Author Topic: Why the Moon Landings were a hoax (Read 6450 times)

Matthew · « **on:** February 08, 2017, 10:20:09 PM »

1. The feat has never been repeated -- not by any of the countries that have the technology to do so (European Union, China, Russia, India, Japan, etc.)

2. Related to #1, it has been almost FIFTY YEARS since the famous Apollo 11 Moon Landing.

3. The Moon Landings were a statistical aberration. When you take a person's temperature and you get 99, 98, 500, 97, 100, and 98, it is basic Statistics 101 to remove the obvious aberration (the "500"), writing it off as an anomaly.

Nothing even close in achievement to the alleged Moon Landings has happened in the past 50 years. We haven't so much as ventured out of low Earth orbit during recent memory. Therefore, the claimed "Moon Landings" never happened.

4. There are many pieces of evidence as well -- evidence from the videos, the lifelong reticence/low profile of Neil Armstrong, etc.

5. One excuse they actually give (which, once disproven, proves them to be duplicitous liars) is that "as the series of Moon Landings went on, the American public became bored with them. Eventually, one of the moon landings had lower ratings than ______ (some show, I forgot the name)."

My response: I'm sorry, but no one who isn't retirement age can even REMEMBER the alleged Moon Landings at this point. You can't tell me that Millennials, Generation Y, Generation X, etc. are sick of all the Moon Landings on TV. During their whole lifetime, there has never been one. A boy who was 10 years old when Neil Armstrong "landed on the Moon" in 1969 would be 58 years old today!

For anyone younger than that, they have to take the "Moon Landings" on human faith.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #1 on:** February 08, 2017, 11:04:56 PM »

Someone asked an astronaut how their space suits could have been kept within bearable limits of temperature (when the moon's surface in sunlight is over 200 degrees Fahrenheit). His answer was "air conditioning."

But no one has ever produced any description of what kind of machine could condition (cool) the air inside a space suit.

Air conditioners need to have a way to dissipate heat, which is usually ambient atmospheric air, but there is no atmosphere on the moon. Nor did they carry around a tank of water that would absorb the heat. That would have been extremely heavy.

When standing in sunlight the space suits would be soaring hot, enough to cook the astronauts inside like in an oven, and then as soon as they step into the shadow of the lunar lander, their temperature would dive to over 100 degrees below freezing and they would then become a block of solid frozen body. Yet nobody ever asked, as far as I know, about how to keep the astronauts warm in such frigid conditions. They did not run back and forth from sunlight to shadow, but played around in direct sunlight for extended periods, including when they used their "lunar rover."

The lunar rover ran on batteries, which had no heat shields, and would have had to operate in ambient 200-deg. heat. Do you know of any batteries that can do that?

The Hasselblad cameras they claim to have used had very sensitive switches, including the shutter release, which no one has ever demonstrated could have been operated while wearing those cuмbersome space suit gloves. Nor were the astronauts able to look into the viewfinders. In fact, the special models used for the moon landings had the viewfinder mirrors removed. The camera was attached to the front of a space suit, so the operator would have been entirely GUESSING at what the camera was pointing at, and how it was focused, and yet, there were no BAD PHOTOS shown to anyone. The film inside the cameras would have been subject to solar radiation and heat far beyond the range of any photographic emulsion film ever devised. What kind of film were they using, a magic film?

When you ask about the Van Allen belts you get a lot of funny side-stepping. Recently a NASA spokesman said in a promo that they're still working on how to penetrate the belts to keep the astronauts from dangerous radiation. That's 50 years after the Apollo flights.

Matthew · « **Reply #2 on:** February 09, 2017, 02:14:17 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Someone asked an astronaut how their space suits could have been kept within bearable limits of temperature (when the moon's surface in sunlight is over 200 degrees Fahrenheit). His answer was "air conditioning."

But no one has ever produced any description of what kind of machine could condition (cool) the air inside a space suit.

