Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Political Manipulation / Cover-Ups / False Flags

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-07-2011, 04:06 AM   #1
hunkahunka
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 932
Likes: 7 (7 Posts)
Default New addition to Wagging the Moondoggie by DM

Wagging the Moondoggie, Part XIV
May 12, 2011
by David McGowan:

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo14.html
hunkahunka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 09:49 AM   #2
octopus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 5 (4 Posts)
Thumbs up

from the article:

Quote:
...
There they go again, pretending as though we’ve never done this before! Already we have heard from NASA types about how we haven’t yet solved the radiation problem, and how we haven’t yet developed spacesuit materials capable of withstanding the temperature extremes on the Moon, and how we haven’t yet solved the problem of how to deal with all that Lunar dust … and now we find that we apparently also haven’t yet worked out how to deal with the fact that spacecraft returning from the Moon would have to survive much higher re-entry speeds than spacecraft returning from low-Earth orbit! And I’m guessing that we might also have a problem with controlling the all-important reentry angle.

At this point, I really am beginning to wonder if there is any of that classic 1960s space technology that hasn’t been lost? Perhaps NASA needs to hire a crack team of archeologists to dig through their warehouses.

Another problem arises from the proposed duration and timeline of the missions. According to Space.com, “Each flight would prove out the Orion capsule’s life support systems for one-month duration missions.” Later in the same article, we find that on each mission, our fearless astronauts “would orbit the L2 point for about two weeks.” It would appear then that Lockheed and NASA are allowing a full two weeks to travel to and from the Moon – which would be all well and good were it not for the obvious fact that it is roughly twice the time that it took for the mighty Apollo craft to allegedly get to the Moon and back!
...


Very well written with lots of ammmunition to proove the moon missions were a complete hoax.

Thanks for posting the link!

octopus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 09:52 PM   #3
rodin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 16,981
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

The joke is that astronauts always landed in lunar twilight to lessen heat uptake

Imagine being in a tin can in the middle of the Sahara at high noon

The Apollo craft got more intense sunlight than that, because there was no atmosphere. And unlike on Earth once the Sun is over the horizon it blazes with Noonday intensity

Apollo is a very good hoax though. Shows how well hoaxes can be made.
rodin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-07-2011, 12:32 AM   #4
hunkahunka
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 932
Likes: 7 (7 Posts)
Default

Anyone who has ever lived in the mountains in the summertime or visited in the summer times knows all about altitude and radiation. I used to live in the Rocky Mountainss, very high up ,high elevation. The first summer that I was there I burnt myself to a crisp tanning because I had grown up on the prairies, and was used to lying for hours in the sun. In the mountains at high elevation, you are THAT much closer to the sun, that much closer to radiation and burns.

Now correlate THAT to going as high in space as the astronauts supposedly did. Not just all the way beyond the Earth's protective atmosphere, but all the way through the radioactive VAN ALLEN belts, yet they don't even have the technology today to deal with the radiation affecting workers at the tiny FUKISHIMA nuclear plant in Japan?
hunkahunka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-07-2011, 12:28 PM   #5
frenat
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 934
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hunkahunka View Post
Anyone who has ever lived in the mountains in the summertime or visited in the summer times knows all about altitude and radiation. I used to live in the Rocky Mountainss, very high up ,high elevation. The first summer that I was there I burnt myself to a crisp tanning because I had grown up on the prairies, and was used to lying for hours in the sun. In the mountains at high elevation, you are THAT much closer to the sun, that much closer to radiation and burns.

Now correlate THAT to going as high in space as the astronauts supposedly did. Not just all the way beyond the Earth's protective atmosphere, but all the way through the radioactive VAN ALLEN belts, yet they don't even have the technology today to deal with the radiation affecting workers at the tiny FUKISHIMA nuclear plant in Japan?
It wasn't that you were that much closer to the sun but with the thinner atmosphere you were exposed to more UV which causes burns. UV by the way can be blocked by glass. The astronauts were well protected from UV.

They went around the majority of the belts.

so not much to worry about from the radiation of going through them.

The radiation in a nuclear reactor is composed mainly of gamma and neutron radiation. Both very hard to shield against. The radiation in space and in the belts is primarily alpha and beta. Both very easy to shield against. You can't equate them as you did.

