia, Japan, China, Europe just for starters.
You have invoked "years of history", but seem completely unaware of what "history" shows as having happened during those "years". You've completely failed to present any "history" that was relevant to the "Space Race" and "Moon Landings". Perhaps that apparent ignorance should be expected from someone who wasn't born until roughly a decade after the return of Apollo 17 (Dec. 19, 1972) ended the flights of Project Apollo--prematurely at that.
Each of the "advanced countries" or regions you listed has made its own decisions on outer space while experiencing changes in political or technical leadership, wrestling with competing or contrary goals of opposition parties or factions, enjoying increased national prosperity or enduring national deprivation, benefitting from technical discoveries or developments, carrying on despite the loss of key people, and sometimes often unpredictable changes in national priorities.
You do understand that for a democratic republic to participate in a "Space Race" or strive for "Moon Landings" ultimately requires the assent of "we the people", don't you? The representative office-holders in a republic are really keen on continuing to enjoy their perks of power by continuing to be reëlected. They can only survive whatever is their next election by being attentive to their constituents, and recognizing, i.a., when their support has dwindled to election-jeopardizing levels for any national program that was once too popular to risk opposing, e.g., exploration or colonization of outer space.
Not even the exalted leader of a 20th-Century communist dictatorship had the autocratic power wielded by the Russian tsar of any earlier century, not even those communist leaders who combined the 2 top offices of premier and general secretary of the Party. The judgmental attention of high-ranking Party leaders didn't end when they elevated such a man to either top office. The Party repeatedly demonstrated that altho' they can "giveth great power", they themselves reserve the power to "taketh it away"[†].
So what does the "history" of the 20th Century tell us about what happened to exploration or colonization of outer space? Stay tuned to this topic [*].
-------
Note #: It's valid for the kind of "experimental science" in which the sampling is, e.g., counts of inanimate objects, measurements of sedated wildlife, or periodic output from sensors (e.g., wind velocity).
Note †: Nikita Khruschëv, e.g., was fortunate to be the first combined premier and general secretary who was removed from office simply by being involuntarily retired, instead of by being αssαssιnαtҽd.
Note *: I already have written a 1st draft of my implied future posting.
-
How about the interview talking about how NASA "destroyed" the technology to go to the Moon, and now they have to re-discover it? They also put forth "travelling through the Van Allen Belts" as another obstacle they need to overcome.
Really?
How does any science type perform the mental gymnastics necessary to swallow THAT whopper? I mean, give me a break!
-
How about the interview talking about how NASA "destroyed" the technology to go to the Moon, and now they have to re-discover it? They also put forth "travelling through the Van Allen Belts" as another obstacle they need to overcome.
Really?
How does any science type perform the mental gymnastics necessary to swallow THAT whopper? I mean, give me a break!
To a layman such as myself the explanation here (https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/12/04/nasa-orion-apollo-hoax-va_n_6268704.html?guccounter=1) sounds reasonable.
The answer, simply, and which has been explained in detail elsewhere (http://www.wwheaton.com/waw/mad/mad19.html), is that the Apollo astronauts were not in the Van Allen belt for long enough to have to deal with dangerous levels of exposure to radiation.
The Apollo astronauts did return to Earth having been exposed to significant radiation - but not more than is allowed by US law for workers at nuclear power stations, for instance.
So what's different with Orion EFT-1? Put simply, two things: equipment and time.
First, Orion contains much more complex and complicated electronic equipment than the Apollo systems, which could potentially be damaged by radiation and so has to be tested before humans are allowed to fly inside it.
Second, Orion isn't just intended to go through the Van Allen belt and back in a few short days. It's designed for missions up to 21 days long, and perhaps even longer if it forms part of a mission to Mars. As a result it would face exposure to vast amounts of radiation in space, for months on end, and so testing its shields and how much radiation gets through is prooobably a good idea (http://www.nasa.gov/content/five-things-we-ll-learn-from-orion-s-first-flight-test/).
So no, NASA did not accidentally leak that the Apollo missions were fake in its own promotional videos.
-
Never let a simple alternative explanation get in the way of a good conspiracy theory!
If you don't believe any so-called "conspiracy theories", then why the ____ are you on CathInfo to begin with?
Like a moth to a flame, eh?
Or more likely you are a troll that is just here to start trouble and be contrary for lulz?
Don't tell me you're here for Traditional Catholic news, because virtually all your posts are on the topic of science of some sort. I'm really wondering if you belong here on a "Traditional Catholic" forum at all. If I deleted all your posts about Flat Earth or the Moon Landing, you would literally have 6 posts left in your posting history -- but those posts would all be almost 2 years old!
For all we know, based on your posting history, you apostatized 1.5 years ago. Since June 2016, you haven't said a single thing on CathInfo specifically Catholic, or anything that your average atheist or agnostic professor wouldn't say to a group of Traditional Catholics whom they considered to be "nut jobs".
-
If you don't believe any so-called "conspiracy theories", then why the ____ are you on CathInfo to begin with?
Like a moth to a flame, eh?
Or more likely you are a troll that is just here to start trouble and be contrary for lulz?
Don't tell me you're here for Traditional Catholic news, because virtually all your posts are on the topic of science of some sort. I'm really wondering if you belong here on a "Traditional Catholic" forum at all. If I deleted all your posts about Flat Earth or the Moon Landing, you would literally have 6 posts left in your posting history -- but those posts would all be almost 2 years old!
For all we know, based on your posting history, you apostatized 1.5 years ago. Since June 2016, you haven't said a single thing on CathInfo specifically Catholic, or anything that your average atheist or agnostic professor wouldn't say to a group of Traditional Catholics whom they considered to be "nut jobs".
Thanks much Matthew for trying so hard to keep things in proper check. It's certainly no easy job and perhaps not nearly as appreciated as it should be. It's great that you can pick up on certain patterns that fly under the radar for many of us. P.S. Sorry for my 2 somewhat off topic and silly WalMart posts today.
-
Apollo astronaut Alan Bean died a few days ago. I was watching a talk he gave at the Smithsonian Institute and thinking that if the moon landings didn't happen these Apollo guys are the greatest actors of all time. They make the Brando's and Streep's of the world look like rank amateurs.
Or course I've seen the video of the Apollo 11 press conference, where Armstrong, Collins, and Aldrin do look like deer caught in headlights. But the explanation for that could be a number of things.
-
Or course I've seen the video of the Apollo 11 press conference, where Armstrong, Collins, and Aldrin do look like deer caught in headlights. But the explanation for that could be a number of things.
Such as?
-
Back then? [....] Maybe they broadcast TV signals and then recorded them on the other end with a VCR. Oh, wait. [Hadn't been invented yet.][†]
A Video Tape Recorder was first used commercially and quite publicly, on Nov. 30, 1956 by CBS News, to time-shift their regularly scheduled program Douglas Edwards and the News. Recorded during the original CBS Eastern Time broadcast, it was replayed 3 hours later as the CBS Pacific-Time broadcast. Invented by AMPEX in Redwood City (San Mateo Co., Calif.), work had begun on the project in 1952. Its storage medium was mag-tape (of course), almost certainly of the reel-to-reel persuasion.
-------
Note †: I trust that I accurately restored the sense of the text that Ladislaus omitted at the end of his posting.
-
Some comic relief.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmHcuHPZU1A
-
A Video Tape Recorder was first used commercially and quite publicly, on Nov. 30, 1956 by CBS News, to time-shift their regularly scheduled program Douglas Edwards and the News. Recorded during the original CBS Eastern Time broadcast, it was replayed 3 hours later as the CBS Pacific-Time broadcast. Invented by AMPEX in Redwood City (San Mateo Co., Calif.), work had begun on the project in 1952. Its storage medium was mag-tape (of course), almost certainly of the reel-to-reel persuasion.
-------
Note †: I trust that I accurately restored the sense of the text that Ladislaus omitted at the end of his posting.
I'm talking about something small enough to take on a mission, not the behemoth that was undoubtedly used in 56. That's why I said VCR.
-
If [ you NoOneImportant] don't believe any so-called "conspiracy theories", then why the ____ are you on CathInfo to begin with?
Ummm, perhaps bacause it's named "CathInfo" and not "ConspirInfo".
You seem to be penalizing NoOneImportant for an overgeneralization that's of your own invention. Altho' it's safe to infer from his 1-line wisecrack that he does not accept all "conspiracy theories", there's nothing about it that should lead a reader to conclude that he dismisses or rejects all "conspiracy theories". If you found an unambiguous quote during your review of his posting history that proves that he allows no exceptions, I'm sure I'm not the only CathInfo member who'd like you to show it to us.
Or more likely [ you noOneImportant] are a troll that is just here to start trouble and be contrary for lulz?
As trolls go, it might be said that he would be quite an "aberration" or "anomaly" (ahem!). He posts on CathInfo at an average rate of fewer than 1 every 3 days, and has originated only 1 topic since registering almost exactly 2 years ago. So he has only 223 posts total to his name.
Don't tell me you're here for Traditional Catholic news, because virtually all your posts are on the topic of science of some sort. I'm really wondering if you belong here on a "Traditional Catholic" forum at all.
It seems that you've lost perspective here (I certainly hope that it's only temporary): The topics "of science of some sort" on which he posted are all topics that you: the owner-moderator, consider acceptable content for CathInfo, aren't they? And all of those topics (excepting maybe 1) were started by a member other than himself.
In a recent topic, NoOneImportant has described himself as an "engineer". I'm surprised that an owner-moderator who describes himself as a "computer programmer" would not recognize the apparent reluctance by NoOneImportant to participate (to leap being out of the question) into various ecclesiastical topics as simply showing the classic caution that's typical of people in his field. Especially after being exposed to debates or arguments over theology that are carried on by the former seminarians on CathInfo. I mean, throwing around terms like "manifest heresy", "material heresy", "formal heresy" (shouldn't there be a corresponding "actual heresy"?[†]), and understanding how to distinguish each? Yikes! Are CathInfo readers really surprised that an engineer would gravitate to the intellectual comfort of topics closer to his own field? In a word: "science"?
I certainly can relate: I never was taught in parochial school about types of heresy. Nor did anyone ever even whisper about Card. Siri and the news accounts focused on the Sistine Chapel stove-pipe. The major U.S. t.v. networks showed us the first appearance of "Good Pope John" (XXIII) in white on the Vatican balcony, and that was that. "Bugnini"? That's an Italian car manufacturer!
-------
Note †: An admittedly dry joke unlikely to be understood by anyone except computer programmers (or software engineers) who've absorbed at least 1 relevant "language reference" manual.
-
Such as?
Off the top of my head, little public relations experience. They were test pilots, not advertising executives or carnival barkers. I can see by viewing interviews they conducted with the media over the ensuing decades that they all became more fluid at public relations.
As for the claim that Neil Armstrong's reclusiveness was due to him feeling shame or not wanting to accidentally let the cat out of the bag, how to explain the non-reclusiveness of most of the other Apollo astronauts?
-
I've long thought a good argument in favor of the moon landings having happened, in this case of Apollo 11, is all the seemingly unpredictable happenings, such as no pictures of Neil Armstrong being taken by Aldrin. There's one of Neil reflected in Aldrin's visor and a few with Neil's back turned, but which are focused on something else. The account from James R. Hansen's First Man The Life of Neil A. Armstrong (which was authorized by Armstrong) has some wondering if Aldrin didn't take the pictures of Neil on purpose, out of spite for not getting to be the first man to step on the moon. Aldrin's father was furious that he wasn't picked over Neil, and lobbied NASA to switch the order. One of the claims of Kaysing and other moon hoax proponents, with zero evidence, is that Stanley Kubrick was hired by NASA to write scripts for Apollo 11, 12 and 13.
Without question, it was a highly unusual relationship between two men who had to work so closely together—one of amiable (read neutral)—strangers. But the strangeness went in both directions, not just from Neil to Buzz.
Consider the fact that, while Armstrong took dozens of wonderful photographs of Aldrin, Buzz took not a single explicit picture of Neil. The only pictures of Neil were one with a reflection of him in Aldrin’s helmet visor in a picture Neil took, or a very few where Neil was standing in the dark shadow of the LM with his back to the camera or only partially shown. *
It is one of the minor tragedies of Apollo 11 that posterity benefits from no photos of the First Man on the Moon. Not of him saluting the American flag. Not of him climbing down the ladder. Not of him stepping on the Moon. Not of him standing by the LM. Not of him with the Earth in the background. Not of him next to a crater. Not of him directly anywhere. Sure, there are the grainy, shadowy, black-and-white TV pictures of Armstrong on the Moon, and they are remarkable and forever memorable. There are also a number of frames from the 16mm movie camera. But, very regrettably, there are no high-resolution color photographic images of the First Man with the spectacular detail provided by the Hasselblad.
Why not? The answer, according to Aldrin, was that he simply did not think to take any—except at that moment when they were planting the American flag and President Nixon’s call allegedly ended what would have been a Buzz-at-Neil photo shoot.
In his autobiography, Aldrin excuses what he failed to do. “As the sequence of lunar operations evolved, Neil had the camera most of the time, and the majority of the pictures taken on the Moon that include an astronaut are of me [author’s emphasis]. It wasn’t until we were back on Earth and in the Lunar Receiving Laboratory looking over the pictures that we rea lized there were few pictures of Neil. My fault perhaps, but we had never simulated this during our training.”
“We didn’t spend any time worrying about who took what pictures,” Armstrong graciously recalls. “It didn’t occur to me that it made any difference, as long as they were good.
“I don’t think Buzz had any reason to take my picture, and it never occurred to me that he should. I have always said that Buzz was the far more photogenic of the crew.”
At the same time, Armstrong does offer real clarification of the situation pertaining to cameras and the photographic plan for surface activities during Apollo 11. “We always had a plan for when we were going to transfer the camera. He was going to take some pictures, and I was going to take some. And I think roughly we did it approximately like the plan called for in terms of the camera transfer. I had the camera for a large fraction of the time and I had more assigned photographic responsibilities, but Buzz did have the camera some of the time and did take pictures. It was in the flight plan.”
