Moon Landings

Sciences, Space Exploration, Cosmic Charts and Horoscpoes. Did Man really walk on the moon? Everything you need to know and more.

Re: Moon Landings

Postby Ricado » Sun Feb 17, 2008 11:38 pm

Thanks TripZ, I've just emailed your links to myself at another location where I've got a faster PC and Broadband. I'll have a good look at those videos in a few days.

In this film, when the Lunar Module lands, it touches down violently rocking to the left. However, the moon's surface remains in the same place [to understand this, keep your eyes fixed on the craters seen through the dust]. This is not possible, since the camera was on the LM itself.

Yes, I've always wondered about that, and puzzled where the camera was. I probably heard the explanation sometime, but along with all the other evidence...it may have been information overload.

But let's assume that the moon's surface remains in absolute sync with the shadow's movement - which it MUST DO. Let's assume that is true. THEN HOW IN THE HECK DOES THE OBJECT IN THE TOP RIGHT-HAND CORNER NOT STAY IN SYNC WITH THE SHADOW??!! Whatever that is, it is not mounted to the LEM, because it doesn't turn with the LEM's shadow and the distance between it and the shadow is not constant during this violent touchdown. So this is FAKE, FAKE, FAKE.

I hope I understand this when I watch the video.

Also, there is no indication by the astronauts of this violent touchdown. None whatsoever

I've always wondered why the frail landing module in question didn't sustain too much damage to lift off again.

TripZ, did you know that the designer of the camera says his camera would not have worked in the Moon environment, especially as solar rays would have penetrated it and blurred the film. Despite one minor modification, it would have been impossible for a gloved hand to operate it, but despite that, the first astronaut on the Moon took pictures of his colleague coming down the ladder. Possible, one might think, but when the contact prints are examined, the photographer apparently turned, refocused, took a picture of the lunar horizon, than reversed the procedure to catch his colleague on the next step!

I mentioned that I've heard David Percy lecture twice. He made a big issue out of the shadows on the Moon's surface around the LEM, which he demonstrated could not have been by a single source, like the sun, but multiple sources, such as studio lights. Though why make such a simple error, someone said (Percy, or a later commentator?)? The answer given, is that the technicians working on the fakes, were sworn to secrecy, but that didn't prevent them from leaving clues, about which they could argue later, were simply oversights!

Yes, and I too would like a reminder of just how many moonshot there were.
Ricado
Ricado
New In Town
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 4:18 am

Re: Moon Landings

Postby Tripz » Mon Feb 18, 2008 12:02 am

As a Noob :( in this topic (basically never equated this as an urgent subject to scrutinize). I remember the odd snippet of comment declaring the moon landings were staged, and of course ties up with the old archives of the CCCP documentation on NASA and the US space missions, after all this period of history was a finger tip away from World annihilation, so if one does the critical calculations political, economical, and the on going war in Vietnam, you can get a fairly good understanding for the US motivation to produce a "staged" event of such endurance & prestige..IMO. :alien:
I will pop in and out of this interesting topic you are debating and hope to gain some eye opening revelations from it..Bravo Ricado. :)
Arbiter "pro" on this one. :shock: never would have thought..Good luck and I'll see what stuff I can acquire. :alien: :alien: :alien:
TRUTH & JUSTICE
"IL FAUT MENTIR POUR ETRE VRAI"
User avatar
Tripz
Lifer
 
Posts: 5311
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:47 pm
Location: MAGIK ROUNDABOUT

Re: Moon Landings

Postby Ricado » Mon Feb 18, 2008 12:57 am

Arbiter,
I'm going to quickly scan that long response to me you made. I looked at it shortly after you posted it, but apart from the time involved, if I answered every point, we'd both be repeating our conflicting arguments over and over. I'll comment only on five points.

"Does it have an engine capable of a trans-lunar injection, lunar insertion, trans earth injection? Nope."

I'm not interested in studying the technical specifications of these two craft, but from the start I have assumed that yes, the shuttle does. One has to bear in mind the thing the Yanks sent up there in the 60s managed to insert itself in lunar orbit, AND escape, despite a serious prior error (in the wrong direction) on the assumed strength of lunar gravity! The shuttle has the capability of staying in space much longer than the 60s model, and thus it doesn't have to take the shortest route, spend the shortest time, etc. I strongly suspect that if it has the power to manoeuvre within the Earth's gravitational field, in order to dock with another vehicle, then it can insert itself and escape lunar orbit.

"...engine required to carry out trans-lunar injection, lunar insertion, trans-earth injection and earth insertion... or do you think re-entry into the earths atmosphere would be like Apollo.. slam right into it.. (clue no)... the Space shuttle renters at a slower speed than the Apollo capsule did."

As I said, the shuttle -- and most importantly -- its crew can stay in space much longer. Obviously if they were to try replicating the original missions, the shuttle couldn't re-enter at the speed the Apollo capsule did, but why do that when you have the time for a much longer journey? I'm no mathematician, but I would have thought that by choosing a very different trajectory there and back, it would be possible, including the correct re-entry speed.