Last edited by frenat; 13-07-2011 at 05:29 PM.
frenat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-07-2011, 05:02 PM   #6
hunkahunka
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 932
Likes: 7 (7 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frenat View Post
It wasn't that you were that much closer to the sun but with the thinner atmosphere you were exposed to more UV which causes burns. UV by the way can be blocked by glass. The astronauts were well protected from UV.

They went around the majority of the belts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuH4rxda3Z4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4gSRy1tHls
so not much to worry about from the radiation of going through them.

The radiation in a nuclear reactor is composed mainly of gamma and neutron radiation. Both very hard to shield against. The radiation in space and in the belts is primarily alpha and beta. Both very easy to shield against. You can't equate them as you did.
repost removed video links.

there is no way they went around the belts. They did not even
go to the moon. They cannot. Not even with today's technology,
never mind technology supposedly from 50 years ago, which is
when they began planning their big trip, in 1961. They would
have to have considered their trip and project technologically
feasible enough to embark on it beginning in 1961, half a
century ago. Purportedly we had this amazing technical
capability 50 years ago, yet we cannot figure out how to
reproduce it today?
That would be like aircraft builders in 1961 being unable to
improve on, or even recreate an equivalent to, aircraft
technology from 1910.
hunkahunka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-07-2011, 05:26 PM   #7
frenat
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 934
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hunkahunka View Post
repost removed video links.

there is no way they went around the belts. They did not even
go to the moon. They cannot. Not even with today's technology,
never mind technology supposedly from 50 years ago, which is
when they began planning their big trip, in 1961. They would
have to have considered their trip and project technologically
feasible enough to embark on it beginning in 1961, half a
century ago. Purportedly we had this amazing technical
capability 50 years ago, yet we cannot figure out how to
reproduce it today?
That would be like aircraft builders in 1961 being unable to
improve on, or even recreate an equivalent to, aircraft
technology from 1910.
They CAN do it today but they don't currently have the money or the political will to do so. To fix your analogy it would be like aircraft builders in 1961 being able to improve on, or even recreate an equivalent to, aircraft technology from 1910 but they have no funding and nobody in Congress (their only source of money) wants to give them any.

The other problem is when they return they want to stay far longer which means they need more shielding (radiation is cumulative) and a far bigger craft to hold more supplies. They don't want to recreate Apollo, they want to do far more. To fix your analogy even more, the aircraft builders want to make a 2011 aircraft and they can't even get 1910 money or support.

Last edited by frenat; 13-07-2011 at 05:33 PM.
frenat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-07-2011, 06:42 PM   #8
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hunkahunka View Post
there is no way they went around the belts.
Says you, just armwaving.

http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm

The belts don't circle the globe, a simple trajectory at roughly 30% on a large elliptical orbit of the Earth, that then intersected with the Moon gravity, took the crafts around the least dangerous areas.

Travelling at 25,000 mph they didn't take long to get though them.


Quote:
They did not even go to the moon.
Spoken from real authority

www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OnZwqc-96Y

...faking the weather as well??
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-07-2011, 06:47 PM   #9
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rodin View Post
The joke is that astronauts always landed in lunar twilight to lessen heat uptake
So, the lunar surface reaches maximum temperature after 7 continuous days, yet you think it just erupted into max temp early lunar morning?

Really?

Quote:
Imagine being in a tin can in the middle of the Sahara at high noon
Unlike the Moon, where it was early morning and no air. A vacuum has no convection. UV light doesn't penetrate space suits, and IR has the same opportunity to radiate into the vacuum of space.

Fail.

Quote:
The Apollo craft got more intense sunlight than that, because there was no atmosphere.
Ergo no convection. So only Infra red. How is a vacuum going to assist in heating something!!

Fail.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-07-2011, 06:54 PM   #10
hunkahunka
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 932
Likes: 7 (7 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frenat View Post
They CAN do it today but they don't currently have the money or the political will to do so. To fix your analogy it would be like aircraft builders in 1961 being able to improve on, or even recreate an equivalent to, aircraft technology from 1910 but they have no funding and nobody in Congress (their only source of money) wants to give them any.
It's ALREADY paid for! You yourself claim that they had the funding in 1961 to develop the technology , and succeeded in developing that technology, so the technology should already exist and should not cost one dime in R&D. All they have to do is BUILD it again.