Besides the Hasselblad that Neil mounted on his chest bracket shortly after the EVA began, another Hasselblad was kept in the LM as a spare in case the first camera malfunctioned. This camera—an intravehicular (IV) Hasselblad—did not have the reflective outer shell (that kept the EVA camera from overheating) and didn’t have a reseau plate for putting calibration crosses on the images; it was never brought out. The only other still-photo camera that was used on the surface was the Apollo Lunar Surface Close-Up Camera (ALSCC), a stereoscopic camera—often called the “Gold camera,” as its pro ponent was Dr. Thomas Gold, a prominent Cornell University astronomer—that had been specially designed for taking extreme close-ups of lunar soils and rocks. *
The Gold camera was solely Neil’s responsibility, and Aldrin does not recall taking any pictures with it. But Buzz definitely took a number of pictures of his own choosing with the EVA Hasselblad. This means Neil painstakingly took the camera off his chest bracket and handed it directly and carefully over to Aldrin. Buzz does not recall whether he, in turn, ever put the camera into his own bracket; he believes he did not but rather kept it mostly in his right hand. * Buzz does remember taking pictures, though. He took two complete 360-degree panoramas. He took pictures of the distant Earth. He took pictures of the LM. He took the famous shots of footprints (his own) in the lunar dust. But he took no purposeful shots of Neil. Not one. To be fair, all of the photos Buzz took were planned photo tasks of his; taking a picture of Neil was not part of them.
“I should have taken it upon myself to do that,” Aldrin offers today. “But, you know, when I look back at where I am now, and what I’m aware of now, compared to where I was, I hate to use the word, but I was intimidated by the enormity of the situation. At the time there was certainly a gun-barrel vision of focusing in on what you were supposed to be doing rather than being innovative and creative. Right there was an opportunity where I could have been creative and wasn’t.”
But Buzz had found other opportunities to be creative. “When I saw what my footprint looked like, I said to myself, ‘Golly, we ought to take a picture of that, but I’d better take a picture before and after.’ That was split-second. Then there was another instance when, ‘Gee, that footprint looks awful lonesome. Let’s have the boot, too. Yeah, but then, if I do that, I won’t see the footprint.’ So I took a picture with the boot slightly away from it. The rest of my picture taking was docuмenting going around the LM. Neil took most of the panoramas, both with the TV camera when he was first out there and then with the Hasselblad. It was just a matter of who had what when, and there was just not the opportunity for me ever to do that.
“When I got back and someone said, ‘There’s not any of Neil,’ I thought, ‘What in the hell can I do now?’ I felt so bad about that. And then to have somebody say that might have been intentional…. How do you come up with a nonconfrontational argument against that? I mean, that was just such a divisive observation, and Neil and I were never in the least divisive. We really were intimidated by the situation we found ourselves in on the Moon, hesitant and with an unclear idea of what to do next.”
Not even Apollo 11 crewmate Mike Collins realized it until well after the mission. “Stupid me, stupid me. We came back, the pi ctures got developed—they came back from the NASA photo lab. I loved them. I thought they were terrific. I thought they were great. I mean, the clarity of them, the composition, the colors, everything. I thought they were just magnificent. Never once did it occur to me, ‘Which one of them is that?’ It’s just some guy in a pressure suit. It was not until later that people said, ‘That’s Buzz,’ and ‘That’s Buzz,’ and ‘That’s Buzz,’ and the only Neil was the one where he was in Buzz’s visor. But even then, I attributed it to technical stuff—you know, the timeline, who was carrying what piece of equipment, what they were supposed to be doing at given time, experiments they were running on the surface, and so forth.”
Flight Director Gene Kranz only shakes his head sadly trying to come up with an answer: “I don’t have an explanation. In recent years I have been speaking to about 100,000 people a year. I do sixty to seventy public appearance engagements. And the only picture I can put up on the screen of Neil is his reflection in Buzz’s facemask. I find that shocking. That’s something to me that’s unacceptable. But, you know, life isn’t fair.”
For years even someone as close to the pulse of the Manned Space Program as Chris Kraft failed to realize that there were no pictures of Neil on the Moon. When asked about the riddle, Kraft answered: “I can’t answer that. I was taken aback by it when I first recognized it was so, but I can’t give you any reason why it didn’t happen. I think it would be an unfair judgment that Buzz intentionally did not want to take any pictures of him. No, no, no. I don’t think Aldrin would have been that devious. I would not accuse him of that.”
Nor would Mike Collins. “It never once entered your mind, Mike, that Buzz might have not taken a picture of Neil on purpose?”
“Never. I mean, I’m not saying it couldn’t be true. I’m just saying I’m a naïve person. It never entered my mind that there was some nefarious plot on Buzz’s part to exclude Neil from the photo-docuмentation of the first lunar landing. It just never occurred to me. Maybe it should have.”
According to Chris Kraft and others involved in Apollo 11’s mission planning, “There were all kinds of scientific reasons to take pictures and all kinds of plans to take pictures of the lunar landscape, but I don’t think there was ever any game plan to have them take a picture of each other like you would do at the beach. I don’t recall that ever being discussed.”
Interestingly, when asked whether he thought Armstrong while on the Moon had been oblivious of the fact that Aldrin was not taking any pictures of him, Kraft asserted: “Yes, yes. I don’t think Neil cared. He may today, because he might like to have a picture of himself on the Moon, but I don’t think it crossed his mind at the time.”
In Apollo 12 astronaut Alan Bean’s view, the rather extensive photographic training the astronauts underwent for the mission should have led to pictures of both men. “Don’t forget, they had practiced their photography over and over again. It wasn’t that they just did this for the first time on the Moon. They practiced this in ground simulation over the course of several different days. In training you looked at all this film you had shot. Deke Slayton, for one, would have noticed if Neil wasn’t showing up in any of the pictures.”
Al Bean stops short of suggesting why Buzz failed to take pictures of Neil.
“Obviously one possibility is that Buzz just wasn’t thinking about taking a picture of Neil, and he wasn’t realizing that he wasn’t thinking about it.”
“That’s a possibility.”
“But there is also the possibility that he was thinking about it and that is why there aren’t any pictures of Neil.”
“That’s a possibility, too.”
“That he was thinking, ‘Neil may be the first on the Moon, but I’m not taking any pictures of him.’”
“That’s a possibility, too. I don’t know. We don’t know. And we should know, because I think it’s important to the long-range issue.”
“What makes it an important long-range issue?”
“Because there should be a bunch of good pictures of Neil. This was such an historic event. I mean, think about it: I’m going along on the boat with Christopher Columbus. He’s carrying the camera at the moment, but I’m his first mate. We all know what should happen. Nobody knows the answer why it didn’t.”
But Al Bean does possess a crystal clear idea as to the motivation of Armstrong’s silence, during and after the mission, to Buzz on the matter: “He was interested in doing the job. Neil was probably saying to himself all through his training, ‘I’ve got to make this landing safe; I’ve got to get out and do a good EVA; and I’ve got to get us back to the command module.’
“I got that way myself on my Apollo 12 flight. I didn’t think about people back home. I just thought about trying to be a good astronaut and doing my job. And Neil was even more focused than I was—more than most astronauts were.
“It would have been normal for Neil to be this way—for him to focus on the flying, on the jobs that really made the historic mission successful.” Within such a tight mental framework, the idea of a personal photograph not being taken would have been totally trivial.
Gene Cernan sees it similarly. “Certainly Neil realized the significance of the moment, but he was not going to be so arrogant as to say, ‘Here, Buzz, take a picture of me.’ What I can imagine Neil thinking was, ‘Oh well, we don’t have time to take a picture of me, so I’ll take a few pictures of Buzz to show everyone we were here.’
“Myself, if I had been in Neil’s place, I would have said, ‘Buzz, take a picture of me—quick.’”
-
One of the claims of Kaysing and other moon hoax proponents, with zero evidence, is that Stanley Kubrick was hired by NASA to write scripts for Apollo 11, 12 and 13.
That's overstating the case; there's not "zero" evidence for Kubrick's involvement.
-
Well let's see some evidence.
So far, all people on this thread offer is contorted speculation in order to prove it was a hoax.
My advice would be to not be cavalier and say the moon landings didn't happen. Instead people should admit that they are speculating that the moon landings didn't happen and really don't know for sure.
-
Just as something to add to the thread, not that I consider her refutation of her father's involvement in the moon landings to be worth much:
(https://i.imgur.com/ZFVaclE.png)
-
Did not read the previous threads on this subject but I happened to discuss this lately with a friend who believes it was all faked.
For myself I do not believe it was faked for this reason. Having lived through the time I remember there was great competition between the USA and the SOVIET UNION in the 'space race.' Now does anybody think that the Soviets went along with a fraud that put them out of the space race and gave all glory to the USA? The Soviet Union's NASA, whatever it was called, must have been well able to trace the rockets, satellites and moon attempts, so they would have been able to track the rocket said to be the one that landed men on the moon. Now if there was no such rocket, and they had proof of that, I have no doubt this fraud would have been used by the Russians to HUMILIATE the USA at the time and even today.
But no, there was no such revelation, leading me at any rate to believe men did get to the moon and back.
-
Maybe they were both pretending, and there was no little boy to shout, 'The King is in the altogether'!
-
My advice would be to not be cavalier and say the moon landings didn't happen. Instead people should admit that they are speculating that the moon landings didn't happen and really don't know for sure.
There's plenty of evidence that at least the videos they show us of the astronauts on the moon are fraudulent.
-
I've long thought a good argument in favor of the moon landings having happened, in this case of Apollo 11, is all the seemingly unpredictable happenings, such as no pictures of Neil Armstrong being taken by Aldrin. There's one of Neil reflected in Aldrin's visor and a few with Neil's back turned, but which are focused on something else. The account from James R. Hansen's First Man The Life of Neil A. Armstrong (which was authorized by Armstrong) has some wondering if Aldrin didn't take the pictures of Neil on purpose, out of spite for not getting to be the first man to step on the moon. Aldrin's father was furious that he wasn't picked over Neil, and lobbied NASA to switch the order. One of the claims of Kaysing and other moon hoax proponents, with zero evidence, is that Stanley Kubrick was hired by NASA to write scripts for Apollo 11, 12 and 13.
There's lots of evidence.
You should watch Jay Weidner's film, "Kubrick's Odyssey."
Kubrick had a very intimate relationship with NASA.
Weidner even explains the camera and the Scotchlite front-screen projection technology used to create the "moon" sets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXrY8tlYQNQ
-
There's plenty of evidence that at least the videos they show us of the astronauts on the moon are fraudulent.
Well let's go one by one. You give me a link to a piece of video to analyze. I'll view it and see if I agree as to its fishiness. I'll also check up on what debunkers say about it.
Again, I don't have a hard science background (hence the thread title), so I can only go by what is more reasonable, equally reasonable, and less reasonable.
-
Did not read the previous threads on this subject but I happened to discuss this lately with a friend who believes it was all faked.
For myself I do not believe it was faked for this reason. Having lived through the time I remember there was great competition between the USA and the SOVIET UNION in the 'space race.' Now does anybody think that the Soviets went along with a fraud that put them out of the space race and gave all glory to the USA? The Soviet Union's NASA, whatever it was called, must have been well able to trace the rockets, satellites and moon attempts, so they would have been able to track the rocket said to be the one that landed men on the moon. Now if there was no such rocket, and they had proof of that, I have no doubt this fraud would have been used by the Russians to HUMILIATE the USA at the time and even today.
But no, there was no such revelation, leading me at any rate to believe men did get to the moon and back.
I'm intrigued with the idea I've read about that the Cold War was a fraud, which, if true, would make this argument less persuasive. There are some moon hoax proponents who also claim nuclear weapons are a hoax as well. The Jєωs who ran the USSR and the United States were on the same page, but gave underlings a different script to follow, so that lower-level elites thought that the top elites of the two nations were playing for different teams and in a real moral stuggle. Fantastic, I know. Not the claim that Jєωs were elites of both the USSR and the USA, but the other stuff.
-
There's lots of evidence.
You should watch Jay Weidner's film, "Kubrick's Odyssey."
Kubrick had a very intimate relationship with NASA.
Weidner even explains the camera and the Scotchlite front-screen projection technology used to create the "moon" sets.
I'll take a look at this in the near future.
-
I'll take a look at this in the near future.
.
Has "the near future" happened yet?
-
.
Has "the near future" happened yet?
Still smarting from my thorough dismantling of Kaysing? Or was it my linking to that great evisceration of you by claudel?
AFAIK I have to shell out $3 to watch the Kubrick video. Hey Smedley, could you just relate to me the points made in the video?
-
Still smarting from my thorough dismantling of Kaysing? Or was it my linking to that great evisceration of you by claudel?
AFAIK I have to shell out $3 to watch the Kubrick video. Hey Smedley, could you just relate to me the points made in the video?
.
Thorough dismantling of Kaysing? In your dreams. You sound a lot like the Chicken, Ladislaus.
He's not going to "go one for one" with you because he hasn't got the patience for detail.
And your false idol claudel couldn't hurt a flea. Try again.
.
Like this entire thread, you say you have "no hard science knowledge" and yet you want to argue science material?
Let me guess, that was the punch line, right?
-
How about the interview talking about how NASA "destroyed" the technology to go to the Moon, and now they have to re-discover it? They also put forth "travelling through the Van Allen Belts" as another obstacle they need to overcome.
Really?
How does any science type perform the mental gymnastics necessary to swallow THAT whopper? I mean, give me a break!
.
For someone to believe that line of bull they would have to be oblivious to how engineering and the sciences work. There are people still alive today who worked on the space program, and everyone who did, shared his experience with other fellow scientists. Many of them were sworn to secrecy, true, and there is a limiting effect there, but when they get together and share stories without snoopers listening in, they continue the knowledge and it gets carried on. There is no way that discoveries in radiation shielding technology or so-called air conditioning of space suits or silver-zinc batteries or applications with emulsion film cameras on the lunar surface or fuel efficiency for half-million mile lunar space flights would have been entirely forgotten by those who built the system.
-
.
