For all you who dont think we went to the moon

[the itinerant shrubber]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MJyUDpm9Kvk

[stelios]

NASA has not carried anyone to the moon and back.
The moon landings fairy tale is a hoax.

[haukipesukone]

Whom are you referring to with "we"? I've never been to the moon. Or have I...? Lot's of weird stuff did happen that Friday 3 years ago...

[darketernal]

I've no doubt, given my own background, that we have had the technology to go to the moon long before any of us were born, or prior to 1960. The question in my mind is, did we go there for the Apollo mission using the technology NASA claims we did, and is all the photographic and film evidence actually done on the moon? After all NASA is nothing more than a public relations office for the masses, which uses antiquated technology and pretends it is state-of-the-art.

I think the people who argue this conspircy on both sides of the argument are generally very ignorant, like most people, of the massive gap between the technology we are told our governments possess and that which they actually possess and utilize.

[armoured_amazon]

we have had the technology to go to the moon long before any of us were born, or prior to 1960. The question in my mind is, did we go there for the Apollo mission using the technology NASA claims we did, and is all the photographic and film evidence actually done on the moon? After all NASA is nothing more than a public relations office for the masses, which uses antiquated technology and pretends it is state-of-the-art.

I agree. If anyone thinks that the tin can NASA effort passed through the Van Allen belt I'd like to hear how.

[jason_bourne]

I think we should ask 'What was the point of going to the moon?' and 'Why are countries such as India and China spending billions and billions to get there aswel?'
It's a load of bollocks if you ask me.

[shabun]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MJyUDpm9Kvk


M8 I dont think you know what you are letting yourself in for! Good luck!

[the itinerant shrubber]

I agree. If anyone thinks that the tin can NASA effort passed through the Van Allen belt I'd like to hear how.

Did they lock themselves inside a vacuum to fake this experiment too? LOL Faking the whole moon landing would be harder to do than just doing it for real and calling the Apollo missions "tin cans" shows complete ignorance and disrespect to human genius and achievement, and you obviously dont know how the van allen actually works.:rolleyes:

[shabun]

Did they lock themselves inside a vacuum to fake this experiment too? LOL Faking the whole moon landing would be harder to do than just doing it for real and calling the Apollo missions "tin cans" shows complete ignorance and disrespect to human genius and achievement, and you obviously dont know how the van allen actually works.:rolleyes:

I can confirm stelios doesn't know what he is on about. See the Apollo Moon Hoax thread (go to the last 4 pages) to see he is either a Troll or extremely dense.

[armoured_amazon]

Did they lock themselves inside a vacuum to fake this experiment too? LOL Faking the whole moon landing would be harder to do than just doing it for real and calling the Apollo missions "tin cans" shows complete ignorance and disrespect to human genius and achievement, and you obviously dont know how the van allen actually works.:rolleyes:

Ya reckon, sage?

[hagbard_celine]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MJyUDpm9Kvk


This can be easily faked. In fact David Percy reproduces it in his film What Happened on the Moon.

[freethinker]

hagbard - whats your opinion ?

do you think we went there or not ?


surely plenty of people watched the craft using a telescope at launch and on re-entry ?

[shabun]

hagbard - whats your opinion ?

do you think we went there or not ?


surely plenty of people watched the craft using a telescope at launch and on re-entry ?


See the main thread on the Apollo hoax. I have been having an interesting debate with him on this, but I think I can summarise that not only does he not believe it happened, he will not ever believe. Either that or he is winding me up.

[stelios]

I can confirm stelios doesn't know what he is on about. See the Apollo Moon Hoax thread (go to the last 4 pages) to see he is either a Troll or extremely dense.
You cant confirm jack.

After much study i came to the view that 50 years ago NASA did not send people 238,000 miles to the moon in a tin foil model.

Certainly looks like tin foil to the untrained eye

http://www.reformation.org/lunar-lander2.jpg

http://www.reformation.org/lunar-lander.jpg
Here is a Lunar lander from the 1953 science fiction book Conquest of the Moon written by Apollo chief Wernher von Braun.

And here is Wernher Von Braun at the day job before he became a sci-fi writer

http://www.reformation.org/ss-von-braun.jpg

The same people who keep pleading with us that NASA did send me to the moon provide us with zero evidence.
Yet call us 'conspiracy nuts'
They however, are believing in the Apollo fairy tale like it is a matter of faith.
Like the official 911 and 7/7 stories.

[armoured_amazon]

You cant confirm jack.

After much study i came to the view that 50 years ago NASA did not send people 238,000 miles to the moon in a tin foil model.

Certainly looks like tin foil to the untrained eye

http://www.reformation.org/lunar-lander2.jpg

http://www.reformation.org/lunar-lander.jpg
Here is a Lunar lander from the 1953 science fiction book Conquest of the Moon written by Apollo chief Wernher von Braun.

And here is Wernher Von Braun at the day job before he became a sci-fi writer

http://www.reformation.org/ss-von-braun.jpg

The same people who keep pleading with us that NASA did send me to the moon provide us with zero evidence.
Yet call us 'conspiracy nuts'
They however, are believing in the Apollo fairy tale like it is a matter of faith.
Like the official 911 and 7/7 stories.

Good post *claps*

[stelios]

http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect19/ApolloRover.JPG

ok,
they expect us to believe the Rover fitted inside the lander together with 3 astrozeros and their equipment and the fuel and the 3200lb thrust rockets and the space toilet
where?

http://wiredblogs.typepad.com/cultofmac/apollo11.jpg

Next question
Above is the Apollo 11 Lander, below is the Apollo 16 Lander
So whats the difference?
Apollo 11 had no Rover
Apollo 15-16 did have a Rover, yet the lander is essentially the same. So what did they make the rover from a mechano kit?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Apollo_16_LM.jpg

[tjohn]

This can be easily faked. In fact David Percy reproduces it in his film What Happened on the Moon.Yes and there's lots of evidence to show we didn't go to the moon – lots. Then we are shown one piece of evidence, which can be faked, to say that we did to the moon.

[shabun]

Yes and there's lots of evidence to show we didn't go to the moon – lots. Then we are shown one piece of evidence, which can be faked, to say that we did to the moon.

Could you please show me the evidence that we didn't go? Thanks.

[shabun]

http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect19/ApolloRover.JPG

ok,
they expect us to believe the Rover fitted inside the lander together with 3 astrozeros and their equipment and the fuel and the 3200lb thrust rockets and the space toilet
where?

http://wiredblogs.typepad.com/cultofmac/apollo11.jpg

Next question
Above is the Apollo 11 Lander, below is the Apollo 16 Lander
So whats the difference?
Apollo 11 had no Rover
Apollo 15-16 did have a Rover, yet the lander is essentially the same. So what did they make the rover from a mechano kit?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Apollo_16_LM.jpg

The rover was indeed something like a kit - it fitted inside the descent stage of the LEM (like all the other kit they played with) and had to be assembled.

Any btw only 2 astrozombies were in the LEM, the 3rd one stayed in moon orbit in the CM.

And finally there is no space toilet.

[stelios]

And finally there is no space toilet.

Brought the space turds back then for the museum?

[shabun]

Brought the space turds back then for the museum?

You may believe this one then. They actually did bring back their space turds for examination. Or maybe they did a masonic ritual on them.

[classified]

well for all you that are intrested in the moon go buy your self a telescope. and when you look on the moon do you think you would like to bee there and see how this other planet look like? so i think they war on the moon. ewerybody is spanding alot of money for space. and i think that they would like to see the moon for themselfs dont you think?

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/iangoddard/moon01.htm
ARE FAKE

[armoured_amazon]

I can't believe anyone thinks that thing went to the moon with equipment and occupants inside. Maybe it's like Mary Poppins' bag.

[shabun]

I can't believe anyone thinks that thing went to the moon with equipment and occupants inside. Maybe it's like Mary Poppins' bag.

Thats because your mind is closed. Anyway, they will be photographing the landing sites in April 2009 from the LRO mission, so you can prepare your "the photos are faked" comments now.

[armoured_amazon]

Thats because your mind is closed. Anyway, they will be photographing the landing sites in April 2009 from the LRO mission, so you can prepare your "the photos are faked" comments now.

Lmao, they've had ages to go stage some landing sites. That's assuming the 2009 photos are not done in a studio too.

[graflok]

Did they lock themselves inside a vacuum to fake this experiment too? LOL

You sure are easy to fool.

Do you also think that stage magicians really saw a lady in half? Or, that
the card you selected really travels by magic into the magicians pocket?
Or, that coins are really plucked from your ear?

And, is it really beyond your imagination how NASA could perform their silly
feather & hammer trick? My 8 year-old nephew easily duplicated it with a
toy hammer, a feather and a fishing sinker.

[lizzy]

Brought the space turds back then for the museum?

they became comprimised turds.......now promoting the UN's one world newage religion.

[shabun]

Lmao, they've had ages to go stage some landing sites. That's assuming the 2009 photos are not done in a studio too.

Indeed they have had plenty time to go to the moon and build fake landing sites. Do you have any evidence they have done so?

[merlincove]

Try telling Buzz or Neil that they never went to the moon.

i fully believe that NASA did go and that man planted the flag and the plate that they still use for seeing how far the moon is away fropm the earth, and that it is actually moving away from earth very slowly.

That many of the pictures of the moon landings are fakes, and that they were taken in a studio has been proven many times - nasa overplayed their hand on that one, and when we look at the amount of time the astro's were on the moon for and colate the pictures, it equates to them taking a photo every 50 seconds - no time for eating, sleeping, experiments, setting up equipment, unpacking the rover etc - so it is obvious many photos were faked. You can photo shop those pics and see where 'objects' have been covered over or rubbed out, those photos have so many anomalies it is difficult to take them seriously, and this leads to a whole host of provable nonesense to say that nasa never went.

look at the 60's, Russia had sent gagarin (spl) sailing around the world and were on the verge of a moon landing, nasa had to go there.

if nasa never went, then answer one question - how did they ever get the samples of moon rock?

When neil stepped out onto the lunar surface, i have no doubt that the military were expanding their technological advances and were already setting up perminant bases on Mars, as they had done years earlier on the moon - Buzz has even alluded to the fact and is on record as saying so. i do not believe that Neil was the first man to walk on the lunar surface, but i totally believe that he did do just that.

i believe that NASA is the public face of space exploration and principaly the public face of man's exploration of the lunar surface - compared to the equipment that we don't see however, i believe that nasa's eagles are naught but toys to what the military are equipped with.

nasa's eagles are not mere tin cans, neither were they the epitome of technological advancement - in the same way as the shuttles of today are akin to paper planes compared to what we do not see.

[hagbard_celine]

hagbard - whats your opinion ?

do you think we went there or not ?


Not.:cool:

Or at least it took place in a way totally different to what history says.

surely plenty of people watched the craft using a telescope at launch and on re-entry?

They watched a craft. We don't know for sure it was the manned Apollo one.

[hagbard_celine]

Could you please show me the evidence that we didn't go? Thanks.

Shabun, with all due respect there are a 1000 posts or more on this forum doing just that!:rolleyes:

Instead of asking for evidence why don't you accept that we are providing evidence and then go on to tell us why our evidence is wrong in your eyes.

[hagbard_celine]

Thats because your mind is closed. Anyway, they will be photographing the landing sites in April 2009 from the LRO mission, so you can prepare your "the photos are faked" comments now.


Mock if you will:D . You can prepare your naive "these photoes are real" comments.

[shabun]

Shabun, with all due respect there are a 1000 posts or more on this forum doing just that!:rolleyes:

Instead of asking for evidence why don't you accept that we are providing evidence and then go on to tell us why our evidence is wrong in your eyes.

Thats what I want to do, but I haven't seen any evidence from you!!

Anyway I think we are discussing this over on the other thread anyway.

Mods - could you merge these threads pls?

[shabun]

Mock if you will:D . You can prepare your naive "these photoes are real" comments.

I won't need to. The photos will be there for the World to see and it will be over to you to show they are fake, and since there will be intense independant international scrutiny and verification then it may not be as easy to call them fake as you hope. Of course on this site it will be OK cos you will just say "fake" and everyone will believe you, like nice sheep, but that will just make Icke-ists seem more like wackos to the normal people.

[hagbard_celine]

I won't need to. The photos will be there for the World to see and it will be over to you to show they are fake, and since there will be intense independant international scrutiny and verification then it may not be as easy to call them fake as you hope. Of course on this site it will be OK cos you will just say "fake" and everyone will believe you, like nice sheep, but that will just make Icke-ists seem more like wackos to the normal people.



Have you ever read "Debating With a Skeptic"? http://www.discord.org/~lippard/stupid-skeptic-tricks.txt

What you say here makes me think of Point 6:

6.) SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF EVIDENCE: The skeptic insists that he doesn't have to provide evidence and arguments to support his side of the argument because he isn't asserting a claim, he is merely denying or doubting yours. His mistake consists of assuming that a negative claim (asserting that something doesn't exist) is fundamentally different from a positive claim. It isn't. Any definite claim, positive or negative, requires definite support. Merely refuting or arguing against an opponent's position is not enough to establish one's own position.. In other words, you can't win by default. As arch-skeptic Carl Sagan himself said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If someone wants to rule out visitations by extra-terrestrial aliens, it would not be enough to point out that all the evidence presented so far is either seriously flawed or not very strong. It would be necessary to state definite reasons which would make ET visitations either impossible or highly unlikely. (He might, for example, point out that our best understanding of physics pretty much rules out any kind of effective faster-than-light drive.) The only person exempt from providing definite support is the person who takes a strict "I don't know" position or the agnostic position. If someone takes the position that the evidence in favor of ET visitations is inadequate but goes no farther, he is exempt from further argument (provided, of course, he gives adequate reasons for rejecting the evidence). However, if he wants to go farther and insist that it is impossible or highly unlikely that ET's are visiting or have ever visited the Earth, it becomes necessary for him to provide definite reasons for his position. He is no longer entitled merely to argue against his opponent's position. There is the question of honesty. Someone who claims to take the agnostic position but really takes the position of definite disbelief is, of course, misrepresenting his views. For example, a skeptic who insists that he merely believes the psi hypothesis is inadequately supported when in fact he believes that the human mind can only acquire information through the physical senses is simply not being honest.

[element]

6.) SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF EVIDENCE: The skeptic insists that he doesn't have to provide evidence and arguments to support his side of the argument because he isn't asserting a claim, he is merely denying or doubting yours. His mistake consists of assuming that a negative claim (asserting that something doesn't exist) is fundamentally different from a positive claim. It isn't. Any definite claim, positive or negative, requires definite support. Merely refuting or arguing against an opponent's position is not enough to establish one's own position.. In other words, you can't win by default. As arch-skeptic Carl Sagan himself said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If someone wants to rule out visitations by extra-terrestrial aliens, it would not be enough to point out that all the evidence presented so far is either seriously flawed or not very strong. It would be necessary to state definite reasons which would make ET visitations either impossible or highly unlikely. (He might, for example, point out that our best understanding of physics pretty much rules out any kind of effective faster-than-light drive.) The only person exempt from providing definite support is the person who takes a strict "I don't know" position or the agnostic position. If someone takes the position that the evidence in favor of ET visitations is inadequate but goes no farther, he is exempt from further argument (provided, of course, he gives adequate reasons for rejecting the evidence). However, if he wants to go farther and insist that it is impossible or highly unlikely that ET's are visiting or have ever visited the Earth, it becomes necessary for him to provide definite reasons for his position. He is no longer entitled merely to argue against his opponent's position. There is the question of honesty. Someone who claims to take the agnostic position but really takes the position of definite disbelief is, of course, misrepresenting his views. For example, a skeptic who insists that he merely believes the psi hypothesis is inadequately supported when in fact he believes that the human mind can only acquire information through the physical senses is simply not being honest.



OMG Hagbard. That's a wonderful description and a great site. Pretty much sums up how sceptics do their work!!!!

[shabun]

Have you ever read "Debating With a Skeptic"? http://www.discord.org/~lippard/stupid-skeptic-tricks.txt

What you say here makes me think of Point 6:

I think exactly the same about you! When debating specifically whether a photo is faked or not, it is you who is the sceptic.

I think when a bit of evidence (in this case a photo from the LRO) is put on the table, most normal people will assume that it is genuine unless you can show it is not. You see things the other way round I think, i.e the photo is asumed to be faked unless NASA can prove otherwise. I think either approach is fine and this is why NASA will be going to some lengths to demonstrate to chaps like you that they are not faked. Personally I prefer the first way (innocent of fakery until proven guilty) but you go with "guilty of fakery until proven innocent". I take it you are not a Judge? Only kidding.

[shabun]

I think exactly the same about you! When debating specifically whether a photo is faked or not, it is you who is the sceptic.

I think when a bit of evidence (in this case a photo from the LRO) is put on the table, most normal people will assume that it is genuine unless you can show it is not. You see things the other way round I think, i.e the photo is asumed to be faked unless NASA can prove otherwise. I think either approach is fine and this is why NASA will be going to some lengths to demonstrate to chaps like you that they are not faked. Personally I prefer the first way (innocent of fakery until proven guilty) but you go with "guilty of fakery until proven innocent". I take it you are not a Judge? Only kidding.

And while I'm on about this - how do you judge whether a photo is faked or not? On other threads you seem happy to take NASA photos as genuine, like Cassini. Do you just choose to believe the ones that support your views and call the ones that don't "fake". It looks like that to me.

[armoured_amazon]

Have you ever read "Debating With a Skeptic"? http://www.discord.org/~lippard/stupid-skeptic-tricks.txt

What you say here makes me think of Point 6:

6.) SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF EVIDENCE: The skeptic insists that he doesn't have to provide evidence and arguments to support his side of the argument because he isn't asserting a claim, he is merely denying or doubting yours. His mistake consists of assuming that a negative claim (asserting that something doesn't exist) is fundamentally different from a positive claim. It isn't. Any definite claim, positive or negative, requires definite support. Merely refuting or arguing against an opponent's position is not enough to establish one's own position.. In other words, you can't win by default. As arch-skeptic Carl Sagan himself said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If someone wants to rule out visitations by extra-terrestrial aliens, it would not be enough to point out that all the evidence presented so far is either seriously flawed or not very strong. It would be necessary to state definite reasons which would make ET visitations either impossible or highly unlikely. (He might, for example, point out that our best understanding of physics pretty much rules out any kind of effective faster-than-light drive.) The only person exempt from providing definite support is the person who takes a strict "I don't know" position or the agnostic position. If someone takes the position that the evidence in favor of ET visitations is inadequate but goes no farther, he is exempt from further argument (provided, of course, he gives adequate reasons for rejecting the evidence). However, if he wants to go farther and insist that it is impossible or highly unlikely that ET's are visiting or have ever visited the Earth, it becomes necessary for him to provide definite reasons for his position. He is no longer entitled merely to argue against his opponent's position. There is the question of honesty. Someone who claims to take the agnostic position but really takes the position of definite disbelief is, of course, misrepresenting his views. For example, a skeptic who insists that he merely believes the psi hypothesis is inadequately supported when in fact he believes that the human mind can only acquire information through the physical senses is simply not being honest.

Thanks! I needed this! :D

[merlincove]

I think exactly the same about you! When debating specifically whether a photo is faked or not, it is you who is the sceptic.

I think when a bit of evidence (in this case a photo from the LRO) is put on the table, most normal people will assume that it is genuine unless you can show it is not. You see things the other way round I think, i.e the photo is asumed to be faked unless NASA can prove otherwise. I think either approach is fine and this is why NASA will be going to some lengths to demonstrate to chaps like you that they are not faked. Personally I prefer the first way (innocent of fakery until proven guilty) but you go with "guilty of fakery until proven innocent". I take it you are not a Judge? Only kidding.

Shabun many of the photos, supposedly taken by the lunar astonaughts, have been shown to have been faked in studio. 40 years ago nasa had the very best computers in the world and could easilly have faked photo's by rubbing out certain factors, ie studio props. Todays home computer can very easilly see through these flaws and with programs such as photo shop we can now see the edits very clearly. if you don't believe that, just do the maths - research the facts, there are too many photo's and not enough hours - there are more photo's than there are recorded man-minutes on the moon. Photo's of the lander with the rover still to be unpacked, the lander is surrounded by tyre tracks across the lunar soil. Photo shop edits with one lander edited out! Today we can uncover these edited photo's and show that many were not taken on the moon.

i am not trying to convince you or anybody else but the sheer weight of photographic evidence when weighed up against the amount of minutes man spent on the moon do not stand up to scrutiny. I can not rememebr the facts but it is one photo for every 50 seconds man spent on the lunar surface.

Having said this i feel that nasa did send neil and buzz there, that those men walked on the moon. That nasa over played their hand in producing to many photo's has become clear these last few decades.

one thing is for certain, when neil took that first step into what we precieve as the unknown, when he stepped out onto the lunar surface, taking that one small step i wonder if he could ever concieve that that momentous moment would be being bought into doubt 40 years later?

i have had the privilage to meet with men who claimed to have walked on the moon - when you hear these guys talk and when you have chance to speak with them candidly, it becomes clear that they have seen things and experienced things few people will ever get the chance to.

i have met these guys and shared dinner with a number of them, and when you look into their eyes there is a truth there that touches you deep in your very soul, they are very profound people who have been to the edge of their own understanding and they carry a peace with them that is trully wonderous to behold. They tell me that they walked on the moon, and i believe them. Their stories are remarkable.

Many of them speak of ET's, they don't necersarily tow the official nasa line, if they were living a lie then their stories would be squeeky clean?

they tell me that they walked on the moon, they tell me that they looked at the earth as she rose up over the lunar horizon, and they tell me that they have seen things there that would answer the question 'are we alone in the universe' with an emphatic no we are not. And on all these counts i believe them.

i just don't believe the nasa story - there are too many holes, too many photos that raise questions, too many improbables.

i don't ask that you believe me, i am just saying what i know and i am offering no proof of what i say because i haven't got any - i simply know what i have been told and i feel that its source is beyond doubt.

There are many who are and will always remain sceptical in regard to the lunar landings - indeed there are many states in america who have no idea of mans voyage into space let alone the moon landings, it is simply not taught in their schools so it is not a part of their consciousness. No matter what evidence we deliver, those who do not believe will deny it for ever more.

There are only a few astranaughts left now who had the chance to walk on the moon, and of those perhaps Buzz is the most aproachable. As each year passes they become less and less in number and soon there will be none left to tell their story - and those who remain will fall into ill health and soon they will retire from public speaking. If you ever get the chance to go to a signing event / expo etc where these guys are talking, i would urge that you go and see them for yourself, judge these people with your own heart and feeling and see how their stories make you feel - judge them and their stories on the facts that they portray. i have been lucky enough to have been able to attend many signings and i am lucky enough to know event organisers and have sat with these guys many times, sharing a beer and having a laugh, i can tell you most definately that their stories are amazing.

i believe them, wholeheartedly, i just don't swallow the nasa bullsit :-)

[stelios]

how did they ever get the samples of moon rock?
.
Meteorite Rocks from the moon found right here on Earth.
http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/antmet/metsfromant/moonmets.cfm
http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/antmet/metsfromant/images/lunarmet.jpg


Shabun - my friend with the Sephardic name, my previous question remains. How did they fit the Rover into the Lander which clearly looks impossible. But also because the design of the Lander from Apollo 11 to Apollo 17 was no different to create a huge storage space.

In the Lander according to the design, the two astrozeros would have been sitting right on top of the 3200lb rockets. So would have been exposed to heat and noise. Heat of 1800C or more and noise of deafening decibels.
Both when the lander fired it's rockets in order to land and when it took off again.

The entire Apollo story is a total whopper.
Very much like a yarn written by that well known former Nazi officer and sci-fi writer Werner von Braun.

[merlincove]

i collect meteorites, stelios, i have a few small flecks of lunar meteorite - the stuff that is ejected from the lunar surface when the moon is impacted :-)


The lunites are a very specific group and are always very small, only a few kilo's in weight at most. NASA have many hundreds of pounds worth of lunar rock taken from the surface and bought to earth in sacks, the scientific research conducted on those rocks is the main stay for all the information that has been collated to ascertain the authenticity of all the lunite falls - ie the lunites are the same as the nasa samples, visa ve they are from the moon :-) nasa's own research allowed the meteorite collecting fraternity to properly understand that lunar material falls to earth, as does mars rock, following impacts upon their surfaces.

There has been some suggestion that there may also be mercurites on earth also, altho until we get an official sample from Mercury, it will be purely speculation

nasa samples do not exhibit crust - the outer 'burnt' edge that all meteorites exhibit, hense their rock has not fallen to earth through the atmosphere. The pic you have here shows the outer crust clearly whereas the inner rock is seen to be exhibiting circular clasts / grains / chondrules typical of lunar rock and many meteorites :-)

lunar rock is like rocking horse teeth and a piece of a few grams is likely to fetch upwards of £50 and closer to £250.

[stelios]

so over the last 3,000,000 years you dont think any large moon rocks would have reached earth?
and you dont think many sackloads of these wouldnt be lying preserved in the polar regions?
cleaning up a large one to remove the crust is like the easiest thing to do

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/images/hoax/rocks.gif

this is from NASA's own Apollo hoax website The Great Moon Hoax tricking researchers.
Nick-named "Big Muley," this 11.7 kg Moon rock was the largest returned to Earth by Apollo astronauts. One side of Big Muley was peppered with meteoroid "zap pits." A close-up view of 1 mm diameter zap pits shows tiny craters lined with black glass surrounded by a white halo of shocked rock.

Meteorites arriving on Earth are decelerated by passing through our atmosphere. As a result, while the surface of the meteorite may melt, the interior is often preserved intact.

ps
the moon rock looks like a meteorite to me

Why do NASA have sites like The Great Moon Hoax?
Because they know that the majority of people dont believe the Apollo crap and some will be suckered back into the fold by visiting their misleading page.

[tabea_blumenschein]

Could one of our resident "Moon hoaxers" please post a link to a YouTube video of the Lunar Rover in action, that they believe is not being played back at half-speed, but at actual speed?

Thank you.

I'm going offline now, but I'll be back to have a look at it in a day or two.

[shabun]

Meteorite Rocks from the moon found right here on Earth.
http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/antmet/metsfromant/moonmets.cfm
http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/antmet/metsfromant/images/lunarmet.jpg


Shabun - my friend with the Sephardic name, my previous question remains. How did they fit the Rover into the Lander which clearly looks impossible. But also because the design of the Lander from Apollo 11 to Apollo 17 was no different to create a huge storage space.

In the Lander according to the design, the two astrozeros would have been sitting right on top of the 3200lb rockets. So would have been exposed to heat and noise. Heat of 1800C or more and noise of deafening decibels.
Both when the lander fired it's rockets in order to land and when it took off again.

The entire Apollo story is a total whopper.
Very much like a yarn written by that well known former Nazi officer and sci-fi writer Werner von Braun.

If you look at the video you posted yourself (the one with the Madness tune on it) you can see them actually unloading the rover from the descent stage of the LEM.

And what is a sephardic name? I am not good at that sort of stuff.

[shabun]

Shabun many of the photos, supposedly taken by the lunar astonaughts, have been shown to have been faked in studio. 40 years ago nasa had the very best computers in the world and could easilly have faked photo's by rubbing out certain factors, ie studio props. Todays home computer can very easilly see through these flaws and with programs such as photo shop we can now see the edits very clearly. if you don't believe that, just do the maths - research the facts, there are too many photo's and not enough hours - there are more photo's than there are recorded man-minutes on the moon. Photo's of the lander with the rover still to be unpacked, the lander is surrounded by tyre tracks across the lunar soil. Photo shop edits with one lander edited out! Today we can uncover these edited photo's and show that many were not taken on the moon.

i am not trying to convince you or anybody else but the sheer weight of photographic evidence when weighed up against the amount of minutes man spent on the moon do not stand up to scrutiny. I can not rememebr the facts but it is one photo for every 50 seconds man spent on the lunar surface.