QUOTE:

Quote:
There they go again, pretending as though we’ve never done this before! Already we have heard from NASA types about how we haven’t yet solved the radiation problem, and how we haven’t yet developed spacesuit materials capable of withstanding the temperature extremes on the Moon, and how we haven’t yet solved the problem of how to deal with all that Lunar dust … and now we find that we apparently also haven’t yet worked out how to deal with the fact that spacecraft returning from the Moon would have to survive much higher re-entry speeds than spacecraft returning from low-Earth orbit! And I’m guessing that we might also have a problem with controlling the all-important reentry angle.

At this point, I really am beginning to wonder if there is any of that classic 1960s space technology that hasn’t been lost? Perhaps NASA needs to hire a crack team of archeologists to dig through their warehouses.

Another problem arises from the proposed duration and timeline of the missions. According to Space.com, “Each flight would prove out the Orion capsule’s life support systems for one-month duration missions.” Later in the same article, we find that on each mission, our fearless astronauts “would orbit the L2 point for about two weeks.” It would appear then that Lockheed and NASA are allowing a full two weeks to travel to and from the Moon – which would be all well and good were it not for the obvious fact that it is roughly twice the time that it took for the mighty Apollo craft to allegedly get to the Moon and back!
hunkahunka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-07-2011, 07:39 PM   #11
razorbill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Caledonia
Posts: 688
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
A vacuum has no convection. UV light doesn't penetrate space suits, and IR has the same opportunity to radiate into the vacuum of space.

Fail.

...
Ergo no convection. So only Infra red. How is a vacuum going to assist in heating something!!

Fail.
Have you ever sat in a car in plain sunlight with the windows closed? (no convection)

Boy, it does get hot in that car, doesn't it?


UV doesn't penetrate the metal, 'only' the IR heats it up. And somehow it gets very hot in there, despite a small proportion radiating off it again.

Now, would you feel like creating extra heat in that car by carrying out strenuous activities like bouncing about?

__________________
HAARP UK: Capel Dewi, UK 52.424517, -4.005442 http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost....9&postcount=34

Every facet of mind control that can be exerted through the mass media is exerted by the mass media. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/05...t-of-info-war/
razorbill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-07-2011, 07:48 PM   #12
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by razorbill View Post
Have you ever sat in a car in plain sunlight with the windows closed? (no convection)

Boy, it does get hot in that car, doesn't it?
AIR!!! And you chuck the rolleyes out?

The air heats up through convection. Remove the air, and you only have radiated heat, just like a vacuum.

Quote:
UV doesn't penetrate the metal, 'only' the IR heats it up. And somehow it gets very hot in there, despite a small proportion radiating off it again.

Now, would you feel like creating extra heat in that car by carrying out strenuous activities like bouncing about?
The LM was covered in kapton and mylar, neither of them allow IR to pass to any degree. The spacesuits have even more protection, multi layered and perfectly insulated, not an awful lot different to the ISS ones, where they walkabaout in direct sunlight for hours on end sometimes.

Read that page I posted about TLI, at the bottom it shows a cutaway of the hull design. I doubt your car has that level of protection against IR.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-07-2011, 10:16 PM   #13
frenat
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 934
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hunkahunka View Post
It's ALREADY paid for! You yourself claim that they had the funding in 1961 to develop the technology , and succeeded in developing that technology, so the technology should already exist and should not cost one dime in R&D. All they have to do is BUILD it again.

QUOTE:
You thinking building it is cheap? They have no factories that currently manufacture a heavy lifting booster. They have no factories that currently manufacture a lunar lander. Even IF they went with the same design (and I already showed why they wouldn't), they would still need to rebuild all the tools and dies. Even IF they had that, it still costs money to build something. Rockets aren't cheap. They don't have any money or political will.
frenat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-07-2011, 11:42 PM   #14
rodin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 16,981
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
So, the lunar surface reaches maximum temperature after 7 continuous days, yet you think it just erupted into max temp early lunar morning?...
You know me better than that.