Thorough dismantling of Kaysing? In your dreams. You sound a lot like the Chicken, Ladislaus.
He's not going to "go one for one" with you because he hasn't got the patience for detail.
And your false idol claudel couldn't hurt a flea. Try again.
.
Like this entire thread, you say you have "no hard science knowledge" and yet you want to argue science material?
Let me guess, that was the punch line, right?
It was a thorough dismantling to my mind. But not of all the hoax theories, just that Kaysing video. I posted it with the expectation that you would reply to it. You posted it for me to watch and then reacted in an incredibly bizarre way.
You knew from the start that I didn't have a hard science background, so if that's the minimal criterion you deem sufficient for discussing this subject then you never should have bothered trying to convince me.
You must think I post on this thread in bad faith. No, my curiosity is genuine. You're foul beyond belief.
-
I read this on apollohoax.net in response to the issue of missing telemetry data (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=873.15).
This argument presumes that NASA should have curated the tapes in the certain way the conspiracy theorists impose. That imposition is based on erroneous notions such as the telemetry tapes being the "original" records of the mission, especially of the television coverage. The process of converting the embedded television signal to a standard signal, such that it could be playable by ordinary video equipment, was accomplished "on the fly" during the mission by highly specialized, custom-built equipment. The telemetry tapes were retained temporarily only against the possibility that such an on-the-fly conversion would have failed. Reading the tapes themselves requires large, finicky equipment, only one example of which has survived. While the telemetry tapes are the original recordings, they are not the primary source of data, nor an especially useful source. Only in very recent years have new techniques arisen to glean more from them than the original plan called for.
They are also very large. Each tape is the size of a trash-can lid and records only 15 minutes worth of telemetry. They are very expensive and very bulky to store. And in the early 1970s they were also quite rare. Memorex, the company that supplied the original tapes, used whale oil in the binder. With the advent of the Endangered Species Act, they were called upon to find a more environmentally responsible method. They were not able to do it in time, and NASA was forced to re-use Apollo tapes for ongoing missions. They did not explicitly use the Apollo 11 tapes, but the tapes were not labeled in a way that made it easy for technicians to identify them in time.
In short, the claim that NASA somehow intentionally destroyed the original records of Apollo 11 is ludicrous. The telemetry tapes themselves were useful only so that data could be extracted from them later, which was done. The data they contained is safe. The telemetry recordings themselves are a red herring.
Unconvincing?
-
Still smarting from my thorough dismantling of Kaysing? Or was it my linking to that great evisceration of you by claudel?
AFAIK I have to shell out $3 to watch the Kubrick video. Hey Smedley, could you just relate to me the points made in the video?
You can't spring for the 3 bucks??
Its worth every penny.
If you want an esoteric symbolism-only explanation of what Kubrick did, minus the technical aspects, this one is good :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urbDtNZhdoc&t=6s
-
Weidner says Kubrick was given a "deal with the devil" in 1962 after the Pentagon saw Dr. Strangelove.
He could not refuse. Once the deal was offered, it was his death sentence.
He was given an unlimited budget for 2001, and latitude and money to make any films he wanted for the rest of his life, if he would shoot the "moon landings. "
The two projects were shot concurrently at Pinewood Studios in England.
-
Kubrick insisted upon July 16, 1999 as the release date for Eyes Wide Shut - the 30 year anniversary of the launch of Apollo 11.
-
Here's an excerpt from an interview with Weidner where he discusses Kubrick's moon landings and the fact that Kubrick tells the story in The Shining.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u4A5tJ2j3o
-
Here's the link to part 2 of Weidner's "Kubrick's Odyssey":
https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=Es4mgXwLQzk
-
Here's the link to part 2 of Weidner's "Kubrick's Odyssey":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Es4mgXwLQzk
Fixed link
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vGRfVR7RF8
-
Kaysing discusses pilot who came forward after witnessing a C5 airplane releasing the command capsule over Hawaii for Apollo 15's return.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjgEc7czJUc
-
Weidner says Kubrick lived behind the walls of St. Alban's and patrolled it in his golf cart with a shotgun because he feared for his life.
He says Edgar Mitchell approached psychotherapist Robert Masters and asked to be hypnotized in 1975 to recover his moon memories because he could not remember it.
After 15 sessions, no memories were recovered.
-
Here's Rodney Ascher's 2012 docuмentary film "Room 237" about Stanley Kubrick's telling of the moon landings story in the film "The Shining."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S_n8CQBpRs
-
One of the biggest clues is that of all the Apollo missions, every single one made it back ... even with the staged drama of Apollo 13. This technology was so tenuous at best that two or three would have resulted in catastrophic failure under the best conditions.
-
Here's Rodney Ascher's 2012 docuмentary film "Room 237" about Stanley Kubrick's telling of the moon landings story in the film "The Shining."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S_n8CQBpRs
This actually looks very interesting. Thank you. I am not saying the conclusions will necessarily be true but I am fascinated with the interaction between culture and society.
-
Here's the link to part 2 of Weidner's "Kubrick's Odyssey":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Es4mgXwLQzk
Some might not find Part II of Weidner's "Kubrick's Odyssey" interesting since it focuses deeply on the film 2001 and its esoteric mesage given by Kubrick who was an initiate of Kabbalah and a Jєω.
Weidner also speculates on Kubrick's sudden death, only days after showing Eyes Wide Shut to Warner Bros. execs, as punishment for revealing too much about child sex trafficking and occult rituals. Weidner says Kubrick planned a one-two punch with Eyes Wide Shut and "A.I." for pulling the veil off the elites' pedophilia practices.
-
.
This is the reason there won't be any lunar landings until after it has become common knowledge that the Apollo missions were fake.
.
When a real mission goes to the moon it will become obvious how staged the Apollo videos and photographs were.
.
They were only competing against motion picture sophistication like that of this movie from 1950, 18 years old.
.
This is the "staged drama" that everyone was accustomed to for nearly 2 decades:
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsXVfddSF_A
-
Here's Rodney Ascher's 2012 docuмentary film "Room 237" about Stanley Kubrick's telling of the moon landings story in the film "The Shining."
I've been watching this and it's compelling. If it isn't a matter of Kubrick leaving all sorts of references to Apollo 11 then there are lots of coincidences. Not being skilled with numerology and symbol-finding, I don't know that lots of other messages, totally unrelated to NASA and Apollo, couldn't be found in the film if one were to look hard. It's possible to count the cars in the Overlook parking lot in such a way that they make up the date of the first step on the moon 7-21-69. But couldn't you rearrange 43 cars to represent anything? D.B Caulfield is a stretch, as representing Kubrick selling out. If anything his claimed involvement with NASA boosts his profile and makes him seem a genius. His movies are overrated.
The eagle statues in the office, the Indian totems do look like rockets. Adler is German for eagle. Danny with the Apollo sweater. Room 217 in the book changed to 237. Interesting stuff.
In the beginning of the movie Kubrick's meeting with Mueller and Slayton is mentioned. If his meeting with them was for ulterior motives I don't see why it would have been publicized, with photos taken, unless they needed a cover story. Kubrick hired Marshall Space Flight Center personnel Fred Orway and Harry Lange, and they relocated to England to help with pre-production. This source (https://tinyurl.com/yaaco5uo)says that the purpose of all this was to ensure the scientific accuracy of his 2001 project.
I'd think NASA would employ a team of special-effects people, but I don't see any use for employing Kubrick. I don't even think Kubrick is a very good storyteller, so the claim that he was hired to write the scripts for Apollo 11, 12, and 13 sounds fishy. Better to hire some very skilled screenwriter who has a vested interest in the conspiracy.
The Oleg Olleynik article referenced is above my head. For those interested the people here claim that it's bunk (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=79.0).
-
Kubrick has a lot of offshore money revealed in the Panama Papers of the Fonseca Firm.
Where do you suppose all that money came from and why would he need to hide it?
-
Kubrick has a lot of offshore money revealed in the Panama Papers of the Fonseca Firm.
Where do you suppose all that money came from and why would he need to hide it?
This doesn't really have much to do with the thread. I read he was worth about $20 million. That shocks me, as I thought he would be worth much more than that. It's not like Bill Gates-level wealth. Tons of rich people keep money offshore.
-
I had a look at this debunking video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEPA22ja0MU
One of the claims in Shining Code 2.0 which I found intriguing is that room 217 in the book was changed by Kubrick to room 237 to represent the 237,000 miles distance between the Earth to the moon, even through the distance changes due to the elliptical orbit. But this guy looked at old textbooks to find earlier references that generalize the distance and hasn't found any reference to the moon being 237,000 miles from the Earth.
-
.
237 - 217 = 20
This means it's going to take another 20 years to make it to the moon -- or else Kubrick won't be allowed to live that long.
-
Germar Rudolf wrote The Moon Landing: Fact or Fiction? (http://vho.org/tr/2003/1/Rudolf75-81.html) for The Revisionist in 2003, disputing some of the major moon hoax claims.
I'd think his view would carry more weight, as he's a scientist and he also doesn't lack the backbone to attack a historical claim (the h0Ɩ0h0αx) that is genuinely dangerous to attack, unlike the moon hoax stuff.
-
In re-reviewing this thread it's clear to me that moon hoaxers should admit that they're speculating. I don't see any information they have that should lead them to know the moon landings didn't happen.
-
https://www.rt.com/politics/434419-russians-nasa-lunar-fake/ (https://www.rt.com/politics/434419-russians-nasa-lunar-fake/)
-
In other words, here is the data:
Human Spaceflight Number, Distance from Earth Traveled
1. 1,200 miles, USA
2. 1,200 miles, Russia
3. 1,100 miles, Russia
4. 1,150 miles, USA
(repeats like this, then...)
450. (Moon Landing) 238,900 miles
451. 1,200 miles, EU
452. 1,175 miles, Japan
453. 1,190 miles, China
454. 1,170 miles, USA
455. 1,160 miles, Russia
(goes on like this, for the next 50 years!)
See what I mean?
.
I’m not into NASA (nor sci-fi). So all spaceflights except one supposed to the moon have been around 1.2k miles and that one was 238.9k miles? That is bizarre.
I don’t fully believe the moon is that far away. But in any event, I don’t believe we’ve ever been either.
-
NASA certainly can't prove they went to the moon.
* Reuters: The original recordings of the first humans landing on the moon 40 years ago were erased and re-used NASA officials said on Thursday, July 16, 2009.
* NASA also admitted the Apollo 11 (http://i.viglink.com/?key=9aafeaa0dc973144cc8995b68291f36e&insertId=a2e1a2e397ac731c&type=H&mid=43055&exp=60%3ACI1C55A%3A19&libId=jjuoq2t60100g3d9000DA15l4v9sq&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fflatearthtrads.forumga.net%2Ft103-critique-of-robert-sungenis-article-against-flat-earth&v=1&iid=a2e1a2e397ac731c&out=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.massgenie.com%2Feagle-the-apollo-11-lunar-module-1969-poster-print-by-nasa-i1rdndprgkely3lc&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fflatearthtrads.forumga.net%2Ff6-general-flat-earth-discussion&title=Critique%20of%20Robert%20Sungenis%27%20article%20against%20flat%20earth&txt=%3Cspan%3EApollo%20%3C%2Fspan%3E%3Cspan%3E11%3C%2Fspan%3E) moon trip telecast in its raw format on telemetry data tape of the first Moon landing in 1969 was subsequently lost.
* NASA also says there are 600 boxes, weighing over one ton, of telemetry data missing from EVERY Apollo mission.
-
You're telling me no other country has managed to go there in almost 50 years?
Yes, I'm telling readers exactly that.
U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!
Here's wishing United-Statesian CathInfo members, readers, and of course its owner-moderator, a happy 50th anniversary [*] of the Landing on the Moon by the U.S. lunar-excursion-module Eagle of Apollo 11.
-------
Note *: The anniversary date of the landing as reckoned by Greenwich Time is July 20 (8:17 p.m.) but the 2 Moon-walking astronauts did set foot into lunar dust until nearly 3 a.m. July 21 GMT. They did stay for 21½ hours after landing (these are corrections to my "50th Anniversary" posting misplaced late last night in <https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/we-never-went-to-the-moon-proof/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/we-never-went-to-the-moon-proof/)>). I regret that the anniversary hours have passed at the CathInfo server-bunker in the Central Daylight Time-Zone. So I hope it was a happy anniversary for United-Statesians, one and all.
-
We have years of history to prove it now--that the so-called moon landings in the early 1970's never happened.
"Never". Uh, huh. Fascinating!
There are a lot of advanced countries that should have the technology to do so (remember the Apollo computer was less powerful than most people's digital watches today).
Arguing computing power can leave readers in the weeds in a way that's not all that different from "hard science": We can argue cycle-time, pipeline stages, cache, installable vs. installed memory, &c.
Notwithstanding the apple-Computer design philosophy that made Steve Wozniak a zillionaire recluse, one can't replace all hardware in any given project with microprocessors and software. And one does need to arrange for all the software to be written (and tested and controlled). To get 3 U.S. astronauts to the Moon--and "return them safely to Earth"--required lots of hardware, much of it ad hoc, and some of it just plain huge: The Saturn V with all its stages, plus the manned modules for the lunar landing, was 363 ft. tall.
Money is required not only to build the rockets and manned modules, but also their unit-testing, assembly, and launching sites. As various U.S. national politicians were appalled to realize after Pres. John F. Kennedy caught the public imagination, the Moon Race cost a huge amount of money annually, peaking at $4.5G from the U.S. federal budget in 1966 (I infer multiplication by on the order of 6 for its equivalent ca. 2019: $27G). Yet the 1st launch of a Saturn V wouldn't be until the next year (Nov. 1967).
Russia, Japan, China, Europe just for starters.
Let's appeal instead to literature: Arthur Conan Doyle's character Sherlock Holmes. I've read that the crucial factors for him in investigations were "motivation" and "opportunity".
"Motivation" is similar to the Southern sporting notion of "want to", which includes national budgetary priorities, which are political and social, and can also be military, e.g., reconstruction of civilian damage from war, subsidizing development of heavy industry, or stockpiling weapons.