Having said this i feel that nasa did send neil and buzz there, that those men walked on the moon. That nasa over played their hand in producing to many photo's has become clear these last few decades.

one thing is for certain, when neil took that first step into what we precieve as the unknown, when he stepped out onto the lunar surface, taking that one small step i wonder if he could ever concieve that that momentous moment would be being bought into doubt 40 years later?

i have had the privilage to meet with men who claimed to have walked on the moon - when you hear these guys talk and when you have chance to speak with them candidly, it becomes clear that they have seen things and experienced things few people will ever get the chance to.

i have met these guys and shared dinner with a number of them, and when you look into their eyes there is a truth there that touches you deep in your very soul, they are very profound people who have been to the edge of their own understanding and they carry a peace with them that is trully wonderous to behold. They tell me that they walked on the moon, and i believe them. Their stories are remarkable.

Many of them speak of ET's, they don't necersarily tow the official nasa line, if they were living a lie then their stories would be squeeky clean?

they tell me that they walked on the moon, they tell me that they looked at the earth as she rose up over the lunar horizon, and they tell me that they have seen things there that would answer the question 'are we alone in the universe' with an emphatic no we are not. And on all these counts i believe them.

i just don't believe the nasa story - there are too many holes, too many photos that raise questions, too many improbables.

i don't ask that you believe me, i am just saying what i know and i am offering no proof of what i say because i haven't got any - i simply know what i have been told and i feel that its source is beyond doubt.

There are many who are and will always remain sceptical in regard to the lunar landings - indeed there are many states in america who have no idea of mans voyage into space let alone the moon landings, it is simply not taught in their schools so it is not a part of their consciousness. No matter what evidence we deliver, those who do not believe will deny it for ever more.

There are only a few astranaughts left now who had the chance to walk on the moon, and of those perhaps Buzz is the most aproachable. As each year passes they become less and less in number and soon there will be none left to tell their story - and those who remain will fall into ill health and soon they will retire from public speaking. If you ever get the chance to go to a signing event / expo etc where these guys are talking, i would urge that you go and see them for yourself, judge these people with your own heart and feeling and see how their stories make you feel - judge them and their stories on the facts that they portray. i have been lucky enough to have been able to attend many signings and i am lucky enough to know event organisers and have sat with these guys many times, sharing a beer and having a laugh, i can tell you most definately that their stories are amazing.

i believe them, wholeheartedly, i just don't swallow the nasa bullsit :-)

Thanks for your comments, they helped me.

However, my point was a bit different - it doesn't matter to me whether any of the previous photos were faked - what I am saying is that the LRO photos which will be taken next April will be very difficult to fake, as NASA will come under intense independant scrutiny to ensure they are genuine!

In this particular case case the "sceptics" are actually Hagbard et al, not me -I will believe the future photos are genuine unless proven otherwise. I found it ironic that he posted a "how to deal with sceptics" link, when it is actually he who is sceptical about the Apollo mission.

Finally - (I am a newbie on this site) - my sense of irony was increased when I saw many other threads where NASA photos were used without any discussion as to whether they were real or not. My perception is that on this forum, peeps choose to believe photos when they support their views, but call "fake" when they don't. If it can be demonstrated they are faked (as you mentioned in your post) then no problem, but I think that is going to be difficult with the LRO photos.

[shabun]

Shabun many of the photos, supposedly taken by the lunar astonaughts, have been shown to have been faked in studio. 40 years ago nasa had the very best computers in the world and could easilly have faked photo's by rubbing out certain factors, ie studio props. Todays home computer can very easilly see through these flaws and with programs such as photo shop we can now see the edits very clearly. if you don't believe that, just do the maths - research the facts, there are too many photo's and not enough hours - there are more photo's than there are recorded man-minutes on the moon. Photo's of the lander with the rover still to be unpacked, the lander is surrounded by tyre tracks across the lunar soil. Photo shop edits with one lander edited out! Today we can uncover these edited photo's and show that many were not taken on the moon.

i am not trying to convince you or anybody else but the sheer weight of photographic evidence when weighed up against the amount of minutes man spent on the moon do not stand up to scrutiny. I can not rememebr the facts but it is one photo for every 50 seconds man spent on the lunar surface.

Having said this i feel that nasa did send neil and buzz there, that those men walked on the moon. That nasa over played their hand in producing to many photo's has become clear these last few decades.

one thing is for certain, when neil took that first step into what we precieve as the unknown, when he stepped out onto the lunar surface, taking that one small step i wonder if he could ever concieve that that momentous moment would be being bought into doubt 40 years later?

i have had the privilage to meet with men who claimed to have walked on the moon - when you hear these guys talk and when you have chance to speak with them candidly, it becomes clear that they have seen things and experienced things few people will ever get the chance to.

i have met these guys and shared dinner with a number of them, and when you look into their eyes there is a truth there that touches you deep in your very soul, they are very profound people who have been to the edge of their own understanding and they carry a peace with them that is trully wonderous to behold. They tell me that they walked on the moon, and i believe them. Their stories are remarkable.

Many of them speak of ET's, they don't necersarily tow the official nasa line, if they were living a lie then their stories would be squeeky clean?

they tell me that they walked on the moon, they tell me that they looked at the earth as she rose up over the lunar horizon, and they tell me that they have seen things there that would answer the question 'are we alone in the universe' with an emphatic no we are not. And on all these counts i believe them.

i just don't believe the nasa story - there are too many holes, too many photos that raise questions, too many improbables.

i don't ask that you believe me, i am just saying what i know and i am offering no proof of what i say because i haven't got any - i simply know what i have been told and i feel that its source is beyond doubt.

There are many who are and will always remain sceptical in regard to the lunar landings - indeed there are many states in america who have no idea of mans voyage into space let alone the moon landings, it is simply not taught in their schools so it is not a part of their consciousness. No matter what evidence we deliver, those who do not believe will deny it for ever more.

There are only a few astranaughts left now who had the chance to walk on the moon, and of those perhaps Buzz is the most aproachable. As each year passes they become less and less in number and soon there will be none left to tell their story - and those who remain will fall into ill health and soon they will retire from public speaking. If you ever get the chance to go to a signing event / expo etc where these guys are talking, i would urge that you go and see them for yourself, judge these people with your own heart and feeling and see how their stories make you feel - judge them and their stories on the facts that they portray. i have been lucky enough to have been able to attend many signings and i am lucky enough to know event organisers and have sat with these guys many times, sharing a beer and having a laugh, i can tell you most definately that their stories are amazing.

i believe them, wholeheartedly, i just don't swallow the nasa bullsit :-)

Could you provide me a link to the doctored photos? I would like to see them. It doesn't affect the LRO photos that wil be taken in April but I'd like to see what NASA got up to last time.

Also - I did my research as you mentioned and in the the official Apollo archive from NASA there are nowhere near the number of photos that would equate to one every 50 seconds. Could you please point me to where that claim is made. I would be happy to check it.

[stelios]

it doesn't matter to me whether any of the previous photos were faked - what I am saying is that the LRO photos which will be taken next April will be very difficult to fake, as NASA will come under intense independant scrutiny to ensure they are genuine!.

Ofcourse it matters.
And if even the most rabid Apollo advocates accept NASA does fake, then ofcourse the proof the moon landings happened is non existant.

This David Icke forum is for people who have opened their minds and question things we have been lied to about. It does also attract a large number of skeptics and debunkers.
I urge everyone to look at the entire Apollo / NASA narrative with an open mind. I am pretty confident that after looking at the various claims and the lack of evidence you will come to the same conclusion as me that the entire Apollo story is a hoax and nobody has ever gone to the moon.
The USA taxpayers have been robbed.
Think about who was running things, Lyndon Johnson, Nixon, George Bush senior and a bunch of nazis like Werner von Braun. Everything else this gang have done has been discredited like the Vietnam war, CIA black ops, assasinations, etc, so why are you people so willing to believe these same people regarding Apollo?

[merlincove]

Hmm, this is a fine lil bag of wrigglies isn't it?

lol

stelios, thanks for your links and photo's, and your points, which are all very valid.

i will never be able to offer anyone conclusive proof that NASA sent men to the moon in the 60's - although i feel that they had been runing back and forth between lunar bases and earth for at least a decade before that. And neither can you nor anyone else offer conclusive and absolute proof that they did not.

We can throw counter claim against counter claim for either a lack of credibility in the official nasa story, and we can do likewise for any given proof - footage, collected and collated evidence etc.

There is, however, a piece of hardware - and i thought that it was detectable with a half decent astro telescope - that lies there on the lunar surface. Ot is a small plate that has been used since the 60's to bounce radio waves back to earth that are sent there to ascertain how far the moon is and how much further it moves away from earth each year. Now why the lunar surface isn't considered as a reliable reflective sourse for this reflective action and why the plaque is needed i am not sure. But it is there. Of course we don't know that it was placed there by the hand of man, we don't know how it got there but it is there.

And then again we are of course being told this by the same machine we choose to dissbelieve at every other turn, so you are right, why believe them?

i am lucky enough to have a very good friend who has introduced me to some very genuine people who tell me that they have walked out onto the lunar surface, and for me that is enough.

We have absolutely no reason to believe anything that comes out as official lines from the people that we can see have lied to us and manipulated our minds for so long - absolutely none.

And i don't believe their lies at all, i do however believe what i have been told at first hand.

Shabun - i'm sorry, i was just highlighting a few points in question. i will endevour to sourse the material and the information, although it may take some time as i will search for it myself as well as speak to the guy who put me onto it. I'm just refecting the evidence which i saw ;-)

The skeptic link was pretty cool.

There will always, however, be those who choose to believe and those who deny whatever evidence there is.

it is always a good choice when we look at the information we are given and examine all aspects of it and make up our own mind. Deciding that whatever proof is given is false or faked before hand, despite whatever proof that may be, leads us out into worrying ground.

i'm willing to accept that man walked on the moon in the 60's, even at the risk of accepting the official story from the machine that has repeatedly lied to us, and i will accept it until it is proven otherwise :-)

[shabun]

Ofcourse it matters.
And if even the most rabid Apollo advocates accept NASA does fake, then ofcourse the proof the moon landings happened is non existant.

This David Icke forum is for people who have opened their minds and question things we have been lied to about. It does also attract a large number of skeptics and debunkers.
I urge everyone to look at the entire Apollo / NASA narrative with an open mind. I am pretty confident that after looking at the various claims and the lack of evidence you will come to the same conclusion as me that the entire Apollo story is a hoax and nobody has ever gone to the moon.
The USA taxpayers have been robbed.
Think about who was running things, Lyndon Johnson, Nixon, George Bush senior and a bunch of nazis like Werner von Braun. Everything else this gang have done has been discredited like the Vietnam war, CIA black ops, assasinations, etc, so why are you people so willing to believe these same people regarding Apollo?

The reason I bleive this particular issue is because, whether you like it or not, there is plenty evidence to back it up. And there is not a single shred of evidence to say it didn't happen. You certainly didn't provide any.

Sorry Stelios mate, but you just talk nonsense. Every technical point you raised in the last few weeks to try and discredit the evidence has been explained but you have waffled and wriggled from one issue to the other and you clearly show you don't properly research the items which were discussed. You glibly give the usual "this forum is for people with open minds" whilst making dumb statements about millions of people believing your arguments.

It is you who has the closed mind because no matter what happens in future, even if one day they revisit the sites, that will still not be acceptable to you as proof. Nothing will convince a closed mind, and that is what you have mate.

And btw, it may well be the case that the USA has lied and covered up many things on issues like Vietnam etc - I dont deny that and I am not pro US.

But Apollo happened!

[harris999]

i believe they was faked. But i also beleive we went to the moon. They faked it cause theres something on the moon they dont want us to see.

Some guy from the disclosure project, whos very credibile, (in fact i find anyone who steven greer mentions to be credible) says there was some kind of base on the back on the moon with some photos he had seen.

Ive also found it wierd that we only ever see one side of the moon from earth. I dont beleive in just pure coincidence, there must be a reason why we only ever see one side.

Theres also photos of the moon, that have been like, airbrushed out, the airbrushs seem to hide some kind of unatural structures. They are available to see on some websites ive forgetton the name of, but im sure a google search will serve anyone whos intrested.

Could all be a load of bollocks ofc, but i never really trust the official story nowadays :P

[stelios]

India yesterday landed a probe on the moon.
http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/moonmission/Election_Story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080072656
In 2007 Japan had a satelite orbiting exploring the moon
All the Apollo advocates seem to ignore the fact that 50 years have passed during which many probes have been sent to the moon all unmanned and none has found anything, no rovers, no Apollo landers and no alien bases.
If it was so easy to travel to the oon and back in the 1960s why is it impossible today?
Why arent any billionaires who have paid the Russians to become space tourists ever suggested going beyond low Earth orbit?

Constantly people make excuses, but ignore the science.
It is impossible.

Suppose your masters showed u a hazy cine film circa 1969 which showed an athlete running a mile in not 4 minutes but 4 seconds. His world record still stands today and has never been matched or even challenged.
Wouldnt people after 50 years begin to doubt its validity.

The furthest anyone has gone into space is approximately 250 miles.
But Apollo claims to have taken people 238,000 miles.
The Indian and Japanese lunar probes took 3 weeks to get there and were unmanned with very small payloads.
But Apollo claims to have carried a 26 tonne payload 238,000 miles to the moon against earth gravity in less than 3 days.
Then landed a manned probe which is impossible as Neil Arstrong struggled to even control this device in testing.
http://www.bigmantra.com/man_on_moon/images/moon_0056.jpghttp://www.bigmantra.com/man_on_moon/images/moon_0058.jpg

Then nasa claim the lander took off and miraculusly performed a space dock.
But the first space dock did not occur until 1973 with Skylab.
So how in 1969, 238,000 miles away with only a 32k computer could they have performed the first ever space dock totally unrehearsed?
http://www.bigmantra.com/man_on_moon/lem_lunar_lander.html

http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/255/PreviewComp/SuperStock_255-28354.jpg
perhaps the Apollo Witnesses can post evidence of the lunar space dock heres some images
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/html/as11.htm

[shabun]

i believe they was faked. But i also beleive we went to the moon. They faked it cause theres something on the moon they dont want us to see.

Some guy from the disclosure project, whos very credibile, (in fact i find anyone who steven greer mentions to be credible) says there was some kind of base on the back on the moon with some photos he had seen.

Ive also found it wierd that we only ever see one side of the moon from earth. I dont beleive in just pure coincidence, there must be a reason why we only ever see one side.

Theres also photos of the moon, that have been like, airbrushed out, the airbrushs seem to hide some kind of unatural structures. They are available to see on some websites ive forgetton the name of, but im sure a google search will serve anyone whos intrested.

Could all be a load of bollocks ofc, but i never really trust the official story nowadays :P

lol mate. Do your research. The moonbase on the farside is a proven hoax. See the thread on that in this forum!!! That blows your statement that the disclosure guy is "credible".

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38036

[merlincove]

>>>All the Apollo advocates seem to ignore the fact that 50 years have passed during which many probes have been sent to the moon all unmanned and none has found anything, no rovers, no Apollo landers and no alien bases.

Because the nasa moon landings and space exploration perse was losing public backing back in the day. Jim Lovells space mission would have been barely covered had it not gon awry - the american public had lost intrest.

>>>If it was so easy to travel to the oon and back in the 1960s why is it impossible today?

it is not impossable today, infact it is more possable for us now than it was back in the 60's. The shuttle could very easilly be deployed to deposit a lander from cargo - though the shutle that we are aware of would struggle to land etc

>>>Why arent any billionaires who have paid the Russians to become space tourists ever suggested going beyond low Earth orbit?

They are, although moving out from a vehicle into the harshness of space - remember the moon has no atmosphere - is considerably more difficult than sitting in the conditioned environment of a shuttle or other space craft.

>>>Then landed a manned probe which is impossible as Neil Arstrong struggled to even control this device in testing.

testing required that the subject matter be exposed to gravity in the conditions inherent on earth. These conditions are totally diff to the ones on the moon, it would be much easier for a craft to lunar land and take of from lunar surface due to the differnt gravitaional condition there.

>>>Then nasa claim the lander took off and miraculusly performed a space dock.

No miracles at all Stelios, 'simple' application of thrusters and a slow trajectory, the only problem, perse, would be making sure that the command module was in the right place - all a matter of timing and possition.

>>>But the first space dock did not occur until 1973 with Skylab.

you are able to accept that sky lab is a provable occurance? the lunar dock took place only a few years prior to skylab, so why is it so impossable that they did it in 69 - like i say only a few years earlier.

public opinion, particularly in the states, was demanding that nasa put a man on the moon before the russians, it was remember a space race - what we witnessed and what the controversy revolves around is perhaps very inferior machinery compared to what nasa were sending people to mars with.

The tin can, as someone put it, was nasa's atempty to say this is how far we have copme because public perception probably wouldn't be able to accept that nasa were playing with shuttles (and probably more advanced concepts) back in the 60's.

if there is a conspiracy here, then that is what we are looking at. perhaps nasa sent these men to the moon in something we can not even begin to comprehend today and used the guise of the eagle to explain away their own advancements in other fields?

[shabun]

India yesterday landed a probe on the moon.
http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/moonmission/Election_Story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080072656
In 2007 Japan had a satelite orbiting exploring the moon
All the Apollo advocates seem to ignore the fact that 50 years have passed during which many probes have been sent to the moon all unmanned and none has found anything, no rovers, no Apollo landers and no alien bases.
If it was so easy to travel to the oon and back in the 1960s why is it impossible today?
Why arent any billionaires who have paid the Russians to become space tourists ever suggested going beyond low Earth orbit?

Constantly people make excuses, but ignore the science.
It is impossible.

Suppose your masters showed u a hazy cine film circa 1969 which showed an athlete running a mile in not 4 minutes but 4 seconds. His world record still stands today and has never been matched or even challenged.
Wouldnt people after 50 years begin to doubt its validity.

The furthest anyone has gone into space is approximately 250 miles.
But Apollo claims to have taken people 238,000 miles.
The Indian and Japanese lunar probes took 3 weeks to get there and were unmanned with very small payloads.
But Apollo claims to have carried a 26 tonne payload 238,000 miles to the moon against earth gravity in less than 3 days.
Then landed a manned probe which is impossible as Neil Arstrong struggled to even control this device in testing.
http://www.bigmantra.com/man_on_moon/images/moon_0056.jpghttp://www.bigmantra.com/man_on_moon/images/moon_0058.jpg

Then nasa claim the lander took off and miraculusly performed a space dock.
But the first space dock did not occur until 1973 with Skylab.
So how in 1969, 238,000 miles away with only a 32k computer could they have performed the first ever space dock totally unrehearsed?
http://www.bigmantra.com/man_on_moon/lem_lunar_lander.html

http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/255/PreviewComp/SuperStock_255-28354.jpg
perhaps the Apollo Witnesses can post evidence of the lunar space dock heres some images
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/html/as11.htm

Hi Stelios. You are wrong again. Do your research properly. The docking between CM and LEM was rehearsed many times in space prior to Apollo 11. Apollos 9 & 10 did it in Lunar orbit. Maybe Apollo 8 did as well but I can check. Also, some of the earlier Apollo missions, around 5, 6, or 7 also did docking rehearsals in earth orbit.

[stelios]

Hi Stelios. You are wrong again. Do your research properly. The docking between CM and LEM was rehearsed many times in space prior to Apollo 11. Apollos 9 & 10 did it in Lunar orbit. Maybe Apollo 8 did as well but I can check. Also, some of the earlier Apollo missions, around 5, 6, or 7 also did docking rehearsals in earth orbit.

Most people accept that Apollos 9 & 10 are back up lies.
The claim that men took off reached the moon orbited the moon and then seperated the craft and then practiced a space dock in orbit around the moon.
Total bollocks.
But i notice other than repeating the same lies you did not post a photo or a video of any lunar space dock.

[shabun]

Most people accept that Apollos 9 & 10 are back up lies.
The claim that men took off reached the moon orbited the moon and then seperated the craft and then practiced a space dock in orbit around the moon.
Total bollocks.
But i notice other than repeating the same lies you did not post a photo or a video of any lunar space dock.

There are many many instances, photos, and videos of two craft docking in space, not only Apollo, and if you think its impossible then you make yourself look more and more stupid with each post.

Even if I do post one, or two, or ten, you will just call them faked anyway, because you are a clown.

Anyway, heres a video for you to call fake........

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/apollo-14-lm-lift-off-and-csm-docking/400289971

[kblood]

Did they lock themselves inside a vacuum to fake this experiment too? LOL Faking the whole moon landing would be harder to do than just doing it for real and calling the Apollo missions "tin cans" shows complete ignorance and disrespect to human genius and achievement, and you obviously dont know how the van allen actually works.:rolleyes:

And you obviously dont know how easy it is to fake. They dont need a vacuum to make something look like a vacuum. There probably were moon missions, but the videos Nasa provided a quite full of errors. Too many shadows being cast for one, to confirm the tale that Nasa told.

[harris999]

lol mate. Do your research. The moonbase on the farside is a proven hoax. See the thread on that in this forum!!! That blows your statement that the disclosure guy is "credible".

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38036

Where does it say in that thread the guy is wrong? I'm open minded about everything, show me proof hes full of shit and ill happily accept it.

[shabun]

Where does it say in that thread the guy is wrong? I'm open minded about everything, show me proof hes full of shit and ill happily accept it.

Sorry I should have given more detail - click the links in the thread to the guy who did the investigation. The video of the alien (who came back to life once back on earth!) inside the LEM is a beauty.

[shabun]

And you obviously dont know how easy it is to fake. They dont need a vacuum to make something look like a vacuum. There probably were moon missions, but the videos Nasa provided a quite full of errors. Too many shadows being cast for one, to confirm the tale that Nasa told.

The shadows one has been debunked many times over. Please have a look at www.clavius.org where they go into detail about all the photo disputes.

Thanks.

[merlincove]

Moon shadows are cast in such a way because the lunar surface is made up of so many tiny rocks and bits of space dust - these have landed there from space, the moon acting like a Hoover for millions of small particles, and have settled there along with other dust and molten debris thrown from impacting collisions. The over shot of how the lunar surface is made up is that it is a very reflective surface that is able to cast light in many different directions - how that light (reflected sunlight) refracts and reflects on the lunar surface is very different to how we understand light refraction on earth. Remember that there is no atmosphere to bend the light and hence shadows will not fall in the same way as they would on earth - and those small dust particles, reflecting light that is itself being reflected from other dust particles will actually reflect light when they are themselves in a place that would seem to be in shadow. ie if i place a mirror on my roof and angle it to reflect the sunlight into my yard, i can be bathed in light, even though my yard does not actually catch the light itself. Thos dust particles are like millions of multi faceted mirrors reflecting light in many different directions - this is why shadow areas on the moon can be seen to be illuminated in light.

There is absolutely no point in posting video / photographic / sworn affidavit testimony or any other kind of proof to people who are not willing to open their minds to a concept they disbelieve on the sole premise that because Big Brother (in this case under the guise of nasa) has been proven to lie so therefore they lie all the time about everything.

Stelios, you base a lot of your own reasoning around that statement. You do not trust 'our master' - i think that is what you called them and you do not trust anything 'they' tell you because they are the machine and they choose to deceive us?

You may be right, and i for one can see where you are coming from. Why trust the machine when the machine has proven to be faulty. Perfectly right.

But part of your argument revolves around, the facts as you see them. that it is imposable to send man to the moon, 238,000 miles, with thrusters and all the weight, against the gravitational pull of the earth and with the risk of radiation and human error it imposable to manoeuvre the respective crafts in that environment etc etc etc. Surely you are basing you misguided facts on the laws that science say are relevant to space travel?

The 'laws' of science are delivered to us from the very state that you choose to disbelieve at every turn, so why then take them into consideration?

Space may not be the cruel and hostile environment we have been led to believe! Space travel may be easier than science tells us, maybe the scientists are lying? Maybe the moon isn't 238,000 miles away? Maybe the moon exists in an outer earth atmosphere and does not come under the scrutiny of space radiation? Maybe the payload needed to traverse the earth / lunar journey was a fraction of what we were told? Of course i am being facetious – but why believe one argument and not the other when the facts given to us come from the same source?

[graflok]

What evidence can you provide that this video is fake?

Proof of moon landing hoax! - YouTube

[shabun]

What evidence can you provide that this video is fake?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mouUUWpEec0

It looks a bit fake. Here is the real version.


http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mfmWgglkGHQ

[graflok]

^ "It looks a bit fake" isn't evidence.

And, showing the version that was broadcast isn't evidence that the other
clip is fake either (obviously they wouldn't show the clip with the falling
lights to the public if it were genuine).

What evidence can you show that the first clip above is fake?

[stelios]

Even if I do post one, or two, or ten, you will just call them faked anyway, because you are a clown.


Im a clown and you are either a fool or a liar.

If your kid loses a milk tooth and leaves it under their pillow.
The next day miraculously a pound appears
So i take it you will claim the tooth fairy exists?

If you really do believe in the Apollo bullsgit then post up some evidence instead of simply repeating your views. Sky news conducted a poll which resulted in 38% of respondents stating they were Apollo deniers.
More and more people are waking up to the truth.
You might be trying to stick your finger in the dam but trust me it is about to burst.
I noticed that you are also an advocate for the official 911 story as well.

http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=70089&rendTypeId=4

We are still waiting for your explanation how you believe this device flew 500,000 miles in less than 5 days. 50 years ago.
Why 50 years on these Hydrogen fuel cells are not in use generating electricity,
Why 50 years on this economic device is not leading the way carrying 3 men and a sackfull of moon rocks on a thimbleful of fuel. This must be a world record in fuel efficiency. Look at the size of the craft, it has a very small amount of fuel and has to travel a very long way in a short time.
It is impossible, this craft was only designed for low earth orbit.
Not forgetting the freezer bags of space turds. Which were brought back as well.

A frequent question about space flight involves human waste. For urine collection, the Apollo command and service module was equipped with a hose that led, through a valve, to outer space. After the condom-like attachment on the end of the hose was rolled on, the astronauts had to time the opening of the valve just so. Too soon, and the vacuum of space would begin pulling -- and the equipment would jab at their private parts, making it hard to urinate. Too late, and some of the urine would escape into the cabin, floating around in golden spheroids. When the device was properly used, the urine would be sucked into space, and freeze instantly into iridescent drops of ice. When asked "What's the most beautiful sight you saw in space?" one astronaut answered, "Urine dump at sunset."


Stop jerking?

[shabun]

^ "It looks a bit fake" isn't evidence.

And, showing the version that was broadcast isn't evidence that the other
clip is fake either (obviously they wouldn't show the clip with the falling
lights to the public if it were genuine).

What evidence can you show that the first clip above is fake?

I think the evidence is in the video itself. It says at the beginning that is it live from the surface of the moon, then you can see a lighting gantry and people with no helmets etc, which confirms to me that its not real, therefore the whole lot has been staged, i.e. faked.

[shabun]

Im a clown and you are either a fool or a liar.

If your kid loses a milk tooth and leaves it under their pillow.
The next day miraculously a pound appears
So i take it you will claim the tooth fairy exists?

If you really do believe in the Apollo bullsgit then post up some evidence instead of simply repeating your views. Sky news conducted a poll which resulted in 38% of respondents stating they were Apollo deniers.
More and more people are waking up to the truth.
You might be trying to stick your finger in the dam but trust me it is about to burst.
I noticed that you are also an advocate for the official 911 story as well.

http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=70089&rendTypeId=4

We are still waiting for your explanation how you believe this device flew 500,000 miles in less than 5 days. 50 years ago.
Why 50 years on these Hydrogen fuel cells are not in use generating electricity,
Why 50 years on this economic device is not leading the way carrying 3 men and a sackfull of moon rocks on a thimbleful of fuel. This must be a world record in fuel efficiency. Look at the size of the craft, it has a very small amount of fuel and has to travel a very long way in a short time.
It is impossible, this craft was only designed for low earth orbit.
Not forgetting the freezer bags of space turds. Which were brought back as well.


Stop jerking?

Stelios, you asked me to post a video of a docking maneuver because you claim it is impossible. I provided that video. Do you now accept that it is possible?

And you obviously didn't read my post on 911. I clearly stated that I do not support the official view on t7 or the pentagon. However I do think planes were used on the 2 main towers.

[stelios]

Maybe i misunderstood.
I also believe planes hit the WTC, a missile hit the pentagon and Shanksville is less certain. So who do you believe was responsible for 911.
My point is if you are indeed a 'truther' then why are you so blinkered about this issue?
For me 2005 i realised Apollo was a hoax.
But it wasnt till much later that i discovered 911 was a lie too.