Soon as the Sun is in the sky it's radiating at full blast, unmoderated by atmosphere
rodin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-07-2011, 11:45 PM   #15
rodin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 16,981
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

We don't have to re-invent the wheel, but we have to re-invent how to get to the Moon?
rodin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-07-2011, 11:56 PM   #16
rodin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 16,981
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
...A vacuum has no convection. UV light doesn't penetrate space suits, and IR has the same opportunity to radiate into the vacuum of space....
OK I concede some of this

Heat in = heat out only applies after input/output equilibrium is reached

A bloke nearer the sun will get a lot hotter than one further away
rodin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-07-2011, 12:16 AM   #17
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rodin View Post
You know me better than that.

Soon as the Sun is in the sky it's radiating at full blast, unmoderated by atmosphere
Unfortunately old son, that kind of doesn't apply when....

1. Astronauts have space suits made to reflect most if not all the IR energy. Similar to the ones they use today on the ISS.

2. The LM has heat reflective layers such as kapton and mylar, and a thick outer hull with numerous insulation properties.


The Moon takes a full 7 days to reach its maximum SURFACE temperature with that old Sun 'blasting away'. I did a huge post on this in the 'wires' thread showing maximum Sun angle of 49 degrees on Apollo 16, with average much lower than that.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...sunangles.html

Equally, the areas of the LM facing the vacuum of space and the effect on the rate of equilibrium.

I really thought, you for one, would see the HB environmental argument as the complete pish it is.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-07-2011, 07:44 AM   #18
rodin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 16,981
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
The Moon takes a full 7 days to reach its maximum SURFACE temperature with that old Sun 'blasting away'. I did a huge post on this in the 'wires' thread showing maximum Sun angle of 49 degrees on Apollo 16, with average much lower than that.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...sunangles.html

Equally, the areas of the LM facing the vacuum of space and the effect on the rate of equilibrium.
TG remember no atmosphere. The heating effect depends solely on the integral of solar radiation angle of incidence and elapsed time minus black body radiation. Moon surface @ 49% incident = about 0.7 x incident radiation if vertical. However the LM and astronuts in particular are primarily aligned orthogonal to the Lunar surface, hence they get max radiation when Sun is low on horizon
rodin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-07-2011, 10:00 AM   #19
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rodin View Post
TG remember no atmosphere. The heating effect depends solely on the integral of solar radiation angle of incidence and elapsed time minus black body radiation. Moon surface @ 49% incident = about 0.7 x incident radiation if vertical. However the LM and astronuts in particular are primarily aligned orthogonal to the Lunar surface, hence they get max radiation when Sun is low on horizon
Yes, I have no problem acknowledging this, but the purpose of raising it was as often represented, the Lunar temperature of 105 degrees C is quoted as significant, when it is the surface temperature and totally irrelevant. Most of the missions had a Sun angle in the 20-25 degrees range, with a surface temp way below that figure.

Now, more to the point.

How fast would the LM heat up in direct sunlight with mylar and kapton shielding and a purpose built hull. Factoring in that 3 sides of it are not in direct sunlight and can radiate heat into space - if indeed that is necessary.

Same question for the spacesuit. Always one side away from the Sun.

I would suggest that comparing either of those to a tin can in the Sahara desert is ever so slightly exaggeration, and an extremely inaccurate analogy.

Last edited by truegroup; 14-07-2011 at 10:03 AM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2011, 07:51 AM   #20
razorbill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Caledonia
Posts: 688
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
How fast would the LM heat up in direct sunlight with mylar and kapton shielding and a purpose built hull. Factoring in that 3 sides of it are not in direct sunlight and can radiate heat into space - if indeed that is necessary.

Same question for the spacesuit. Always one side away from the Sun.

I would suggest that comparing either of those to a tin can in the Sahara desert is ever so slightly exaggeration, and an extremely inaccurate analogy.
The tin can in the desert is a very good analogy because the tin can also only exposes one side to the full sun and still heats up extrememly well.

Materials that are very bad at picking up IR will also be very bad at giving it off! So your argument that you can lose heat at the sides not fully exposed to the sun is rather poor.

Plus: extra heat is created inside the 'tin can' (=the space suit) by the strenuous movements of the astronaut. That's additional heat that has to be dispersed, otherwise the meat inside the tin can gets cooked.


Last edited by razorbill; 02-08-2011 at 07:53 AM.
razorbill is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
apollo, hoax, kubrick, mcgowan, moondoggie

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:33 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.