"Opportunity" is similar to the notion of "can do", including national prosperity or its absence, avoidance of war, or collective technological advancement, e.g., membership in the "1st World", possession of hard currency, and systematic international theft of superior technology.
Sooo, which of those countries or alliances had both the motivation and opportunity to send men or women to set foot on the Moon, given that the U.S.A. had already done so 6 times, hmmm?
-
https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/clever-song-summarizing-proofs-of-moon-landing-hoax (https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/clever-song-summarizing-proofs-of-moon-landing-hoax)
What the notoriously corrupt United States federal government is claiming is to have sent men to the moon in 1969, on the VERY FIRST attempt, even though right here on earth Mt. Everest and the South Pole took NUMEROUS tries before success, allegedly accomplishing this amazing feat with 50 YEAR older technology (a cell phone has ONE MILLION times more computing power than ALL of NASA did in 1969), yet 50 YEARS later NASA can now only send astronauts ONE - THOUSANDTH the distance to the moon, even with 5 DECADES more advancements in rockets and computers.
If Toyota claimed they made a car 50 YEARS ago that could travel 50,000 miles on one gallon of gasoline, yet today their best car can only go 50 miles per gallon, or ONE - THOUSANDTH the distance, would not the forgery of the previous claim be incredibly obvious? If it were not for people's pride and emotional attachment to the 50 YEAR OLD unrepeatable moon landing claim, also with only ONE - THOUSANDTH the distance capable 5 DECADES later, they would otherwise easily recognize this equally preposterous claim as the fraud that it sadly is.
The alleged moon landings are the only technological claim in the entire history of the world, such as the first automobile, airplane, or nuclear power, which was not far surpassed in capability 50 YEARS later, much less not even able to be duplicated by any nation on earth 50 YEARS later. The supposed moon landings are also the only time in history that such claimed expensive technology was deliberately destroyed afterwards (175 BILLION DOLLARS worth), only done so to hide the evidence of the fraud.
Seeing how it is IMPOSSIBLE for technology to go BACKWARDS and today NASA can only send astronauts ONE - THOUSANDTH the distance to the moon as was claimed 50 YEARS ago on the VERY FIRST attempt with 5 DECADES OLDER technology, the only remaining conclusion is that the 1969 claim was a federal government lie. It is that simple and that corrupt.
Award winning filmmaker Bart Sibrel (Sibrel.com) presents his highly acclaimed controversial docuмentary "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" which debuts newly discovered behind-the-scenes out-takes from the supposed first mission to the moon showing the crew staging the photography of being "halfway to the moon", conclusively proving that they never left earth orbit, as is still NASA's limit today 50 YEARS later.
-
... United States federal government is claiming is to have sent men to the moon in 1969, on the VERY FIRST attempt,
It wasn't the first attempt. They were 10 previous flights in just the Apollo program. Apollo 10 went into orbit, orbited a couple dozen times, detached the lander, retrieved it 4 hours later, and returned - everything but touching down. Several things were learned on just that one flight that affected Apollo 11.
But I suppose you're right. Despite the video evidence, it is simply impossible that Bob Beamon could have jumped almost 2 feet beyond the world record in 1968. That was more than a 7% improvement, and anything more than a 2% improvement in a track and field world record is considered suspicious.
The latter is true, by the way. Increases in track and field world records over 2% are highly suspect. In many cases they find the wind gauge malfunctioned. In one case (with the long jump, if I recall correctly) a video surfaced showing someone standing too close to the wind gauge, which made the gauge invalid for record purposes. In other cases it's frequently suspected performance enhancing drugs were used but not caught.
-
In re-reviewing this thread it's clear to me that moon hoaxers should admit that they're speculating. I don't see any information they have that should lead them to know the moon landings didn't happen.
Hi Rum,
Think about it. We don't have any information that should lead us to know that the moon landing DID happen.
Expecting to prove a negative is like expecting Trump to prove that he did NOT collude with the Russians, or expecting Judge Kavenaugh to prove that he did NOT do the things he was alleged to have done.
The burden of proof is on the Freemasonic organization NASA to prove that they did what they have claimed. If they could do so, they would have responded to credible critics who say they did not land on the moon.
-
This three part series is by far the best video I have ever seen on this topic. The conclusion is that the photographic and scientific evidence points to the U.S. never making a manned expedition to the Moon. As others have said the technology simply isn't there.
https://www.aulis.com/moon_pt1.htm?fbclid=IwAR3ZwcJj4Asi3bCUJt2AFge_KUTX2-RLtl9_TheDL78ZihetrQpZYd2suPc (https://www.aulis.com/moon_pt1.htm?fbclid=IwAR3ZwcJj4Asi3bCUJt2AFge_KUTX2-RLtl9_TheDL78ZihetrQpZYd2suPc)
https://www.aulis.com/moon_pt2.htm (https://www.aulis.com/moon_pt2.htm)
-
Think about it. We don't have any information that should lead us to know that the moon landing DID happen.
You mean, like audio and visual recordings, images, physical artifacts, data, testimony of people involved, and first-hand witinesses? We don't have any of that?
And there are videos of things that could only happen in low gravity with no atmosphere, like Armstrong jumping about 5 feet up the ladder, the parabolic arcs of dust the astronauts kicked up, or the hammer/feather drop. As well as independent corroboration from observatories receiving the radio transmissions from the moon. And photographs of the landing sites by later probes from other space agencies.
The moon landings are among the most well docuмented events in the 20th century. The Apollo program was not secret. It was not the Manhattan project.
Expecting to prove a negative is like expecting Trump to prove that he did NOT collude with the Russians
Not exactly analogous. There is no specific story about how Trump might have colluded. If there were, like in any criminal defense he could disprove it by showing a critical part of the story was impossible, eg. an alibi. Kavanaugh did this to the extent that he could.
Now you may think some critical part of the moon landing story is impossible. But all the standard alleged problems have been explained, including the alleged problems with photographs (shadows in different directions can be seen in routine earth-bound photos, plus if there were multiple light sources there would be multiple shadows, Armstrong appears in reflection in Aldrin's visor without a camera because the cameras were mounted to the suits not la commercial handheld, stars don't show up in pictures due to the exposure time), and the alleged radiation problem of the Van Allen belts have also been explained (the path went around them to a great extent, and most of the radiation is alpha/beta particles, which are easy to shield against). Also the flag doesn't actually wave (which can be seen by comparing different pictures of the flag and noting that the wrinkles are identical).
You're welcome to present other alleged problems. I will do my best to explain why they're not problems. I have not seen any convincing arguments against the moon landings.
In the end, that doesn't mean you have to accept the moon landings. But I don't think it's a good thing to accept bad arguments against them. Once the bad arguments are removed, you can accept or not accept - that's up to you.
But, as a Catholic, I think you should reflect that if you can disbelieve the moon landings despite evidence, records and testimony, what does that do to apologetics? How can we get non Catholics to believe the evidence, records and testimony of Christ and the apostles.
-
It wasn't the first attempt. They were 10 previous flights in just the Apollo program. Apollo 10 went into orbit, orbited a couple dozen times, detached the lander, retrieved it 4 hours later, and returned - everything but touching down. Several things were learned on just that one flight that affected Apollo 11.
But I suppose you're right. Despite the video evidence, it is simply impossible that Bob Beamon could have jumped almost 2 feet beyond the world record in 1968. That was more than a 7% improvement, and anything more than a 2% improvement in a track and field world record is considered suspicious.
The latter is true, by the way. Increases in track and field world records over 2% are highly suspect. In many cases they find the wind gauge malfunctioned. In one case (with the long jump, if I recall correctly) a video surfaced showing someone standing too close to the wind gauge, which made the gauge invalid for record purposes. In other cases it's frequently suspected performance enhancing drugs were used but not caught.
No, Apollo 11 was the first attempt to land on the moon, transmit live 2-way video to/from the landing site, and re-launch the men back to earth. Complete success on the 1st try. Nothing went wrong!
You're talking about a 7% improvement in track & field? Hey, apparently it happens. I have no problem there. But we're talking about a 1000-fold (+100,000%) increase in distance traveled in space. That's a 100,000% improvement, not a 7% improvement!
PLUS nasa says they destroyed the technology to go to the Moon ("how convenient") and today they talk about the Van Allen belts as being this huge obstacle to manned space exploration -- astronauts were on film saying the furthest we can go is Low Earth Orbit (see the end of the country song video in the OP). Double-U Tee Eff?
-
But, as a Catholic, I think you should reflect that if you can disbelieve the moon landings despite evidence, records and testimony, what does that do to apologetics? How can we get non Catholics to believe the evidence, records and testimony of Christ and the apostles.
You speak of eyewitnesses, but have you seen what these men are made of? You need to watch on Youtube (also linked on one of these threads) "Astronauts Gone Wild".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr6Vcvl0OeU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr6Vcvl0OeU)
If I had to prove the Moon Landings happened or that Christ worked many miracles and rose Himself from the Dead, I'd much prefer having to prove the latter. There is much more evidence for it, even though it was much longer ago. And there is NO evidence that suggests a hoax. In fact, there is quite a bit of evidence disproving Resurrection deniers. No one has ever produced Christ's body, for example. The words and actions of contemporaries (both friends and enemies), etc.
Did you know, before this thread, that NASA actually claims to have destroyed the $175 Billion of technology to go to the Moon? I guess it's the same reason they hauled off the rubble of the WTC buildings a few days after 9/11. Can't have any evidence of the hoax lying around...
When has technology like that been wantonly destroyed, and never developed or improved by others -- for a period of 50+ years? Never. Only if it was fake and non-existent to begin with.
Notice that every President since 1972 has held out "going back to the Moon" and/or a trip to Mars as a carrot to inspire the people -- but it never happens.
-
Statistics, and data, just don't work this way:
Fastest 100-meter dash: 1.5 seconds
Second fastest 6.05 seconds
Third fastest: 6.13 seconds
Fourth fastest: 6.35 seconds
...
etc.
You NEVER, EVER have a datum "in a whole different league" than the runner-up and the 2nd runner-up. It just doesn't happen. If anyone wishes to prove me wrong I'm all ears!
Or phone processors:
Fastest 5,000 GHz
2nd fastest: 1.8 GHz
Third fastest: 1.7 GHz
etc.
Wayne Gretzky https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NHL_players_with_50-goal_seasons (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NHL_players_with_50-goal_seasons)
-
Wayne Gretzky https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NHL_players_with_50-goal_seasons (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NHL_players_with_50-goal_seasons)
Wayne Gretzky's score count was not an order of magnitude higher than other professional hockey players.
If most players get in the 10-20 range of goals per season, and Gretzky got 1,000 or 10,000 goals in a season -- then we'd be talking!
Do you understand the phrase "order of magnitude"?
Low Earth Orbit: 100–1,240 miles
Distance to Moon: 238,900 mi
-
You're talking about a 7% improvement in track & field? Hey, apparently it happens. I have no problem there. But we're talking about a 1000-fold (+100,000%) increase in distance traveled in space. That's a 100,000% improvement, not a 7% improvement!
There's not much to do between sub lunar orbit and the moon. It's not like voyages across the atlantic. You have fishing boats go out 100 miles and come back a bunch of times. Then you have some intrepid explorer go out and land in North America. If there's nothing to do in between, there's nothing to do. There were no intermediate flights across the Altantic - just short flights over water and back, and then Lindberg.
Beamon's long jump was really astounding. It wasn't like the high jump which improved with new techniques, or various swimming records that improved with suit technology. The previous record was 27' 4.75". He made a good jump and people thought he might have been close to 28'. He had hit 29' 2", an almost 2 feet increase in the world record of a simple human performance where increases had typically been a couple inches. This was 7% when even drug-based improvements in track records were between 2-3%. And while he did continue to jump 25' and 26', I'm pretty sure he never jumped over 27' again (and nobody jumped past 28' for about a decade). If it wasn't on video it would be a difficult one to believe.
PLUS nasa says they destroyed the technology to go to the Moon ("how convenient") and today they talk about the Van Allen belts as being this huge obstacle to manned space exploration -- astronauts were on film saying the furthest we can go is Low Earth Orbit (see the end of the country song video in the OP). Double-U Tee Eff?
The loss of technology has been answered many times on the internet, and even on cathinfo. You must be aware of this, no?
The radiation belts were not a significant issue for a brief trip. It might be a problem if people were going to be in a radiation environment for a long time. A Mars mission, for example, would take a few years, and Mars has little in the way of magnetosphere or atmosphere to protect the surface from radiation. (The ISS is in LEO, within the earth's magnetosphere, which provides protection.)
-
Surely many of you have seen this short video. Look, folks, the Moon Landings were a giant hoax. I don't know who or what Stanley represents, but his comments I find bewildering.
e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpPMoIv1lxI&app=desktop
Stanley:The loss of technology has been answered many times on the internet, and even on cathinfo. You must be aware of this, no?
The radiation belts were not a significant issue for a brief trip. It might be a problem if people were going to be in a radiation environment for a long time. A Mars mission, for example, would take a few years, and Mars has little in the way of magnetosphere or atmosphere to protect the surface from radiation. (The ISS is in LEO, within the earth's magnetosphere, which provides protection.)
If the loss of technology has been discussed many times, I failed to get in on it, even on CI. That NASA officials themselves admit that we have never gotten above lower space orbit; that we have no yet solved the radiation problem, etc. I simply take them at their word. The Apollo program was one giant lie for mankind.
-
Surely many of you have seen this short video. Look, folks, the Moon Landings were a giant hoax. I don't know who or what Stanley represents, but his comments I find bewildering.
If the loss of technology has been discussed many times, I failed to get in on it, even on CI. That NASA officials themselves admit that we have never gotten above lower space orbit; that we have no yet solved the radiation problem, etc. I simply take them at their word. The Apollo program was one giant lie for mankind.
OK. When people say the technology was lost, it was lost due to funding cuts under the Nixon administration. Manufacturing places that made tools and parts for Apollo switched to make other things. The ability to make more disappeared. Additionally, people who did the work, either at NASA or at various engineering contractors, switch to work on other things.