[stelios]

Stelios, you asked me to post a video of a docking maneuver because you claim it is impossible. I provided that video. Do you now accept that it is possible?
.

Come on be serious, even you must confess that video is totally bogus
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/apollo-14-lm-lift-off-and-csm-docking/400289971
ok at one stage the CSM is rotating while aparantly the LM is inspecting it. Then the CSM stops rotating HOW?
It doesnt fire thrusters, in space once something is rotating it speeds up and spins totally out of control.
They are taking picures of each other so is the sun behind or in front?
The surface of the moon looks nothing like that seen by the Japanese probe Selene.
Presumably there was also video from inside showing them leaving the LM and entering the CSM?
And a manual decoupling when the LM was cast off?
Freeze it at 1.29 and explain the studio light?

[shabun]

Come on be serious, even you must confess that video is totally bogus
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/apollo-14-lm-lift-off-and-csm-docking/400289971
ok at one stage the CSM is rotating while aparantly the LM is inspecting it. Then the CSM stops rotating HOW?
It doesnt fire thrusters, in space once something is rotating it speeds up and spins totally out of control.
They are taking picures of each other so is the sun behind or in front?
The surface of the moon looks nothing like that seen by the Japanese probe Selene.
Presumably there was also video from inside showing them leaving the LM and entering the CSM?
And a manual decoupling when the LM was cast off?
Freeze it at 1.29 and explain the studio light?

Stelios.

The CSM has attitude, pitch and yaw thrusters which allow it to maneuver. That is what they used to start the spin in the first place. That is normal for any space vehicle to this day. Look at the diagrams you posted and you will see them yourself.

And yes there are loads of videos showing them moving along the tunnel between the CSM and the LM. I honestly can't believe you think docking two craft in space is not possible. How do you thnik they get in and out of the ISS?

Anyway, lets not argue any more until the LRO photos are taken in April - 911is much more important. You asked what I think on that - I honestly don't know - it looks clearly like an inside job but I need a lot more info (which is why I came onto this site - I want to find out, just like you). I certainly don't believe the official story on Tower 7 - I think it was a controlled demolition and I think even the BBC have been poor at explaining their "mistake".

I think there is a lot more to come on 911 but my focus is on the Tower 7 demolition. Maybe I'll join you in debate over on that thread.

[stelios]

I honestly can't believe you think docking two craft in space is not possible..
It is possible but, in 1968 in orbit around the moon is not when it was first carried out.
That video is so false i cant believe you are defending it.
When the space dock took place with Skylab - which is the first real space dock, the Apollo module was not doing multiple sumersaults.
In the video the LM and the CSM both take video of the other.
Yet there is no Sun, despite both the LM and CSM being visible and illuminated.
There is no firing of any thrusters to create the roll or to stop it or to guide on device into the other.
Just think about it a space dock is an incredibly difficult move and to perform it 250,000 miles away for the first time ever?

Mate you keep mentioning the LRO photos to be taken in April 2009.
What dont you trust the Indians or the Japs to do the job properly?

911 is the same deal.
Mass public deception and brainwashing by the same gang who carried out the Apollo deception. The villains are running the show and to fight back we need to expose everything they do.

[merlincove]

There was abrilliant video on google last vyear that exposed the entire wtc as coming down with controlled demolition.

it has sinse been taken off google and i can't find it anywhere.

There were many comments made by people who work with controlled demolitions who said that the twin towers showed signs of being bought down in that way.

at one point there is a picture and video showing the towers fall - particularly the on that had the mast on top - showing clearly the top of the structure amongst all the smoke. It was falling faster than a section fetched from the outside edge of the building, which was at that point above the main falling building. For me this described it perfectly - how can one part of a building fall faster than another part, particularly when the first part is the main building and subject to compression slow down as it 'fals' onto remaining structure falls that would slow it down -when a free falling and seperate section is falling slower.

That one fact says that there was a controlled dem, and we can even ignore the explossions that were heard one after the other - this may be hearsay or confussion etc anyway, but i doubt it. Hard pictoral and video evidance that shows the main building falling faster than a free falling outer wall section is physically impossable.

Sorry to post here, just thought i'd throw it in :-)

i would love to be able to find that video again, it is a shame that it has been pulled.

[armoured_amazon]

I have to say, anyone who watched the WTC demolition in real time and believes the official story knows deep down that it was an obvious demolition.

[stelios]

Anyone who even scratches the surface of the story of 911 very soon realises that it is a pack of lies.
The reason many people still carry on repeating the official story is because it suits their politics to do so. And because the alternative unthinkable.
Its like finding out your partner has been going to swingers parties behind your back. Either you pretend that it isnt true because it cant be true or what? The alternative is hard to fathom.
People who swallowed the rubbish about the Muslims being behind everything and some guys in a cave wearing turbans did it. People who supported all the wars and chaos and carnage.
Once the penny drops and they realise that everything was a lie.
911 was a criminal act carried out by a cabal of Zionists.
Some people accept the truth and some stick their fingers in their ears and carry on pretending.
Others know the lie but support it anyway because it suits their politics.

The Apollo hoax is the same thing.
People have realised that it is all lies. It really could not have happened 50 years ago and it is so proposterous and far fetched. Insane in fact.
But some people dont want to believe that they themselves personally have been fooled.
We are too clever and intelligent to have been tricked.
So we refuse to be reasonable and continue believing and repeating a total fantasy tale.

[graflok]

I think the evidence is in the video itself. It says at the beginning that is it live from the surface of the moon, then you can see a lighting gantry and people with no helmets etc, which confirms to me that its not real, therefore the whole lot has been staged, i.e. faked.

You're joking, right? Of course it's not on the moon! That's the whole idea!

[merlincove]

The Apollo hoax is the same thing.
People have realised that it is all lies. It really could not have happened 50 years ago and it is so proposterous and far fetched. Insane in fact.
But some people dont want to believe that they themselves personally have been fooled.
We are too clever and intelligent to have been tricked.
So we refuse to be reasonable and continue believing and repeating a total fantasy tale.

Ok, Stelios, can you please outline your own understanding of why the nasa Apollo missions of the 60’s and 70’s and the landing of man on the moon are so flawed?

As far as I understand it, from reading your previous posts, your own reasons to disbelieve the official story revolve around your own conceptual ideas that;

A) it was physically impossible for man to be sent to the moon in the 60’s and 70’s because it is simply too far away, given the amount of fuel expenditure and time given for the mission?
B) man could not physically undergo the conditions of the journey?
C) it is impossible to manoeuvre the LM from the parent craft, and return to dock with an orbiting object with the basic instrumentation provided?
D) sending Apollo to the moon and back in five days, 50 years ago, does not reflect current space travel times and therefore was impossible?
E) the video footage of the given lunar experiments can be taken as slight of hand tricks that can be reconstructed in none lunar conditions?
F) that the excavation of lunar rock (almost 900 Lbs of it over the combined missions) never happened and that any lunar rock in nasa’s possession is a record of collected meteoric evidence collected from earth?
G) that you have no reason to believe the man or anything that comes out of the mans mouth, as believing him or accepting his words puts you under his control – and anyway why believe him when it has been proven that he has lied to us in order to manipulate our conceptual ideas?

Did I miss anything?

Well, on the last count I can totally see where you are coming from – and indeed I wouldn’t be here posting on this forum if I didn’t believe the same. But is it a healthy attitude to take, founding our whole belief system and concepts of understanding around one statement, which is what you seem to be doing – correct me if I am wrong, which I am sure you will do :-)

In reference to that last one though, the parable the boy who cried wolf comes to mind.

If we believe that the lunar landings were faked on the sole premise of ‘G’ then we are guilty ourselves of closed mindedness and ignorance. Observing all the facts and reaching an understanding from that is a powerful place to be – and I am all for self and individual power, denying us our own individual power is something that the machine has been working toward for millennia. And I may be being naïve in thinking that the Apollo missions happened, but when we consider that those missions expand our understanding rather than limit it, they build on personal power rather than quenching it – in that format at least the Apollo missions don’t fall into any easily correlated lie format. And indeed, if we gear our mind set around the idea that the Apollo missions were faked simply because we don’t feel that we can accept any official story then we are in effect giving up our power because we are closing ourselves down, blinkering our mindset?

Stelios, if you are gearing your own conceptual ideas that the Apollo missions are false due to the mathematical impossibilities that you feel are inherent in the given journey due to fuel consumption and distance travelled can you please provide some tangible proof to your claims?
Bear in mind that once Apollo moves out from the earths atmosphere the inherent stresses placed upon it as it moves through the vacuum of space are greatly lessened and therefore the amount of fuel needed to propel any given object is extremely minimal. Ie if you shoot a bullet in space, the initial catalytic force will propel the bullet into space – the bullet will carry on moving due to this force alone and reach a terminal speed and will never ever slow down unless other forces such as gravitational fields etc cause it to do so. To slow it down you would need to exert an equal or higher force upon it to that which it first experienced.

The LM uses thrusters as described in earlier posts to manoeuvre itself between the lem and back again – take off from the lunar surface does not require the same amount of force as it would from earth and coupled with the lack of apposing forces, ie gravity and atmosphere, the LM’s expediency from the lunar surface would be relatively easy given the governing factors of opposed force.


Like I said in an earlier post, you seem to be using science as an argument against the Apollo missions. Using one essence of the mans word to argue with another essence of the mans word. You failed to respond to my previous post, either because you thought I was being flippant or because you simply don’t agree with it – and usually when you don’t agree you say so mate. So how do you feel about using science to embody your own none belief consensus, given that both science and many official lines are both individual tools that address the mans word? Can you so readily believe one of his mouths over another of his mouths?
Science as we understand it is a tool of oppression; it is a tool of the man and one that he has been using for a long time to control the cattle. When we believe in science we stop believing in faith, in spirituality, in the self and in the power of the self. Science fails to answer many credible questions, so why should we use it as a tool for reasoning? Can science show us how Indian gurus levitate or occupy more than one place in time, can science show us how to manifest physical objects out of nothing or heal simply by conceiving healing, can it show us even how a simple bee manages to fly? Science fails to tell us why the ice caps are melting and yet the ice fields of Alaska, Siberia and South America are getting bigger. Science fails. And so does mathematics – where numbers fail, quantum takes over and despite people having a vague understanding of quantum, mankind still can not understand how those conceptual building blocks of the genesis of everything actually work – we still just guess and hypothesise.

In my own reasoning I have said that I believe man did walk on the moon, that Neil and Buzz as well as many others stepped out onto another world. i do feel however that what we were shown in the Apollo missions was backwards engineering compared to what nasa were using behind the scenes, perhaps Apollo was just a front and that Neil and Buzz et al journeyed in a shuttle or some such similar?

Stelios I look forward to your answers and understanding. :-)

[shabun]

You're joking, right? Of course it's not on the moon! That's the whole idea!

I know its not! But I was asked by the poster to explain why that video was a fake, so I did.

Never mind. For the Apollo to be a hoax, every single video taken from the moon would need to be faked - the landings, the wandering about on the moon, the take-off, and the subsequent redocking with the CSM. There are dozens of these videos taken and every single one of them would need to be faked for Apollo to be a hoax. If there is evidence that any of the NASA videos is faked then please can you post it so I can see for myself.

[merlincove]

Also - I did my research as you mentioned and in the the official Apollo archive from NASA there are nowhere near the number of photos that would equate to one every 50 seconds. Could you please point me to where that claim is made. I would be happy to check it.

i cut this from the archive at Examination of Apollo Moon photographs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

shabun, i'm still looking for a total amount of photos's. This wasn't the info i had seen earlier, as that gave numbers etc, but it is something.

The number of photographs taken is implausibly high
When the total number of official photographs taken during EVA of all Apollo missions is divided by the total amount of time of all EVAs, one arrives at 1.19 photos per minute. That is one photo per 50 seconds. Discounting time spent on other activities results in one photo per 15 seconds for Apollo 11. This is even more remarkable considering that many locations in the photographs are situated miles apart and would have taken considerable travel time, especially in bulky pressure suits. On top of this, the cameras were neither equipped with a viewfinder nor with automatic exposure, which means that taking good pictures would take considerably longer.

The astronauts were well trained before the mission in the use of photographic equipment. Since there were no weather effects to contend with and the bright sunlight scenes permitted the use of small apertures with consequent large depth of field, the equipment was generally kept at a single setting for the duration of the mission. All that was required of the astronauts was to open the shutter and wind the film to take a picture.
In these conditions it is possible to take two photographs a second at best. The camera was in a bracket mounted on the front of their spacesuit, so they looked straight ahead at what they wanted to photograph; no viewfinder was needed. Also, many of the photographs were stereoscopic pairs or sets of panoramic images, taken immediately after each other. The Apollo Image Atlas (external link below) shows that 70mm magazine 40/S of Apollo 11 has 121 photos taken during the walk on the surface—less than one per minute. In addition, by looking at the photographs in sequence, one can see that very often several of them were taken in rapid succession. Here is a list of Apollo 11 surface photos (AS11-40-5850 to AS11-40-5970) and a map showing where they were taken (click on the map to enlarge). As can be seen from the map, many photos were taken from a similar position.

There is a total of around 180 hours of moon time given to the entire apollo missions :-)

[shabun]

i cut this from the archive at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examination_of_Apollo_moon_photos

stelios, i'm still looking for a total amount of photos's. This wasn't the info i had seen earlier, as that gave numbers etc, but it is something.

The number of photographs taken is implausibly high
When the total number of official photographs taken during EVA of all Apollo missions is divided by the total amount of time of all EVAs, one arrives at 1.19 photos per minute. That is one photo per 50 seconds. Discounting time spent on other activities results in one photo per 15 seconds for Apollo 11. This is even more remarkable considering that many locations in the photographs are situated miles apart and would have taken considerable travel time, especially in bulky pressure suits. On top of this, the cameras were neither equipped with a viewfinder nor with automatic exposure, which means that taking good pictures would take considerably longer.

The astronauts were well trained before the mission in the use of photographic equipment. Since there were no weather effects to contend with and the bright sunlight scenes permitted the use of small apertures with consequent large depth of field, the equipment was generally kept at a single setting for the duration of the mission. All that was required of the astronauts was to open the shutter and wind the film to take a picture.
In these conditions it is possible to take two photographs a second at best. The camera was in a bracket mounted on the front of their spacesuit, so they looked straight ahead at what they wanted to photograph; no viewfinder was needed. Also, many of the photographs were stereoscopic pairs or sets of panoramic images, taken immediately after each other. The Apollo Image Atlas (external link below) shows that 70mm magazine 40/S of Apollo 11 has 121 photos taken during the walk on the surface—less than one per minute. In addition, by looking at the photographs in sequence, one can see that very often several of them were taken in rapid succession. Here is a list of Apollo 11 surface photos (AS11-40-5850 to AS11-40-5970) and a map showing where they were taken (click on the map to enlarge). As can be seen from the map, many photos were taken from a similar position.

There is a total of around 180 hours of moon time given to the entire apollo missions :-)

I'll have a look through and post later.

Thanks for taking time to do the work.

[stelios]

Lets start at the bottom.
I am a skeptic that global warming is caused by CO2.
Firstly i look at my own anecdotal evidence which is every year seems to be colder. More rain, more wind, less sun, fog in August, etc.
Secondly i remember what i was taught in school - plants need in fact eat CO2 meaning a rise in global co2 from 0.03% to 0.04% even if it occurs would mean lush vegetation everywhere and abundant food and bigger forests etc.
co2 is the most natural organic fertilizer there is.
I personally believe co2 is good. Methane is bad and nobody is talking about methane. Global dimming which is also occuring is also not being talked about.
Therefore i come to the conclusion that carbon taxes are simply the latest method of extracting taxes from an already overburdened public.
More co2 would solve world food shortages.


1960s America was the time when people were routinely assasinated. Blacks still didnt have the vote and Apartheid was still in practice. The cold war with USSR was at its peak. The entire USA economy was a war machine in need of new wars and military contracts.
Propaganda and lies were the norm. Lyndon Johnson was exposed as telling blatant lies which contradicted what was happening on the ground in Vietnam.
Dont forget Johnson was the main winner from the JF Kennedy assasination, while Nixon who again is a convicted liar benefited from the other Kennedy assasination.
The space race was a divertion for the US public, it was simply another tv show making out how great and powerful they were. When in reality every US city had rioting, strikes, etc.
Johnsn in fact later admitted he lied about the Gulf of Tonkien incident which triggered the Vietnam War. Johnson believed that America could not risk appearing weak in the eyes of the world

But going back to Apollo. The story is beyond credibilty. The craft did not have the fuel to make the trip. It lacked the technolgy. And the claims made are too far fetched. The craft is basically a tin can. Stainless steel and Aluminium might make a very good frying pan but they do not make a lunar module. Think about heat and radiation shielding. Today they use silicon.
So how in 1968 did this craft fly all the way to the moon, orbit it, detach from another craft the lunar module and then perform a space dock and then detach again and fly back to earth.
238,000 miles each way.
Think about the claims. In 1968 this was the first ever space dock, a very hard procedure seen only in Gerry Anderson films. Yet it was performed in orbit around the moon. The lunar module therefore aparantly was capable of controlled space flight. Because it would have needed to have been.
http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=70089&rendTypeId=4
Answer me this question, why even have a space dock? Why not simply make an all in one Lunar Lander/Shuttle and exclude this procedure which scientists have stated has a les than 0.00000000000001% chance of success.
To make two objects using rocket jet thrusters to connect at exactly the right point in space is extremely hard. With 1960s pre silicon chip technology.
1973 space dock with Skylab in low eart orbit i can believe.
1968 space dock in moon orbit i cant.

All the so called evidence:
1) a few minutes of cine film footage
2) some pictures
3) some moon rocks

Well the pictures and the footage have been debunked. They were made on earth in a studio.
The moon rocks are lunar meterorites found here on earth.
There is no more evidence so case closed.

Let me give you a comparison. When Hillary and Tensing went up to the peak of Mount Everest what proof do we have?
Well others have done the same journey and have found artifacts from them left behind.
Proving that the trip is possible and that it did happen.
With the moon, nobody has done the trip ever again and hence it is therefore impossible to do. Like all journeys, by now there would be hundreds of trips, record times and durations, many souveniors.

In the USA and UK the bulk of media is controlled by a few companies. The BBC/Channel 4 are state owned. So there is no medium for alternative viewpoints. But despite this a vast percentage of people now realise that Apollo was faked.

All the US needs to do is fly a shuttle to the moon simply to orbit the moon and come back. But in 40 years they havent, if it was so easy in 1968 why is it so hard today?
Today we have better fuel, better engines, solar power, computers, heat shielding, space toilets, better telescopes, HDTV, etc.
What do members of the Church of Apollo say about this?

ps: on the news today it said a new water purification system was being installed on the ISS. So what water were they drinking on the moon? Because they werent recycling their own piss as they do today. Apollo claims to have "hydrogen fuel cells" and a water purification system. But at the same time piss was vacumed into space. Contradiction?
40 years on where are these "hydrogen fuel cells"

[merlincove]

Oh dear

the lm was not a tin can. it managed to make the descent through our atmosphere - and it did this whether you believe it voyaged to the moon or not - unscathed.

What remains of the satalites that crash down to earth? Not very much.

It had more than enough fuel, it dodn't need much. All the other stuff did the work getting it off the ground, seperations etc, all it had to do was carry on a simple trajectory, like the bullet i mentioned, once the firing was done, the bullet just goes it doesn't need any more propultion. All the fuel it needed was enough to get it moving back towards earth and enough to orbit the moon - and then there are the thrusters.

i believe that 90% of the photos are staged

there is loads of evidance to suggest this.

as for the vid footage i don't know

Again Stelios, no proof just suspect evaluation and your own view, which is cool - your view is as important as mine

i remain unconvinced :-)

[graflok]

I know its not! But I was asked by the poster to explain why that video was a fake, so I did.

I guess your "explanation" would only make sense to a debunker. :D


Never mind.

Oh, but I do mind.


For the Apollo to be a hoax, every single video taken from the moon would need to be faked - the landings, the wandering about on the moon, the take-off, and the subsequent redocking with the CSM. There are dozens of these videos taken and every single one of them would need to be faked for Apollo to be a hoax.

Exactly. Now you're beginning to get the idea. You just refuse to accept it. :)



If there is evidence that any of the NASA videos is faked then please can you post it so I can see for myself.

I already have. You just don't get it. :)

[kblood]

Has the vid with the moon setting been shown yet, where Nasa supposedly made test video recordings? The moon setting and so on that was there for simulation or whatever it was they claimed it was for.

Isnt it possible to find satalite images of the moon or telescope images of the landing site? It ought to still be there if it happened, and there ought to have been something since then capable of taking photos of it.

Of course, if it isnt there, then it isnt that easy taking a photo of it.

[stelios]

the lm was not a tin can. it managed to make the descent through our atmosphere - and it did this whether you believe it voyaged to the moon or not - unscathed.Agreed. It was designed for low earth orbit and re-entry. Not deep space.

It had more than enough fuel, it didn't need much. .
How much did it need?
The official story says it went into Earth orbit then fired thrusters to launch it towards the moon. Dont forget, i agree if you fire a bullet into space it just keeps going. But in order to meet a deadline you need to put your foot on the accelerator and then the brakes. We needed to get there and back before the oxygen ran out and before the space turds took over the ship.
So fuel needed to power us there and back.

i believe that 90% of the photos are staged.
Why not say 100%
Bruv if they really went. do you think they would need to make any fake photos?
as for the videos, this is an official undoctored NASA video, it is 100% made in a studio and 100% fake, if they really went why fake it?
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/ap...king/400289971

The number one question remains - why havent they gone back?

[shabun]

Has the vid with the moon setting been shown yet, where Nasa supposedly made test video recordings? The moon setting and so on that was there for simulation or whatever it was they claimed it was for.

Isnt it possible to find satalite images of the moon or telescope images of the landing site? It ought to still be there if it happened, and there ought to have been something since then capable of taking photos of it.

Of course, if it isnt there, then it isnt that easy taking a photo of it.

The landing site will be photographed in April 2009 by the LRO mission. Once the photos are in, if they show the Apollo equipment then Stelios will say they are faked but if they show nothing then Stelios will say they are real.

Therefore there is no point in discussing.

Maybe others will take a more reasoned view but I'm not expecting that on this site.

[merlincove]

hehe

:-)

i will also wait for the lro next year ansd see what it brings back.

There may be some shuttle missions on the go before then and now, taking bits of rubbish up there mind... hehe

i still don't think they'd need that much fuel, and as for the lm not being designed for sapce, i think the ardours of earth atmosphere entry would be much more than the pressures exerted within a vacuum?

i retiire and await lro :-) with respect, i have enjoyed this though :-)

[hagbard_celine]

i retiire and await lro :-) with respect, i have enjoyed this though :-)

Me too. Shabun is a polite and professional challenger. It's easier to debate with somebody when they're an arsehole, like some past members have been.:D

[stelios]

The landing site will be photographed in April 2009 by the LRO mission. Once the photos are in, if they show the Apollo equipment then Stelios will say they are faked but if they show nothing then Stelios will say they are real.
I dont care what they show.
There is no evidence to support the religion that NASA landed men on the moon back in the 1960s and that these men drove a beach buggy around and had a good time crapping into plastic bags and pissing into the vacuum of space.
NASA has not landed men on the moon.
That is a fact.
And no amount of propaganda or faked images or the latest in NASA simulations will change that fact.

http://www.caveslime.org/people/pennyAstro-small.png

[the itinerant shrubber]

And what of the trans-lunar injection burns that were witnessed and photographed by thousands of people? All faked I suppose. Talk about stretching credibility to fit a belief.
None of the moon hoaxers can provide any evidence to suggest that the missions were hoaxed. The moon landing were based on sound mathematical calculations and physical principles. There is no reason why we didnt or couldnt go to the moon.

http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html

[stealth_0073]

And what of the trans-lunar injection burns that were witnessed and photographed by thousands of people? All faked I suppose. Talk about stretching credibility to fit a belief.
None of the moon hoaxers can provide any evidence to suggest that the missions were hoaxed. The moon landing were based on sound mathematical calculations and physical principles. There is no reason why we didnt or couldnt go to the moon.

http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1TPw3Y1w7Ww

[the itinerant shrubber]

Im a clown and you are either a fool or a liar.

If your kid loses a milk tooth and leaves it under their pillow.
The next day miraculously a pound appears
So i take it you will claim the tooth fairy exists?

If you really do believe in the Apollo bullsgit then post up some evidence instead of simply repeating your views. Sky news conducted a poll which resulted in 38% of respondents stating they were Apollo deniers.
More and more people are waking up to the truth.
You might be trying to stick your finger in the dam but trust me it is about to burst.
I noticed that you are also an advocate for the official 911 story as well.

http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=70089&rendTypeId=4

We are still waiting for your explanation how you believe this device flew 500,000 miles in less than 5 days. 50 years ago.
Why 50 years on these Hydrogen fuel cells are not in use generating electricity,
Why 50 years on this economic device is not leading the way carrying 3 men and a sackfull of moon rocks on a thimbleful of fuel. This must be a world record in fuel efficiency. Look at the size of the craft, it has a very small amount of fuel and has to travel a very long way in a short time.
It is impossible, this craft was only designed for low earth orbit.
Not forgetting the freezer bags of space turds. Which were brought back as well.


Stop jerking?

Regarding your point about H fuel cells: the US government has already sunk 1 billion dollars into H fuel cell technology.

As for your point on fuel economy,I'd suggest you familiarize yourself with Newtons first law of motion which if my memory serves me is:
"Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state unless acted upon by an external force."

This means that very little force is need to propel an object through space at great speed due to there being no friction to act upon it. Therefore, a body traveling at say 3000 MPH will continue to travel at 3000MPH FOREVER unless it hits something.

On the journey to the moon,the rocket and the gravitational force of the earth and moon served as the force. On the way back,the modules engines and the earths gravitational pull were the force used to accelerate the craft to about 24000 MPH.

Remember that meteoroids hit our atmosphere at over ten times the speed of a rifle bullet. Their speed is due to gravity alone.

Simple Newtonian physics. Should of paid more attention at school mate.

[stelios]

You mean simple bullshit dont you?
You have zero evidence to support your crazy theory that 40 years ago people were walking on the moon.
So instead you post some total bollocks.

Regarding your point about H fuel cells: the US government has already sunk 1 billion dollars into H fuel cell technology.


Nobody gives a fig how much the US taxpayer has been ripped off.
$1 Billion is actually small potatoes.
What you should be writing is these Hydrogen fuel cells that were in use 40 years ago flying people to the moon and back WHERE ARE THEY NOW?

[the itinerant shrubber]

You mean simple bullshit dont you?
You have zero evidence to support your crazy theory that 40 years ago people were walking on the moon.
So instead you post some total bollocks.



Nobody gives a fig how much the US taxpayer has been ripped off.
$1 Billion is actually small potatoes.
What you should be writing is these Hydrogen fuel cells that were in use 40 years ago flying people to the moon and back WHERE ARE THEY NOW?

So Newtons laws are bollocks are they! Great counterargument there. You sure got me on the ropes with your cutting logic and erudite debating skills.:rolleyes:
I have hours of film and audio evidence,plus the testimony of the hundreds of people involved in the missions. You however seem to be proving to me how ignorant you are of basis facts-facts that my 10 and 8 year old kids are aware of.
Just becouse you dont know how something works,doesn't mean it's bollocks.
Go away and educate yourself and then come back with a coherant argument;one that doesnt involve the word "crazy","bullshit" or "bollocks".

[kblood]

Regarding your point about H fuel cells: the US government has already sunk 1 billion dollars into H fuel cell technology.

As for your point on fuel economy,I'd suggest you familiarize yourself with Newtons first law of motion which if my memory serves me is:
"Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state unless acted upon by an external force."

This means that very little force is need to propel an object through space at great speed due to there being no friction to act upon it. Therefore, a body traveling at say 3000 MPH will continue to travel at 3000MPH FOREVER unless it hits something.