Air conditioners need to have a way to dissipate heat, which is usually ambient atmospheric air, but there is no atmosphere on the moon. Nor did they carry around a tank of water that would absorb the heat. That would have been extremely heavy.

When standing in sunlight the space suits would be soaring hot, enough to cook the astronauts inside like in an oven, and then as soon as they step into the shadow of the lunar lander, their temperature would dive to over 100 degrees below freezing and they would then become a block of solid frozen body. Yet nobody ever asked, as far as I know, about how to keep the astronauts warm in such frigid conditions. They did not run back and forth from sunlight to shadow, but played around in direct sunlight for extended periods, including when they used their "lunar rover."

The lunar rover ran on batteries, which had no heat shields, and would have had to operate in ambient 200-deg. heat. Do you know of any batteries that can do that?

The Hasselblad cameras they claim to have used had very sensitive switches, including the shutter release, which no one has ever demonstrated could have been operated while wearing those cuмbersome space suit gloves. Nor were the astronauts able to look into the viewfinders. In fact, the special models used for the moon landings had the viewfinder mirrors removed. The camera was attached to the front of a space suit, so the operator would have been entirely GUESSING at what the camera was pointing at, and how it was focused, and yet, there were no BAD PHOTOS shown to anyone. The film inside the cameras would have been subject to solar radiation and heat far beyond the range of any photographic emulsion film ever devised. What kind of film were they using, a magic film?

When you ask about the Van Allen belts you get a lot of funny side-stepping. Recently a NASA spokesman said in a promo that they're still working on how to penetrate the belts to keep the astronauts from dangerous radiation. That's 50 years after the Apollo flights.

Very good points.

And let's not forget what kind of technology they had in the late 60's. Quite primitive by today's standards.

Of course, they've been puttering around in low earth orbit for 50+ years. They must have some kind of space suit to protect from heat and/or cold. But I don't know how those suits compare to the Apollo suits.

You brought up a good point though -- no batteries would power an A/C unit powerful enough to deal with 200+ degree temperatures. Do you have any idea how much power A/C uses? When it's 100 degrees outside and you have your central A/C set to 80, the unit runs almost constantly. And when it runs, BOY DOES IT EVER suck electricity! What kind of battery did they have in the 1960's that could deliver that kind of Amp-hours? I don't believe it.

Anyone who believes the "magic battery" myth has never worked with solar panel/off-grid electricity systems. I have.

In 2017, (2) 6V golf cart batteries would deliver 230 AH, but they weigh a total of 150 pounds. That wouldn't power any kind of A/C compressor for more than an hour. And how did they recharge them?

Oh, there are a couple other problems as well:
1. The faster you drain batteries the LESS total AH you get. That 230 is the TWENTY HOUR rate -- if you drain the battery over the course of 20 hours. The 5 hour and 1 hour rates are much less.

2. You can't bring a battery down to 100% discharge without permanently damaging the battery. Usually you only go down to 50%, even on deep-cycle batteries (which is what we're talking about).

And I doubt any 12V A/C compressor could deliver much oomph -- enough to fight outside temps of 200+ degrees.

That lunar lander had pretty good performance for a battery powered car. And that wasn't a Prius they were driving (with a bank of batteries). Where would they have hidden a bank of batteries on that lunar buggy? And again, what about heat/radiation shielding and recharging?

Heat is to batteries what Kryptonite is to Superman. It reduces battery capacity dramatically, especially past a certain temperature.

Matthew · « **Reply #3 on:** February 09, 2017, 02:31:08 PM »

Where could they fit a single 12V car battery on these things? Did it have a regular gas engine (running on the Moon, a place with no air) or what?

Give me a break.

And they claimed to drive quite a distance too -- how many Amp-hours would that take? More than that vehicle has hidden away, I'll guarantee you that.

The kind of batteries that make a HUMAN-SIZED VEHICLE travel a number of KILOMETERS are not that small.