These were people with practical, operational knowledge (aka tacit knowledge) built up during tests in the 1960s, including details of subsystems. "Try SCE to AUX' was such specific knowledge that probably nobody else even in mission control at the time knew what why the recommendation from that one engineer might fix a particular problem that risked aborting Apollo 12. Also, like any design that isn't mass-produced, the actual build is a little different from the blueprints, and some people knew those differences. Thus, once people moved to new tasks, it was not a simple task of building another one from the blueprints and using it. Furthermore, technology does change, and so available alloys and other materials change properties. Even when for the better, they still involve redesign. So, in time, the whole craft needs to be redesigned to accommodate different materials.
On to a couple main points in the video.
Someone in the video says radiation needed to be solved for Orion, even though it had been solved for Apollo. Well, the astronauts WERE quarantined after each flight, and were tested for radiation, etc. They were almost all test pilots - willing to risk death. They were also willing to risk some cancer, though it turned out the engineers had done a good job. Furthermore, Orion is intended to be a crew capsule not just for a brief lunar mission, but for longer term missions including to Mars. Thus it has different requirements, and radiation issues had to be solved for Orion.
The narrator also claims that the temperatures in the thermosphere would melt the spacecraft. We have spacecraft in orbit now. Some of them (eg, the ISS) can be seen at night. Clearly these spacecraft survived. They handled the temperature because temperature is not the key value, but heat transfer. If you put your hand in 212 degree boiling water, you get scalded immediately, but you can put your hands in the air in a 400 degree oven for a while. The outer atmosphere may have a high temperature (meaning particles have high velocity), but it's practically a vacuum (meaning few particles). Vacuums are very good insulators - that's what a thermos has.
-
Stanley is better with the actual science stuff than I am. But he brings up a very good point when it comes to losing technology. Humanity loses technology all the time. The ingredients for super durable Roman concrete is still unknown, even though we have samples of it everywhere. Another good example is Greek fire. We don't even know how the Pyramids were built.
Sometimes civilizations decide to simply stop using highly advanced technology, either because of money or just because they don't need it anymore. A more modern example is the SR-71. It was a spyplane used during the ColdWar that remains one of the fastest and most technologically advanced aircraft known to man. Its first flight was in 1964 and its last flight was in 1999. We stopped using it because it was too expensive to fly and upgrade, not to mention internal military politics. There were even supersonic recon drones in the late 60s. We can barely do that now.
-
You can throw videos out here all day. What that shows is a lack of ability to do you own in depth research and a lack of ability to argue on your own behalf. I know you hoped to shut us up by posting a longish video thinking that no one would watch it and would give up and let you win because obviously your argument is bulletproof because you did enough research to find a youtube video about it. Get real.
Just a lot of bull, 5micro. Tell me, sir what are the sources of your own “in depth research” that might differ from my own? I may lack the ability to argue on my own behalf, but I have a sneaking hunch that I go to the same sources as you do; and most of those, admittedly, are on line. On whose behalf do you argue, sir? Just off the top of my head, I could probably name 15 things that I find troublesome about the Apollo mission narrative; and I will do that if you so insist. If it were not for online sources, I doubt that you would have much more knowledge than I have been able to glean. But as you say, Stanley is "better at this science stuff" than you are. Let Stanley do it.
Get real yourself, sirrah!
As for your allegation that I posted a “longish video” in order to shut you all up, you are beyond arrogant and presumptuous. Is a 9 minute video longish for you, sir? Hmmm.
NASA officials admit that we have yet to get out of earth’s orbit. Or maybe, as in the case of Sandy Hook, these are hired crisis actors and not really NASA officials at all.
I want you to assure us, sir, that every item of information you share with us in the future is taken from hardcore scientific docuмentation, and not just from videos that the rest of us throw out all day.
-
My question be this:
How difficult would it be to launch a military satellite into lunar orbit to unequivocally photograph - and these satellites which exist in Earth orbit that can apparently produce extreme high res with incredible zoom pictures of let us say our moderator Matthew standing at the back of his home holding a watermelon, actually seeing he is holding a watermelon - the lunar surface specifically of all the alleged or real landing sights?
Does the US have something to hide? Can we trust a non US nation to send such a satellite?
What is at stake is the Truth, and that should be a concern for Catholics (us and not the Conciliarists)
And now for something somewhat related ;D..........
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEcqHA7dbwM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEcqHA7dbwM)
-
No, Apollo 11 was the first attempt to land on the moon, transmit live 2-way video to/from the landing site, and re-launch the men back to earth. Complete success on the 1st try. Nothing went wrong!
Apollo 11 had several things go wrong, actually. A few of them (I think the first two are reasonably well-known):
- Armstrong nearly ran out of fuel trying to land in a safe spot. When they landed, they had about 25 seconds of fuel left to decide to abort landing. [That had a little more fuel than 25 seconds, but protocol said it was unsafe to abort landing once it got to that point, so they would have been committed to landing or crashing]
- in maneuvering to get out of the LM, the astronauts broke the switch to arm the launch engine. They used a pen to start it
- the LM overshot the planned landing location on the moon and was coming up on a place that wasn't safe to land (which is why they nearly ran out of fuel getting to a safer place)
- there was an ice blockage in one of the LM fuel lines, which built up pressure and could have exploded. It went away and NASA thinks waste heat from the landing engines melted it.
- the astronauts had trouble opening the door to get out of the LM. They partly disassembled the door. Had they broken the pressure seal, they would have been forced to stay in their pressure suits the rest of the mission.
- before reentry, the service module (which didn't have a heat shield) was separated from the command module (which did) and was supposed to go far away from the CM. It didn't. The SM was close to the CM on reentry, breaking into pieces that could have hit the CM.
The latter problem also occurred with Apollo 12. And I've already alluded to another problem on the launch of Apollo 12, which was hit by lightning causing all sorts of lights and alarms to go off. The engineer in charge of power systems suggested "try SEC to AUX", which stopped the alarms, and then mission control figured out what else was wrong. If this had not worked, they would probably have stopped that mission in earth orbit.
And Apollo 13 had an oxygen tank explosion. That was a rather big problem.
How difficult would it be to launch a military satellite into lunar orbit to unequivocally photograph ... the lunar surface specifically of all the alleged or real landing sights?
The NASA lunar reconnaissance orbiter has done something like this. In 2011, NASA changed the LRO orbit so the low point of its orbit was only about 13 miles from the surface, and got images of some of the Apollo sites from that altitude. That's about double the altitude of a commercial flight on earth. Here are some links:
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/posts/379
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/images/videos
Here's a 90 second video from that first link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WZ26s4ik2w
I think the images with sliders are also interesting.
The second link says that at that altitude, one pixel in the narrow angle camera represents about 0.5 meters (1.5 feet) and images can be resampled (a kind of image enhancement) to 0.25 meters.
They can tell that all but one of the flags are still casting shadows. One was knocked over by the LM ascent. The shadows change direction as the moon orbits over a monthly cycle, which makes them easier to identify:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-19050795
A probe from India in 2009 took pictures of the lunar rover tracks for Apollo 15. It didn't have the resolution of the LRO and the tracks are not as well resolved.
https://gizmodo.com/indian-probe-takes-clear-photo-of-apollo-15-hopefully-5352410
-
Wayne Gretzky's score count was not an order of magnitude higher than other professional hockey players.
If most players get in the 10-20 range of goals per season, and Gretzky got 1,000 or 10,000 goals in a season -- then we'd be talking!
Do you understand the phrase "order of magnitude"?
Low Earth Orbit: 100–1,240 miles
Distance to Moon: 238,900 mi
I think you're rather ignoring the fact that there's nothing interesting between the atmosphere and the Moon that we'd want to go to, or indeed no other point that we could land on so as to turn the rocket back around.
Consider this: Supposing you live out in the country. The nearest village to you is 5 minutes away, and after that the closest city is two hours away away. Normally the village shops are enough for your needs, so that's where you go every day. One day you need to go to the city to get something you can't get in the village. You could have an entire month of 5 minute data points, then suddenly a 120 minute data point, and then back to 5 minute data points.
Could end up with:
1. 5
2. 5
3. 5
4. 5
5. 5
6. 120
7. 5
8. 5
That's one single day where you travelled 24 times farther than you did on any other day. By your logic, we should reject this data point as it's such an outlier. But there's a very sensible reason for it. You never travelled 10 or 30 or 70 minutes because you'd reach nothing but fields and open road in that timespan. 5 minutes gets you to a place you want to be, and 120 minutes does too, but anything in between leaves you in the middle of nowhere. Just like how 1,200 miles leads them to where they want to be, the atmosphere, and 238,900 miles brings them to a place they want to be, the Moon. Between 1,200 miles and 238,900 miles - there's nothing but empty space, just like the open roads you'd find between the village and the city. It'd make no sense to travel 5,000 miles and end up in the middle of empty space, just as it'd make no sense for you to travel 40 minutes and end up on an empty stretch of road.
-
I'm legitimately curious as to why you think we shouldn't believe in the moon landings. At least in your next post take a moment to answer that question for me.
I am focused more on why I don’t believe the moon landing than why others shouldn’t. Let others believe as they will.
As for a number of reasons, basically off the top of my head, why I believe the moon landings never occurred, they are listed below, in no particular order.
>Video footage seems clearly to show that the US flag is waving in the breeze. No amount of explanation for this from NASA has ever satisfied me.
>We see a supposed moon landscape, rugged moutains and hills in the background, a lunar landing module in the foreground. That exact same landscape is superimposed, feature for feature, on another photo. But in this photo there is no vehicle. We know that they couldn’t move the vehicle. So how did this happen?
> No sign of a blast crater from the alleged descent of a LEM on the moon’s surface does not encourage belief, especially in light of the reported fact that the surface is covered with thick powdery dust, and we are told that the LEM engine produced at least 10,000 lbs of thrust. There should be a crater, not to mention a layer of dust over at least the bottom portion of the LEM, including the landing pads. But we see nothing
>In that regard, the supposed footprints of astronauts on a surface bereft of the tiniest amount of moisture. How do clear footprints survive? Try creating a clear visible footprint on a dry sandy beach.
>How does an astronaut snap clearly framed pictures in a bulky space suit with a Hasselblad camara mounted on his chest? Even the inventor of that camera was scratching his head over that one.
>Back to the LEM: Neil Armstrong almost got killed testing one in California a year before Apollo 11. Raw footage of that event is readily available, showing the craft crashing and bursting into flame. Yet we are to believe a year later that all the problems were ironed out, and that 6 successful landings occurred on the moon’s surface thereafter.
>There is only one light source on the moon’s surface, viz. The sun. Yet many alleged photos on the moon show multiple light sources, whose shadows to off at various angles from the objects casting them. Impossible.
>How can an astronaut descending to the moon’s surface from a LEM be so perfectly lit up and photographed when the his surroundings are plunged in the shadows of the very LEM he is exiting?
> How do astronauts survive the 250 degree heat during moon-day, and minus 250 degree cold during moon-night, in relatively flimsy suits with inadequate cooling and equally inadequate warming features?
> What is more, how do astronauts survive on a surface being constantly bombarded by micro meteorites. The earth is protected from this bombardment, because we have an atmosphere in which they burn up before reaching the earth’s surface. No so on the moon.
>How do astronauts survive passing through the Van Allen belt unscathed by dense, lethal radiation in that region? Not just once but a collective total of 12 time. Not one of them suffered from any kind of radiation sickness, much less cancer thereafter. This in light of the fact that numbers of scientists and astrophysicists have expressed grave doubt that such a positive outcome might occur. Even current NASA astonauts like Terry Virsts admit that we do not have the ability presently to pass above earth’s orbit. The Orion project, he says, will do it one day in the future, but not now.
>Why is the moon’s alleged horizon so black. It should be blanketed with myriads of stars and galaxies, not to mention to clear views of planets in our solar system.
> How could astronauts have communicated so clearly and noiselessly with ground control, when the noise level of the propulsion engine, a few feet away, directly below them, was reported to have been totally deafening?
>Gus Grissom complained that they couldn’t even communicate between bldgs. on the ground of the space center. How, he wondered, could they ever do it successfully from deep space?
Grissom was highly critical of the whole Apollo, program. He hung a lemon on the front of his test module just to illustrate his misgivings. He met an untimely death, as we know. Was it just an accident? His widow and family didn’t think so.
>At least 10 astronauts have died in their early sixties from causes ranging from heart attacks to cancer. I thought these guys were the most fit men among us. Strange
>Commander James Irwin had a sudden heart attack just after he had decided, (apparently), to come clean with his own story. He contacted moon landing denier, Bill Kaysing, in 1961, and asked the former to call him at his home, because, he felt his phone line might be bugged. Kaysing did contact him and arranged for a meeting. Irwin, alas, died suddenly a few days later before ever meeting Kaysing. He was 61.
>A NASA inspector named Tom Baron compiled a 500 page report on the Apollo Project. It was highly critical of the way the project was being run. He detailed facts about employee incompetence, drunkenness, poor workmanship, carelessness, lack of proper safety, etc. Baron was called to testify before a Congressional Committee in 1966(?). A week later he was dead, along with his wife and step-daughter. They were hit in their car by a train, it is reported. No autopsy was conducted. The bodies were immediately cremated in violation of Florida law. The 500 page report went missing and has never been recovered.
>An commercial airline pilot calls Bill Kaysing just about the time one of the returning landing modules set down in the ocean in 1970(?) He reports seeing a C5 cargo plane dropping what looked like an Apollo space capsule into the ocean. This was during a routine flight to Japan. The pilot did not identify himself, because he feared the loss of his job.
I could go on, but that should be enough for the time being. We really just scratched the surface.I repeat, the supposed moon landings were fake,IMO The entities who want to keep the facts from coming out are sinister liars. But they occupy very high places in our government, and maybe others. This ruthless power elite doesn’t hesitate to get people out of the way who threaten to expose their lies. They don’t want the Americans to know that 30 to 40 billion of taxpayer dollars was spent wastefully and fraudulently just to prove that the US could go ahead of the Soviets in the space race of the sixties and 70s.