On the journey to the moon,the rocket and the gravitational force of the earth and moon served as the force. On the way back,the modules engines and the earths gravitational pull were the force used to accelerate the craft to about 24000 MPH.

Remember that meteoroids hit our atmosphere at over ten times the speed of a rifle bullet. Their speed is due to gravity alone.

Simple Newtonian physics. Should of paid more attention at school mate.

I agree that when in space, the speed of the spaceship remains constant. As you wrote yourself though, astroids that hit the Earth come at very high speed due to gravity alone. It surely is a force not to be underestimated. Now what speed exactly does the spaceship need to leave Earths atmosphere with to reach our moon in 5 days?

Leaving the moon is probably easier I guess, since it has less gravity. Still they have to land on the moon, which probably takes alot of fuel as well. Most the rocket is fuel though from what I remember, so I guess its all somewhat possible. I just dont believe we went to the moon the way they showed us. They might have done it before or after, by other means than they showed.

As for the satalite photo or something like that of the landing site, in 2009
? Why has it taken so long? Its been 50 years, we have photos of far away solar systems with the telescopes, radioscopes and what else we have today. Lots of pictures of Mars, although they needed robots on the surface due to its atmosphere. If they come with a photo of the landing site, it ought to be provable wether its fake or not.

[kblood]

http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~durda/Apollo/landing_sites.html

I guessed they had left bigger stuff on the moon at the manned mission. I guess not though. All there is to look for is a flag and a couple of small rovers? Very hard to prove or disprove then.

[the itinerant shrubber]

I agree that when in space, the speed of the spaceship remains constant. As you wrote yourself though, astroids that hit the Earth come at very high speed due to gravity alone. It surely is a force not to be underestimated. Now what speed exactly does the spaceship need to leave Earths atmosphere with to reach our moon in 5 days?

Leaving the moon is probably easier I guess, since it has less gravity. Still they have to land on the moon, which probably takes alot of fuel as well. Most the rocket is fuel though from what I remember, so I guess its all somewhat possible. I just dont believe we went to the moon the way they showed us. They might have done it before or after, by other means than they showed.

As for the satalite photo or something like that of the landing site, in 2009
? Why has it taken so long? Its been 50 years, we have photos of far away solar systems with the telescopes, radioscopes and what else we have today. Lots of pictures of Mars, although they needed robots on the surface due to its atmosphere. If they come with a photo of the landing site, it ought to be provable wether its fake or not.

According to my very rough and amateurish calculations,the craft would have to travel at 2000 miles an hour to reach the moon in 5 days.
The escape velocity of the earth is 25000 MPH. This means it would have easily have reached speeds capable of it getting to the moon in 3 days.
The escape velocity of the moon is 1/6 of the earths.
Combining the modules thrusters which would of been intermittently both ways (the module would of coasted along for most of the journey) and the pull of the earth,the module could have easily of made the journey. Anyone who's got a head for figures and a scientific calculator could probably work out the exact fuel requirements.
The calculations behind these missions must be mindboggling but they were all based on an elegantly simple concept.
We could only travel this way to the moon becouse of it's proximity.Essentially, we bounced off the moon and came back again.
Traveling to another planet requires a completly different way of doing things. It would take 6 years to get to Mars but becouse of the distance and the fact that the escape velocity of Mars is roughly the same as Earths means it's completly unfeasible at our current state of technology.

What we can take pictures of depends on the light gathering capacity of the lenses. We cant take pictures of the lunar buggy with a telescope for the same reason we cant use a telescope to see a sparrow a hundred miles away but can see a planet millions of miles away.Our photographic technology has also advanced.

This whole moon hoax theory just seems to be based on peoples personal incredulity which itself is based on a lack of knowledge on the subject.
In 1969 we had sophisticated jet propulsion,the materials to allow a person to survive temporarily in the vacuum of space and the brains and the computer power to calculate the trajectories.
Unlike the 911 cover up,a faked Apollo mission would involve hundreds of people in the conspiracy yet no one to this day has come forward. No death bed confessions of astronauts or NASA employees...nothing.
Due to the overwhelming evidence suggesting we went to the moon and the complete lack of evidence to the contrary,it can be reasonably assumed that we did in fact go to the moon.

[stelios]

I agree that when in space, the speed of the spaceship remains constant. As you wrote yourself though, astroids that hit the Earth come at very high speed due to gravity alone. It surely is a force not to be underestimated. Now what speed exactly does the spaceship need to leave Earths atmosphere with to reach our moon in 5 days?
.

The official story says less than 3 days to get there.

the itinerant shrubber does not understand science of physics.
To leave Earth's gravity and go into low Earth orbit, which Apollo aparantly did is on thing and everyone agrees the Saturn V was designed for that.
But then for the remaining Apollo craft to break away from Earth orbit and travel to the moon would need a quantity of fuel which does not appear to be present.
It needs fuel to thrust the 238,000 miles to the moon, it needs fuel to make course corrections and then to decelerate upon reaching the moon.
In all the other trips to the moon made by unmanned probes the trip has taken 3 weeks. So the question is why in 1968 did Apollo only take less than 3 days, while carrying a bigger payload and having very little fuel.
the itinerant shrubber also fails to provide any evidence of these Hydrogen fuel cells. On the moons surface they claim to have used batteries.
Which i suggest would have overheated and discharged themselves long before what is claimed.

All the Apollo advocates claim Newton's law works in their favour. But that means nothing. What stops the moon disappearing? The Earth's gravity field holds the moon in place. So suddenly when the Apollo module was 200 miles up gravity doesnt suddenly stop. The Apollo craft still needs to expend alot of fuel to make the trip.

He says the trip is easy. So why havent they or anyone else ever gone back?
They dont just climb Mt Everest once they do it thousands of times.
We can see the footage and the evidence.
There is no evidence other than some debunked photos and cine film footage and a few moon meteorites which were found on earth.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ByqHJnT0iVg

I wonder if this bufoon understands inverse square root theory?

[merlincove]

The official story says less than 3 days to get there.

the itinerant shrubber does not understand science of physics.
To leave Earth's gravity and go into low Earth orbit, which Apollo aparantly did is on thing and everyone agrees the Saturn V was designed for that.
But then for the remaining Apollo craft to break away from Earth orbit and travel to the moon would need a quantity of fuel which does not appear to be present.
It needs fuel to thrust the 238,000 miles to the moon, it needs fuel to make course corrections and then to decelerate upon reaching the moon.
In all the other trips to the moon made by unmanned probes the trip has taken 3 weeks. So the question is why in 1968 did Apollo only take less than 3 days, while carrying a bigger payload and having very little fuel.
the itinerant shrubber also fails to provide any evidence of these Hydrogen fuel cells. On the moons surface they claim to have used batteries.
Which i suggest would have overheated and discharged themselves long before what is claimed.



the itinerant shrubber is echoing here what i said a few pages ago. You thrust and once clear of the atmosphere switch the engines off and coast at a steady (and already reached) speed - in this case 25000 mph, all the way to near moon orbit. once here you allow the differentiation between the moons and earths gravitational pulls to slow you down, using the engines in reverse thrust and fall into lunar obit. Simple.

once the inertia is realised, the only way it can be halted is to exact an equal or higher amount of pressure upon it.



All the Apollo advocates claim Newton's law works in their favour. But that means nothing. What stops the moon disappearing? The Earth's gravity field holds the moon in place. So suddenly when the Apollo module was 200 miles up gravity doesnt suddenly stop. The Apollo craft still needs to expend alot of fuel to make the trip.



The moon is actually getting away from Earth orbit and escaping, albeit gradually, the earths gravitational pull. Beyonf the moon is mars and then the collosus of Jupiter. Had Jupiter been 5% bigger it would have formed into a sun, it is so big. Jupiters continula effect on every planet within the system is huge. The moon is relatively small and because it doesn't rotate it does not exert its own gravity to keep it in a stable orbit and as such comes under the imense attraction of Jupiter - this is why it is steadilly mpoving away from the earth, i think it is a few inches more distant every decade.

And science knows this as a dirrect result of the lunar landings, because the apollo lads left mirrors on the lunar surface which reflect a beam of light from earth to the moon - the time the light takes to get there is measured and the distance worked out - the distance is greater every year.

Apollo was much smaller, and remember that it is using enertia to move away from earth, and beyond the atmosphere it is not under any other stress to slow it down. Yes earths gravitational pull upon apollo woulkd have an effect and they worked on this effect to slow it down prior to lunar orbit. You answered your own denial there stelios mate :rolleyes:



He says the trip is easy. So why havent they or anyone else ever gone back?
They dont just climb Mt Everest once they do it thousands of times.
We can see the footage and the evidence.
There is no evidence other than some debunked photos and cine film footage and a few moon meteorites which were found on earth.

I wonder if this bufoon understands inverse square root theory?

They haven't gone back because the cold war ended, whoever won the space race would win the cold war. Russians were orbiting the earth, nasa was hungry to put a man on the moon - the american people virtually demanded it. Who ever won the space race would win the cold war. This is why nasa sent apollo there - five years on we had the space docking. It was widely believed, back in the day, that if russia got to the moon first, they would set up a missile base - this is what the machine was feeding the people. That is why they went.

Why they stopped, well it was a case of been there done that. People lost intrest - Apollo 13 (lovell) kinda caight peoples attention again, for the wrong reason, but apollo was dead in the water. More people tuned in to the football game than they did the last lunar landing.

The people were not intrested anymore, and coupled with the expense of going nasa could not justify it.

Everest is there, and it is easy to get to, climbing it is a test - thats why people climb everest. They wouldn't do it if it cost billions of usd / gbp - it would be unfeasable.

it is doifficult for us to find absolute proof beyond conjecture and our own personal concepts of what is and what is not possable, that they went there. Stelios if you can disprove it mathamatically and scientifically, please share your findings

[shabun]

As for the satalite photo or something like that of the landing site, in 2009
? Why has it taken so long? Its been 50 years, we have photos of far away solar systems with the telescopes, radioscopes and what else we have today. Lots of pictures of Mars, although they needed robots on the surface due to its atmosphere. If they come with a photo of the landing site, it ought to be provable wether its fake or not.

The landing equipment is about 12ft square and can't be seen by any telescope or previous lunar orbiting photographs due to its small size. There is one photo of one site that may show something but it is not detailed enough.

NASA are launching a mission to the moon on 24th April 2009 which is designed to take high resolution photos of the surface form a low orbit to allow the next mission to land in 2019. The 2019 mission will be landing in much more rocky sites than Apollo using a similar type of lander than Apollo (i.e. a LEM) so its important to find landing areas with few rocks.

Once the photos are available people in this site will no doubt claim they are fakes if they show the Apollo landers, which is why this whole site has low credibility when dealing with real inside jobs like 911.

[hagbard_celine]

And what of the trans-lunar injection burns that were witnessed and photographed by thousands of people? All faked I suppose. Talk about stretching credibility to fit a belief.
None of the moon hoaxers can provide any evidence to suggest that the missions were hoaxed. The moon landing were based on sound mathematical calculations and physical principles. There is no reason why we didnt or couldnt go to the moon.

http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html

The trans lunar injection burns took place, in fact the Jordrell Bank radio telescope folowed whatever craft that was all the way to the moon. But how do we know it was the Apollo craft?:confused: It could have been just an unmanned probe, or even a holographic projection!:eek:

[merlincove]

The landing equipment is about 12ft square and can't be seen by any telescope or previous lunar orbiting photographs due to its small size. There is one photo of one site that may show something but it is not detailed enough.

NASA are launching a mission to the moon on 24th April 2009 which is designed to take high resolution photos of the surface form a low orbit to allow the next mission to land in 2019. The 2019 mission will be landing in much more rocky sites than Apollo using a similar type of lander than Apollo (i.e. a LEM) so its important to find landing areas with few rocks.

Once the photos are available people in this site will no doubt claim they are fakes if they show the Apollo landers, which is why this whole site has low credibility when dealing with real inside jobs like 911.

Shabun is right - apollo happened 50 years ago. It is old news, no one really cares - except us on this thread lol.

911 was yesterday in comparison, and where we may draw parallel lies between them, we might be better focusing on what we KNOW for sure wasn't real - and that is the 911 official story rather than bickering between ourselves.

Maybe these folk who throw in the apollo was fake lines are there to detract everyones attention from the true lies (sic). There's a guy who has been following buz around for years, as well as a few other apollo crew members, asking them to swear on the bible that they landed on the moon. i think it was buzz, or at least one of them, who decked the guy out one day. He heckles them at conventions and talks and bad presses them continually.

Maybe these guys have been wound up and let go by the pr sec of NWO as a detraction from all the other slippery deals, to keep people talking about something that doesn't matter.

[stelios]

According to my very rough and amateurish calculations,the craft would have to travel at 2000 miles an hour to reach the moon in 5 days.
Apollo 8 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But it only took 3 days according to ziopedia

The escape velocity of the earth is 25000 MPH. This means it would have easily have reached speeds capable of it getting to the moon in 3 days.

But if you read the link you will read that they went into Earth orbit NOT into escape trajectory. After going into low Earth orbit they fired the third stage to get into a higher orbit of 215 miles. Which is all very normal and acceptable.
So the rest of the mission is to break free of Earth's gravity, to pass through the Van Allen belts and fly 238,000 miles to the moon. Without any visible means of having enough thrust or fuel.

PS: how much G force would the astronuts have been subjected to in order to make the 3 day jolly?
A few minutes of G force while getting into Earth orbit is one thing but 3 days worth of it with only a Helium bubble to provide cusioning and dampening?


The escape velocity of the moon is 1/6 of the earths.
Combining the modules thrusters which would of been intermittently both ways (the module would of coasted along for most of the journey) and the pull of the earth,the module could have easily of made the journey. Anyone who's got a head for figures and a scientific calculator could probably work out the exact fuel requirements.
Easily is not a scientitfic term and does not substitute for calculations.
A car may do 40 miles to the gallon. In theory it is posible to go 1000 miles to the gallon. But a spacecraft with only enough fuel for Earth orbit and course corrections cannot by any stretch of science fiction possibly go 500,000 miles.

[stelios]

911 was yesterday in comparison, and where we may draw parallel lies between them, we might be better focusing on what we KNOW for sure wasn't real - and that is the 911 official story rather than bickering between ourselves.

911 happened 7 years ago. Apollo 40 years ago. while 7/7 only happened 3 years ago.
If you believe in truth and justice you cannot campaign for one and bury your head in the sand about the others. If something is wrong your conscience should scream out at you and not allow you to keep quiet and cover it up.
What about other recent events like the state sponsored killing of Princess Diana do you want us to pretend that never happened?
Lockerbie where even the victims families dont believe the official lies.
Iraqi weapons of mass distruction?
Where do you draw the line as to how much truth you are prepared to handle at any one time?

[merlincove]

We look at the things that matter to us Stelios - you are right, spot on my friend, we should be thoughtfull of all these issues that you have raised, as well as the future issues that threaten us and our freedoms whose catalyst is what has gone before.

But the apollo missions were so long ago, they don't affect our freedoms directly whereas 911 was all about resrticting our freedom of speech and movement, as was 7/7. These things strangle our minds and touch us in a way that is intrinsic to us in the here and now. Apollo doesn't do that - that is what i was saying, trying to say.

it is perhaps more important that we understand how the nature of 911 touches us, and we can say the same thing about all those issues that you raised.

Using apollo to say 'they have been fucking with us for so long' is ok if you wanna use that as a foundation. But then we can look at the roman empire and say the same thing. We can look at the bible and say that we were lied to, Christ never died on the cross (there is evidence to say that he didn't - and the only evidence we have to say that he did is 'the official story').

The falklands - you never hear anyone banging on about that anymore. the British Forces Post office (BFPO) is 666. look it up if you don't believe me. The whole war was about bringing control to the islands. Bennies were running around with no mot, insurance, tax before the war, pleasing themselves. Now there are more forces there than there are civilians. Point in question, who cares about the falklands now? Yet the war was nothing but a blatant lie, a tool for control. people died and people got screwed over, and it is a pity that they went there for nothing other than a lie. it was a mini iraq, without the oil and Sumer texts.

Where do we draw the line, is my point? We can look at all these things and we can become blind to the machine working away in our back yard trying to shaft us - when all the time we're looking in the front yard to see where the lies are buried. Analogy.

i can accept your view that you don't think the apollo missions found their way to the moon, Great, i have no problem with that. i don't dig your view, but i dig that it is your view. What we can both dig on is the bullshit that affects us here and now, yeah?

i totally agree with you, it was my point, and you just expounded upon it with a few more instances :D

[stelios]

Falklands?
A fascist military dictator invaded with help from the usa.
Britain defended itself and it's people.
I dont see how that relates to Apollo or 911. Falklands was a just war.

http://i1.ytimg.com/i/lxa1YArfHT2AYlhuVLdbWw/1.jpg

[merlincove]

Dude, do you just make stuff up to appose whatever anyone else says?

BFPO - british forces post office number, of the falklands is 666.

People lost their freedom, freedom of movement, freedom of expression and freedom of just generally being free on an island in the middle of nowhere.

The war was built on a lie. People died, good people. For a lie.

The outcome was that those people on the islands are a little bit more under control now.

There are similarities, it was big bro at work - and it helped dear old Maggie mold a concrete image for herself. You can draw parallels.

You mentioned lockerbie - the falklands is a WHOLE lot more to do with the NWO than lockerbie.

None of the things you mentioned have anything to do with Apollo - other than being perped by the same gang.

Falklands was just another instance, that gets overlooked.

Jees guy, take a pill or somethin :rolleyes:

>>> Where do you draw the line as to how much truth you are prepared to handle at any one time? <<<

i don't reflect the amount of truth that i can handle by drawing a line, there are no limits. You've shut the falklands off as being removed from everything because >>> A fascist military dictator invaded with help from the usa. <<< Well America didn't help them, they helped us, in the general view of it, but we know that one hand controls both sides.

You draw the line in believing that this issue is removed from the whole nwo agenda. Were the Falklands a training exrersize to ready troops for something else? Of course they were. That is a truth, and it is a truth you're ignoring with the view you posted above. The first Iraq war was waged by soldiers who had been to war in one of the most inhospitable places in the world - it gave britain a taste of war beyond the Ireland conflict, which wasn't so much about war as about control. The agenda is at work here just as much as it was in the Iraq invasion of Kuwait. Same thing, bigger deal. Falklalnds was a training exersize.

There is no line, because they don't understand lines, NWO will walk over lines just like they walk over anyone and everything who apposes them.

[stelios]

Dude - i assume you are american?
I dont think you understand the Falklands or it's history or what happened.
Argentina had in place a very cruel and repressive regime that was backed by the USA.
Galtieri had already disappeared more than 20,000 of his own people.
He was a banana republic dictator as bad as they come.
He invaded the Falklands which by any stretch of any imagination were not and never part of Argentina.
He recieved support from most European countries and the USA publically announced they were going to remain neutral because they were allies with both Argentina and the UK. But in reality the CIA was active in Argentina and had the ear of Galtieri and continued to support him.
The only countries who provided support for the UK were New Zealand and Australia.

Under what logic would you consider it to have been right for the indigenous population of the Falklands to have been ruled by a brutal dictator who was later found guilty of murdering over 20,000 of his own people. None of the Falklanders wanted to be ruled by Argentina. Hence it was a just war of liberation.
You cannot put it in the same catergory as wars of invasion and occupation such as Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan.
You might hate Britain and you may not like Thatcher but on that occasion Britain was 100% in the right.

If on the other hand you were talking about Vietnam i would agree with you that it was linked to the Apollo hoax.

[merlincove]

Erm, ok i am british.

i know what happened.

i dont hate britain or thatcher.

i didn't say that the falklands sould have stayed occupied.

i have a lot of good friends who served there.

i have familly who served there.

my best mate is a falklander who lived there through the conflict, she lives here in the uk now.

Her partner, also a best mate and long time school mate, spent 12 years there, he was in special forces and he was there three months before the invasion - fact. I'm not gonna tell you why he was posted there, draw your own conclussions...

He remained after the invasion, left the forces and stayed there till only a few years ago.

The falklands were invaded to meet an agenda - exactly the same as kuwait.

The usa were flying recon missions in the blackbird and reporting back to the brits - fact. My mate was on the recieving end of a lot of the intel, and it is public knowledge the SR71 was in use.

the nuke subs never left bay in the uk - fact, that's how bothered the british pm was about this conflict.

the invasion was an nwo effort, a precurser to what came afterwards. It was staged to affect the freedoms of the islanders. They have less freedom now than they had before the invasion. Fact.

looks to me like there was a hidden agenda, like all those other issues you mentioned - they have a common denominator. the falklands war served a purpose, and that purpose isn't what was attested to in the media.

YOU raised the point - >>> Where do you draw the line as to how much truth you are prepared to handle at any one time? <<<

My answer to you is not to bury your head in the sand and play things off as nothing when they don't fit into your agenda.

>>> I dont think you understand the Falklands or it's history or what happened. <<< Unfortunately i understand it only too well!

'Just' one more secret gvt move in a huge game - seems that you are willing to discount every thing other than your own ideas as to what that agenda / game is.

Why arguer everything that anybody posts that doesn't fit into your mindset as to how the secret gvt work!

And you are willing to push the lunar landings as a lie beyond conceptional thought and yet unwilling to accept that the falklands were just another staging point for tptb to play with uis and screw us over?

[bill23]

the hoax theory was created by nasa to distract people from the real issue. ie what is on the moon.

Project Camelot Interviews Richard Hoagland - Part 1 of 3 - YouTube


best video on the net ive seen about the moon landing.

[shabun]

the hoax theory was created by nasa to distract people from the real issue. ie what is on the moon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDEcfohz8xE&feature=related


best video on the net ive seen about the moon landing.

He is going to look pretty stupid when the LRO photos come in. The tragedy of all this is that those who commited the 911 inside job are going to get way scot free because normal people will conclude that the Apollo missions were indeed genuine when the LRO photos come in, and therefore anyone who still says Apollo is faked will have no credibility, so if those same people try to convince the world about 911 they will not be believed.

I think NWO are getting away with 911 while using the Apollo hoax as good cover. That is the real tragedy.

[stelios]

Erm, ok i am british.
Pleased to meet you bruv.

the nuke subs never left bay in the uk - fact, that's how bothered the british pm was about this conflict..
Why would we need nukes?
Argentina has no nukes and who do you propose we drop them on
the sheep?

the invasion was an nwo effort, a precurser to what came afterwards. It was staged to affect the freedoms of the islanders. They have less freedom now than they had before the invasion. Fact..
How much freedoms would they have had under the thumb of the fascist dictator Galtieri?

>>> I dont think you understand the Falklands or it's history or what happened. <<< Unfortunately i understand it only too well!
Look, i understand that the Falklands was never Argentinian, the inhabitants all 3000 of them were all British and therefore i 100% support Thatcher and her actions.
I do think mistakes were made.
But what on earth the Falklands has to do with the USA staging the so obviously faked Apollo missions i dont know.
Are you suggesting that there was no invasion of the Falklands or are you suggesting we invited Galtieri to go in.
I dont know please make your position clear.

Shabun - i asked you a while back - who do you think was responsible for 911?
You obviously dont buy the fairy tale so what is your own opinion?

[stelios]

the hoax theory was created by nasa to distract people from the real issue. ie what is on the moon.

Bill, mate, there is nothing on the moon. No alien, no moon bases and no American flags. The moon rotates in 28 day cycles so every part of it is visible from earth.
Why would NASA be spending huge amounts of money trying to pretend it has gone to the moon?
NASA has even set up it's own hoax websites to try and wrongfoot people seeking the truth.

[merlincove]

Pleased to meet you bruv.

likewise mate :D

Look, i understand that the Falklands was never Argentinian, the inhabitants all 3000 of them were all British and therefore i 100% support Thatcher and her actions.
I do think mistakes were made.
But what on earth the Falklands has to do with the USA staging the so obviously faked Apollo missions i dont know.
Are you suggesting that there was no invasion of the Falklands or are you suggesting we invited Galtieri to go in.
I dont know please make your position clear.

i was re-iterating your point, we can't overlook anything that the nwo have done to force their policies. Argentina invading the islands was a set up to get the british forces in there. I don't know why the stratergy, but tptb orchestrated it and the brits knew well before hand that it was gonna happen.
i'm just saying that it is another underhand nwo issue - one that we overlook - another case of us being lied to, that is all i am saying. The common demonimator is that they lie to us and the falklands are another point in question.

no we shouldn't have left them to argentine rule, of course we shouldn't have - but argentina shouldn't have gone in there in the 1st place. there are more military and police on the islands now than there are civilians. Beore the war there were three coppers there, and everything got on fine - now they are under control. That is my point - there is always a hidden agenda with these bastards.

Why would we need nukes?
Argentina has no nukes and who do you propose we drop them on
the sheep?

The subs were nuke powered, i'm not sure if they were fitted with nuke warheads? But the press was saying that the two subs were patroling the waters down there and were equipped to sink any argies ships. That was a bluff - one was in dry dock and the other was up north some place, dumfries? Maggie was not that bothered that she needed to dispatch what were in their day perhaps some of the most sophisticated war ships on / in the sea. They stayed in their docks.

And maggie did earn a lot of brownie points for sticking to her guns - but then that was the plan.

Apollo landings, lies. i dont think so but i know you do.
Iraq invaded kuwait against usa wishes. lies.
WMD. lies.
911 lies.
lockerbie bombed. lies.

and i believe that the falklands were set up by the same people who have been lieing to us.

And back to my point, focusing on the apollo missions - well they were so long ago, there are so many other instances that we can focus on that we know for sure that we have been lied to on. Throwing the apollo missions in there kinda detracts from their dirty hands and what they are doing now. whereas all the above, diana, wmd's, 911, the war on terror, all that bullshit is where we should be focusing. No one cares about what did or didn't happen in space 50 years ago - because it doesn't affect us.

just an observation is all, why look at the history books when we can switch on the news and see what the bastards are up to right now. Any further back than the falklands and we're just into history, lets not lose sight of the ball looking to see what the linesmen were up to behind the net.

[alzee]

Okie, a question about the moon landings.

In pics of the lander while on the moon, why, underneath the lander, is there no obvious depression? The powder/dirt/dust/whatever there is undisturbed.

I've seen this question asked before; believers tend to talk about the 1/6 gravity and that the thrust required for landing/take-off wouldn't be sufficent to shift the dust...

Well, there's been a vid linked by a cpl of people in this thread, the one that shows the supposed space-docking, here:

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/apollo-14-lm-lift-off-and-csm-docking/400289971

This vid also shows the take-off. The take-off shows the lem put out enough thrust to make the flagpole and flag go apeshit! You can't tell me that that amount of thrust wouldn't also shift a bit of dust... can you?!

I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this, folks :)

[merlincove]

Alzee you have also got the fotage taken when they are bumming around on the rover. Technical term there :D

There is dust coming off the wheels and slewsing about all over the place. Also when the lads are jumping and wobbling about (i'm not a fan of lunar footage, you may have guessed) you can see the little plooms of dust that they kick up.

i recon the lander would have hefted a fair amount of dust up, that you never really get to see. I don't think there would be much of a discearnable crater under the lander though - but what you would get is dust settling on the feet, and you don't appear to see that.

Take off would be when you would see the most dust thrown up, because of the thrust needed - more than would be needed to land it.

i did see a video some place of the lander creating some dust but can't recall where - perhaps at one of the talks i went to.

i recon they overcooked the lunar footage - because the photo's taken there were so shit, the astro's had no way of view finding, they just had to aim and click, so there isn't much liklihood of good pics. Most of, if not all, seem to have been shot in a studio - and probably the vid footage falls under the same criteria.

it is a shame that nasa decided to do that as it has lead to all the whohar in this thread lol

The lunar surface is almost all dust, space dust generally, and fused dust from the impacts etc, which is generally overlain with dust anyway. You can see this when you look at any meteorite from the moon - when it is impacted the strewn material gets thrown up and escapes the moons limited atmosphere and often falls to earth as small meteorites. They are worth a fortune btw. If you type lunar meteorite into google pictures you'll be able to see that they are made up of lots of little bits all melded together - just to give you an idea of the particles there :D

[shabun]

Okie, a question about the moon landings.

In pics of the lander while on the moon, why, underneath the lander, is there no obvious depression? The powder/dirt/dust/whatever there is undisturbed.