Matthew · « **Reply #4 on:** February 09, 2017, 02:47:05 PM »

And they had attachments on that thing too, like a tractor! A drill assembly?

Must have been a pretty tiny drill diameter, to be running off battery power. And considering gravity is only 1/6 of earth's gravity, you don't get as much "assistance" from gravity while drilling. Anyone who's used any kind of drill knows what I'm talking about. You have to PUSH a bit into what you're drilling. Or else you need that drill to have thousands of RPM to make up for it -- which takes even more power.

I want to know where the ENGINE is that made this vehicle "go", and what was its power source.

Cera · « **Reply #5 on:** February 09, 2017, 04:31:39 PM »

It is obvious that the moon landings were faked. The question in my mind has always been, why? In combination with endless movies about aliens, yada yada, it has become clear.

When the demons/ fallen angels/ Nephalim appear, their cover story will be that they are aliens from a galaxy far far away and they are the ones (as in the movie 2001) who originally implanted life on earth, and they have returned to set up a political, religious and economic nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr.

Prior to the onslaught of movies and other pop culture regarding so-called space aliens, demons would have been recognized for what they are. The lie that science has traveled to the moon and other far reaches of outer space in necessary for this fake narrative to float.

mw2016 · « **Reply #6 on:** February 09, 2017, 05:48:45 PM »

This video is LOADS of fun. Buzz Aldrin's reactions are priceless. He's so BUSTED!

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/CYXn6VZ98hI[/youtube]

mw2016 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 09, 2017, 05:57:47 PM »

I remember first seeing the lunar module at the Smithsonian in D.C. in 1994 and thinking it was utterly impossible. The thing was not very big, the size of maybe a large van, and it looks like it was made out of curtain rods and gold tinfoil.

I could not help but thinking at the time that it seemed entirely improbable that the thing had traveled 240,000 miles through space and BACK. Ridiculous.

mw2016 · « **Reply #8 on:** February 09, 2017, 06:04:08 PM »

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]

mw2016 · « **Reply #9 on:** February 09, 2017, 06:05:47 PM »

Look at all the dopes showing up to "thumbs down" those of us who don't believe NASA's lies.

TKGS · « **Reply #10 on:** February 09, 2017, 06:19:10 PM »

Quote from: Cera

It is obvious that the moon landings were faked. The question in my mind has always been, why?

I am still not convinced that the moon landings were faked, but neither am I convinced that the moon landings were authentic. On the moon landings, I'm really at that point before I accepted the truth of sedevacantism. The thesis was so reasonable but seemed so impossible. In any event, at this time, call me an agnostic as far as whether man truly landed on the moon.

But you ask why would the U.S. government do this? The only reason was to beat the Soviet Union in space. The Soviets beat the U.S. into space. The Soviets beat the U.S. in sending a man into space. The U.S. had to beat the Soviets in something important lest the United States lose more ground in the Cold War. And it had to be accomplished by the end of the decade in order to fulfill the dream of the popular president who had proposed the feat and had been αssαssιnαtҽd by...well, the Communists, of course.

noOneImportant · « **Reply #11 on:** February 09, 2017, 06:24:26 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

1. The feat has never been repeated -- not by any of the countries that have the technology to do so (European Union, China, Russia, India, Japan, etc.)

2. Related to #1, it has been almost FIFTY YEARS since the famous Apollo 11 Moon Landing.

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.

Quote

3. The Moon Landings were a statistical aberration. When you take a person's temperature and you get 99, 98, 500, 97, 100, and 98, it is basic Statistics 101 to remove the obvious aberration (the "500"), writing it off as an anomaly.

Nothing even close in achievement to the alleged Moon Landings has happened in the past 50 years. We haven't so much as ventured out of low Earth orbit during recent memory. Therefore, the claimed "Moon Landings" never happened.