-
5MO7, there is a worse argument than those. The idea that the astronauts acted suspiciously, that they wouldn’t swear they were telling the truth, that they were “deer in the headlights”, etc. Those arguments are so pitiful and even sinful (calumny, detraction) that Catholics should be ashamed to even mention them.
-
5MO7, there is a worse argument than those. The idea that the astronauts acted suspiciously, that they wouldn’t swear they were telling the truth, that they were “deer in the headlights”, etc. Those arguments are so pitiful and even sinful (calumny, detraction) that Catholics should be ashamed to even mention them.
I agree with you 100%
-
Replies to all of hollingsworth's issues:
>Video footage seems clearly to show that the US flag is waving in the breeze. No amount of explanation for this from NASA has ever satisfied me.
So this was done on a soundstage? Indoors? With a fan that doesn't stir up any dust or the astronauts suits?
A single still photo may appear to have a waving flag due to the wrinkles, but someone put two pictures with the flag together, showing it's not really waving.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AldrinFlag-animation.gif
>We see a supposed moon landscape, rugged moutains and hills in the background, a lunar landing module in the foreground. That exact same landscape is superimposed, feature for feature, on another photo. But in this photo there is no vehicle. We know that they couldn’t move the vehicle. So how did this happen?
Need more details to respond to this.
> No sign of a blast crater from the alleged descent of a LEM on the moon’s surface does not encourage belief, especially in light of the reported fact that the surface is covered with thick powdery dust, and we are told that the LEM engine produced at least 10,000 lbs of thrust. There should be a crater, not to mention a layer of dust over at least the bottom portion of the LEM, including the landing pads. But we see nothing
Why "should" there be a crater? Thrusters in a low-pressure environment are not constrained by pressure, and "spread out".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyH4Zaz3mEE
>In that regard, the supposed footprints of astronauts on a surface bereft of the tiniest amount of moisture. How do clear footprints survive? Try creating a clear visible footprint on a dry sandy beach.
Moon dust is more like talcuм powder. Very small particles with sharp edges, not rounded by weathering from air or water.
>How does an astronaut snap clearly framed pictures in a bulky space suit with a Hasselblad camara mounted on his chest? Even the inventor of that camera was scratching his head over that one.
In addition to what 7micro said, they took a LOT of pictures. You would expect the better ones to be more widely shown.
>Back to the LEM: Neil Armstrong almost got killed testing one in California a year before Apollo 11. Raw footage of that event is readily available, showing the craft crashing and bursting into flame. Yet we are to believe a year later that all the problems were ironed out, and that 6 successful landings occurred on the moon’s surface thereafter.
They learned a little from the mistakes.
>There is only one light source on the moon’s surface, viz. The sun. Yet many alleged photos on the moon show multiple light sources, whose shadows to off at various angles from the objects casting them. Impossible.
If there were multiple light sources, there would be multiple shadows, no?
>How can an astronaut descending to the moon’s surface from a LEM be so perfectly lit up and photographed when the his surroundings are plunged in the shadows of the very LEM he is exiting?
The moon surface is quite reflective. That's how we see it, after all.
The reflectivity is basically why things have some illumination even when not directly in the sun.
> How do astronauts survive the 250 degree heat during moon-day, and minus 250 degree cold during moon-night, in relatively flimsy suits with inadequate cooling and equally inadequate warming features?
Why do you think it was "inadequate"? Anyway, the moon orbits earth each 28 days with the same side facing earth. A moon "day" takes 28 earth days. The landing sites were chosen so the sun was low on the moon horizon. Time-on-moon was around one earth day - in that time the moon would rotate less than the earth rotates in one hour.
> What is more, how do astronauts survive on a surface being constantly bombarded by micro meteorites. The earth is protected from this bombardment, because we have an atmosphere in which they burn up before reaching the earth’s surface. No so on the moon.
Yes, there were risks. I think they had a better estimate of the risk than you do, and they did some things to reduce the risk..
https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-earth/moon-meteroids.html
>How do astronauts survive passing through the Van Allen belt unscathed by dense, lethal radiation in that region? Not just once but a collective total of 12 time. Not one of them suffered from any kind of radiation sickness, much less cancer thereafter. This in light of the fact that numbers of scientists and astrophysicists have expressed grave doubt that such a positive outcome might occur. Even current NASA astonauts like Terry Virsts admit that we do not have the ability presently to pass above earth’s orbit. The Orion project, he says, will do it one day in the future, but not now.
The Orion spacecraft is being designed to handle a Mars mission. Much longer time.
For the moon missions, short term exposure and the shielding of the spacecraft turned out to be enough to be manageable.
>Why is the moon’s alleged horizon so black. It should be blanketed with myriads of stars and galaxies, not to mention to clear views of planets in our solar system.
You would need a longer exposure to get stars to show up in the pictures.
> How could astronauts have communicated so clearly and noiselessly with ground control, when the noise level of the propulsion engine, a few feet away, directly below them, was reported to have been totally deafening?
Reported when?
>Gus Grissom complained that they couldn’t even communicate between bldgs. on the ground of the space center. How, he wondered, could they ever do it successfully from deep space? Grissom was highly critical of the whole Apollo, program. He hung a lemon on the front of his test module just to illustrate his misgivings. He met an untimely death, as we know. Was it just an accident? His widow and family didn’t think so.
Yes, Grissom was rather critical. They were pushing things in the early Apollo program, and this probably did contribute to the fire on Apollo 1.
>At least 10 astronauts have died in their early sixties from causes ranging from heart attacks to cancer. I thought these guys were the most fit men among us. Strange
Don't know. But most if not all were test pilots. They spent a LOT of time in the air in their lives, which does increase radiation exposure. Plus whatever they got from the moon missions. That could have something to do with cancer.
>Commander James Irwin had a sudden heart attack just after he had decided, (apparently), to come clean with his own story. He contacted moon landing denier, Bill Kaysing, in 1961, and asked the former to call him at his home, because, he felt his phone line might be bugged. Kaysing did contact him and arranged for a meeting. Irwin, alas, died suddenly a few days later before ever meeting Kaysing. He was 61.
Assume Irwin intended to give his story and the 1969 landings were faked - what would Irwin have had to say about that in early August, 1961? Kennedy had announced the drive to the moon May 25, 1961, only 2.5 months earlier.
>A NASA inspector named Tom Baron compiled a 500 page report on the Apollo Project. It was highly critical of the way the project was being run. He detailed facts about employee incompetence, drunkenness, poor workmanship, carelessness, lack of proper safety, etc. Baron was called to testify before a Congressional Committee in 1966(?). A week later he was dead, along with his wife and step-daughter. They were hit in their car by a train, it is reported. No autopsy was conducted. The bodies were immediately cremated in violation of Florida law. The 500 page report went missing and has never been recovered.
Tom Baron report a report about North American Aviation (a contractor he worked at) in 1967, and then a longer report about the Apollo 1 fire (which happened in Feb 1967 and led to Congressional reviews). He was supposedly in the process of expanding one of his reports (the NAA report, apparently) when his car was hit.
As I said before, they were pushing things in the early Apollo program, and this probably did contribute to the fire on Apollo 1.
Some suspicious coincidences are bound to happen just by the sheer numbers of people involved in the Apollo project.
>An commercial airline pilot calls Bill Kaysing just about the time one of the returning landing modules set down in the ocean in 1970(?) He reports seeing a C5 cargo plane dropping what looked like an Apollo space capsule into the ocean. This was during a routine flight to Japan. The pilot did not identify himself, because he feared the loss of his job.
During the splashdowns they cleared commercial flights to a couple hundred mile radius. That seems too far to identify something dropped from a cargo plane. Commercial flights during the splashdowns did see the reentry trail.
They did drop a command module from a cargo plane for the recovery teams to practice. If the pilot genuinely saw anything, perhaps the pilot saw that.
-
It seems that some CathInfo members posted replies while I was composing this. I confess that I haven't been able keep up with some members' unusually prolific posting rates in this topic this evening.
▷ How can an astronaut descending to the moon’s surface from a LEM be so perfectly lit up and photographed when the his surroundings are plunged in the shadows of the very LEM he is exiting?
Huh? When? In the famous Apollo-11 black&white video from the Moon, as broadcast by the major U.S. t.v. networks as relayed from Earth stations, Armstrong was in the shadow of the L.E.M. as he descended its ladder and stepped/jumped down to the surface. Frustratingly so, because I was photographing it directly from a t.v. screen as it was broadcast; I'd expected clearer video.
▷ How does an astronaut snap clearly framed pictures in a bulky space suit with a Hasselblad camara mounted on his chest?
Easy: The Hasselblad 500-series are single-lens reflexes that form a 2¼×2¼-in. (6×6-cm.) square image, but like the 2¼×2¼ twin-lens reflexes (e.g., Rolleiflex) over which they were considered a major technical advancement, have look-down viewfinders. On the Hasselblad 500-series, the ground-glass viewfinder is just in front of the film magazine in the rear. So for active photography, it was positioned as close to an astronaut's helmet face-plate as higher equipment-priorities allowed. I think that focusing with potentially clumsy gloves was facilitated by a stalk on its focusing ring. It's not all that different from the issues that divers overcome in underwater photography, but these details are all from fallible human memory. In fact, NASA had astronauts practice various skills underwater.
As photojournalists have learned since long before Project Apollo, an index finger pointing at the subject, on a path parallel to the axis of the lens, can produce surprisingly well-framed photos. Seems to me the framing issue on Moon missions was eased by mounting a moderate wide-angle lens (i.e., not so short a focal length as to disable the reflex mirror), perhaps 50 mm. When not framed exactly as NASA wanted, but including all the intended subject, then they could quite honestly rotate & crop in postprocessing. Chemical photography is an analog technology, so no one should sweat rotation by some number of degrees that's not a multiple of 90°.
Even the inventor of that camera was scratching his head over that one.
I simply do not believe that claim. Please cite a verifiable printed source or on-line equivalent. The inventor and engineers of Hasselblad would've been very familiar with everything I've written in this reply.
▷ Why is the moon’s alleged horizon so black[?] It should be blanketed with myriads of stars and galaxies, not to mention to clear views of planets in our solar system.
Sigh. This point of attempted debunking reveals rather deep ignorance about photography, especially exposure. The Moon's daytime surface is more-or-less as bright as beach sand on a sunny day. To accurately reproduce its ash-gray color, plus provide detail in the white space-suits, the exposure had to be set way too low to reproduce the relatively feeble light from distant stellar objects, including planets other than Earth.
Especially if the color film used on the Moon was transparency (a.k.a. "slide") film, which has perhaps 1/2 the exposure-latitude of negative (a.k.a. "print") film (at least nowadays). I suspect that they followed the lead of the prestigious National Geographic in routinely using a Kodak transparency film, thus either KodachromeTM or EktachromeTM, whose A.S.A. film speeds in their commercial product lines back then were no higher than 64.
So how's 'bout you going out some night and trying to photograph a sky full of the planets and big-name stars (from Earth); when you get an image that shows "myriads" brightly enough to meet your expectations, be sure to return to CathInfo and present that image, with the exposure and other technical details (beware that claiming that it was set to "automatic" will be a summary disqualification).
▷ There is only one light source on the moon’s surface, viz. The sun. Yet many alleged photos on the moon show multiple light sources, whose shadows [go] off at various angles from the objects casting them. Impossible.
Fascinating. I've read that claim before, but I've never seen any such photos. Keep in mind that the L.E.M. was partially covered with a material that reflected light as well as aluminum foil. Feel free to provide URLs, but I'll warn potential respondents now: I refuse to download & watch any videos just so I can view any still images.
-
Back to Terry Virts, in an attempt to cut through all the crap, I'll submit a short bio of the man:
“With more than 3,600 orbits of the Earth under his belt, astronaut Terry Virts will leave NASA on Aug. 23 (2016). Over the course of his 16-year-career at NASA, he piloted a space shuttle and commanded the International Space Station.
Virts, a colonel in the U.S. Air Force, considers Columbia, Maryland, his hometown. He is a graduate of the United States Air Force Academy, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, and Harvard Business School. He also was a member of the U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School class 98B at Edwards Air Force Base in California, and served as an experimental test pilot in the F-16 Combined Test Force there before being selected for the astronaut class of 2000.
During his time on the ground at NASA, Virts served in a variety of technical assignments, including as the lead astronaut for the T-38 training jet program, chief of the astronaut office’s robotic branch and lead astronaut for the Space Launch System rocket program.”
Below is a 55 second portion of a video link I published earlier. I am trying to spare folks like 5micro, (and maybe gatordicx) the tedium of watching anything longer than that. From a previous remark, I conclude that 5Micro doesn’t care for videos, so I purposely publish again only this excerpt. But since he does not do “science stuff,” he probably leaves that task to Stanley and others anyway. The video excerpt was made, I believe in 2015.
In it Virts, in clear, unmistakable language, states that “we” do not have space travel technology capable of launching “us” beyond earth’s lower orbit. I assume that he speaks on behalf of the entire space industry. If not, please enlighten me further.
On the other hand, if Virts is not an actor or an impostor, and reflects the cold, bare facts presently, then some further explanation is in order. Since we live in time, consisting of past, present and future, events must line up accordingly. If in 1969, at the launch of the first (successful) Apollo moon landing mission, the technology did not exist for sending a manned space vehicle beyond earth’s orbit, how can we be celebrating in 2019 events which could not have yet possibly taken place, in light of Virts’ unambiguous remarks in 2015?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgXDi7mc43M (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgXDi7mc43M)
-
Back to Terry Virts, in an attempt to cut through all the crap, I'll submit a short bio of the man:
...
In it Virts, in clear, unmistakable language, states that “we” do not have space travel technology capable of launching “us” beyond earth’s lower orbit. I assume that he speaks on behalf of the entire space industry. If not, please enlighten me further.
He said "right now we can only fly in earth orbit" - the US today doesn't have the operational technology to go to the moon. He did not say the US never did.
A moon trip requires a human-rated heavy-lift launch system with enough delta V to get to the moon. The only US operational, human-rated heavy-lift launch system was Saturn V. They were used. So were all the N1 (the Russian counterpart to the Saturn V). I don't think Energia had the delta V for the moon, but the two built were also used up. Even if they weren't, Energia was discontinued 30 years ago.