I've seen this question asked before; believers tend to talk about the 1/6 gravity and that the thrust required for landing/take-off wouldn't be sufficent to shift the dust...

Well, there's been a vid linked by a cpl of people in this thread, the one that shows the supposed space-docking, here:

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/apollo-14-lm-lift-off-and-csm-docking/400289971

This vid also shows the take-off. The take-off shows the lem put out enough thrust to make the flagpole and flag go apeshit! You can't tell me that that amount of thrust wouldn't also shift a bit of dust... can you?!

I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this, folks :)

I can help a bit - when the LEM takes off it leaves the descent stage behind (it splits inot two) so the thrust is directed onto that, not the ground. Once it hits the top of th edescent stage the blast is directed sideways, hence the flag going apeshit. Also, when the LEM is landing the engines switch off once the contact light goes on so it lands with no thrust on, i.e. it drops the last few feet. Even then, it lands with very small thrust but still you will see dust on the videos of th elandings.

Also, the lunar regolith is actually only a small amount of dust on the surface, and underneath it is more compacted (which is why the footprints are actually quite shallow). Armstrong and Aldrin had to work hard to actually get the flag to stay in when they planted it. So under the lander there is actually some disturbance but very small due to the low thrust on landing and the solid regolith under the surface dust.

Hope that helps.

[the itinerant shrubber]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_8
But it only took 3 days according to ziopedia

But if you read the link you will read that they went into Earth orbit NOT into escape trajectory. After going into low Earth orbit they fired the third stage to get into a higher orbit of 215 miles. Which is all very normal and acceptable.
So the rest of the mission is to break free of Earth's gravity, to pass through the Van Allen belts and fly 238,000 miles to the moon. Without any visible means of having enough thrust or fuel.

PS: how much G force would the astronuts have been subjected to in order to make the 3 day jolly?
A few minutes of G force while getting into Earth orbit is one thing but 3 days worth of it with only a Helium bubble to provide cusioning and dampening?


Easily is not a scientitfic term and does not substitute for calculations.
A car may do 40 miles to the gallon. In theory it is posible to go 1000 miles to the gallon. But a spacecraft with only enough fuel for Earth orbit and course corrections cannot by any stretch of science fiction possibly go 500,000 miles.

The 5 day calculation was based on someone elses comments. I still dont see why you have a problem understanding the fuel/distance thing. We're talking about traveling through a vacuum,not driving a car where gravity,the road and the air causes friction. And why would they be experiencing G force for 3 days?:confused:
If it's so unfeasible,dont you think someone would have pointed it out by now?

[bill23]

Bill, mate, there is nothing on the moon. No alien, no moon bases and no American flags. The moon rotates in 28 day cycles so every part of it is visible from earth.


the moon also spins at a speed that keeps one side facing the earth, fact.
watch this

Neil Armstrong&#39;s cryptic speech - YouTube

neils been there and he knows some shit.

[the itinerant shrubber]

Bill, mate, there is nothing on the moon. No alien, no moon bases and no American flags. The moon rotates in 28 day cycles so every part of it is visible from earth.
Why would NASA be spending huge amounts of money trying to pretend it has gone to the moon?
NASA has even set up it's own hoax websites to try and wrongfoot people seeking the truth.

Thats the stupidest thing I've heard all day.LOL

[stelios]

Also, the lunar regolith is actually only a small amount of dust on the surface, and underneath it is more compacted (which is why the footprints are actually quite shallow). Armstrong and Aldrin had to work hard to actually get the flag to stay in when they planted it.

For pity's sake.
To make a footprint you need to have moisture. On the moon there is no atmosphere and therefore no moisture, so there is no way to make footprints in what would be a barren dry desert.
In the same soil as they made foot prints they also stuck the flag in. Without using a mallett and pretty easily it must be said while it was flapping in the wind.
Try and make footprints and plant a flag in the Sahara desert.
And then take off and land without creating a duststorm while the cameraman on the surface takes a film and follows the craft up into the sky.
I cannot believe you would defend such obviously phony footage.
Ofcourse nobody has walked on tthe moon and anyone who thinks they have on the very flaky photos and footage needs their head tested.

[shabun]

For pity's sake.
To make a footprint you need to have moisture. On the moon there is no atmosphere and therefore no moisture, so there is no way to make footprints in what would be a barren dry desert.
In the same soil as they made foot prints they also stuck the flag in. Without using a mallett and pretty easily it must be said while it was flapping in the wind.
Try and make footprints and plant a flag in the Sahara desert.
And then take off and land without creating a duststorm while the cameraman on the surface takes a film and follows the craft up into the sky.
I cannot believe you would defend such obviously phony footage.
Ofcourse nobody has walked on tthe moon and anyone who thinks they have on the very flaky photos and footage needs their head tested.

You don't need moisture to make a footprint.

They actually had a bit of difficulty in getting the flag in.

The flag was not "flapping in the wind".

There was a significant amount of dust seen on all landings (look at any of the landing videos taken from the LEM and you can see it) and hardly any on takeoff because the LEM seperates into two on takeoff and the thrust of the ascent stage impacts on the descent stage and is deflected sideways.

[bill23]

the moon landing was a pr and covert operation roled into one. they needed some good photos so alot may have been false but that doesnt mean they didnt go there.

[stelios]

alot may have been false but that doesnt mean they didnt go there.
I love the twisted logic of these Apollo space cadets.

[tabea_blumenschein]

The 5 day calculation was based on someone elses comments. I still dont see why you have a problem understanding the fuel/distance thing. We're talking about traveling through a vacuum,not driving a car where gravity,the road and the air causes friction. And why would they be experiencing G force for 3 days?:confused:
If it's so unfeasible,dont you think someone would have pointed it out by now?

One of mine, perhaps? I mentioned that a Hohmann transfer orbit would require about 5 days in another thread a while back.

I didn't follow up on that comment because I felt that arguing with Stelios would simply be a waste of my time. I still think that arguing about this with Stelios is a waste of my time, but maybe I should elaborate after all.

~

As far as I can tell, here is what Stelios believes:

Stelios believes that the Apollo spacecraft supposedly couldn't reach the Moon in three days.

Stelios believes that the Apollo spacecraft must "break free of Earth's gravity" to reach the Moon.

As far as I can tell from his comments, Stelios also believes the astronauts, if they had gone to the Moon, would have been subjected to several g's for the duration of the trip. Perhaps this is because Stelios thinks the Apollo spacecraft would have needed to use its thrusters for the entire journey (to "overcome Earth's gravity", perhaps.)

Stelios believes the Apollo spacecraft would not have had enough fuel to reach the Moon. Again, I think he's basing this on the idea that the spacecraft would have to use its thrusters for the entire journey.

Stelios apparently believes that the Apollo spacecraft would have just plowed right through the Van Allen belts and subjected the astronauts to a lethal dose of radiation. It is possible that Stelios thinks (incorrectly) that the Van Allen belts are actually a "shell" that completely surrounds the Earth. - OR - Stelios might think that it would be impossible for the Apollo spacecraft to follow a course that would avoid most of the Van Allen belt radiation yet still allow the spacecraft to reach the Moon.

All of this is very wrong.

~

After liftoff, the astronauts did not head directly for the Moon - they went into Earth orbit first. So let's begin by considering a roughly circular orbit around the Earth (I'm posting some of the math for Stelios' benefit; feel free to skim if you like).

The velocity for a circular orbit can be calculated by this equation:

v = square root(GM/d)

The d term in the denominator is the distance of the spacecraft from the Earth's center (not the Earth's surface). Please note that d must be in meters for our equations to work correctly. The Earth has a radius of about 6370 km. So picking a reasonable estimate, if the spacecraft is in orbit 500 km up, then

d = 6370 km + 500 km

d = 6870 km.

In meters, that's:

d = 6,870,000 meters.

The term "GM" in the numerator is very important, and shows up in lots of equations for orbits, escape velocities, etc. For the Earth, it's value is approximately:

GM = 3.9872 * 10^14 meters^3/sec^2

Don't worry about that "meters^3/sec^2"; you get funny units like that all the time in physics. It reduces conveniently to the units for velocity (meters per second) when you divide by the distance and take the square root.

Orbital distance = 500 km above Earth's surface.

d = 6370 km + 300 km = 6870 km = 6,870,000 meters

v = square root(3.9872 * 10^14 meters^3/sec^2 / 6,870,000 meters)

v = square root(58037660 meters^2/seconds^2)

v = 7618 meters per second (or 17,037 mph)

We're also interested in calculating the time required to complete one orbit (we'll be needing this equation again further along). Here it is:

t = square root[(4 * pi^2 * d^3) / GM]

This equation gives us our answer in seconds.

We know what the variables are; let's plug in the numbers and solve (I'll leave out the units this time for readibility):

t = square root[(4 * pi^2 * 6,870,000^3) / 3.9872 * 10^14)]

t = square root(32104308)

t = 5666 seconds (about 94 minutes).

In conclusion, we can see that a spacecraft in orbit at a distance of 500 km above the Earth's surface will be travelling at a velocity a bit more than 17,000 mph, and will circle the earth once every 94 minutes.

Okay, let's go to the Moon.

~

Before continuing, there are two words I think we should define ahead of time. Perigee is defined as the smallest distance between an orbiting body and the Earth, while apogee is the largest distance between an orbiting body and the Earth. This will become clear when we talk about elliptical orbits.

The question before us is, what is the best way to reach the Moon from a roughly circular Earth orbit? Some people (I'm looking at you, Stelios) might suggest pointing the rocket away from the Earth and turning on the thrusters. No, no, a thousand times no! You'd be trying to accelerate the spacecraft against the Earth's gravity, and that's not a good idea at all.

So how do we do it? It's a hard subject to explain in a few paragraphs, but I'll try.

We alter the orbit of the spacecraft by doing a short burn (3 or 4 minutes maybe) in the direction of motion. In other words, we do our burn parallel to the Earth's surface so we aren't thrusting against gravity. In this case, we are not trying to accelerate against gravity, so velocity is being increased with almost 100% efficiency. It also drastically reduces the amount of fuel we need.

Like I said, this is a bit hard to explain. But when we increase the velocity of the spacecraft above the 17,000+ mph figure we worked out above, the perigee of our new orbit will be about 6870 km (our circular orbit distance), but the apogee of the orbit will continue to get larger and larger as we increase velocity. If the orbit is highly elliptical, apogee can be hundreds of thousands or even millions of miles away from the Earth!

Now consider that the Moon is only about 238,000 miles away from the Earth.

Can you see how this fits together?

We do a short burn, in the direction of motion, to increase our velocity. This changes our orbit from a circular orbit to an elliptical orbit. If we increase the velocity enough, our new elliptical orbit will take us as far as the Moon, or even farther. By calculating the times and trajectories correctly, we can have our spacecraft and the Moon "meet at the same place at the same time", so to speak. Then one more short burn will allow us to settle into Lunar orbit.

Stelios, please notice that no additional fuel is required for the trip beyond what we expend during the initial burn. You don't need to keep thrusting "against gravity", you don't need massive amounts of fuel, the astronauts will be weightless for the duration of the trip, and you don't have to "break free of Earth's gravity." By the way, in the case of the Apollo spacecraft, the initial burn would involve the third stage of the Saturn V rocket, which was then jettisoned.

Okay, you do a quick 3 or 4 minute orbital burn and then you coast to the Moon on an elliptical trajectory. But how long will it take?

~

Kepler can help us out here. You may remember Kepler formulated three laws regarding orbits. The second law is the one we're interested in; it states that an orbiting body sweeps out equal areas in equal times. If you look at the diagram from the Kepler's laws of planetary motion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, you'll see two areas labeled A1 and A2. The two areas are equal, so we know that the planet took the same length of time to complete each part of the orbit. You might want to also scroll down to the section of the article which discusses the second law for more information.

When a spacecraft completes one orbit around the Earth, it sweeps out the entire area of its elliptical orbit. Okay? Intuitively, we can see that it will sweep out half the area in half the time, a quarter of the area in one fourth of the time, a tenth of the area in one tenth of the time, and so forth.

Again, it's beyond the scope of a single post to explain how to do the math for this stuff, so I'll just work out two cases, without comment.

The following calculations do not take the Moon's gravity into account, which would accelerate the spacecraft towards the Moon in the latter stages of the journey. So whatever times we work out, the actual time would probably be a bit quicker.

For both cases:

Escape velocity at perigee: E = 24,094 mph.

The distance from the Earth to the Moon is about 384,000,000 meters.

CASE 1. A Hohmann transfer orbit. Apogee for the Apollo spacecraft is equal to the distance to the Moon.

Perigee: a = 6,870,000 meters
Apogee: b = 384,000,000 meters

Semimajor axis: A = 195,435,000 meters

Semiminor axis: B = 51,362,243 meters

Time to complete one orbit:

d = A

t = square root[(4 * pi^2 * d^3) / GM]

t = 859706 seconds

t = 9.95 days

The spacecraft will sweep out 1/2 of the total area of the ellipse representing its orbit, so the time will be 1/2 of 9.95 days, or

Time to reach the Moon = about 5 days.

Initial velocity required to achieve this orbit:

v = square root * E

v = square root[38,400,000 / (6,870,000 + 38,400,000)] * 24,094 mph

v = .9911729 * 24,094 mph

Velocity required: v = 23,881 mph.


CASE 2: The spacecraft reaches the Moon at the point of the ellipse where the semiminor axis meets the ellipse.

Perigee: a = 6,870,000 meters

Apogee: b = 761,130,000 meters

Semimajor axis: A = 384,000,000 meters

Semiminor axis: B = 72,311,570 meters

Time to complete one orbit:

d = A

t = square root[(4 * pi^2 * d^3) / GM]

t = 2367791 seconds

t = 27.4 days

The area of the ellipse swept out by the spacecraft is a bit harder this time. Call O the origin, F the focus of the ellipse (the Earth's position), and Q the point at which the semiminor axis meets the ellipse. The total area of the ellipse is:

Total area = pi * A * B

The area swept out by the spacecraft will be 1/4 * (Total area) - the area of the triangle OFQ. Without showing the math:

Total area: 8.7234623 * 10^16 square meters

Area of triangle OFQ: 1.3635431 * 10^16 square meters

Area swept out by spacecraft: 8.1732247 * 10^15 square meters

Or: 9.36924% of total area.

Time to reach Moon:

T = .0936924 * 27.4 days

Time to reach the Moon = 2.57 days.

Initial velocity required to achieve this orbit:

v = square root * E

v = square root[761,130,000 / (6,870,000 + 761,130,000)] * 24,094 mph

v = .9955173 * 24,094 mph

[b]Velocity required: v = 23,985 mph.

~

For case 1, the time to reach Lunar distance is about 5 days and the initial velocity required is about 23,881 mph.

For case 2, the time to reach Lunar distance is about 2 1/2 days and the initial velocity required is about 23,985 mph.

The difference between the two velocities is only about 100 mph, but the first time is almost double the second.

It makes me wonder where Stelios got information precise enough to say that a three-day journey for Apollo is impossible.

~

Tying up a loose end. the Van Allen belts.

Calculations for the amount of radiation the astronauts were exposed to have been done on a number of occasions, and they demonstrate that the astronauts were exposed to about 2 rem's worth. See here (http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may2000/959341359.As.r.html) for an example.

I have yet to see a single Moon hoaxer provide calculations showing otherwise. Until they do, they're talking out of their asses.

It should also be pointed out that the curve of an elliptical trajectory allows the spacecraft to dip below most of the Van Allen belt radiation and swing back up to meet the Moon.

Here's the Van Allen radiation belt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia on the Van Allen belts. I note with interest that the article says the following:

An object satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminium in an elliptic orbit passing through the radiation belt will receive about 2,500 rem (25 Sv) [b]per year. (emphasis mine)

The astronauts were only in the belts for a few hours, on a trajectory calculated to avoid most of the radiation.

The rest of the nonsense in Stelios' posts have been dealt with by others. If he doesn't want to listen to them, that's his business.

Okay, I'm done with this.

[shabun]

One of mine, perhaps? I mentioned that a Hohmann transfer orbit would require about 5 days in another thread a while back.

I didn't follow up on that comment because I felt that arguing with Stelios would simply be a waste of my time. I still think that arguing about this with Stelios is a waste of my time, but maybe I should elaborate after all.

~

As far as I can tell, here is what Stelios believes:

Stelios believes that the Apollo spacecraft supposedly couldn't reach the Moon in three days.

Stelios believes that the Apollo spacecraft must "break free of Earth's gravity" to reach the Moon.

As far as I can tell from his comments, Stelios also believes the astronauts, if they had gone to the Moon, would have been subjected to several g's for the duration of the trip. Perhaps this is because Stelios thinks the Apollo spacecraft would have needed to use its thrusters for the entire journey (to "overcome Earth's gravity", perhaps.)

Stelios believes the Apollo spacecraft would not have had enough fuel to reach the Moon. Again, I think he's basing this on the idea that the spacecraft would have to use its thrusters for the entire journey.

Stelios apparently believes that the Apollo spacecraft would have just plowed right through the Van Allen belts and subjected the astronauts to a lethal dose of radiation. It is possible that Stelios thinks (incorrectly) that the Van Allen belts are actually a "shell" that completely surrounds the Earth. - OR - Stelios might think that it would be impossible for the Apollo spacecraft to follow a course that would avoid most of the Van Allen belt radiation yet still allow the spacecraft to reach the Moon.

All of this is very wrong.

~

After liftoff, the astronauts did not head directly for the Moon - they went into Earth orbit first. So let's begin by considering a roughly circular orbit around the Earth (I'm posting some of the math for Stelios' benefit; feel free to skim if you like).

The velocity for a circular orbit can be calculated by this equation:

v = square root(GM/d)

The d term in the denominator is the distance of the spacecraft from the Earth's center (not the Earth's surface). Please note that d must be in meters for our equations to work correctly. The Earth has a radius of about 6370 km. So picking a reasonable estimate, if the spacecraft is in orbit 500 km up, then

d = 6370 km + 500 km

d = 6870 km.

In meters, that's:

d = 6,870,000 meters.

The term "GM" in the numerator is very important, and shows up in lots of equations for orbits, escape velocities, etc. For the Earth, it's value is approximately:

GM = 3.9872 * 10^14 meters^3/sec^2

Don't worry about that "meters^3/sec^2"; you get funny units like that all the time in physics. It reduces conveniently to the units for velocity (meters per second) when you divide by the distance and take the square root.

Orbital distance = 500 km above Earth's surface.

d = 6370 km + 300 km = 6870 km = 6,870,000 meters

v = square root(3.9872 * 10^14 meters^3/sec^2 / 6,870,000 meters)

v = square root(58037660 meters^2/seconds^2)

v = 7618 meters per second (or 17,037 mph)

We're also interested in calculating the time required to complete one orbit (we'll be needing this equation again further along). Here it is:

t = square root[(4 * pi^2 * d^3) / GM]

This equation gives us our answer in seconds.

We know what the variables are; let's plug in the numbers and solve (I'll leave out the units this time for readibility):

t = square root[(4 * pi^2 * 6,870,000^3) / 3.9872 * 10^14)]

t = square root(32104308)

t = 5666 seconds (about 94 minutes).

In conclusion, we can see that a spacecraft in orbit at a distance of 500 km above the Earth's surface will be travelling at a velocity a bit more than 17,000 mph, and will circle the earth once every 94 minutes.

Okay, let's go to the Moon.

~

Before continuing, there are two words I think we should define ahead of time. Perigee is defined as the smallest distance between an orbiting body and the Earth, while apogee is the largest distance between an orbiting body and the Earth. This will become clear when we talk about elliptical orbits.

The question before us is, what is the best way to reach the Moon from a roughly circular Earth orbit? Some people (I'm looking at you, Stelios) might suggest pointing the rocket away from the Earth and turning on the thrusters. No, no, a thousand times no! You'd be trying to accelerate the spacecraft against the Earth's gravity, and that's not a good idea at all.

So how do we do it? It's a hard subject to explain in a few paragraphs, but I'll try.

We alter the orbit of the spacecraft by doing a short burn (3 or 4 minutes maybe) in the direction of motion. In other words, we do our burn parallel to the Earth's surface so we aren't thrusting against gravity. In this case, we are not trying to accelerate against gravity, so velocity is being increased with almost 100% efficiency. It also drastically reduces the amount of fuel we need.

Like I said, this is a bit hard to explain. But when we increase the velocity of the spacecraft above the 17,000+ mph figure we worked out above, the perigee of our new orbit will be about 6870 km (our circular orbit distance), but the apogee of the orbit will continue to get larger and larger as we increase velocity. If the orbit is highly elliptical, apogee can be hundreds of thousands or even millions of miles away from the Earth!

Now consider that the Moon is only about 238,000 miles away from the Earth.

Can you see how this fits together?

We do a short burn, in the direction of motion, to increase our velocity. This changes our orbit from a circular orbit to an elliptical orbit. If we increase the velocity enough, our new elliptical orbit will take us as far as the Moon, or even farther. By calculating the times and trajectories correctly, we can have our spacecraft and the Moon "meet at the same place at the same time", so to speak. Then one more short burn will allow us to settle into Lunar orbit.

Stelios, please notice that no additional fuel is required for the trip beyond what we expend during the initial burn. You don't need to keep thrusting "against gravity", you don't need massive amounts of fuel, the astronauts will be weightless for the duration of the trip, and you don't have to "break free of Earth's gravity." By the way, in the case of the Apollo spacecraft, the initial burn would involve the third stage of the Saturn V rocket, which was then jettisoned.

Okay, you do a quick 3 or 4 minute orbital burn and then you coast to the Moon on an elliptical trajectory. But how long will it take?

~

Kepler can help us out here. You may remember Kepler formulated three laws regarding orbits. The second law is the one we're interested in; it states that an orbiting body sweeps out equal areas in equal times. If you look at the diagram from the Wikipedia article on Kepler's laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws), you'll see two areas labeled A1 and A2. The two areas are equal, so we know that the planet took the same length of time to complete each part of the orbit. You might want to also scroll down to the section of the article which discusses the second law for more information.

When a spacecraft completes one orbit around the Earth, it sweeps out the entire area of its elliptical orbit. Okay? Intuitively, we can see that it will sweep out half the area in half the time, a quarter of the area in one fourth of the time, a tenth of the area in one tenth of the time, and so forth.

Again, it's beyond the scope of a single post to explain how to do the math for this stuff, so I'll just work out two cases, without comment.

The following calculations do not take the Moon's gravity into account, which would accelerate the spacecraft towards the Moon in the latter stages of the journey. So whatever times we work out, the actual time would probably be a bit quicker.

For both cases:

Escape velocity at perigee: E = 24,094 mph.

The distance from the Earth to the Moon is about 384,000,000 meters.

CASE 1. A Hohmann transfer orbit. Apogee for the Apollo spacecraft is equal to the distance to the Moon.

Perigee: a = 6,870,000 meters
Apogee: b = 384,000,000 meters

Semimajor axis: A = 195,435,000 meters

Semiminor axis: B = 51,362,243 meters

Time to complete one orbit:

d = A

t = square root[(4 * pi^2 * d^3) / GM]

t = 859706 seconds

t = 9.95 days

The spacecraft will sweep out 1/2 of the total area of the ellipse representing its orbit, so the time will be 1/2 of 9.95 days, or

Time to reach the Moon = about 5 days.

Initial velocity required to achieve this orbit:

v = square root * E

v = square root[38,400,000 / (6,870,000 + 38,400,000)] * 24,094 mph

v = .9911729 * 24,094 mph

[b]Velocity required: v = 23,881 mph.


CASE 2: The spacecraft reaches the Moon at the point of the ellipse where the semiminor axis meets the ellipse.

Perigee: a = 6,870,000 meters

Apogee: b = 761,130,000 meters

Semimajor axis: A = 384,000,000 meters

Semiminor axis: B = 72,311,570 meters

Time to complete one orbit:

d = A

t = square root[(4 * pi^2 * d^3) / GM]

t = 2367791 seconds

t = 27.4 days

The area of the ellipse swept out by the spacecraft is a bit harder this time. Call O the origin, F the focus of the ellipse (the Earth's position), and Q the point at which the semiminor axis meets the ellipse. The total area of the ellipse is:

Total area = pi * A * B

The area swept out by the spacecraft will be 1/4 * (Total area) - the area of the triangle OFQ. Without showing the math:

Total area: 8.7234623 * 10^16 square meters

Area of triangle OFQ: 1.3635431 * 10^16 square meters

Area swept out by spacecraft: 8.1732247 * 10^15 square meters

Or: 9.36924% of total area.

Time to reach Moon:

T = .0936924 * 27.4 days

Time to reach the Moon = 2.57 days.

Initial velocity required to achieve this orbit:

v = square root * E

v = square root[761,130,000 / (6,870,000 + 761,130,000)] * 24,094 mph

v = .9955173 * 24,094 mph

[b]Velocity required: v = 23,985 mph.

~

For case 1, the time to reach Lunar distance is about 5 days and the initial velocity required is about 23,881 mph.

For case 2, the time to reach Lunar distance is about 2 1/2 days and the initial velocity required is about 23,985 mph.

The difference between the two velocities is only about 100 mph, but the first time is almost double the second.

It makes me wonder where Stelios got information precise enough to say that a three-day journey for Apollo is impossible.

~

Tying up a loose end. the Van Allen belts.

Calculations for the amount of radiation the astronauts were exposed to have been done on a number of occasions, and they demonstrate that the astronauts were exposed to about 2 rem's worth. See here (http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may2000/959341359.As.r.html) for an example.

I have yet to see a single Moon hoaxer provide calculations showing otherwise. Until they do, they're talking out of their asses.

It should also be pointed out that the curve of an elliptical trajectory allows the spacecraft to dip below most of the Van Allen belt radiation and swing back up to meet the Moon.

Here's the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_Belts) on the Van Allen belts. I note with interest that the article says the following:



The astronauts were only in the belts for a few hours, on a trajectory calculated to avoid most of the radiation.

The rest of the nonsense in Stelios' posts have been dealt with by others. If he doesn't want to listen to them, that's his business.

Okay, I'm done with this.

Thanks for the post - Stelios will still say its bolx though!

[stelios]

So picking a reasonable estimate, if the spacecraft is in orbit 500 km up

Why not use the official NASA stats instead of making your own stuff up?
185 km first earth orbit
347 km final earth orbit after final thrust

Looks like you have wasted your time again fraulein. Go back to your sci fi
:D

The astronauts were only in the belts for a few hours, on a trajectory calculated to avoid most of the radiation.
I also marvel at the cavalier way these Apollo space cadets use applied mathematics to try to prove their fantasy but then descend to utterly unmathematical sheize like avoiding MOST of the radiation and only being exposed for a FEW hours.
Like you avoided MOST of the bullets and only got fragged a FEW times.
Pathetic.
But please do try again.

[the itinerant shrubber]

I wont pretend to understand any of the maths but I think Tabea's laid this thing to rest;especially as we're trying to argue with someone who thinks both sides of the moon are visible to the earth and that you need moisture to make a footprint. (Get some cornflour and see if you can make an impression in it)
There never was anything in this moon hoax nonsense for at least 5 glaringly obvious reasons:

1.Overwhelming photographic evidence.

2.Samples brought back. (Meteors would have shown evidence of heat stress and earth minerals would contain carbon dioxide)

3.Tens of hundreds would have to be involved in the conspiracy.

4.The testimony of hundreds of people who would have to of had the wool pulled over their eyes.

5.Russia who had the same level of technology and the same caliber of scientists would of loved to have proved that the Yanks faked it all. They didnt.

Unless someone comes up with a reasonably intelligent argument that says otherwise,this theory is dead in the water.

[stelios]

I wont pretend to understand any of the maths but I think Tabea's laid this thing to rest.
How?
She has used the wrong base figures for a start, and her theory of a 'pizza' expanding is correct but it is not what NASA say happened. The 'pizza' slingshot has been used for deep space probes. But human cargo moving at 23,985 mph for 72 hours in an Aluminium/steel capsule, crapping in bags and exposed to solar and cosmic radiation OUTSIDE the Van Allen belts.
Tabea provided no synopsis for the rest of the mission orthe spacedock or the lander, hydrogen fuel cells, etc

(Get some cornflour and see if you can make an impression in it).
Cornflour has nothing to do with the surface of the moon.
Get it into your head that earth conditions and rules do not apply to the barren and arid exposed trecherous surface of the moon.