This is a stupid argument. There is a reason to go into low Earth orbit (you can leave things there in stable orbit for years at a time, i.e. satellites), but then there is nothing between there and the moon. Feel free to do the math, it's not very complicated, but there aren't that many distances one can place a stable orbit at, and why the hell would anyone ever go halfway to the moon? There's nothing but empty space there. Fun...

So you either go into stable orbit, or you go out far enough to find something, i.e. the moon. This is like calling the fact that no one ever stops along highway 15 between Salt Lake City and Vegas a "statistical anomaly". You know what there is in that space? A whole lot of desert and not much else.

The rest of this post is pure rationalizations and nonsense.

If you start by assuming the landing are false and set out to prove as much, it's easy to find lots of "inconsistencies and anomalies" that don't hold up to scrutiny.

Matto · « **Reply #12 on:** February 09, 2017, 06:26:52 PM »

I love conspiracy theories and believe many of them. I would have no problem in believing that the moon landings were a hoax, though I don't know enough about it now to have an informed opinion. I still do not believe Michelle Obama is a man though.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #13 on:** February 09, 2017, 10:05:01 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

And they had attachments on that thing too, like a tractor! A drill assembly?

Must have been a pretty tiny drill diameter, to be running off battery power. And considering gravity is only 1/6 of earth's gravity, you don't get as much "assistance" from gravity while drilling. Anyone who's used any kind of drill knows what I'm talking about. You have to PUSH a bit into what you're drilling. Or else you need that drill to have thousands of RPM to make up for it -- which takes even more power.

I want to know where the ENGINE is that made this vehicle "go", and what was its power source.

There isn't any arrow pointing to a motor or a battery.
Only one mention of "power pack" and that's for the camera.
Notice the color TV camera does not identify any power pack attached.
That set of boxes between the rear wheels is not identified.
Maybe that's where they packed all the drive train components?

The Toyota Prius (car) runs on Lithium-Ion batteries, a technology that did not exist before 1980, so the lunar rover's batteries would have had to be lead-acid, like most cars still use today. Li-ion are FAR more compact, and the Prius batteries are 3 times larger than that boxy zone between the rear wheels, which would also have to house the MOTOR or MOTORS. Looks to me like it's entirely FANTASY that box could pack batteries and motors for the lunar rover.

How about the lunar rover(s) at museums like Smithsonian -- do they have the motor compartment on display? Probably not.

Any lead-acid battery that is less than 50% charged is highly susceptible to failure due to low temperature, that is, below 32 degrees F. I have no idea what the upper limits are but over 150 deg. F. would seem to be getting into trouble.

So the lunar rover batteries would only have been useful in the top half of their charge, and as you say, they had no way of recharging them. The diagram doesn't mention solar cells, for example, and the lunar landing module had no solar cells either.

Take a look at the Space Station and various probes, pictures of which have been published since Apollo. They all have solar cell panels. So why not Apollo?

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #14 on:** February 09, 2017, 10:20:30 PM »

The power pack for the camera would either have been common lead-acid or else alkaline battery or perhaps nickle-cadmium (Ni-Cd rechargeable) but not silver oxide or lithium, as those were camera and watch batteries that were developed after Apollo's time.

Source

Quote

?Sony's Path to the Development of Mercury-free Batteries?
1977 Sony begins manufacturing silver oxide batteries
1978 Manufacture of alkaline button batteries begins
1982 First lithium button batteries produced
1991 Sony begins manufacturing mercury-free manganese dry-cell batteries.
1992 Manufacture of mercury-free alkaline dry-cell batteries begins.
2004 Sony announces mercury-free silver oxide battery.
2005 Manufacture of mercury-free silver oxide batteries begins.
2009 Sony announces and begins manufacturing mercury-free alkaline button batteries

As I recall, alkaline batteries like D, C, AA and AAA cells were used in the 1960's but Sony developed the alkaline button cells in 1978.