The closest operational thing today is the Falcon Heavy, which (at least with boosters, not sure alone) has a delta V to get beyond LEO. However, it is not human rated, and Elon Musk has shown no interest in getting it human rated. (It also has somewhat less payload capacity than Saturn V.)
-
He (Virts) said "right now we can only fly in earth orbit" - the US today doesn't have the operational technology to go to the moon. He did not say the US never did.
Stanley, you are obviously a very desperate individual. Are the rest of the forum members, following this thread, going to sit back, thumbs planted firmly in mouth, and let the guy get away with such a statement? This is just an unbelievable response. Stanley, are you really insinuating that Virts spoke only of present capabilities? That he did not discount the alleged moon landings in 1969 and 70? Stanley, you're either deluded, or not a very honest person. You know exactly what he was saying, and you can go back and listen to the young female astronaut on the full version of the video, who states that she looks forward to the development of a system which will take us beyond earth's lower orbit.
My, my!
-
Here's another 44 minute video for interested forum members to peruse. I don't ask 5micro to watch it, since he's a millennial with a short attention. But, happy day, he's got Stanley to help explain for him the "science stuff."
The Apollo Moon Program was an utter hoax, perpetrated by the military industrial complex, about whom President Eisenhower warned all Americans to beware. They made billions of dollars on the project at the expense of the American taxpayer.
All other millennials, including 5micro are of course excused from viewing or thinking about this too much.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4
-
▷ How could astronauts have communicated so clearly and noiselessly with ground control, when the noise level of the propulsion engine, a few feet away, directly below them, was reported to have been totally deafening?
Appropriate microphone design on the transmitting end, and a squelch circuit on the receiving end, i.e.:
• microphone designed to have a pattern of sensitivity that sensed sound only from the direction of a helmeted astronaut's mouth, and for a range that extended not much deeper into the helmet. The sensitivity pattern is typically described by the mathematical name of a shape that's defined by a trigonometric formula. A dynamic-type microphone, which was in the radio-enthusiast market no later than the mid-1960s, would've helped the voice-quality. Reducing the microphone's sensitivity to sounds outside the helmets would've muffled the sound of the engines that was deafening to humans riding the rocket stages. Getting those characteristics in a device sufficiently miniaturized for a spacesuit might've been the primary engineering challenge.
• squelch is a receiver feature that provides control of the volume-threshhold of received sound that's produced as output (i.e., via headphones or speakers). It eliminates all sounds with a lower volume than that for which it's set, but passes thro' all sounds of higher volume at their original volume. It's conventionally controlled in radio receivers by a ‘volume’-like rotating knob, and used on Earth to eliminate the distraction of noise caused by various kinds of radio interference.
The combination of an appropriate microphone designed to have insensitivity that would've muffled the deafening sound of the engines, and squelch that could then eliminate the muffled sound, would've produced the sounds of clear and noiseless voices that listeners are accustomed to hearing during U.S. spaceflights.
By the way, most of the abruptness of sounds heard is because it's radio--not telephone--communication technology, so voice-actuated switching (VOX) is an important part of the system. VOX circuits mediate all the voices potentially contending for radio transmitter channels, notably the numerous voices at Mission Control.
-
Here's another 44 minute video for interested forum members to peruse. I don't ask 5micro to watch it, since he's a millennial with a short attention. But, happy day, he's got Stanley to help explain for him the "science stuff."
The Apollo Moon Program was an utter hoax, perpetrated by the military industrial complex, about whom President Eisenhower warned all Americans to beware. They made billions of dollars on the project at the expense of the American taxpayer.
All other millennials, including 5micro are of course excused from viewing or thinking about this too much.
Ah, there it is, the stuff at 36:00 to 40:00 has been edited out of sequence making it seem one of the astronauts says the camera is up to the window when the video shortly shows it's not. These are at different times in the original video, but Sibrel edited it so that it's misrepresented. Also, the video claims the image out the window was cropped by the window being circular, but omits the part of the video where the astronauts move the camera and show the CM interior. They were looking out a rectangular window. The circular hatch window is shown clearly somewhere else. This sort of editing is dishonest.
In the end, the narrator says a lot about this supposedly revealing video without actually showing much of the video, and while hiding parts of the video that undermine the claims. The video, by the way, was the astronauts preparing and delivering a televised segment while on the way to the moon, and was not a "secret".
Here are two pages that say more. There's also an hour and a half video on youtube that is probably the super secret raw material.
http://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/2017/07/611-did-astronauts-fake-tv-footage-of.html
http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny8.html
I think I've already addressed the rest of Sibrel's claims in the video, like the radiation belts and the nonsense that shadows can't go in different directions.
Stanley, are you really insinuating that Virts spoke only of present capabilities?
Yes, it seems clear to me what he was talking about. He starts talking about the SLS, the next heavy-lift launch system being designed. The sentence you picked out starts "right now" (present capabilities), and immediately after he goes on about the "new system we're building". The context is the heavy-lift launch system.
And one correction, I forgot to mention earlier the Space Shuttle was also a heavy-lift launch system. But that was designed to get large payloads to LEO, not as stage in a moon mission.
-
Below is a 55 second portion of a video link I published earlier. I am trying to spare folks like 5micro, (and maybe [Alli]gatordic[a]x) the tedium of watching anything longer than that. From a previous remark, I conclude that 5Micro doesn’t care for videos, so I purposely publish again only this excerpt. [....] The video excerpt was made, I believe in 2015.
Yes, by all means, please include me among "doesn’t care for videos": AlligatorDicax. Debating by shovelling videos without citations into topics is at best a habit of laziness.
I assume that [Col. Virts] speaks on behalf of the entire space industry. If not, please enlighten me further.
Really? I would not assume that. I assume only that he speaks only for himself, with any "we" being a use of that pronoun that very informally refers to his past-fellow astronauts, or more broadly, the citizenry of the U.S.A. Established manufacturing companies or their industry-benevolent organizations (e.g., aerospace), federal agencies (e.g., NASA), and military services, can get really upset if people claim to speak for them when such people have not been explicitly authorized to do so. It can be "career limiting" if its severity isn't deemed a firing offense.
[....] if Virts is not an actor or an impostor, and reflects the cold, bare facts presently, then some further explanation is in order. Since we live in time, consisting of past, present and future, events must line up accordingly. If in 1969, at the launch of the first (successful) Apollo moon landing mission, the technology did not exist for sending a manned space vehicle beyond earth’s orbit, how can we be celebrating in 2019 events which could not have yet possibly taken place, in light of Virts’ unambiguous remarks in 2015?
[<]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgXDi7mc43M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgXDi7mc43M[>]
How could "we" be "celebrating in 2019"? Simple: Your premise that "the technology did not exist" in 1969 is false.
If Virts' remarks are as unambiguous as you claim, we wouldn't need to worry about subtleties, like tone-of-voice. So why wouldn't you spare CathInfo readers the cuмulative time-sink of watching yet another video shovelled into a topic, and instead provide us with exact quotes--maybe even a full unedited transcript--hmmm? It's you who claimed that it sinks only 55 seconds of each reader's life--or better yet: only yours!
In [the video cited by hollingsworth,] Virts, in clear, unmistakable language, states that “we” do not have space travel technology capable of launching “us” beyond earth’s lower orbit.
That should be phrased as "lower-Earth orbit"[*].
But!
He said "right now we can only fly in earth orbit" - the US today doesn't have the operational technology to go to the moon. He did not say the US never did.
Well, great leapin' L.E.M.s! That looks for all the world like an exact quote, followed by a valid conclusion!
A moon trip requires a human-rated heavy-lift launch system with enough delta V to get to the moon. The only US operational, human-rated heavy-lift launch system was Saturn V. They were used.
That's "used" as in "launched" or "flown".
A total of 15 flight-capable vehicles were built, but only 13 were flown.
The unflown 2 vehicles (of the 15) were either honored by being put on display, or ingloriously scrapped, after Apollos 18--20 were cancelled by some combination of the Johnson (1963--1969) and Nixon (1969--1974) Administrations. Lyndon's Great Society, plus the on-going Vietnam War (as escalated or widened by both) were expensive, doncha know?
So were all the N1 (the Russian counterpart to the Saturn V).
Welll, yesss, "used" in a manner of speaking: The N1 never became operational, because all 4 N1 test launches failed (Feb. 1969--Nov. 1972). Just 2 weeks before Apollo 11, what was reckoned as the 2nd N1 test-launch resulted in a spectacularly powerful explosion that destroyed its launch facility. Even tho' 'twas a project of the Godless Communist Russians, advocates of space-exploration should be excused if they express some sympathy for all the setbacks, many being political or interpersonal, that were endured by the engineers & scientists in their manned lunar project. Reportedly, N1 was suspended in 1974, after Project Apollo had already concluded, and later, N1 was cancelled in 1976 [×]. It's a mystery to me why the Kremlin would've waited so long to pull the plug on a project that would earn them no better than the 1st runner-up trophy. I don't know how soon Brezhnev (1964--1982) began to advance his newfangled ambition of launching a Soviet blue-water (i.e., open-ocean) Navy, but that would require spending lots of rubles from the Soviet budget.
-------
Note *: All astronomical or creationist -centrism debates have prudently been banished by Matthew to the CathInfo sub(sub)forum <https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/)>.
Note ×: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_%28rocket%29 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_%28rocket%29)>. It's written in an authoritative style, but it's distressingly deficient in cited sources, almost as if some N1 enthusiast(s) Godlessly plagiarized a single source, e.g., a book chapter from a book published in the West by 1 of Khruschev's children (i.e., at least 1 son and 1 daughter). Of course, no exposés of the Soviet Space Program, being among R&D programs for the Strategic Rocket Forces, would've leaked out of the Kremlin or Kazakh S.S.R. before Glasnost and "The Fall of the Soviet Union".
-
Stanley, you are obviously a very desperate individual.
Are the rest of the forum members, following this thread, going to sit back, thumbs planted firmly in mouth, and let the guy get away with such a statement? This is just an unbelievable response.
Thank you for inviting other CathInfo members to weigh in with their opinions.
Count me as amazed by your insult "thumbs planted firmly in mouth", which seems counterproductive for you. It's an excellent description of a child who has not yet attained the age-of-reason nor learned the skills of readin' & writin', who is sitting blissfully in front of a television, obviously captivated by a video.
Stanley, are you really insinuating that Virts spoke only of present capabilities? That he did not discount the alleged Moon landings in 1969 and [']70?
Wait! Don't forget the Moon landings by Apollo 14--17, launched in Jan. 1971--Dec. 1972.
Stanley, you're either deluded, or not a very honest person. You know exactly what he was saying,
Really, now? You've had the opportunity to provide exact quotes from crucial sentences spoken in the videos you've shovelled in, but have not done so. Then you've spun unquoted sentences, avoiding exact quoting, I now suspect, to enable you to ignore problematic words actually spoken, while arguing that the audio proves your claims. Those claims seem much more like axioms that you've adopted as a matter of personal faith in, um, what, exactly?
"Unbelievable"? Only Stanley N has provided anything resembling an exact quote from any 1 of the shovelled-in videos. Thus it's he who charges you, hollingsworth, with omitting the crucial word "now". You do understand, don't you, that if true, that would be a severe discredit to your reputation for honesty in CathInfo?
It's easy to see that Occam's Razor, which loosely stated, means that the simplest explanation that's consistent with the known facts or evidence is the correct explanation, are best by the critical Moon-landing postings by Stanley N.
Those postings by Stanley N have the advantage for me of being consistent with what I either know or believe to be true. I conclude that not only because of the realities of certain technologies with which I have 1st-hand experience, but also by virtue of having been alive in Central Florida, and well past the then-customary Catholic age-of-reason, when all the events happened that are argued-over in this topic and others like it. Considering all the employees of NASA and aerospace-contractors then living in Central Florida, any faked landings should've become rumored soon enough around here, especially by the multitudes of employees who could soon enough develop a grudge against NASA, because of suffering lay-offs caused by the NASA budget cuts that I hinted at above. But there were no such rumors of fakery.
So I've tentatively reached the very disappointing conclusion that you, hollingsworth, are the forum member who is "deluded, or not a very honest person." Really sad. You're not going to try to blame that on purported obligations from Traditional Catholicism, are you?
-
There's not much to do between sub lunar orbit and the moon. It's not like voyages across the atlantic. You have fishing boats go out 100 miles and come back a bunch of times. Then you have some intrepid explorer go out and land in North America. If there's nothing to do in between, there's nothing to do. There were no intermediate flights across the Altantic - just short flights over water and back, and then Lindberg.
But in your example, the navigational technology, explorations/techniques which allowed the leap of sailing across the Atlantic were followed up on, built upon, and improved upon. There wasn't a 50 year lull while everything went back to the pre-1492 status quo.
King Ferdinand and Isabella didn't say 50 years later they "lost all the navigational data, maps, charts, and logs" and everything that Columbus explored and accomplished, admitting they can't reach the New World today, and adding for good measure that they look forward to reaching out more than 100 miles from the coast of Spain in the near future.
That is basically what NASA has said, however!
A) they lost all the reels of flight telemetry data (how convenient!)
B) They claim to have destroyed/lost the $175 billion in technology developed during the Apollo missions (Dubya-Tee-Eff?)
C) They speak of the Van Allen belts as being an insurmountable obstacle at present.
D) In the late 2010's NASA has gone on camera stating they look forward to exploring "beyond Low Earth Orbit for the first time."
E) A film reel shows the "astronauts" allegedly between the moon and earth, using camera tricks (a small hole in a screen over a window) to make the earth look tiny. They were just in Low Earth Orbit. If they truly went to the Moon, why resort to such deception?
If that doesn't make you question the "Moon Landing" story, then nothing will.
-
There's not much to do between sub lunar orbit and the moon. It's not like voyages across the atlantic. You have fishing boats go out 100 miles and come back a bunch of times. Then you have some intrepid explorer go out and land in North America. If there's nothing to do in between, there's nothing to do. There were no intermediate flights across the Altantic - just short flights over water and back, and then Lindberg.
