Author Topic: We never went to the Moon - proof (Read 6712 times)

Matthew · « **on:** May 28, 2016, 01:07:57 PM »

This video was very good.

If your instinctive reaction is to reject anything critical of the Moon Landing, please watch this anyhow. I learned a few things.

Just watch one of the astronauts blow up when confronted with incontrovertible proof that a hoax was perpetrated.

And there is LOTS of good evidence here that all the moon landings were a hoax.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/VhLSY5Kr7hA[/youtube]

Matto · « **Reply #1 on:** May 28, 2016, 01:12:52 PM »

I thought it was funny when Father Gardner, the priest at my chapel, mentioned during one of his sermons that some people believe we never went to the moon.

Matthew · « **Reply #2 on:** May 28, 2016, 01:29:44 PM »

I've watched videos before, and seen much of the evidence, and come to the conclusion that the Moon Landings were a hoax.

However, I learned a few things in this video.

FOR EXAMPLE --

One of the astronauts claimed that they stayed cool for THREE DAYS on the moon thanks to "big batteries" onboard the LEM.

You got to be kidding me! BATTERIES? Seriously? I almost laughed out loud when he said that. I was embarrassed for him, it was such a silly lie.

The moon has no atmosphere, and it gets cooked by the sun on the daylight side -- up to 250 degrees F. And with no atmosphere, you can't use convection to draw off heat. You'd have to re-RADIATE the heat away. The amount of energy that would take far exceeds what could be stored in a few batteries, however large. And this was in 1970 remember.

I've done solar panel systems with deep cycle batteries before. I am well aware of how much electricity A/C takes -- but again, you can't use standard A/C on the moon because of the complete lack of atmosphere.

And how did those space suits hide a magic battery, enough to keep away the 250 degrees for HOURS AND HOURS at a time?

Matthew · « **Reply #3 on:** May 28, 2016, 01:31:14 PM »

Quote from: Matto

I thought it was funny when Father Gardner, the priest at my chapel, mentioned during one of his sermons that some people believe we never went to the moon.

I don't find it surprising AT ALL that Fr. Gardner is one of those who is content to stay with the neo-SSPX and ignore all the evidence they are doing a sellout.

+Williamson is right. Truth is truth, and a person who will ignore a truth about nature (moon landings, 9/11) is likely to ignore other truths as well.

Why discriminate against some truths? Truth should be sought by our intellect IN ALL THINGS, not just sometimes, or when it comes to religious truths.

qeddeq · « **Reply #4 on:** May 28, 2016, 01:46:17 PM »

Over the course of a full lunar day and night, the temperature on the Moon can vary wildly, from around +200 to -200 degrees Celsius (+392 to -328 degrees Fahrenheit), so it’s natural to wonder how lunar astronauts survived this huge temperature variation.

The first thing to know is that all trips on to the Moon’s surface were carefully planned for lunar dawn, to ensure the surface hadn’t had time to heat up fully to its daytime temperature. It is also important to think about how heat can be transferred to astronauts on the lunar surface.

There are three ways heat can transfer and only two are possible on the Moon. The first is radiation, both directly from the Sun and from the Sun’s reflection on the surface. The astronauts’ spacesuits were designed to reflect almost 90% of the light that reaches it, so very little heat would have transferred to the astronauts.

The second is by conduction from the direct contact their feet had with the surface. This is also an ineffective process as regolith on the lunar surface doesn’t conduct heat well and the astronauts’ boots were insulated, slowing down conduction even further. This shows that even though huge temperature variations occur on the Moon, lunar astronauts were never actually exposed to them.

very funny matthew, trying to bait us. I guess I got baited.

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #5 on:** May 28, 2016, 02:13:00 PM »

I wonder if geddeg is Icterus (a banned previous CathInfo member)?

He posts and comments on a lot of the same issues as Icterus, and despite geddeg's deliberate grammar mistakes (not capitalizing the beginning of sentences) as a means to throw off the observer, the writing style is similar.

:detective:

Matthew · « **Reply #6 on:** May 28, 2016, 10:45:53 PM »

Funny how Hollywood always likes to leak their secret by means of movies.

Remember the movie Wag the Dog?

Now I find out there was a movie about a faked landing in 1977.

"Capricorn One"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077294/

LaramieHirsch · « **Reply #7 on:** May 29, 2016, 07:12:20 AM »

Fascinating. Thumbs up on this one. No idea what to believe these days.

RomanCatholic1953 · « **Reply #8 on:** May 29, 2016, 08:40:33 AM »

I wondered about the Van Allen belt that lead me to doubt the so called moon
landing and walk of 1969.
I remember watching the moon walk on live TV and remembered a discussion
of the Van Allen Radiation Belt in a High School Science class earlier in the decade
of the 1960's. That Man cannot ever go to the moon nor any other planet.
Because it is not possible.

