Author Topic: Why the Moon Landings were a hoax (Read 6451 times)

Matthew · « **Reply #15 on:** February 10, 2017, 09:33:23 AM »

And I'm sure some of you have realized this odd coincidence:

Novus Ordo Mass released and imposed on the Catholic world: 1969
Apollo 11 "moon landing" hoax took place: 1969

mw2016 · « **Reply #16 on:** February 10, 2017, 09:59:33 AM »

Quote from: noOneImportant

There is no real incentive to return. This is a weak argument at best. Begs the question of why anyone would want to have gone in the first place, but that can easily be attributed to the "Everest Effect", i.e. to see if we can do it.

THIS is a stupid argument.

Everest has turned into Grand Central Station, with a continual stream of people crowding up and down the mountain. So, under your argument, NASA never should have STOPPED going to the moon.

In fact, under YOUR argument, nearly 50 years later, we should by now be seeing civilian "sight-seeing" shuttles taking people back and forth to the moon!

Just like we do at Mt. Everest...

*mic drop*

noOneImportant · « **Reply #17 on:** February 10, 2017, 04:36:49 PM »

Quote from: mw2016

Quote from: noOneImportant

There is no real incentive to return. This is a weak argument at best. Begs the question of why anyone would want to have gone in the first place, but that can easily be attributed to the "Everest Effect", i.e. to see if we can do it.

THIS is a stupid argument.

Everest has turned into Grand Central Station, with a continual stream of people crowding up and down the mountain. So, under your argument, NASA never should have STOPPED going to the moon.

In fact, under YOUR argument, nearly 50 years later, we should by now be seeing civilian "sight-seeing" shuttles taking people back and forth to the moon!

Just like we do at Mt. Everest...

*mic drop*

Climbing Everest costs ~100k, max. The Apollo missions had budgets in the billions. How many people in the world have billions lying around that they can just throw around like that? A small handful, max. Pick your mic back up.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #18 on:** February 10, 2017, 05:48:23 PM »

Quote from: noOneImportant

Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: noOneImportant

There is no real incentive to return. This is a weak argument at best. Begs the question of why anyone would want to have gone in the first place, but that can easily be attributed to the "Everest Effect", i.e. to see if we can do it.

THIS is a stupid argument.

Everest has turned into Grand Central Station, with a continual stream of people crowding up and down the mountain. So, under your argument, NASA never should have STOPPED going to the moon.

In fact, under YOUR argument, nearly 50 years later, we should by now be seeing civilian "sight-seeing" shuttles taking people back and forth to the moon!

Just like we do at Mt. Everest...

*mic drop*

Climbing Everest costs ~100k, max. The Apollo missions had budgets in the billions. How many people in the world have billions lying around that they can just throw around like that? A small handful, max. Pick your mic back up.

100K? I saw a TV commercial where Dora the Explorer got there without even changing her clothes. :wink:

Matthew · « **Reply #19 on:** February 10, 2017, 10:25:48 PM »

The trip itself didn't cost "billions". A lot of that was research and development, building the launch facility, equipping "Houston" with all manner of equipment (the famous "Houston" as in "Houston, we have a problem")

You only have to buy a lot of that stuff once.

Here is the real argument:

You have commercial companies already taking people to the edge of space, or low earth orbit, for a reasonable fee for a rich person.

The biggest cost is escaping Earth's gravity. Once you're in orbit, it would just take a bit more propulsion to shoot towards the moon, and then you COAST there. It isn't like driving a car, where you quickly come to a stop due to friction. There is no air in space, hence virtually zero friction. You only need a bit of thrust to slow your speed when you arrive, to enter into lunar orbit.

And who said a rich person would go by himself to the moon? They would probably have to wait until they have 10-20 such people to make the trip economical.

But all that assumes that the Van Allen radiation belts aren't lethal to humans -- which they unfortunately are. That's why humans will always be stuck right here on Earth, right where God created and placed us. No Star Trek for us.

cassini · « **Reply #20 on:** February 11, 2017, 09:38:46 AM »

Quote from: mw2016

Also, this footage always bothered me because the camera IS ON THE MOON, and the film canister is IN THE CAMERA...which is ON THE MOON.

So, if the lunar module with the astronauts has just taken off back to earth, HOW did they get the FILM CANISTER off the SURFACE OF THE MOON???

Also, the camera pans upward and follows the lunar module skyward. So, who is OPERATING THE CAMERA if no one is on the surface of the moon?