Yes, but there's the Moon itself, is there not? Why hasn't it been duplicated in 50 years? Why all the funny business with the data, photos, etc.?
-
To believe in the moon landings, you have to believe that NASA had some kind of magical battery from the 24th century that could store ridiculous amounts of energy.
The Lunar landing module computers, A/C in the spacesuits, the rover(s), a broadcasting station (to broadcast live VIDEO back to earth) all had to be powered by a few 1970-era batteries. I'm sorry, but batteries are not magic.
A single 61 pound golf cart battery in 2019 might have 215 AH or amp-hours. That's at 6V. If you had TWO of those strung together to make 12V, 215 AH that might run a 5000 watt A/C unit, or enough to keep an average RV 20 degrees cooler than the outdoor temp for about 8 hours. And we're talking some large batteries here, nothing portable -- even in 2019.
https://www.batteriesplus.com/productdetails/sligc110 (https://www.batteriesplus.com/productdetails/sligc110)
The moon is 250 degrees on the sunlit side. Whatever technology they use to cool humans in a vacuum environment like that, you're going to be fighting a lot of heat. Think of all the solar energy constantly hitting the Moon. The whole spectrum would be hitting -- the Moon has no atmosphere to filter any of it out. Countering THAT kind of constant influence is going to be electrically very expensive.
Unless you believe a battery could be the equivalent of a small nuclear power plant, you can't believe they had enough energy to do what they claimed.
I know enough about batteries. I've put together some small-scale solar power systems and have done a lot of research on different types of batteries. People are used to electronics "sipping" electricity today, due to integrated circuits and microprocessors. But back in 1970, circuits would dissipate a LOT more heat -- measured in watts -- which comes RIGHT out of the battery capacity. So even the "cheap" users like computers would be total pigs back then. Nevermind expensive operations like cooling or powering a vehicle.
-
In my opinion, the reentry is impossible, even returning from any "space station". It's all fake.
A reentry, starting in a tin can at a high speed in orbit, would need some fuel to burn for braking purposes. No shield can withstand the temperatures in free fall.
-
The moon is 250 degrees on the sunlit side. Whatever technology they use to cool humans in a vacuum environment like that, you're going to be fighting a lot of heat. Think of all the solar energy constantly hitting the Moon. The whole spectrum would be hitting -- the Moon has no atmosphere to filter any of it out. Countering THAT kind of constant influence is going to be electrically very expensive.
Unless you believe a battery could be the equivalent of a small nuclear power plant, you can't believe they had enough energy to do what they claimed.
Have you looked up any of the batteries or other technologies used in the Apollo landers?
-
But in your example, the navigational technology, explorations/techniques which allowed the leap of sailing across the Atlantic were followed up on, built upon, and improved upon. There wasn't a 50 year lull while everything went back to the pre-1492 status quo.
They were also a monarchy and not subject to the political whims of a democracy putting in the opposing party who then cancelled future ship construction, so that shipyards convert to some other business, with many experienced shipbuilders taking jobs in other industries.
Analogies limp except in the point of comparison.
A) they lost all the reels of flight telemetry data (how convenient!)
B) They claim to have destroyed/lost the $175 billion in technology developed during the Apollo missions (Dubya-Tee-Eff?)
C) They speak of the Van Allen belts as being an insurmountable obstacle at present.
D) In the late 2010's NASA has gone on camera stating they look forward to exploring "beyond Low Earth Orbit for the first time."
E) A film reel shows the "astronauts" allegedly between the moon and earth, using camera tricks (a small hole in a screen over a window) to make the earth look tiny. They were just in Low Earth Orbit. If they truly went to the Moon, why resort to such deception?
These have been addressed. Several times. Especially that last one (E). It's utter nonsense, as far as I can tell originating from Sibrel. You can see that it's nonsense by looking at the full video before Sibrel's deceptive "editing". And you din't provide a source and quote for (D).
I( have patiently explained each of these things when they have appeared. But now we have the same people just repeating the same things, as if they have never been addressed either here or elsewhere on the internet. And while I was doing Sunday liturgy and family things, someone has apparently given me 23 downvotes in less than a day.
-
Defending the moon landing is like defending evolution. It’s a fantastic lie which is supported by an entire multi-Billion $ industry. Both lies support a philosophical, satanic and political agenda to promote the idea that science can solve any problem, to instill the false idea of atheism, and to show the greatness of big government.
-
Defending the moon landing is like defending evolution. It’s a fantastic lie which is supported by an entire multi-Billion $ industry. Both lies support a philosophical, satanic and political agenda to promote the idea that science can solve any problem, to instill the false idea of atheism, and to show the greatness of big government.
Defending the hoax believers (HB) is like defending flat earth (FE). Both lies come from a philosophical, satanic and political agenda of crippling pusillanimity and self-justifying ignorance. If an elite wanted to accomplish controlled opposition, they couldn't do too much better than getting the opposition locked into HB and FE nonsense and even arguing for that nonsense on the internet. As a bonus, they can be tracked easily.
See, narratives can work the other way, since they are just constructs of the mind. What should matter is having the mind conform to external reality. But that would involve evidence.
Being detached from reality has been routine for humanities education for decades. Science and technology still has some attachment to reality, because they have to make real devices work.
-
In my opinion, the reentry is impossible, even returning from any "space station". It's all fake.
A reentry, starting in a tin can at a high speed in orbit, would need some fuel to burn for braking purposes. No shield can withstand the temperatures in free fall.
I believe it's possible. Plus we've had a lot more astronauts in low earth orbit compared to the so-called Apollo moon landings. It just takes special materials in the cone, fiberglass, ceramics, etc. to protect against the intense heat. And usually re-entry vehicles come in at a much shallower angle than 90 degrees. Haven't you heard the old line from countless books, movies, and non-fiction articles? "Too shallow of an angle, and the craft will bounce off the atmosphere like a rock skipping off the surface of a pond. Too deep, and it will burn up in the atmosphere." Scientists can calculate the exact angle needed, using math and physics.
-
I believe it's possible. Plus we've had a lot more astronauts in low earth orbit compared to the so-called Apollo moon landings. It just takes special materials in the cone, fiberglass, ceramics, etc. to protect against the intense heat. And usually re-entry vehicles come in at a much shallower angle than 90 degrees. Haven't you heard the old line from countless books, movies, and non-fiction articles? "Too shallow of an angle, and the craft will bounce off the atmosphere like a rock skipping off the surface of a pond. Too deep, and it will burn up in the atmosphere." Scientists can calculate the exact angle needed, using math and physics.
Yes, I know about that. But I think there is no angle/shield material combination which prevents the burning up in the atmosphere. The kinetic energy of the heavy reentry vehicles orbiting at high speed is too much to get rid off in a short time without vaporizing.
-
But that would involve evidence.
Where's the evidence for the moon landing? Oh, right - destroyed. So both sides are left with theories to come to conclusions. Which side has motive, opportunity and evidence to support it's case? The side which says it's a hoax.
.
You have no hard evidence to support the moon landing. Interviews, 50 year old pictures and grainy video files are not hard evidence.
-
Defending the hoax believers (HB) is like defending flat earth (FE). Both lies come from a philosophical, satanic and political agenda of crippling pusillanimity and self-justifying ignorance. If an elite wanted to accomplish controlled opposition, they couldn't do too much better than getting the opposition locked into HB and FE nonsense and even arguing for that nonsense on the internet. As a bonus, they can be tracked easily.
See, narratives can work the other way, since they are just constructs of the mind. What should matter is having the mind conform to external reality. But that would involve evidence.
Being detached from reality has been routine for humanities education for decades. Science and technology still has some attachment to reality, because they have to make real devices work.
Bingo! You hit that one out of the ball park. I have no evidence to verify it but my gut tells me an enemy has done this. What better way to confuse and disorient your opponent than multiply crazy conspiracy theories to the point that few if any people know who to trust anymore?
-
You have no hard evidence to support the moon landing. Interviews, 50[-]year old pictures and grainy video files are not hard evidence.
Really, now!?
Are you really arguing that all "50[-]year old pictures" and "grainy video" must be disqualified?
That would mean that there's "not hard evidence" of the War of Yankee Aggression (e.g., unsettling still photos by Matthew Brady), the sinking of the Titanic or the Lusitania, the Attack on Pearl Harbor, and D-Day.
What a pompous modernist you must be! What in [Hades ] do you believe that the available technology allowed us back then? Do you personally understand any of the photographic technology!? Hah! I'm quite sure that I know that answer to that question!
Maybe your rhetorical allies ought to doggedly promote a "theory" that World-War II never happened!?
If in 1969, at the launch of the first (successful) Apollo moon landing mission, the technology did not exist for sending a manned space vehicle beyond earth’s orbit, how can we be celebrating in 2019 events which could not have yet possibly taken place [....]
Well, [Hades! ] You've nailed me! NASA has admitted that the alleged launch of Apollo 11 was secretly delayed until nobody was watching. NASA has refused to admit to citizen accusations that airplanes aerially dispersed powerful depressant drugs over the crowds that had gathered that night. So practically no one saw the Apollo 11 launch, and of those people who claimed in "interviews" to have witnessed it and "been there", such testimony could be easily dismissed.
-
I wonder if even high res close up photos from a MILITARY not civilian satellite would prove conclusive one way or otter. The photos taken of supposed? landing sites, posted earlier on CI, really do not show much.
Rigorous application of the scientific method to prove or disprove A needs to continually applied to this situation.
The theological question is greater and of more import, as it deals with truth and lies.
As we wait for a definitive answer that answers the lunar question once and for all, let us remain charitable towards each other. :incense:
Is it worth getting pithed off by thy neighbour to the extent it fraks with the state of grace?
St. Dominic ora pro nobis! St. Thomas Aquinas, ora pro nobis!
-
Are you really arguing that all "50[-]year old pictures" and "grainy video" must be disqualified?
I didn't say disqualified, I said it wasn't hard evidence. Pictures can be faked. Videos can be faked. Can you trust the pictures of Pearl Harbor? Sure, because you have thousands of men who were there and who saw people die or were injured. The soft evidence of pictures/videos is corroborated by hard evidence. All the hard evidence for the moon landing - apollo tech - is destroyed. How convenient.
-
Yes, I know about that. But I think there is no angle/shield material combination which prevents the burning up in the atmosphere. The kinetic energy of the heavy reentry vehicles orbiting at high speed is too much to get rid off in a short time without vaporizing.
Space Shuttle Columbia was a reentry disaster.
There were large pieces of debris and even body parts that survived the reentry.
-
Did any of you watch the Apollo 11 film by Todd Miller that aired on CNN for two nights for the 50th anniversary? I did.
It is very interesting. It's full of all kinds of nice, clear, HD-quality film footage of the launch and the arrival into LEO...then after that, nothing.
It's quite bizarre.
There's also NO moving film footage of the landing, only all sorts of crystal-clear COLOR still photos.
The whole thing reeks of baloney.
Watch here for $5.99:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvvhAft0-Tw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvvhAft0-Tw)
-
Space Shuttle Columbia was a reentry disaster.
There were large pieces of debris and even body parts that survived the reentry.
That's the mainstream narrative.
-
You have no hard evidence to support the moon landing.
Interviews, 50[-]year old pictures and grainy video files are not hard evidence.
That would mean that there's "not hard evidence" of [....] the sinking of the Titanic or the Lusitania
Ooops!
The "photographic technology" on which I became overly focused seems not to be especially important to proof of those maritime disasters.
Altho' there were numerous still photos and some motion pictures of the ships before they set out on their final voyages across the Atlantic, it's my understanding that there were no still nor motion pictures of either sinking. But I claim no expertise for either maritime disaster; I'm not among the many people apparently obsessed with the grim details of such things, especially for the earlier sinking [☆].
For the sinking of the Titanic (Apr. 1912), there would've been interviews of survivors and crews from rescuing ships. It was eventually found on the deep-sea bottom where its iceberg-damaged hull settled. That wreck never having been raised, the "video" or "photographic technology" in the remotely-controlled unmanned submersible was important to docuмent the wreck. Or are Moon-landing deniers determined to reject that kind of evidence, too?
For the sinking of the Lusitania (May 1915), the site where it sunk was no mystery. Its wreck has long been known to be in relatively shallow water offshore Ireland. Surely that would not be dismissed as "not hard evidence", even tho' no CathInfo member can travel to Ireland and just go stare at it [†]?
Let all the above be as they may, I concede that they were my potentially unwise digression(s). So after some quick answers, let's return to the "Moon Race".
-------
Note ☆: E.g., once here in Central Florida, there was an exhibition of artifacts retrieved from the Titanic; I never attended it. Not because of scheduling conflicts, but because of simple lack of interest. Likewise the more-or-less recent eponymous film; I already knew the ending.[×]
Note †: The wreck is nowhere even close to being within "tourist-diver" depth-limits. The sinking of the ship hasn't been a geopolitical issue for many decades, so I suppose it's safe to rely on Wikipedia for all the details I've read today. [×]
Note ×: I've omitted links herein in hopes of discouraging members from derailing this topic, whose debate has more-or-less briefly turned to issues of proof that's typically not popularly demanded for popularly acknowledged historical events.
-
Let me take a stab at answering for the moon landing deniers...
For the sinking of the Titanic (Apr. 1912), there would've been interviews of survivors and crews from rescuing ships.
Crisis actors.
It was eventually found on the deep-sea bottom where its iceberg-damaged hull settled. That wreck never having been raised, the "video" or "photographic technology" in the remotely-controlled unmanned submersible was important to docuмent the wreck.
It was a movie set created by James Cameron.
For the sinking of the Lusitania (May 1915), the site where it sunk was no mystery. Its wreck has long been known to be in relatively shallow water offshore Ireland. Surely that would not be dismissed as "not hard evidence", even tho' no CathInfo member can travel to Ireland and just go stare at it [†]?
The CIA sank it. The Russians were way more advanced than the USA but it definitely was the CIA that sank it, not the KGB. Because Sribel and Kaysing said so.