From Wikipedia is more on the Van Allen belt:

Van Allen radiation belt
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
File:Van Allen Belts.ogv
This video illustrates changes in the shape and intensity of a cross section of the Van Allen belts

Van Allen radiation belts (cross section)
A radiation belt is a layer of energetic charged particles that is held in place around a magnetized planet, such as the Earth, by the planet's magnetic field. The Earth has two such belts and sometimes others may be temporarily created. The discovery of the belts is credited to James Van Allen, and as a result the Earth's belts are known as the Van Allen belts. The main belts extend from an altitude of about 1,000 to 60,000 kilometers above the surface in which region radiation levels vary. Most of the particles that form the belts are thought to come from solar wind and other particles by cosmic rays.[1] The belts are located in the inner region of the Earth's magnetosphere. The belts contain energetic electrons and protons. Other nuclei, such as alpha particles, are less prevalent. The belts endanger satellites, which must protect their sensitive components with adequate shielding if they spend significant time in the radiation belts. In 2013, NASA reported that the Van Allen Probes had discovered a transient, third radiation belt, which was observed for four weeks until destroyed by a powerful, interplanetary shock wave from the Sun.[2]

Matthew · « **Reply #9 on:** May 29, 2016, 09:10:29 AM »

I like how one of the videos ended (I think it was the video I posted in the OP):

The narrator said that SCIENCE dictates that we discard the so-called "moon landings" as an aberration.

They haven't been duplicated, not even a fraction of what was accomplished, in 45 years!

What should a scientist think of data like this:

300, 250, 300, 300, 250, 240000, 300, 300, 250, 300, 300, 250, 300, 300, 250, 300, 300, 250, 300, 300, 250, 300, (many hundreds of times)...

That "240000" datum was obviously a mistake!

Those numbers represent how far from the earth our astronauts have traveled -- always to low earth orbit. All the missions took place there (Skylab, ISS, Mir, Space Shuttle, etc.) The moon, however, is 240,000 miles away.

He mentioned that the Wright Brothers, Charles Lindbergh, Sputnik, ALL those breakthroughs were followed up with many more like it. We didn't go 45 years without an airplane taking off. And look how many rocket launches into low earth orbit we've had since Sputnik!

Also, look at the Apollo missions -- we supposedly went to the moon several times, the missions often being just months apart. Going to the Moon is no big deal apparently! But now it's such a big deal that NO COUNTRY has gone there in 45 years? That doesn't make sense.

It also doesn't make sense that they haven't done it in over a generation. You can't say that "the people" are sick of Moon landings, any more than you can leave CathInfo because of "the membership" and stay gone for 5 years.

That is because "the people" completely change over the years. How many men and women can honestly say they're tired of news coverage about men on the moon? Why don't they send the first woman to the moon? Huh? Wouldn't that be a nice liberal breakthrough?

Anyone under 55 can't even remember the "moon landings". And that's a heck of a lot of people! Isn't NASA worried about an intellectual "brain drain" since effectively we never did it? How can they claim to have "experience" when every last person in the place has never been involved in a manned Moon mission? Experience doesn't reside in the walls of NASA or its computers. It resides in the PEOPLE who work there. Do they really have a bunch of 80 and 90 year olds working there as consultants in case they want to go back to the Moon again?

Because a 55 year old might remember seeing the Moon Landing on TV, but he was only 8 years old in 1969! Then men who worked at NASA at the time, including all the astronauts, were certainly much older.

Matthew · « **Reply #10 on:** May 29, 2016, 09:21:00 AM »

And no one is suspicious about this:

The Russians were kicking our butt in the Space Race seven ways from Sunday:
First satellite
First animal in space
First man in space
First 2 spacecraft in orbit at once
etc.

In short, the USA was having its butt handed to them by the Russians in the Space Race.

...But then the underdog USA comes from behind to land a knockout blow!

Wow...it's like Rocky IV! that kind of dramatic turnaround, that kind of surprise win by the underdog is worthy of a Hollywood movie!

RomanCatholic1953 · « **Reply #11 on:** May 29, 2016, 10:28:03 PM »

Quote from: LaramieHirsch

Fascinating. Thumbs up on this one. No idea what to believe these days.

It is like the propaganda that were taught as school children all the way
to college-university as true turns out to be false.
Today, it is much easier to decipher the truth because of the computer age.
One good you tube can tell if a a fαℓѕє fℓαg was real or a staged event.
About the moon landing in which I watched myself on live TV in 1969
now has some holes into it, and the Van Allen Belt is barely discussed.
Because the American public is so dumb down and the science class
rarely discusses any non government approved propaganda topics.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #12 on:** May 30, 2016, 12:17:59 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

I've watched videos before, and seen much of the evidence, and come to the conclusion that the Moon Landings were a hoax.