1.Overwhelming photographic evidence..
All proved to be faked

2.Samples brought back. (Meteors would have shown evidence of heat stress and earth minerals would contain carbon dioxide).
Meteorites can be cleaned as NASA themselves confirm

3.Tens of hundreds would have to be involved in the conspiracy.
Not true, a handful, the rest on a need to know basis, like any other corporation/government. Do you know what your boss/staff are up to all the time or what they are planning?

4.The testimony of hundreds of people who would have to of had the wool pulled over their eyes.So who are these millions of Apollo truthers then?

5.Russia who had the same level of technology and the same caliber of scientists would of loved to have proved that the Yanks faked it all. They didnt.
You mean USSR which lied to it's own people routinely too.
I live in London and i meet many Russians/Poles/Bulgarians/Albanians etc. Guess how many of them believe the Yankers walked/drove on the moon.

At least Tabea is trying to rationalise.
You are just repeating blind faith.

[the itinerant shrubber]

How?
She has used the wrong base figures for a start, and her theory of a 'pizza' expanding is correct but it is not what NASA say happened. The 'pizza' slingshot has been used for deep space probes. But human cargo moving at 23,985 mph for 72 hours in an Aluminium/steel capsule, crapping in bags and exposed to solar and cosmic radiation OUTSIDE the Van Allen belts.
Tabea provided no synopsis for the rest of the mission orthe spacedock or the lander, hydrogen fuel cells, etc

Cornflour has nothing to do with the surface of the moon.
Get it into your head that earth conditions and rules do not apply to the barren and arid exposed trecherous surface of the moon.

All proved to be faked

Meteorites can be cleaned as NASA themselves confirm

Not true, a handful, the rest on a need to know basis, like any other corporation/government. Do you know what your boss/staff are up to all the time or what they are planning?
So who are these millions of Apollo truthers then?

You mean USSR which lied to it's own people routinely too.
I live in London and i meet many Russians/Poles/Bulgarians/Albanians etc. Guess how many of them believe the Yankers walked/drove on the moon.

At least Tabea is trying to rationalise.
You are just repeating blind faith.

As usual,you make statements without backing them up.

Who has has proved that all the photo's are faked? Any sources?

You cant take all the CO2 out of a lump of rock without dissolving it.

Hundreds would have to be involved. There were hundreds involved in mission control and each of those people either had to lie or be fed false information via their computer. It would take an even more powerful computer to process and feed all of the fake telemetry etc.

What Apollo truthers? Name a credible Apollo truther.

Why would the Russians throw away a perfectly good propaganda opportunity on it's own people if they knew it to be fake? Still no Russian scientist has stepped forward and called FAKE.

[kblood]

Final Proof The Moon Landing Was A Hoax - YouTube

Lol :) This is either a good joke or good proof. Anyone found the video where they show all of the studio where the moon landing was supposedly recorded?

[stelios]

Boris Volynov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
is a USSR cosmonaut to go public

[the itinerant shrubber]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Volynov
is a USSR cosmonaut to go public
That article didnt mention anything about him saying the Apollo was a hoax.
Again;where's the sources for your previous statements?

[stelios]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=sgfC4-_LFzo
In the moon videos the dust kicked up by astronuts immediately settles down just as if it was sand on the beach or in the Nevada desert. Yet we all know that not only does the moon have 1/6th earth gravity but it also has no atmosphere. Therefore, the moon dust should travel further given the force and little to counteract it. Yet the moon dust resettles back to the ground at the same gravitational rate of 32 ft./sec. as the earth.
The question about speed is also an interesting one.
In space you are in a situation where there is nothing to push against. Dust would fly up and around.
Indeed the Japanese moon photos are very different from the Apollo simulations.
http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/astrospies/images/race-02-l.jpg

Look closely at the footprint.
Was it made by a 40 stone giant or a man in 1/6th Gravity meaning the equivalent of a 2 stone straw weight?
So how does one produce this?
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/img/space/spacewalkA250707.jpghttp://www.dmturner.org/Teacher/Pictures/footprint.jpg

[tabea_blumenschein]

the itinerant shrubber:

You deserve a lot of credit for trying to reason with Stelios. You've actually soldiered on a lot longer than I would have, considering that everything you've said has fallen on deaf ears.

You've done a great job, but in my opinion, Stelios is unworthy of the time and thought you've put into this discussion.

Why not use the official NASA stats instead of making your own stuff up?
185 km first earth orbit
347 km final earth orbit after final thrust

The 500 km figure wasn't simply "making stuff up"; I was using it intentionally as an Upper and lower bounds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia If I would redo those estimates using either of the numbers in your post, the estimated time to reach Lunar distance would be shorter in both cases.

It isn't necessary for me to try to figure out the exact time to complete the trip to the Moon anyway. All I have to do is show that three days is a reasonable length of time for such a trip. I believe I have done that.

If you disagree with my conclusions, then it is up to you to explain why. That means providing the necessary facts, data, and calculations to support your argument.

I've shown my work, Stelios. It's high time you started showing yours.

And stelios?

That also includes your assertions about "lethal radiation".

Give us (or provide a link to) the data and calculations that convinced you the radiation would have killed the astronauts.

Or stop talking out of your ass.

Thank you.

[hagbard_celine]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Volynov
is a USSR cosmonaut to go public


Good for him if he is, but what does he know and what does he plan on saying?

[stelios]

Tabea - you used the wrong figures for your calculations yet you demonstrate that whatever the real base figures are you dont give a damn because you will blindly carry on preaching your ridiculous beliefs.
Why praise itinerant shrubber who has supplied no evidence and no cogent arguments?
I assume you are not in the debating society at your place of study.
the estimated time to reach Lunar distance would be shorter in both cases
But you have to demonstrate that, it would have been so easy to use NASA's "real" figures.
500km=310miles
No manned craft has ever gone 310 miles out so why use such a blatantly false base figure for your sums?
Silly and pointless.

All you Apollo advocates have failed to explain how to make footprints where there is no moisture and make deep crisp footprints in 1/6th Earth gravity?

You probably have no explanation for the way the dust behaves in the video which is why you have all neatly sidestepped that obvious question.
It appears you are not interested in proving your assertions by using science.
You Apollo advocates simply keep repeating your lies hoping that truthseekers give up and shut up. But let me tell you this - every failed and stupid claim you put forward makes more people wake up and realise that nobody has ever walked or driven on the moon.


Get some cornflour and see if you can make an impression in it

I wont pretend to understand any of the maths
The astronauts were only in the belts for a few hours, on a trajectory calculated to avoid most of the radiation.
For your information. This victim of the USA was only exposed to Radiation for a few milliseconds. Trust me this is the mildest photo i found.
Why has no Astrozero got any effects from Radiation exposure even 40 years on?
http://mikelogan.eu/wp-content/uploads/hiroshima_victim.gif

[shabun]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=sgfC4-_LFzo
In the moon videos the dust kicked up by astronuts immediately settles down just as if it was sand on the beach or in the Nevada desert. Yet we all know that not only does the moon have 1/6th earth gravity but it also has no atmosphere. Therefore, the moon dust should travel further given the force and little to counteract it. Yet the moon dust resettles back to the ground at the same gravitational rate of 32 ft./sec. as the earth.
The question about speed is also an interesting one.
In space you are in a situation where there is nothing to push against. Dust would fly up and around.
Indeed the Japanese moon photos are very different from the Apollo simulations.
http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/astrospies/images/race-02-l.jpg

Look closely at the footprint.
Was it made by a 40 stone giant or a man in 1/6th Gravity meaning the equivalent of a 2 stone straw weight?
So how does one produce this?
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/img/space/spacewalkA250707.jpghttp://www.dmturner.org/Teacher/Pictures/footprint.jpg

Hi Stelios,
Your interpretation of the dust effects is false. In fact the videos you've posted in the past (the one you just posted of the astonaut falling and the one about the moon rover driving around) do more to prove that they were made on the moon, for the following reason -

If you look at the dust that gets kicked up or is thrown up by the rovers wheels, you correctly note that the dust falls staight back down again very quickly, no matter what the particulate size is. This is correct, but the reason for this is precisely because there is no atmosphere - if there was atmosphere then much of the dust would remain in surpension in the atmosphere and would settle back to ground much more slowly than on the moon.

For example, if you drove the moon rover on a dirt track on earth you would see clouds of dust billowing behind the vehicle and it would take quite a while for the dust to settle again. Just watch one of these Cops On Camera shows when they chase a car along a dirt track - the dust clouds get so thick they can't see the car they are chasing. This is because the dust is held in suspension for a while before it eventually settles back down.

This does not happen on the moon - there is no atmosphere to hold the dust in suspension so it falls back immediately, regardless of its particulate size.

This was also noted during all the landing videos - on every one you will see a cloud of dust just prior to touchdown, but within a second of touchdown the dust is all completely gone as it settles back down on the surface immediately.

To replicate this effect on earth you have to shoot all the videos in a total vacuum, so they must have had a big vacuum chamber to do this, especially the moon rover videos.

Hope this clears it up.

[merlincove]

Hi Stelios,
Your interpretation of the dust effects is false. In fact the videos you've posted in the past (the one you just posted of the astonaut falling and the one about the moon rover driving around) do more to prove that they were made on the moon, for the following reason -

If you look at the dust that gets kicked up or is thrown up by the rovers wheels, you correctly note that the dust falls staight back down again very quickly, no matter what the particulate size is. This is correct, but the reason for this is precisely because there is no atmosphere - if there was atmosphere then much of the dust would remain in surpension in the atmosphere and would settle back to ground much more slowly than on the moon.

For example, if you drove the moon rover on a dirt track on earth you would see clouds of dust billowing behind the vehicle and it would take quite a while for the dust to settle again. Just watch one of these Cops On Camera shows when they chase a car along a dirt track - the dust clouds get so thick they can't see the car they are chasing. This is because the dust is held in suspension for a while before it eventually settles back down.

This does not happen on the moon - there is no atmosphere to hold the dust in suspension so it falls back immediately, regardless of its particulate size.

This was also noted during all the landing videos - on every one you will see a cloud of dust just prior to touchdown, but within a second of touchdown the dust is all completely gone as it settles back down on the surface immediately.

To replicate this effect on earth you have to shoot all the videos in a total vacuum, so they must have had a big vacuum chamber to do this, especially the moon rover videos.

Hope this clears it up.

That clears it up for me shabun :-)

did i read somewhere the the cogniscent effect of silica evident on the moon surface will meld / glue particles together to hold a footprint in stasis?

[tabea_blumenschein]

Stelios:

I've already told you that if I recalculated the time estimates using your numbers the trip duration will be shorter. If my numbers show that a three day trip is reasonable, then yours will do likewise.

But since you insist, I'll redo the estimates using your figure. I'll just post the results this time.

Why not use the official NASA stats instead of making your own stuff up?
185 km first earth orbit
347 km final earth orbit after final thrust


Escape velocity at 347 km: 24367 mph.


CASE 1 RECONSIDERED, USING STELIOS' FIGURE (347 km perigee):

("Hohmann transfer orbit")

Time to reach lunar distance: 429600 seconds (4.97 days)

Initial velocity required: 24156 mph.


CASE 2 RECONSIDERED, USING STELIOS' FIGURE:

(Lunar distance at point where semiminor axis meets ellipse)

Time to reach lunar distance: 2.57 days

Initial velocity required: 24260 mph.


Like I said, the time estimates using your numbers are shorter.

Satisfied?

~

If you believe that no manned spacecraft has been above 500 km, then it is up to you to back that claim up.

Please do so.

~

Stelios, saying that a victim of an atomic bomb blast is exposed to only "milliseconds of radiation" is almost as funny as saying that "both sides of the moon are visible from Earth" or whatever your words were. There's no radiation whatsoever at the site of a nuclear explosion once the mushroom cloud dissapates, is there? You honestly believe that???

~

We are all being exposed to radiation all the time, due to everything from medical x-rays to television sets and other home appliances to sunlight - even bricks give off a tiny amount of radiation! Geysers are powered by radiation produced by nuclear fission occuring naturally under the Earth's surface, and airline pilots are limited to a certain amount of flying time per year because you are exposed to higher levels of radiation at high altitude than you are on the ground.

The Apollo astronauts were exposed to the same amount of radiation during their trip as a person on the ground would be exposed to in about a year. Someone who requires a number of x-rays due to some medical condition would probably be exposed to a similar amount.

Astronomer Will Wheaton was nice enough to post his calculations (http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may2000/959341359.As.r.html) showing how much radiation the Apollo astronauts were exposed to. I've already linked to this once, in a previous post.

Stelios, you have three choices:

1. Give us the specific reasons why Mr. Wheaton is in error.

2. Post your own data and calculations showing the radiation levels would be dangerous to the astronauts.

3. JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT A SUBJECT YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.

You know which option I'm rooting for, don't you?

[the itinerant shrubber]

It appears stelios is ignorant of most earth-based physics,let alone how bodies behave outside of it.
His views on the moon landings appear to be based on mere faith founded on ignorance; bereft of reason whilst willfully ignoring anything that challenges that faith.In other words-a religion.
You cant argue with the religious becouse they are irrational so using rationality is useless,so therefore,you will never win the argument.
I'm certainly not wasting any more time on him.

[shabun]

It appears stelios is ignorant of most earth-based physics,let alone how bodies behave outside of it.
His views on the moon landings appear to be based on mere faith founded on ignorance; bereft of reason whilst willfully ignoring anything that challenges that faith.In other words-a religion.
You cant argue with the religious becouse they are irrational so using rationality is useless,so therefore,you will never win the argument.
I'm certainly not wasting any more time on him.

Quite well put. I just think he is a pillock.

[stelios]

JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT A SUBJECT YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.

You know which option I'm rooting for, don't you?

Fraulein, why are you getting so worked up for?
The fact that you believe some utter nonsense is not my problem it is your problem and NASA's problem.
I suggest you stop trying to convince yourself and face up to reality. Truth always hurts.

USING STELIOS' FIGURE 347 km
These are not my sodding figures they are officially published NASA figures.
All you need to do is use the official figures and try and prove them correct, you have still invented your own estimations.
Why?
Just use the official figures and try and prove them correct. Official apogee, perigee, velocity, length of burn, amount of fuel, everything.
You make no explanation to amount of fuel,
You make no explanation of the return trip.
I say to you according to the published stats it is impossible, you have not even scratched the surface of proving the case because all you are attempting is to prove a 2.57 day trip was feasible without considering payload or fuel or thrust.
You also make a very naive and obvious mistake. The trip speed would not be constant. There was a deceleration phase.
Try and remember your task. You set out to prove in 1968 Apollo went to the moon orbited and returned and in 1969 orbited/landed docked took off and returned. You have to prove it using the published 'facts' all of them not substitute your own figures.

Stelios, saying that a victim of an atomic bomb blast is exposed to only "milliseconds of radiation"

Dont you understand English?
You said the AstroNuts were only in the belts for a few hours, on a trajectory calculated to avoid most of the radiation. Dont you even understand how stupid that is? I am saying exposure to RADIATION for even a few miliseconds can be lethal, or at the very least hazardous but you seem to think exposure for several hours is ok.

We are all being exposed to radiation all the time
You might be a maths geek but you aint a science buff are you?
We are never exposed to Solar radiation and Cosmic radiation as we would be in space outside the Earth's protective Van Allen belts which shield us. If you knew anything you would know that 275 miles is the furthest any manned craft has travelled. Look at the stats. Space shuttle, Suyuz, ISS, Skylab, etc. 275 miles is the record. Explain to me why didnt they first fire some rats further and see what happened. Or a chimpanzee or a dog?
Is it credible that Apollo would travel 238,000 miles when the record otherwise is 275 miles?

[stelios]

Quite well put. I just think he is a pillock.
Really?
Nobody uses words like that anymore, that is so 1970s.
Still i suppose because you lost the argument and now feel you need to call names.
Dont be so stubborn my friend with the sephardic name accept that nobody went to the moon, accept you have been lied to and wake up.

[stelios]

His views on the moon landings appear to be based on mere faith founded on ignorance.
Thats rather the pot calling the kettle black. It is you who has the blind ignorant faith not me. I am open to new ideas all the time.

merlincove - before you jump into bed with these space cadets think logically. On the moon there is no atmosphere and very low gravity.
So logically how does stuff behave in this environment?
Well we dont have to guess. Stuff, like dust when disturbed keeps moving alot longer and alot further. Because there is no resistance and low gravity so there is nothing to stop it moving. A jump will be much higher, dust will move much further and much faster. And FOOTSTEPS will be much lighter and therefore even if there is condensation (which there isnt) footprints will be miuch less deeper and much less well formed if at all.
Forget the horseshit, just think for yourself.
Logic. On the moon there is 1/6th Earth gravity and zero atmosphere and zero resistance.
Spinning in Zero Gravity - YouTube

Watch the 30 second video then consider how far will the moon dust travel and how fast. How deep will the footprints be and how much will a Astronaut weigh - how heavy will his footsteps be?
Youve watched them jumping on the moon. Why only 18 inches high? Why not six feet or more?
The footprint is a dead giveaway the mission was faked.


I'm certainly not wasting any more time on him.
Well bugger off then.


http://63.135.103.42/moon/apollo12.jpg

[tabea_blumenschein]

I say to you according to the published stats it is impossible, you have not even scratched the surface of proving the case because all you are attempting is to prove a 2.57 day trip was feasible without considering payload or fuel or thrust.
You also make a very naive and obvious mistake. The trip speed would not be constant. There was a deceleration phase.

(and other such nonsense)



Stelios, Kepler's laws take the changing velocity into account. That's one of the reasons I used them to work out my estimates.

And as far as payload, fuel, and thrust, I'm not going to discuss the rocket equation and delta-V budgets with you, because you obviously aren't interested in learning anything. Plus, I doubt you would be able to understand even basic differential equations.

~

If you're doing these posts as some sort of parody, you should stop. You're not being funny.

If you honestly believe what you're posting, then the itinerate shrubber is correct in his assessment of you. You're a "true believer" and there's nothing anyone can say to make you understand how wrong you are.

I am officially finished with this conversation.

[shabun]

Really?
Nobody uses words like that anymore, that is so 1970s.
Still i suppose because you lost the argument and now feel you need to call names.
Dont be so stubborn my friend with the sephardic name accept that nobody went to the moon, accept you have been lied to and wake up.

Sorry Stelios. There was no real argument. You just keep on posting schoolboy nonsense, then when it gets debunked, you just move onto another topic once it is shown that that you were wrong. No doubt once every single explanation has been given to you, you will just start back at the beginning again.

I agreee with the others - you are posessed by a belief that you just dont want to lose so you will not let the evidence get in the way of it.

No matter - exposing 911 is more important anyway.

I'll talk to you again in April once the LRO photos come in.

And finally, you can call me sephardic all you want, but my username comes from Scotland, and I am Christian. Wrong again Stelios. 0/20. Must try harder.

[stelios]

It doesnt bother me what your username is. But Shabun is a middle eastern name, i have never heard any Scots by that name and it is curious why you didnt choose a Scottish moniker like Cuddie or Gomeril?

I would rather you posted cogent arguments rather than repeat the same bullshit. NASA has been lying for decades why wood 2009 be any different? I would have hpoed you would have at least tried to explain the official NASA moonscape photo which is clearly fake and made in a studio.

As i see it you simply believe in Apollo as a matter of faith.
I however, also used to be a member of the Church of NASA but a couple of years ago after looking at the evidence i discovered it was all lies.
If you or anyone else can convince me that NASA really had people walking and driving on the moon then i will hapily come bath into the fold.
But the more i look into this the more cartain i am that it is all a pack of lies.

Still you carry on comforting yourself with the lies.
Good luck.

[stelios]

I doubt you would be able to understand even basic differential equations.
Actually i did A level maths. But i dont need that certificate to understand sheize when i see it.


If you're doing these posts as some sort of parody, you should stop. You're not being funny.
It is you who is posting nonsense. I suppose you believe in aliens and ufos as well as the tooth fairy and Father Xmas too?
You believe in a totally impossible and unproven story that bears no connection to science fact. I suggest you have been drinking too much fluoride or aspartame or something else which has made your brain unable to see facts from fiction


I am officially finished with this conversation
No dont leave me please stay:D

[shabun]

It doesnt bother me what your username is. But Shabun is a middle eastern name, i have never heard any Scots by that name and it is curious why you didnt choose a Scottish moniker like Cuddie or Gomeril?


You really are a clown m8. Shabun is a Scottish expression used commonly in Fife so it actually is a "Scottish Moniker". You continually prove in your posts how idiotic you are. Keep your anti-semitic racist accusations to yourself please.

[tracker]

the moon landings are as laughable as daffy ducks quest to planet zargon .


but daffy ducks story sounds more scientific and even more plausable .

:cool:

[tracker]

everytime i see the moon landins its a classic laugh point to me coz it shows just how dumb people can be if they truly see all the fantastic fkups thats put in their faces .

unfortunatly we have to live with the fact that some people just dont want to let go of the idea that we did land there .

shame really , i dont see why they havent put the landings in waltdysney books of fairy tails etc .
would make a good night story to our children , as if it doesnt already .:D

[steevo]

I think most people know deep down that those "astronaughts" never went to the moon. But the people just dont care EITHER WAY. They didnt care back in 1968 (or whatever year it was) and they certainly dont care now. So they just go with the flow and just accept that "yes they did go to the moon, and even if they didnt then that's ok too because the PTB are lying but they are doing it for the good of the country".

[shabun]

No problem gents! Once the LRO photos are taken in April we can discuss again. My guess is you will say they are faked anyway if they show the landers so maybe its not worth discussing after all.

[stelios]

Keep your anti-semitic racist accusations to yourself please.

What is anti arab and racist about Cuddie or Gomeril?
I must admit i have never been to Fife so please explain.

You are like a broken record, the amount of times you have told us you are pinning all your hopes on some future NASA mission.
Meaning at present there is nothing to support your beliefs.

ps: i have just looked up Fife and realised that Gordon Brownstuff is a local MP.
This explains alot cuddie/gomeril.

[shabun]

What is anti arab and racist about Cuddie or Gomeril?
I must admit i have never been to Fife so please explain.

You are like a broken record, the amount of times you have told us you are pinning all your hopes on some future NASA mission.
Meaning at present there is nothing to support your beliefs.

ps: i have just looked up Fife and realised that Gordon Brownstuff is a local MP.
This explains alot cuddie/gomeril.

I was born in the same hospital as Gordon Brown, but thankfully not to the same mother. The next time you see him, say Sha-bun to him and he will respond. To save you trying to find it on the Web, Sha-bun is a Fif eexpression of surprise, sometimes expanded to Sha-hoor of Sha-doggie.

[stelios]

I was born in the same hospital as Gordon Brown, but thankfully not to the same mother. The next time you see him, say Sha-bun to him and he will respond. If i ever saw Gordon 'the moron' Brownstuff i would probably get arrested for either gobbing in his face or giving him a Glasgow kiss.
I am vehemently anti Labour and i regard Brownstuff to be a war criminal.

[stelios]

did i read somewhere the the cogniscent effect of silica evident on the moon surface will meld / glue particles together to hold a footprint in stasis?
http://boingboing.net/images/buzzwiredtom2007.jpg

They are laughing at you NOT with you

[the itinerant shrubber]

I've seen pictures and film of the so-called Eiffel Tower but I think it's fake.
Until someone proves it's real,I shall have to carry on assuming it's fake.

[stelios]

I've seen pictures and film of the so-called Eiffel Tower but I think it's fake.
Until someone proves it's real,I shall have to carry on assuming it's fake.
That is a stupid example.
Clutching at straws.

[the itinerant shrubber]

That is a stupid example.
Clutching at straws.

Not really. I bet you believe man has been to the summit of Mt Everest too dont you.:rolleyes:

[merlincove]

Ah Everest, the impossable climb?

When you are next on a plane and the pilot anounces, 'we are now cruising at 30,000 feet...' look out the window and that is how high up everest is :-)

You can't get blokes climbing up that high!

>>>They are laughing at you NOT with you <<<

That'll be the LRO team when they hear your arguements next year stelios.

[tabea_blumenschein]

Actually i did A level maths. But i dont need that certificate to understand sheize when i see it.

I see two possibilities here.

1. Stelios will not or can not do the relevent calculations to support his claims and is just making stuff up. In other words, he's basing his conclusions on personal prejudice, not actual facts, data, and calculations.

2. Stelios has actually done the math (yeah, right!!! :D) and he refuses to share it with us.

Once again, I invite stelios to show the calculations that convinced him he is correct. Here, I'll even show stelios where he needs to start:

~

The derivation of the rocket equation takes four things into consideration:

1. The mass of the rocket.

2. The mass of the fuel.

3. The burn rate of the fuel.

4. The velocity of the exhaust relative to the speed of the rocket.

You can derive the rocket equation from conservation of momentum:

m dv = u dm

Where m is the mass of the rocket, dv is the change in velocity, u is the velocity of the fuel, and dm is the mass of fuel burned. Sure looks like a simple little equation, doesn't it?

Take it from here, stelios. After all, you did level A maths!

[tabea_blumenschein]

And for the third time, I invite stelios to respond to this (http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may2000/959341359.As.r.html) as well.

If he can.

[stelios]

Not really. I bet you believe man has been to the summit of Mt Everest too dont you.:rolleyes:

Are you lot trying to set yourselves up as the New Three Stooges?
I am glad that you given up and are now just talking shit because you cant defend your insane beliefs.
What your example of Mount Everest proves is CORROBERATION.
Many thousands of people have gone up Mount Everest and have indeed corroberated the first expedition.
You nutters believe that this man walked on the moon but you have no evidence and no corroberation. And for some reason each of you escaped mental patients keeps threatening to leave but keep coming back for more.

http://cache.kotaku.com/assets/resources/2007/11/buzzmario.jpg

Here is your God. Keep the faith!
ps: the one on the right:D

[the itinerant shrubber]

Are you lot trying to set yourselves up as the New Three Stooges?
I am glad that you given up and are now just talking shit because you cant defend your insane beliefs.
What your example of Mount Everest proves is CORROBERATION.
Many thousands of people have gone up Mount Everest and have indeed corroberated the first expedition.
You nutters believe that this man walked on the moon but you have no evidence and no corroberation. And for some reason each of you escaped mental patients keeps threatening to leave but keep coming back for more.

http://cache.kotaku.com/assets/resources/2007/11/buzzmario.jpg

Here is your God. Keep the faith!
ps: the one on the right:D

A mere 2000 people have climbed Everest;about the same amount of people needed to cover up the Apollo hoax.
If you're going to continue haunting this thread then answer some of the many questions that you have repeatedly dodged so far,

[shabun]

A mere 2000 people have climbed Everest;about the same amount of people needed to cover up the Apollo hoax.
If you're going to continue haunting this thread then answer some of the many questions that you have repeatedly dodged so far,

m8 you are wasting your time with Stelios. He will not answer any questions. He will just keep posting nonsense and making glib responses. His post about two spacecraft docking in space being imposssible shows how little he knows.

[merlincove]

Are you lot trying to set yourselves up as the New Three Stooges?
I am glad that you given up and are now just talking shit because you cant defend your insane beliefs.
What your example of Mount Everest proves is CORROBERATION.
Many thousands of people have gone up Mount Everest and have indeed corroberated the first expedition.
You nutters believe that this man walked on the moon but you have no evidence and no corroberation. And for some reason each of you escaped mental patients keeps threatening to leave but keep coming back for more.

http://cache.kotaku.com/assets/resources/2007/11/buzzmario.jpg

Here is your God. Keep the faith!
ps: the one on the right:D

This man is not a god, and nor is Mr Aldren. If you ever get the chance to meet with him and speak with him Stelios, i suggest that you do so. Listen to what he has to say and hear the truth that comes from his heart, look into his eyes and see that this man has been to places that very few men have. The truth is quite simple, if you are willing to address it.

i don't pretend to understand the mathamatical equations and nor do i consider that every one of NASA's lunar photographs were genuinely taken on the moon - but i do fully accept that when Buzz told me, personally, about his time in space and walking on the lunar surface, he was undoubtably speaking from experience. I have been so very lucky to have been in the right place at the right time and to have met with some of those astronaut's who pushed the limits of mankind - when Buzz and Neil left, they truly had no idea if they would be coming back. Indeed Michael Collins has said publicaly that if there had been a problem and that Neil and Buzz could not leave the lunar surface, he would have willingly died saving them rather than return home alone.