And, besides all that...the footage just looks completely FAKE.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/sj6a0Wrrh1g[/youtube]

Wow, that said, I get images on my TV that are beamed live from all around the world. Was this film beamed to earth from the camera. Only asking.

TKGS · « **Reply #21 on:** February 11, 2017, 11:05:42 AM »

At the time, the moving cameras purported to be used were television cameras, not film cameras. While there are a lot of issues to ask about, simply asking about film inside a television camera makes one look pretty darn stupid. Television cameras, even in the 1970s, that broadcast live feeds (and such did exist at the time--the networks would often tell us something was "live, via satellite") did not contain film canisters.

Now, as shown by various posters above, asking about the camera's power source and how the batteries would have held a charge given the technology of the day and the extreme temperatures they would have had to contend with is a legitimate question.

mw2016 · « **Reply #22 on:** February 11, 2017, 02:32:57 PM »

Quote from: cassini

Wow, that said, I get images on my TV that are beamed live from all around the world. Was this film beamed to earth from the camera. Only asking.

No, that tech did not exist in 1969.

mw2016 · « **Reply #23 on:** February 11, 2017, 02:44:48 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

At the time, the moving cameras purported to be used were television cameras, not film cameras. While there are a lot of issues to ask about, simply asking about film inside a television camera makes one look pretty darn stupid. Television cameras, even in the 1970s, that broadcast live feeds (and such did exist at the time--the networks would often tell us something was "live, via satellite") did not contain film canisters.

Television networks broadcast all live programming through a PHYSICAL coaxial cable network in the 1960's. There was no MEANS to transmit anything through the air.

Therefore, if you can't do it across 3,000 miles of the landmass of the USA, you certainly CANNOT do it over 240,000 miles of space to the moon and back.

Hence, ALL the footage of the "moon landings" was FILMED. Meaning, none of it is "real," or actually took place on the surface of the moon. It means it all took place on a soundstage somewhere ON EARTH.

Cera · « **Reply #24 on:** February 11, 2017, 02:46:17 PM »

Very interesting video:

mw2016 · « **Reply #25 on:** February 11, 2017, 03:00:08 PM »

Also, UHF signals were only to transmit from the station source, and were very limited in range (about 60 miles) and required too much power, were expensive, and were very poor in quality.

So, no - it could not have been done via UHF signal either, in the 1960's.

mw2016 · « **Reply #26 on:** February 11, 2017, 03:11:06 PM »

Of course, NASA lost the original transmission tapes - how convenient.

Quote

After schmoozing his way into the stacks and sifting through boxes for months, Lebar found evidence that more than 140,000 tapes from the Apollo era had been checked out of the Records Center between 1979 and 1985 and sent back to the Goddard Space Flight Center. But from there, Lebar fell straight into a black hole. At Goddard, there was no record of where the footage had gone. So the tape hunters hit the phones and the Net, scouring the globe for Goddard retirees who might recall the boxes. It didn't go well. "We're dealing with memories here," Nafzger says, "and those are pretty frail."

https://www.wired.com/2007/01/nasa/

mw2016 · « **Reply #27 on:** February 11, 2017, 03:16:33 PM »

Also, satellites for television transmission did not even begin until 1972!

Quote

The first commercial North American satellite to carry television transmissions was Canada's geostationary Anik 1, which was launched on 9 November 1972.[43] ATS-6, the world's first experimental educational and Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), was launched on 30 May 1974.[44] It transmitted at 860 MHz using wideband FM modulation and had two sound channels. The transmissions were focused on the Indian subcontinent but experimenters were able to receive the signal in Western Europe using home constructed equipment that drew on UHF television design techniques already in use.[45]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_television

TKGS · « **Reply #28 on:** February 11, 2017, 03:47:51 PM »

Quote from: mw2016

Also, satellites for television transmission did not even begin until 1972!

The video that is being questions was from the Apollo 17 mission which launched on December 7, 1972.

If commercial satellite transmissions began anytime in 1972, then the technology would have been available for this NASA mission.

The problem with you kids is that when someone with actual memories of events tells you something you don't like, you run to Wikipedia to "prove" your elders wrong rather than accept that you may not really know everything.

mw2016 · « **Reply #29 on:** February 11, 2017, 03:55:59 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

The problem with you kids is that when someone with actual memories of events tells you something you don't like, you run to Wikipedia to "prove" your elders wrong rather than accept that you may not really know everything.

This is akin to saying, "I believe it cuz I saw it on the teevee!"

The ability of satellites to transmit data is also only over very short distances. Satellites would not have helped in the Apollo missions.