However, I learned a few things in this video.

FOR EXAMPLE --

One of the astronauts claimed that they stayed cool for THREE DAYS on the moon thanks to "big batteries" onboard the LEM.

You got to be kidding me! BATTERIES? Seriously? I almost laughed out loud when he said that. I was embarrassed for him, it was such a silly lie.

The moon has no atmosphere, and it gets cooked by the sun on the daylight side -- up to 250 degrees F. And with no atmosphere, you can't use convection to draw off heat. You'd have to re-RADIATE the heat away. The amount of energy that would take far exceeds what could be stored in a few batteries, however large. And this was in 1970 remember.

I've done solar panel systems with deep cycle batteries before. I am well aware of how much electricity A/C takes -- but again, you can't use standard A/C on the moon because of the complete lack of atmosphere.

And how did those space suits hide a magic battery, enough to keep away the 250 degrees for HOURS AND HOURS at a time?

I don't think there is any system, even today, that can cool a space suit or a landing craft using batteries for power. Batteries provide electricity which HEATS not cools. Notice the astronaut did not mention the type of system the batteries are said to have powered. All electrically powered cooling systems in use today are heat pumps which use refrigerant to move heat from one area to another area, so what area would the space suit deliver the heat to? The ambient temperature around the spacesuit would have been hotter than the suit itself, and heat only flows from hot to cold, so the refrigerant would have to be hotter than ambient temperature. With the efficiency loss, you'd need to have refrigerant at 15 or 20 degrees hotter than the surface of the moon. There is no such refrigerant today, regardless of CFC's (chloroflourocarbons) or other banned materials. The astronaut did not mention refrigerant.

Here's one that uses a "chilled water reservoir" to cool a person's vest. But where would astronauts get chilled water on the moon? BTW the battery powers a PUMP that circulates the chilled water, but it does not make the water cool. Once the water in the reservoir is heated up, there is no more cooling.

So how did this mysterious battery-powered cooling system supposedly work?

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #13 on:** May 30, 2016, 12:29:44 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

And no one is suspicious about this:

The Russians were kicking our butt in the Space Race seven ways from Sunday:
First satellite
First animal in space
First man in space
First 2 spacecraft in orbit at once
etc.

In short, the USA was having its butt handed to them by the Russians in the Space Race.

...But then the underdog USA comes from behind to land a knockout blow!

Wow...it's like Rocky IV! that kind of dramatic turnaround, that kind of surprise win by the underdog is worthy of a Hollywood movie!

Russia (called the "USSR" then) was real good at lying, an "error of Russia." Recall the major newspaper "Pravda" (translated means "Truth") is packed with the opposite of the truth.

It's the fulfillment of the Fatima prophesy that the errors of Russia will be spread to the world, including the USA.

"But then the underdog USA comes from behind to land a knockout blow!" -- Remember, the first so-called moon landing happened only 2 years after the Apollo 1 human sacrifice of Virgil "Gus" Grissom, Edward White and Roger Chaffee in 1967. Grissom was recorded asking, "How are we going to get to the moon if we can't talk between 3 buildings?" So, of course, he had to die for that one. Since then, astronauts don't dare criticize the Program.

noOneImportant · « **Reply #14 on:** May 31, 2016, 03:36:51 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

What should a scientist think of data like this:

300, 250, 300, 300, 250, 240000, 300, 300, 250, 300, 300, 250, 300, 300, 250, 300, 300, 250, 300, 300, 250, 300, (many hundreds of times)...

That "240000" datum was obviously a mistake!

I would call it an anomaly, not a mistake. Could be a mistake, but assuming it is a priori would be foolish.

Quote from: Matthew

In short, the USA was having its butt handed to them by the Russians in the Space Race.

...But then the underdog USA comes from behind to land a knockout blow!

Wow...it's like Rocky IV! that kind of dramatic turnaround, that kind of surprise win by the underdog is worthy of a Hollywood movie!

Leaving everything else aside for a moment, this there is actually a good explanation for. In 1892 a Russian mathematician by the name of Aleksandr Lyapunov published a book titled The General Problem of Stability of Motion. This paper was completely revolutionary in the analysis of differential equations, but went mostly unnoticed at the time of its publication (why: there were lots of hugely important mathematicians running around Russia at the time, and it was hard to get noticed).

The contents of this book are an essential part of the mathematical framework needed to get a vehicle into space. However, although they were (partially) translated into French in 1908, the result did not appear in English until 1960. Within 10 years, the US managed to catch up and pass Russia in the space race.

I could provide sources for all of this if anyone wants, but you'll probably have to take my word for it on the importance of this particular work. It's hard to explain it's significance without going into a lot of detail on differential equations :)