Buzz has a deep honesty within him, he has a deep connection with mortality -not only his own but with the whole concept of how intricately balanced life is. Being out there and looking down at 'home', from the surface of another world touched him so deeply that when you speak to him, even now, all these years on, you can not fail to be moved by his stories.

i like how you chose the most ridiculous picture here Stelios, out of the milions of Aldren photo's ;-)

And it just goes to show your own lack of credibility and understanding in pushing your arguement, that you choose to stoop to such a silly level ;)

[shabun]

This man is not a god, and nor is Mr Aldren. If you ever get the chance to meet with him and speak with him Stelios, i suggest that you do so. Listen to what he has to say and hear the truth that comes from his heart, look into his eyes and see that this man has been to places that very few men have. The truth is quite simple, if you are willing to address it.

i don't pretend to understand the mathamatical equations and nor do i consider that every one of NASA's lunar photographs were genuinely taken on the moon - but i do fully accept that when Buzz told me, personally, about his time in space and walking on the lunar surface, he was undoubtably speaking from experience. I have been so very lucky to have been in the right place at the right time and to have met with some of those astronaut's who pushed the limits of mankind - when Buzz and Neil left, they truly had no idea if they would be coming back. Indeed Michael Collins has said publicaly that if there had been a problem and that Neil and Buzz could not leave the lunar surface, he would have willingly died saving them rather than return home alone.

Buzz has a deep honesty within him, he has a deep connection with mortality -not only his own but with the whole concept of how intricately balanced life is. Being out there and looking down at 'home', from the surface of another world touched him so deeply that when you speak to him, even now, all these years on, you can not fail to be moved by his stories.

i like how you chose the most ridiculous picture here Stelios, out of the milions of Aldren photo's ;-)

And it just goes to show your own lack of credibility and understanding in pushing your arguement, that you choose to stoop to such a silly level ;)

lol. Stelios will never be the man Aldrin is! Stelios will stay a small-time loser who can't believe that people had the raw guts to do what they did in Apollo. All you need to do is go through both posts to see him dodging from one aspect to the other and ignoring the replies given to him.


Stelios, for a change, you answer something -

How did the laser reflectors located at the Apollo sites get there? Which missions put them there? What were the launch dates?

Thanks Stelios - answer please, or it will be confirmed to all that you are out of your depth.

[horus13]

Ah Everest, the impossable climb?

When you are next on a plane and the pilot anounces, 'we are now cruising at 30,000 feet...' look out the window and that is how high up everest is :-)

You can't get blokes climbing up that high!

>>>They are laughing at you NOT with you <<<

That'll be the LRO team when they hear your arguements next year stelios.

...my god not only are you clearly an idiot you're also very disrespectful. i've been to everest and although i didn't climb it myself there were about a hundred other climbers ascending/descensing/at different base camps when i was there. you fool.

[stelios]

His post about two spacecraft docking in space being imposssible shows how little he knows.
Make your point honestly and clearly - LUNAR SPACE DOCK. Two spacecraft docking in Lunar orbit.
Ofcourse that has never happened.

[stelios]

i don't pretend to understand the mathamatical equations and nor do i consider that every one of NASA's lunar photographs were genuinely taken on the moon - but i do fully accept that when Buzz told me, personally, about his time in space and walking on the lunar surface, he was undoubtably speaking from experience. I have been so very lucky to have been in the right place at the right time and to have met with some of those astronaut's who pushed the limits of mankind.
You really are simply having a laugh winding us all up. Because nobody could be that stupid.

For the record if i ever met Buzzed Aldrin i would indeed punch him back twice as hard unlike the journalist.

Cuddie - the reflectors were placed by UNMANNED PROBES

[shabun]

Cuddie - the reflectors were placed by UNMANNED PROBES

Were they now? Evidence please. If you don't provide evidence for that statement you are going to look like a silly little boy. Come on then Stelios - back up your statement.

As for the docling in lunar orbit, there is no difference in docking in lunar orbit compared to any where else in space. The videos of a lunar dock were posted earlier in one of our two threads so no need to post again. But please explain - what would be the difference in docking two craft in lunar orbit compared to any other space docking which makes it impossible to do? Explain please, or look even more stupid.

[stelios]

Apollo 14 LM lift-off and CSM docking - YouTube

The videos of a lunar space dock are the most obvious NASA fakes.
Blakes 7 was more authentic.

[shabun]

http://WWW.youtube.com/watch?v=OcpMdvu2MWw

The videos of a lunar space dock are the most obvious NASA fakes.
Blakes 7 was more authentic.


Still waiting for your evidence that the mirrors were placed by unmanned probes. Come on Stelios!

As for the docking video. Prove that it is faked please. And I'm still waiting for your technical explanation as to why docking in lunar orbit is any different from any other docking. Come on, explain, or look stupid.

[stelios]

Why are you baiting me?
I could never look as stupid as you.

http://myboringbest.castpost.com/Chimp%20on%20Penguins-Monkey%20Bar.wmv.jpg

Why dont you explain why you believe that NASA video to be factual. You know it's horseshit thats why you are not defending it.
The USSR, which never pretends to have walked on the moon, has placed lunar reflectors. So how do you think these got there?
Moon Fairy?

http://www.boingboing.net/images/th_dr-buzz-aldrin-floating.jpg

The Surveyor Program was a NASA program that sent seven robotic spacecraft to the surface of the Moon.

[shabun]

Why are you baiting me?
I could never look as stupid as you.

http://myboringbest.castpost.com/Chimp%20on%20Penguins-Monkey%20Bar.wmv.jpg

Why dont you explain why you believe that NASA video to be factual. You know it's horseshit thats why you are not defending it.
The USSR, which never pretends to have walked on the moon, has placed lunar reflectors. So how do you think these got there?
Moon Fairy?

http://www.boingboing.net/images/th_dr-buzz-aldrin-floating.jpg

The Surveyor Program was a NASA program that sent seven robotic spacecraft to the surface of the Moon.

Thought so, little boy. No answer as usual. I'm not baiting you, I just asked you to explain a couple of your claims and you couldn't. At least some of the more sensible people on this thread can see you are a fraud.

[stelios]

Are you a wee bit slow. You asked me to explain the Lunar Reflectors and i indeed explained. Or would you be wanting me to copy and paste loads of meaningless data from NASA about the Surveyor Program that sent seven robotic spacecraft to the surface of the Moon. Lunar reflectors do not prove humans have visited the moon. Lunar retroreflectors were carried by un-manned missions such as the Soviet Luna missions and the NASA Surveyor. The Soviet Lunokhod 2 reflectors are still in use today.
If you do not believe that unmanned probes planted reflectors then it is obvious you are a hopeless case.
How do you explain the USSR planting lunar reflectors when they have never once claimed to have sent people there?
While your at it, how do you explain the Soviets having moon rock samples when they havent had a man walk on the moon?
They did everything using UNMANNED ROBOTIC PROBES. Yet you still believe only a human hand could have brought back a rock sample or placed a mirror on the ground!

[shabun]

Are you a wee bit slow. You asked me to explain the Lunar Reflectors and i indeed explained. Or would you be wanting me to copy and paste loads of meaningless data from NASA about the Surveyor Program that sent seven robotic spacecraft to the surface of the Moon. Lunar reflectors do not prove humans have visited the moon. Lunar retroreflectors were carried by un-manned missions such as the Soviet Luna missions and the NASA Surveyor. The Soviet Lunokhod 2 reflectors are still in use today.
If you do not believe that unmanned probes planted reflectors then it is obvious you are a hopeless case.
How do you explain the USSR planting lunar reflectors when they have never once claimed to have sent people there?

Sorry m8. You mentioned the surveyor missions planting the reflectors. The Surveyor landing places are all well-known and are not in the same place as the Apollo reflectors - these reflectors are in specific known locations on the moons surface. And you guessed it - they are in exactly the same position as the Apollo sites, not the Surveyor ones. The one exception is Apollo 12, which landed right next to a Surveyor craft and brought back a part of it. Apart from Apollo 12 they are all in different locations. Wrong again Stelios. You have been unable to explain the presence of reflectors in the Apollo sites. Too bad for you.

My second question to you was - what is different between a lunar docking and any other? You said that lunar docking is impossible, so please explain why is it impossible. Come on!

[stelios]

The presence of reflectors at the Apollo sites.
Or any other site on the moon or on mars or venus is a relatively straightforward process of making a soft landing at any location. India has a plan to do this in a few months time following up from the success of their last lunar mission in 2008. Japan, China, who knows possibly even Iran which nowadays launches it's own satelites into space too.
India's moon mission only cost $80 million compare this with Apollo's huge huge budget.
Since the mid 1960s the Soviets and the Yankers have been putting stuff on the moon using unmanned probes.
So even you must accept that placing reflectors at the alleged apollo sites or any other site was and is relatively easy.
How many rockets take off every year/month/week? I am guessing many. Every time a satelite goes up a rocket has to launch it. GPS, communications, weather, sky tv, military, etc. So do you think possibly that some of these commercial launches could have placed a reflector on the moon? It is after all a very small payload.
Even NASA themselves concede that the reflectors DO NOT PROVE manned lunar missions took place. Check ziopedia if you dont believe me.

In 1969 the first ever space docking took place between Soyuz 4 and Soyuz 5 in low Earth orbit. After several failed attempts and much difficulty.
Yet you would have us believe that NASA despite a history of catastrophies performed the same stunt 250,000 miles away around the moon a few short months later.
It is almost impossible. Why bother with the minute chance of really doing it when nasa can just knock up a half rate short video and 40 years latter fools will still be tossing off to it.

[tabea_blumenschein]

Stelios either doesn't knw about the numberous http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docking_maneuver performed in the 1960's, prior to the Moon landings, or he doesn't want to tell you about them.

The first space rendezvous took place on December 15, 1965, when Gemini 6A maneuvered within 30 cm of the passive Gemini 7. Astronaut Wally Schirra accomplished the task. The spacecraft were not equipped to dock and no physical contact took place.

The first space rendezvous with docking took place on March 16, 1966, when Gemini 8, under the command of Neil Armstrong, rendezvoused and docked with the uncrewed Agena 8 target vehicle.

The Soviets carried out the first automated (and unmanned) space docking between Cosmos 186 and Cosmos 188 on 1967-10-30.[2]

Another kind of rendezvous occurred in 1969, when astronauts moonwalked from the lunar module of Apollo 12 to the landing site of Surveyor 3, which had made a soft landing in 1967. Parts of the Surveyor were brought back.

The first rendezvous of two spacecraft from different countries took place on June 17, 1975, when an Apollo spacecraft docked with a Soyuz spacecraft as part of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project.

The first rendezvous and docking of three spacecraft took place when both Soyuz 26 and Soyuz 27 were docked to the Salyut 6 space station during January 1978.

The velocity of the two spacecraft doesn't make docking impossible, as stelios seems to think. Even if both spacecraft have an absolute velocity of thousands of miles per hour, the relative velocity of the first spacecraft to the second in the moments prior to docking may be only a few feet per second. My educated guess from my studies of circular and elliptical orbit equations is that maneuvering the first spacecraft close to the second requires careful planning, but piloting the spacecraft the last few meters to actually dock shouldn't be too difficult. At least, not too difficult for the highly experienced pilots recruited for the Gemini and Apollo programs.

I also wouldn't expect space dockings to be more difficult than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midair_refueling, another sort of docking procedure that jet pilots have routinely performed for decades.

~

Stelios can't back up his claims and we all know it. Keep calling him on it, everyone.

[merlincove]

...my god not only are you clearly an idiot you're also very disrespectful. i've been to everest and although i didn't climb it myself there were about a hundred other climbers ascending/descensing/at different base camps when i was there. you fool.


Horus 13, my friend, this was obviously a very poor attempt at humour on my part which was obviously lost on you. In future i will label humorous posts as such.

Stelios refuses, catagorically, to believe the very obvious evidence that has been presented to him - in attempting to say how ridiculous his concept are i chose to link to something that very obviously happened - ie the everest expeditions.

And when you are in a plane, cruising at 30,000 feet, it is hard to imagine the feats that Bonnington et al managed to put themselves through to climb that mountain. i take my hat off to them all, every one of them, because they pushed the fields within which human kinds ability to reach out and conquer the impossable was made possable.

Everest still remains, in my own opinion, the very last bastion of human endurance, and to all who have tried and will try - well they have my utmost respect, and i am sure that read in context my msg was neither dissrespctfull to them nor their feats.

[stelios]

I also wouldn't expect space dockings to be more difficult than aerial refueling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midair_refueling), another sort of docking procedure that jet pilots have routinely performed for decades.
Yet another nonsensical remark.
Ofcourse space docking is extemely difficult. Just look at how many failures and accidents have occured.
And what of LUNAR space dockings?
You have seen the video of Apollo 14 space docking above. Are you happy that that video is a true and honest testimony of what occured or do you like me think that video is really an EARLY episode of Space 1999 rejected to the cutting room floor for being so totally crap?

[the itinerant shrubber]

This man is not a god, and nor is Mr Aldren. If you ever get the chance to meet with him and speak with him Stelios, i suggest that you do so. Listen to what he has to say and hear the truth that comes from his heart, look into his eyes and see that this man has been to places that very few men have. The truth is quite simple, if you are willing to address it.

i don't pretend to understand the mathamatical equations and nor do i consider that every one of NASA's lunar photographs were genuinely taken on the moon - but i do fully accept that when Buzz told me, personally, about his time in space and walking on the lunar surface, he was undoubtably speaking from experience. I have been so very lucky to have been in the right place at the right time and to have met with some of those astronaut's who pushed the limits of mankind - when Buzz and Neil left, they truly had no idea if they would be coming back. Indeed Michael Collins has said publicaly that if there had been a problem and that Neil and Buzz could not leave the lunar surface, he would have willingly died saving them rather than return home alone.

Buzz has a deep honesty within him, he has a deep connection with mortality -not only his own but with the whole concept of how intricately balanced life is. Being out there and looking down at 'home', from the surface of another world touched him so deeply that when you speak to him, even now, all these years on, you can not fail to be moved by his stories.

i like how you chose the most ridiculous picture here Stelios, out of the milions of Aldren photo's ;-)

And it just goes to show your own lack of credibility and understanding in pushing your arguement, that you choose to stoop to such a silly level ;)

The experience seemed to have changed each of those astronauts profoundly. They all became spiritual in one way or another after seeing the earth in a unique perspective;how insignificant yet special our home is.
These half-baked theories like the moon landings and believing that aliens made the Pyramids etc., do a great disservice to the genius of our species but particularly the moon landings.
We took an instrument of death and turned it into something wonderful that has allowed us to do something that humans have been dreaming of since it first occurred to us to gaze into the heavens and wonder what it was.

[shabun]

The presence of reflectors at the Apollo sites.
Or any other site on the moon or on mars or venus is a relatively straightforward process of making a soft landing at any location. India has a plan to do this in a few months time following up from the success of their last lunar mission in 2008. Japan, China, who knows possibly even Iran which nowadays launches it's own satelites into space too.
India's moon mission only cost $80 million compare this with Apollo's huge huge budget.
Since the mid 1960s the Soviets and the Yankers have been putting stuff on the moon using unmanned probes.
So even you must accept that placing reflectors at the alleged apollo sites or any other site was and is relatively easy.
How many rockets take off every year/month/week? I am guessing many. Every time a satelite goes up a rocket has to launch it. GPS, communications, weather, sky tv, military, etc. So do you think possibly that some of these commercial launches could have placed a reflector on the moon? It is after all a very small payload.
Even NASA themselves concede that the reflectors DO NOT PROVE manned lunar missions took place. Check ziopedia if you dont believe me.

In 1969 the first ever space docking took place between Soyuz 4 and Soyuz 5 in low Earth orbit. After several failed attempts and much difficulty.
Yet you would have us believe that NASA despite a history of catastrophies performed the same stunt 250,000 miles away around the moon a few short months later.
It is almost impossible. Why bother with the minute chance of really doing it when nasa can just knock up a half rate short video and 40 years latter fools will still be tossing off to it.

Oh so it wasnt the Surveyor missions that planted the reflectors after all? I thought you said in an earlier thread it was. Keep on dodging, your desperation is amusing. Now you say that missions are launched every week. Correct, but the reflectors were there and in use since 1969, when there were far fewer launches, all of which are recorded. What a fantastic coincidence that the reflectors which were in place in 1969 coincide exactly with the Apollo landing sites.

As for docking, wrong again - NASA were docking spacecraft long before 1969, including Gemini and the earlier Apollo missions which were used to learn the docking techniques and practice them prior to Apollo 11. This includes practice docking with LEM in lunar orbit on Apollo 10 and a docking in earth orbit on Apollo 9. The first docking recorded I think was in March 1966 on a Gemini mission. Come on Stelios! You are dodging again! Please answer my question that I posted - why is Lunar docking impossible? Why is it so different from any other docking maneuver?

http://www.apolloarchive.com/

[merlincove]

Stelios, we have been going over this debate for weeks and weeks, counter claim and counter claim, refute and debunk follow each other around like the horse on a kids merry go round.

I look at all these posts and I take my hat of to you because you carry on with a blind disregard for anything anyone says that points toward a lunar landing. Your continued faith in your own ideology is, it is true a blessing and indeed a measure of your own belief, which is fine, I am not knocking that – I simply do not agree with any of your posts, and this is my stance.

Would you please explain to me where you have based the genesis of your understanding / belief in the lunar landings being faked?

I take NASA’s word, and I may be a fool to do that – the LRO will tell. I take the personal words of Buzz Aldren as testament to his time in space. And i don’t believe that I am being in any way gullible in doing that. That man, in my eyes, set a standard for all humanity to aspire to – to reach out from the narrow confines of perceived ability and to strive for something that is not only a test of endurance, understanding, character, belief and personal acceptance, but moreover is a test of personal ability to manifest a dream beyond all dreams.

There has been many instances of ‘the mans’ work mentioned within these pages:

911
WMD
Lockerbie.
The Soham killings.
Maddie.
Diana’s death.
The Falklands.

And, for the record I totally agree with you on all these points (except perhaps the falkland’s lol)

All of these tragedies have a few things in common. They were orchestrated by TPTB in order to limit our freedoms and tighten a grip on humanity toward servitude and enslavement. The affects of all these issues were both shocking and constructive in destroying human kinds will.

The lunar landings on the other hand allow us to see that we are not constrained by ability, that a concept no matter how extreme, that furthers mankind’s own ability to believe in themselves, can be strived for and can be gotten. This sole concept flies in the face of ‘the mans’ other deeds – ok its agenda was to win the cold war, but still those fundamental concepts of self appraisal hold dear. Where ‘the mans’ deeds limit our understanding and conception of freedom, the lunar landings expound the mind of man to greater things – hardly within the remit of NWO agenda’s?

So again, would you please explain to me where you have based the genesis of your understanding / belief in the lunar landings as being faked, why they were faked and to what end? And if they were indeed faked where did the millions of dollars poured into the space program go, what did they fund?

There are a half a million people involved within the Apollo missions, from technicians to launch control – have they all been silenced so easily?

[stelios]

The experience seemed to have changed each of those astronauts profoundly. They all became spiritual in one way or another after seeing the earth in a unique perspective;how insignificant yet special our home is.
These half-baked theories like the moon landings and believing that aliens made the Pyramids etc., do a great disservice to the genius of our species but particularly the moon landings.
I agree, people who believe in moon landings and/or aliens are wackos.
Like this geezer.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XlkV1ybBnHI
And i assume you mean when the astronauts see the Earth from space whilst in low Earth orbit, yes i agree it does look amazing.

[stelios]

Oh so it wasnt the Surveyor missions that planted the reflectors after all? I thought you said in an earlier thread it was.
Yes correct, i said the seven unmanned surveyor moon probes as well as many others such as the Soviet Luna and others planted reflectors.
You seem to be wanting to compare this with a game of pin the tail on the donkey for some reason.
Nobody has proved that the reflectors planted at the alleged apollo sites were indeed planted there by HUMANS or ROBOTIC PROBES.
You refuse to accept that USSR has planted reflectors and collect moon rocks yet has never pretended to have landed men on the moon. So why is it not only feasible but probable that the USA did not copy the same approach?

I say for the record - many unmanned robotic probes have landed on the moon since the early 1960s, many have included distance ranging equipment such as reflectors which is basically just a mirror stuck to the lid in many cases. I catergorically after having studied the evidence and various claims do not accept the official NASA narrative.

However, the official NASA narrative states quite clearly that the first space dock was in January 1969 between Soyuz 4 and Soyuz 5. Are you saying that is wrong?

[stelios]

911
WMD
Lockerbie.
The Soham killings.
Maddie.
Diana’s death.
The Falklands.


Let me state for the record. In 2001 i believed sincerely that 19 highjackers fly into the WTC, etc. But by 2006 after looking at various bits of evidence including meeting William Rodriguez i realised that 911 was actually carried out by a group of Zionists who have been named and debated in other sections of this forum. The evidence is so overwhelming that my view is shared by 33% of Americans according to CNN and much of the free world.

WMD i never had a view on this but even Labour and their supporters have admitted they lied. They just say the ends justified the means. I was against the war from the start and still am.

Lockerbie. i met David Shayler who told me to my face in the that the official story about Lockerbie is correct, however, this is wrong because even the families if the dead victims reject the official story. I dont know who did it but i know the man in jail is innocent and i suspect that the CIA did it to cover up some of their drug smuggling operations.

The Soham killings. The guy Ian Huntley is a vile piece of work and did murder the girls. he was found guilty and i agree with that 100%

Maddie. I am less sure about Maddie, i think her family has questions to answer. Ofcourse it is strange that the fact that McCann was not her biological father was not revealed till later on. And it is also wierd how they were so near the top of the Labour party inner sanctum that they managed to set up an entire million pound industry out of this, almost as though it had been ready in place. I mean a child goes missing on a tuesday and saturday there are adverts featuring david beckham at Wembley stadium and at cinemas, a website is already in place with intricate flash graphics and phps etc that i know takes ages to set up.
I dont want to blame the McCanns but the Portugese police certainly did.

Diana’s death. Yes i think she was murdered as do millions of others. Firstly imagine how hard it would have been for Labour to issue their war against Muslims if Diana had become a Muslim?
She had been in a two year relationship with a Pakistani doctor, and now a whirlwind romance with an Egyptian. Her best friend Jemima had just gone down the same track and it seemed likely that Diana would extend her landmines campaign to campaigning for Palestinian rights.
If she announced she was Muslim so would have millions of others, just like Mohammed Ali the boxer created millions of black american Muslims, Diana would have created millions of white muslims.

The Falklands. I am 100% with Margaret Thatcher on this. dont think we could have allowed the 3000 British people who were indigenous to the islands to have been ruled by a brutal fascist dictator who had already disappeared 20,000 of his own people. The Falklands had to be liberated and by and large was a just war.

Up until 2005 ish i also believed the Apollo fairy tale. But after looking at the variious bits of evidence and watching a number of documentaries i soon realised that its all a load of old cobblers.
The science doesnt add up. The photos and cine footage is all faked. And the biggest indictment for me is the fact that in 1968 technology they claim to have orbited the moon in a manned craft yet in 2008 only India and Japan have sent unmaned probes to the moon.
The 100 metres world record is 9.79 seconds. So if somebody produced a very shaky video and claimed he had in 1968 run 100 metres in 1 second there would be an obvious credibilty gap.
So in space terms the furthest any manned mission has gone is about 235 miles up. Yet Apollo claims in 1968 it went 250,000 miles and since 1972 it claims nobody has ever done it again.
Mount Everest is a good example. Hillary and Tensing went up there 30,000 feet which was a world record, then others copied it, and since then the same feat has been repeated over and over again by thousands. Shorter times, different faces, some without oxygen etc, but it is a proven fact.
The moon - well who has gone back there to prove it happened or that it can happen?
There is a huge credibilty gap which propaganda and media control cannot hide.

We can carry on arguing about the nitty gritty, i am still to hear anyone present a shred of evidence, but if somebody can prove to me that any human has walked and driven on the moon then i will happily eat my hat or anything else in public, naked and post it online.
There is no evidence because it never happened.
I mean look at one of the fools Buzz Aldrin in his latest video above, who pretends to have gone to the moon now spinning a yarn about aliens. It is so laughable. I cannot understand why ANYONE believes the Apollo story. After looking at the evidence.

Peace

[merlincove]

For the record if i ever met Buzzed Aldrin i would indeed punch him back twice as hard unlike the journalist.

Stelios, you'd hit an old guy?

the video above is a good example of Buzz towing a different line to the official story, as do many other astronaut's who speak of alien craft. i was at a talk some time listening to a guy who had been a pilot in the raf talk about his visionary encounters with ufo's, he was talking when someone interupted from the crowd, saying 'if aliens exist then why haven't astronaut's seen them. it was perfectly timed, but there were at least two astronaut's in the crowd, one of them was Lovell, and i can not recal who the other was, who stated, in front of a large crowd of people that 'every NASA launch has been accompanied by alien space craft'.

Buzz talks here of seeing something in space, he aludes to it being of alien origin - i can not see where you are coming from posting that.

Whatever apollo 11 were viewing was not rockets / burners S1vb ejected earlier - what they are viewing is too close.

Are you also apposed to the idea of alien inteligence? Given the math, if 1% of all the stars we know about had a planetary system in orbit around it, and if 1% of those had an earth like planet capable of supporting life then there would be 250,000 earths out there. 250,000 chances that alien life exists beyond the boundaries of our solar system.

The anunaki - accounted within sumerian texts - were an alien race. i can not see why you have posted the aldren link, other than to debunk him as an alien / ufo advocate?

But why would NASA lie about this, why spend a billion bilion dollars on missions that never happened?

[stelios]

For the record if i ever met Buzzed Aldrin i would indeed punch him back twice as hard unlike the journalist.
Stelios, you'd hit an old guy?
I would certainly tell him that me like most people know he never went to the moon and if he tries to punch me like he punched the reporter i would be perfectly within my right of self defence to give him a slap.
He is a criminal, a fraudster and a fool. But an agressive fool. When he was on Al Murray's show, Al Murray was taking the piss out of him and brought up the subject of the assault. Buzzed happily said "i whooped him".
He might be a crazed old fool but that does not give him the right to go around punching reporters who are exposing his lies.

Buzz talks here of seeing something in space, he aludes to it being of alien origin - i can not see where you are coming from posting that.
Hang on, so you believe in Aliens too?
Ok, so like the moon landings, wheres the proof?
If aliens are here where are they?
I wonder if the ranks of Apollo space cadets welcome the support of equally loony Alien advocates.

Nasa has a long campaign of promoting the alien agenda. Mate, way back when in the Protocols of Zion, and other documents like the project for a new american century, etc there has been a plan. We used to be enemies of the Soviets. The reds are under the bed they used to say. But that enemy no longer exists. Now we are enemies with the Muslims, but once again the lie has been exposed and in fact Muslims, Russians and Chinese are forming a powerful alliance against Britain, America and Israel.
So a new common enemy needs to be created. Aliens.
There will be a false flag attack blamed on aliens which it is planned will lead to a one world government.
Nasa is playing it's part in this agenda.
The quid pro quo for NASA is they get bundles more dosh. By telling a second lie you reinforce the first one. The alien story backs up the moon landing story.
Both are bullshit.

Aldrin is not an alien advocate. He is a highly paid actor. Paid to tell whatever story his bosses tell him.
He opens supermarkets, fun fairs and functions such as Super Mario World. He appears on comedy shows like Ali G and Al Murray.

[shabun]

Yes correct, i said the seven unmanned surveyor moon probes as well as many others such as the Soviet Luna and others planted reflectors.
You seem to be wanting to compare this with a game of pin the tail on the donkey for some reason.
Nobody has proved that the reflectors planted at the alleged apollo sites were indeed planted there by HUMANS or ROBOTIC PROBES.
You refuse to accept that USSR has planted reflectors and collect moon rocks yet has never pretended to have landed men on the moon. So why is it not only feasible but probable that the USA did not copy the same approach?

I say for the record - many unmanned robotic probes have landed on the moon since the early 1960s, many have included distance ranging equipment such as reflectors which is basically just a mirror stuck to the lid in many cases. I catergorically after having studied the evidence and various claims do not accept the official NASA narrative.

However, the official NASA narrative states quite clearly that the first space dock was in January 1969 between Soyuz 4 and Soyuz 5. Are you saying that is wrong?

The Surveyor and the Russian Luna landing sites are all in different locations to the Apollo sites - the landing sites of all of them (including the Russian ones) is well known. It doesn't matter whether they put reflectors on these missions because the location of the Apollo mirrors is not where the surveyor or Luna craft are known to be. They are in different locations completely. Like it or lump it, they are, so you are therefore wrong. It also doesn't matter how many mirrors have been placed since 1960 as the Apollo mirrors have been used since 1969, so they must have been in place at that time.

As for the docking, if you care to check out the NASA website for the Gemini and Apollo missions, you will clearly see the all records of docking since 1966, all of which were used to gain experience for the Apollo dockings.

Still you need to answer my simple question (which you keep dodging) - Why do you say that docking in Lunar Orbit in 1969 is impossible? You have stated that it is, so please provide evidence that substantiates your statement, otherwise people may think you don't know what you are talking about.

[merlincove]

I don't need to prove that aliens do or do not exist Stelios, both are a matter of conjecture and personal view. The math i posted earlier goesa a long way toward accepting the idea that life exists 'out there' whether we believe it or not.

There are billions of stars out there, that we know of. Hubble keeps finding more and more - it is beyond reason and borders on elitism to think that we are the only sourse of life in the whole of all those stars.

But i don't want to wind down another self eluding hypothetical debate that serves only as a side step from the main issue - we can perhaps discuss that in onother post?

Ok.

You asked us to prove that the apollo missions were real.

i think we have done that, or at least it has been done by others on the list.

Lunar rock - the pieces of rock that NASA have were collected on the moon. They have 900lb of the stuff, i think. That would equate to several hundered meteoric falls, possably even several thousands. Lunites are a rare commodity on earth - and yes they can be found in the antarctic and sahara regions, but these rocks have undergone a great metamorphic change as they cam through the atmosphere - and as far as i am aware that change is none reversable. Meteorites exhibit closely matted clasts (chondrites) that are bonded together through intense heat due to friction etc. Lunar rock would have those same clasts / chondrites / dust particles but they would not be bonded together in the same way. If NASA have any lunites in the collect then they will be remarkably different to the rock collected from the lunar surface.

i am surprised that you didn't pin your arguement on robotic drones - collecting the rock when they placed the reflectors?

Second point, the reflectors. Liying at sites not visited by unmanned probes. So how did they get there?

The lunar orbit docking had been carried out before, so why do you insist it was faked within the apollo 11 program?

Why is it so difficult for you to grasp that once an object is subjected to propulsion, once it escapes any hinderance toward propultion (atmosphere) it's journey will continue unhindered without the need for ANY MORE fuel until it is required to slow down? That is what the apollo missions did; using the force of propultion they took off and moved through the earths atmosphere. i don't know how long it took until they were free of atmospheric abrassion, but once free, they simply switch of the engines and moved at THE SAME speed toward the moon. Through the use of thrusters they then slow down, drop into lunar orbit and dispatch the LM.

And the return journey is a case of boosting to optimum speed, fall into the gravitational effect of earth, re-enter at a suitable angle, deploy shute and wait for the rescue boat. Why is that so difficult for you to accept?

Whether man went to the moon or not, these are three factors that you have failed to respond to with any convinsing arguement :D

Calling buzz names and aluding to his character in a negative way does not negate from the fact that he went to the moon.

Think of one aspect in your life that you are eternally proud of, something that you did that was important to you. Just suppose that you had climbed everest, for the want of something BIG to use. And you became a celebrity because of that. And then some ass hole comes up to you in the street and calls you a liar. Repeatedly. In front of your friends, in front of your familly, in front of the media. He calls you a liar and a cheat, he says 'you never did that thing - swear on the bible, swear on it to say that you did.' And in your mind and in your heart you knew that you HAD done it. This ass wipe is not only an affront to you but to the very thing that defines you, he's hassled you for days, months, following you around, calling you a liar. i am sure that you would 'whoop' him too - i know i would. And you would be happy that you'd whooped him, you'd be proud of it - the guy deserved it. Asking Buzz once, yeah thats ok, but to continually hound the guy, before his friends and familly, before his peers and the worlds press, that is just not normal behaviour, the guy was psychotic, he was mentally ill to pursue the man in that way, normal people do not act in the way he did - but i'm side tracking again....

[stelios]

There are billions of stars out there, that we know of. Hubble keeps finding more and more - it is beyond reason and borders on elitism to think that we are the only sourse of life in the whole of all those stars.
I agree. Life probably exists elsewhere.
But, i don't believe Aliens are here - there is no evidence.
What very dubious claims there are all stem from nasa - the pork pie merchants


Think of one aspect in your life that you are eternally proud of, something that you did that was important to you. Just suppose that you had climbed everest, for the want of something BIG to use. And you became a celebrity because of that. And then some ass hole comes up to you in the street and calls you a liar. Repeatedly. In front of your friends, in front of your familly, in front of the media. He calls you a liar and a cheat, he says 'you never did that thing - swear on the bible, swear on it to say that you did.' And in your mind and in your heart you knew that you HAD done it. This ass wipe is not only an affront to you but to the very thing that defines you, he's hassled you for days, months, following you around, calling you a liar. i am sure that you would 'whoop' him too - i know i would. And you would be happy that you'd whooped him, you'd be proud of it - the guy deserved it. Asking Buzz once, yeah thats ok, but to continually hound the guy, before his friends and familly, before his peers and the worlds press, that is just not normal behaviour, the guy was psychotic, he was mentally ill to pursue the man in that way, normal people do not act in the way he did - but i'm side tracking again....

I cant swim. I am embarrased to admit. But suppose i claimed to have SWAM across the ATLANTIC and then to back up my claim supposed i claimed that while i was swimming across the atlantic i had seen UFOs.
Do i have the right to wallop somebody who asks me to swear under oath that i did it?
My claim to have swum the Atlantic and seen Aliens is more feasible than Aldrin's claims. Even though i confess i cant swim. But men can swim and people have swum long distances. not quite that long. But in theory my claim is more feasible than his.
The furthest anyone has travelled in space is approx 250 miles. Before Apollo and in the forty years since Apollo.
So dont you think it strange that Apollo claims 250,000 miles. A record way way beyond the previous record and in forty years nobody has beat the previous record.

[merlincove]

Great post Stelios, thanks :D

[shabun]

Hi Stelios,
OK you didn't answer about the reflector positions, and you still think that docking two spacecraft was impossible, despite the evidence from Gemini and the Apollo missions that did it. Not much point in debating further.

Anyway, you know that Japan Kaguya mission is photographing the moon at the moment. You may want to look at their study of the Apollo 15 landing site.

http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2008/05/20080520_kaguya_e.html

If you scroll down you will see two landscape photos - one from Kaguya terrain camera and one from Apollo (Fig 5). If, as you claim, all the Apollo photos are fakes, can you please explain how come the backgrounds are identical? Are the Japanese photos also fakes? To avoid an unecessary discussion, the Kaguya TC has a resolution of about 10m so it can't see the individual rocks but the main features are all identical.

So Stelios, are the Japs also faking photos?

[stelios]

The Japanese did photograph the Apollo landing site and found NOTHING.
They posted these photos on their site.
However, they were removed a few days later and for several months the site was displaying an error message. I checked back myself several times trying to embed the images.
If now NASA have instructed them to post new images according to NASA's spec then i will go an have a look.

I will doubt the validity of a photo that appears over a year after it was taken that suddenly shows the USA flag and footprints and the lunar rover etc. Why were these photos withheld? And why were the original images removed from the selene site?

But i am glad you are now looking at the Japanese and Indians rather than NASA as your information source.

http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2008/05/img/20080520_kaguya_06l.jpg
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2008/05/img/20080520_kaguya_07l.jpg

by the way if this is the photo you are talking about where have the moon lander and other debris gone? Because this photo proves they are not at the site they claimed to be at.

Secondly, Selene is ORBITING the moon not landing on it as far as i know. So it has taken this photo on a fly past. Yet NASA claim to have taken the same photo whiles standing on the surface.
And you are saying the NASA set designers could not make a mock up of the ariel photo taken from Surveyor?

[shabun]

The Japanese did photograph the Apollo landing site and found NOTHING.
They posted these photos on their site.
However, they were removed a few days later and for several months the site was displaying an error message. I checked back myself several times trying to embed the images.
If now NASA have instructed them to post new images according to NASA's spec then i will go an have a look.

I will doubt the validity of a photo that appears over a year after it was taken that suddenly shows the USA flag and footprints and the lunar rover etc. Why were these photos withheld? And why were the original images removed from the selene site?

But i am glad you are now looking at the Japanese and Indians rather than NASA as your information source.

Stelios. Please listen for once. The NASA photo is on the right. It has the rover on it. The Kaguya photo is on the left - it has no rover on it because as I already posted, Kaguya has a resolution of about 10m, and the rover will be back at the LEM anyway. The two photos are so similar, the only way woudl be for the Japanese to fake their photo as well.

And the reason the landing sites are not seen specifically in the Kaguya photos is because Kaguya resolution is about 10m, and the LEM was about 4m square.

[tabea_blumenschein]

Stelios. Please listen for once. The NASA photo is on the right. It has the rover on it. The Kaguya photo is on the left - it has no rover on it because as I already posted, Kaguya has a resolution of about 10m, and the rover will be back at the LEM anyway. The two photos are so similar, the only way woudl be for the Japanese to fake their photo as well.

And the reason the landing sites are not seen specifically in the Kaguya photos is because Kaguya resolution is about 10m, and the LEM was about 4m square.

And bolstering shabun's comment, the 10m figure is Kaguya's Angular resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In other words, something 10m across will show up as a single pixel in the image.

To clearly show the LEM, or the lunar rover, requires resolution of less than one meter. To clearly show the astronauts' footprints, or equipment left on the moon, requires resolution of a few centimeters.

[stelios]

Kaguya's angular resolution limit
Correct we both understand each other, thank goodness.
The Japanese have taken a photo of the moon on a fly past. But it is exactly the same as an Apollo photo which claims to have been taken standing on the moon. But you and i know that cant be true can it?

Leaving aside the argument as to why the Apollo paraphernalia is not in the photo. An ariel photo and one taken on the ground cannot be the same.

The NASA set designers have made a mock up based on an ariel photo and have failed to compensate to make the scenery accurate.

sorry i cant embed this video but it shows that in 1874 a guy took photos of the moon, how did he do it?
He did it exactly the same way as NASA
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1911416348?bclid=1741215546&bctid=2859614001

[shabun]

Kaguya's angular resolution limit
Correct we both understand each other, thank goodness.
The Japanese have taken a photo of the moon on a fly past. But it is exactly the same as an Apollo photo which claims to have been taken standing on the moon. But you and i know that cant be true can it?

Leaving aside the argument as to why the Apollo paraphernalia is not in the photo. An ariel photo and one taken on the ground cannot be the same.

The NASA set designers have made a mock up based on an ariel photo and have failed to compensate to make the scenery accurate.

sorry i cant embed this video but it shows that in 1874 a guy took photos of the moon, how did he do it?
He did it exactly the same way as NASA
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1911416348?bclid=1741215546&bctid=2859614001

lol Stelios. You need to do better! Both photos overlay each other, and it has already been explained to you the Kaguya photo cant define the smaller items like individual rocks and stones. Come on mate - explain how they managed to do that!

[hagbard_celine]

I'm putting a post on this thread just so I can find it because I've had problems with my user account.

[shabun]

I'm putting a post on this thread just so I can find it because I've had problems with my user account.

Welcome back!

[hagbard_celine]

Welcome back!

Thanks.:)

I'm reading this thread with interest, but I've done this subject so much and it tends to get a bit ahead of me. Still you and Stellios are clearly having fun without me!:D

[shabun]

Thanks.:)

I'm reading this thread with interest, but I've done this subject so much and it tends to get a bit ahead of me. Still you and Stellios are clearly having fun without me!:D

Could you please look at the link I posted from the Japanese photo analysis of the Apollo 15 site? Especially the comparison between the NASA photo (the one with the rover on it) and the Japanese photo of the same site (constructed from their 3d terrain camera).

How can you explain how the two photos are identical? Not the absolute resolution of each individual stone, but the general terrain.

[hagbard_celine]

Could you please look at the link I posted from the Japanese photo analysis of the Apollo 15 site? Especially the comparison between the NASA photo (the one with the rover on it) and the Japanese photo of the same site (constructed from their 3d terrain camera).

How can you explain how the two photos are identical? Not the absolute resolution of each individual stone, but the general terrain.


Sure, will do.:cool:

[hagbard_celine]

I've seen the the photoes from the Japanese probe. Yes the two look identical and I'm not going to suggest that the Japanese photoes are fake too (although I still leave that possibility open;)). But this does not prove that the Apollo missions were genuine. If the Apollo lunar visual record was really shot on the moon, which is possible, then it may well have been shot in that very location; or possibly in a studio modelled very closely on the actual location.

I'm not claming that people have never been to the moon; all I claim is that people did not go to the moon at the time, with the personnel or using the methods, that history tells us they did.

[stelios]

Hello Hagbard,
The point is not that the two scenes are the same.
One is taken from an orbiting probe so is an ariel photo
the other is claimed to be taken at ground level by an astronaut
therefore clearly NASA's one is faked,
as we have seen a large team of set designers built mock ups of the lunar surface using ariel photos as comparison and simply forgot to change the perspective, because on the ground the scenery would be much different.
Japan has taken a photo of the Apollo landing site and found nothing to prove it was ever used, but they have proved that the NASA photo was not taken from the surface of the moon.

[shabun]

Hello Hagbard,
The point is not that the two scenes are the same.
One is taken from an orbiting probe so is an ariel photo
the other is claimed to be taken at ground level by an astronaut
therefore clearly NASA's one is faked,
as we have seen a large team of set designers built mock ups of the lunar surface using ariel photos as comparison and simply forgot to change the perspesctive, because on the ground the scenery would be much different.
Japan has taken a photo of the Apollo landing site and found nothing to prove it was ever used, but they have proved that the NASA photo was not taken from the surface of the moon.

Stelios - I can't understand your post - the two photos overlay each other. The Japanese one is of course taken from above, but because it is a 3D terrain camera, it can be viewed from any perspective. In this case they chose the point on the ground where NASA say their photo was taken from, so if the landscapes can then be compared. If the landscapes are the same, then either the Japanese are faking their photos, or NASA were able to build in a studio an exact representation of the terrain in a huge area of the moon, in 1969. as Kaguya are going to be releasing many more of these comparisons, it will become apparent that NASA will have had to create huge models of many areas of the moon in perfect alignment with the Japanese photos.

Also, it is incorrect that the Japanese photos prove there was no landing in that area. It has been repeatedly stated to you that Kaguya resolution is about 10m, and the Lander is about 4m square, so it cannot see the lander from its distance.

[merlincove]

http://stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm

very funny site, i think it must be where SAtelios gets all his info from :rolleyes:

[stelios]

these are better sites

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

http://apolloscam.bravehost.com/

but there are thousands of sites including ones set up by NASA themselves as debunking sites, because most sane people have come to the reality that the moon landings were faked

I really dont get the guy talking about the Japanese probe. It does not help him justify his beliefs.
If you fly past a location and take a high resolution image that is all above board and accepted as fact.
So how can that exact same image be taken from ground level?
The NASA image was ALSO taken by a lunar probe which was orbiting the moon such as were plentiful in the 1960s.

It is amazing what crumbs of comfort are found by those who refuse to see the light.

[shabun]

these are better sites

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

http://apolloscam.bravehost.com/

but there are thousands of sites including ones set up by NASA themselves as debunking sites, because most sane people have come to the reality that the moon landings were faked

I really dont get the guy talking about the Japanese probe. It does not help him justify his beliefs.
If you fly past a location and take a high resolution image that is all above board and accepted as fact.
So how can that exact same image be taken from ground level?
The NASA image was ALSO taken by a lunar probe which was orbiting the moon such as were plentiful in the 1960s.

It is amazing what crumbs of comfort are found by those who refuse to see the light.

Crumbs of comfort? - like your post about them sticking transparancies onto the capsule window to pretend that is the Earth? That is your best yet.

Well maybe your one about docking being impossible is also a contender. We are still waiting for your answer to that one.

Or the one about the mirrors being placed by the Surveyor probes.

So the NASA image was taken by a Lunar probe? So how come the Rover is on it?

[stelios]

Crumbs of comfort? - like your post about them sticking transparancies onto the capsule window to pretend that is the Earth? That is your best yet.
I assume you ignored the video then that clearly showed them placing a transparency over the window.
It is an official NASA video and there is no other explanation for it.


So the NASA image was taken by a Lunar probe? So how come the Rover is on it?
I have said that the NASA image is one which is from a scene that they created here on earth. I mean you have seen the photos of set designers making mock ups of the moon and luar surface.
This is not denied by NASA who simply state that these mock ups were for training and simulations.
My point is in the photos you can clearly see the set designers looking at [hots of the moon surface while making their models from plaster of paris.
This is why the lunar landscape is at the wrong perspective.
The NASA photo like all the NASA photos was taken on Earth at their simulated lunar landspace. The Japanese one however is correct on a fly past.

http://apolloreality.bravehost.com/index_files/08df88b0.jpg

[stelios]

http://apollolaugh.bravehost.com/index_files/078800a0.jpg

[shabun]

I assume you ignored the video then that clearly showed them placing a transparency over the window.
It is an official NASA video and there is no other explanation for it.


I have said that the NASA image is one which is from a scene that they created here on earth. I mean you have seen the photos of set designers making mock ups of the moon and luar surface.
This is not denied by NASA who simply state that these mock ups were for training and simulations.
My point is in the photos you can clearly see the set designers looking at [hots of the moon surface while making their models from plaster of paris.
This is why the lunar landscape is at the wrong perspective.
The NASA photo like all the NASA photos was taken on Earth at their simulated lunar landspace. The Japanese one however is correct on a fly past.

http://apolloreality.bravehost.com/index_files/08df88b0.jpg

They were not putting transparancies of the Earth on the window - you are being disingenious again you naughty chappie. They did try to block out the rest of the window presumably to avoid the glare from the sun, but even before they try that the whole of the earth is clearly seen in the window, which would be impossible if they are in low earth orbit.

www.clavius.org

[stemcg1983]

i watched a show on edge TV last night which was about the lunar landings anyway,

the guest was saying that for all the apollo missions to the moon, NASA did test runs ie simulations of the missions.

he mentioned he believed that these test runs were passed off as the actual pics & video we associate with the missions.

i find this very plausible, it got me thinking that they could of possibly been to the moon, but couldn't release the footage due to a presence already being there.

[hagbard_celine]

i watched a show on edge TV last night which was about the lunar landings anyway,

the guest was saying that for all the apollo missions to the moon, NASA did test runs ie simulations of the missions.

he mentioned he believed that these test runs were passed off as the actual pics & video we associate with the missions.

i find this very plausible, it got me thinking that they could of possibly been to the moon, but couldn't release the footage due to a presence already being there.

Was that guest Marcus Allen?

Very interesting guy.:cool:

From what I've heard there is a "presence" there, if I interpret your meaning correctly. However I don't think the hoax was done as an ad-hoc eventuality kind of thing. It was planned from the start. The Apollo missions were never intended to be real, so the studio shots were not "test runs" at all.

[stelios]

i watched a show on edge TV last night which was about the lunar landings anyway,

the guest was saying that for all the apollo missions to the moon, NASA did test runs ie simulations of the missions.

he mentioned he believed that these test runs were passed off as the actual pics & video we associate with the missions.

i find this very plausible, it got me thinking that they could of possibly been to the moon, but couldn't release the footage due to a presence already being there.

This is something NASA want to promote. They know most sane people have realised that everything is a fake and there is zero evidence to support the official story.
But NASA has been spreading these stories about aliens to draw attention away from it's deception and failures and theft of BIllions ofd dollars.

No man has ever walked or driven on the moon.
There are no aliens. The whole thing is a pack of lies lock stock and barrel.
We have Nick Pope a UK government mouthpiece spreading stories about aliens.
We have Buzzed Aldrin a former astronaught also spreading stories about aliens.
It is all bull.

[stemcg1983]

This is something NASA want to promote. They know most sane people have realised that everything is a fake and there is zero evidence to support the official story.
But NASA has been spreading these stories about aliens to draw attention away from it's deception and failures and theft of BIllions ofd dollars.

No man has ever walked or driven on the moon.
There are no aliens. The whole thing is a pack of lies lock stock and barrel.
We have Nick Pope a UK government mouthpiece spreading stories about aliens.
We have Buzzed Aldrin a former astronaught also spreading stories about aliens.
It is all bull.

yeah stelios, i agree i don't believe they went to the moon, i was just putting a thought out there.

that nick pope fella is a farce i agree

[stemcg1983]

Was that guest Marcus Allen?

Very interesting guy.:cool:

From what I've heard there is a "presence" there, if I interpret your meaning correctly. However I don't think the hoax was done as an ad-hoc eventuality kind of thing. It was planned from the start. The Apollo missions were never intended to be real, so the studio shots were not "test runs" at all.

yeah i think it was that fella, he distributes the nexus magazine i believe, i listened to him on redice radio , seems a decent bloke
yeah i understand what you are saying, maybe these test-runs were done as plausible scenario tto there propsed mission unbeknowst (spelling?) to the set dressers and alike that these tests were actually going be filmed and then be passed of as real.

i hope that made sense i find it hard sometimes trying to write what i think lol

[hagbard_celine]

yeah i think it was that fella, he distributes the nexus magazine i believe, i listened to him on redice radio , seems a decent bloke
yeah i understand what you are saying, maybe these test-runs were done as plausible scenario tto there propsed mission unbeknowst (spelling?) to the set dressers and alike that these tests were actually going be filmed and then be passed of as real.

i hope that made sense i find it hard sometimes trying to write what i think lol


Me too:D

Yeah it's possible definitely. There's so far no completely cohearent narrative on what happened on the moon. What is our true relationship with our satelite?:confused:

[friendship]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MJyUDpm9Kvk

the hammer and feather works for me!
thats low grav fun. not worth the trip but still fun.
try it on earth.

[hagbard_celine]

the hammer and feather works for me!
thats low grav fun. not worth the trip but still fun.
try it on earth.

This shot has been reproduced on Earth. It's very easily demonstrated by Percy and Bennett in their film What Happened on the Moon? Indeed the shot was reproduced in Hollywood for the From the Earth to the Moon TV movie. No vacuum required!:D

[jmmk]

We're still only doing space shuttle missions into Earth's orbit? Did those suits
have A/C or heating systems to handle 200 or -200 degrees F? The ship may
have blocked cosmic radiation, but not their wimply suits. I could go on and on. People died who were going to reveal the truth back in the 60,s.

[white horse]

NASA has not carried anyone to the moon and back.
The moon landings fairy tale is a hoax.

PRobably were fake - but I reckon from what I have heard/read 'humans' landed on the moon from terra firma at least around 1954 using aquired EBE technology...

[morphal]

I think the people who argue this conspircy on both sides of the argument are generally very ignorant, like most people, of the massive gap between the technology we are told our governments possess and that which they actually possess and utilize.

Exactly. There are craft in the secret gov/mil. world that can take you to the moon and back in 1/2 day. 'We' go there all the time, but not through NASA.

[morphal]

Shabun many of the photos, supposedly taken by the lunar astonaughts, have been shown to have been faked in studio. 40 years ago nasa had the very best computers in the world and could easilly have faked photo's by rubbing out certain factors, ie studio props. Todays home computer can very easilly see through these flaws and with programs such as photo shop we can now see the edits very clearly. if you don't believe that, just do the maths - research the facts, there are too many photo's and not enough hours - there are more photo's than there are recorded man-minutes on the moon. Photo's of the lander with the rover still to be unpacked, the lander is surrounded by tyre tracks across the lunar soil. Photo shop edits with one lander edited out! Today we can uncover these edited photo's and show that many were not taken on the moon.

i am not trying to convince you or anybody else but the sheer weight of photographic evidence when weighed up against the amount of minutes man spent on the moon do not stand up to scrutiny. I can not rememebr the facts but it is one photo for every 50 seconds man spent on the lunar surface.

Having said this i feel that nasa did send neil and buzz there, that those men walked on the moon. That nasa over played their hand in producing to many photo's has become clear these last few decades.

one thing is for certain, when neil took that first step into what we precieve as the unknown, when he stepped out onto the lunar surface, taking that one small step i wonder if he could ever concieve that that momentous moment would be being bought into doubt 40 years later?

i have had the privilage to meet with men who claimed to have walked on the moon - when you hear these guys talk and when you have chance to speak with them candidly, it becomes clear that they have seen things and experienced things few people will ever get the chance to.

i have met these guys and shared dinner with a number of them, and when you look into their eyes there is a truth there that touches you deep in your very soul, they are very profound people who have been to the edge of their own understanding and they carry a peace with them that is trully wonderous to behold. They tell me that they walked on the moon, and i believe them. Their stories are remarkable.

Many of them speak of ET's, they don't necersarily tow the official nasa line, if they were living a lie then their stories would be squeeky clean?

they tell me that they walked on the moon, they tell me that they looked at the earth as she rose up over the lunar horizon, and they tell me that they have seen things there that would answer the question 'are we alone in the universe' with an emphatic no we are not. And on all these counts i believe them.

i just don't believe the nasa story - there are too many holes, too many photos that raise questions, too many improbables.

i don't ask that you believe me, i am just saying what i know and i am offering no proof of what i say because i haven't got any - i simply know what i have been told and i feel that its source is beyond doubt.

There are many who are and will always remain sceptical in regard to the lunar landings - indeed there are many states in america who have no idea of mans voyage into space let alone the moon landings, it is simply not taught in their schools so it is not a part of their consciousness. No matter what evidence we deliver, those who do not believe will deny it for ever more.

There are only a few astranaughts left now who had the chance to walk on the moon, and of those perhaps Buzz is the most aproachable. As each year passes they become less and less in number and soon there will be none left to tell their story - and those who remain will fall into ill health and soon they will retire from public speaking. If you ever get the chance to go to a signing event / expo etc where these guys are talking, i would urge that you go and see them for yourself, judge these people with your own heart and feeling and see how their stories make you feel - judge them and their stories on the facts that they portray. i have been lucky enough to have been able to attend many signings and i am lucky enough to know event organisers and have sat with these guys many times, sharing a beer and having a laugh, i can tell you most definately that their stories are amazing.

i believe them, wholeheartedly, i just don't swallow the nasa bullsit :-)

Right on! Probably the reason so many photos were faked and overdone is because the moon is crawling with ET life! Couldn't show the public the truth, now could they, so they had to fake it. Most of it. Try to use whatever they could use from the actual mission, obscure whatever they could, and fill in the rest with fakes.

[hagbard_celine]

We're still only doing space shuttle missions into Earth's orbit? Did those suits
have A/C or heating systems to handle 200 or -200 degrees F? The ship may
have blocked cosmic radiation, but not their wimply suits. I could go on and on. People died who were going to reveal the truth back in the 60,s.

The suits were able to block some of the alpha particles, but the gamma neutron rays would pass through them like teabags. Actually the space shuttle's hull would not be much better.


By people who dies did you mean Grissom, White and Chaffee in Apollo1? There was Ronald Baron too, he parked on a level crossing!:eek:

[jmmk]

There was a movie (can't remember thr name) about a the mission where the rocket
exploded on the launch pad. It was a conspiratorial look at the gemini? missions. Previous
to that, they said one of the astronauts was going to talk(confess the hoaxing) so they blew up the ship, sacrificing other astronauts also. Their wives tried to sue them in court
but made no headway. They were told to shut up about the faking of the missions.