"They landed on the moon in 1969, there is zero doubt... please prove to me they didn't."

Now this, Arbiter, is where I feel your argument begins to really show its flaws. There IS doubt, or we wouldn't be discussing the issue, now would we! Anyway, if you read my original argument properly, you'll see I didn't actually say they DIDN'T land on the Moon, and return!

"You don't seem to understand orbital mechanics nor politics."

I'm doing a bit of guesswork on the orbital mechanics, for the simple reason I DO understand the politics; that's mainly what I've been involved in since I got out of electronics.

"Political will. The Apollo missions were dangerous.. those astronauts had real guts. The political imperative justified the risk in the 1960's.. it doesn't now (for the USA anyway), China and Japan seem to have some political will right.. the imperative is a kind of muscle flexing to send a message to the world (like the USA in the 60's)."

Exactly! That's why they took the risk in the 1960s. As I said, they COULD do it, but the risk (vs the kudos), is just too great.

Ricado
Ricado
New In Town
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 4:18 am

Re: Moon Landings

Postby Arbiter » Mon Feb 18, 2008 11:41 am

"Does it have an engine capable of a trans-lunar injection, lunar insertion, trans earth injection? Nope."

I'm not interested in studying the technical specifications of these two craft, but from the start I have assumed that yes, the shuttle does.


How can you assert what you do without knowing the basic facts.

To get to moon, orbit and come back requires...

a) Trans lunar injection burn
b) Course correction burn(s)
c) Lunar insertion burn
d) Trans earth injection burn
e) Course correction burn(s)
f) Earth insertion burn

The shuttle just doesn't carry the fuel required to do this. End of story. leaving Earth orbit requires a big burn - the shuttle can change earth orbit, it is NOT designed to escape it.

How can you say what you say without knowing this?
User avatar
Arbiter
On Parole
 
Posts: 1119
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:50 pm

Re: Moon Landings

Postby Arbiter » Mon Feb 18, 2008 11:45 am

Tripz wrote:Giant Spotlights instead of "Suns" for Apollo missions film and photo shoots.


Lunar regolith has some interesting refelctive properties! I've already discussed this earlier in the thread.

So Tripz.. you said they didn't have rockets strong enough to get to the moon in the 60's... can you back that up?

I hope this discussion can remain on friendly terms.
User avatar
Arbiter
On Parole
 
Posts: 1119
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:50 pm

Re: Moon Landings

Postby Ricado » Mon Feb 18, 2008 1:14 pm

Arbiter wrote:To get to moon, orbit and come back requires...

a) Trans lunar injection burn
b) Course correction burn(s)
c) Lunar insertion burn
d) Trans earth injection burn
e) Course correction burn(s)
f) Earth insertion burn

The shuttle just doesn't carry the fuel required to do this. End of story. leaving Earth orbit requires a big burn - the shuttle can change earth orbit, it is NOT designed to escape it.

How can you say what you say without knowing this?

Arbiter, you are only convincing me!

You say; "The shuttle just doesn't carry the fuel required to do this"... and the Apollo mission did?

"Leaving Earth orbit requires a big burn"... and Apollo could do that? Actually I believe it could, though I share TripZ's doubt about engine power, and I seriously doubt fuel capacity. I suspect Apollo could complete a). and b). above, but I seriously doubt c)., d)., e)., and f).

I appreciate I was speaking specifically about orbiting the Moon without landing, but as far as the LEM getting off the moon, I think it laughable. Perhaps TripZ is referring to a lack of engine power in that scenario, I certainly doubt it had the power.

You say, "the shuttle can change earth orbit, it is NOT designed to escape it". My understanding is that if a spaceship can "change" orbit, which has to include the capability to move into a higher orbit, then it can escape, because moving into a higher orbit and staying there requires power to hold the required one. We are back to what I said earlier: the shuttle has the capability to stay up a relatively long time, which means it has a big choice of trajectory; and further: the shuttle has a cargo bay, which could be modified to carry extra fuel.

Arbiter, either you or someone else may be able to show me the maths concerning the relative trajectories, and the specs of the relative spacecraft, but my maths is poor and it would take me ages to get to grips with it. However, I have a very advanced capability of visualising things in time and space, and along with all the other evidence that clearly shows either: the Yanks never put men on the Moon, or that, if they did, they felt the need to falsify some of the evidence! There is a third possibility, and I've already made my point clearly on that.
Ricado
Ricado
New In Town
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 4:18 am

Re: Moon Landings

Postby Arbiter » Mon Feb 18, 2008 2:32 pm

I'm done - I don't see the point in continuing this dicussion with people making bold assertions based on 'gut feelings' and no facts.
User avatar
Arbiter
On Parole
 
Posts: 1119
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:50 pm

Re: Moon Landings

Postby Tripz » Mon Feb 18, 2008 2:34 pm

Arbiter wrote:
Tripz wrote:Giant Spotlights instead of "Suns" for Apollo missions film and photo shoots.


Lunar regolith has some interesting refelctive properties! I've already discussed this earlier in the thread.

So Tripz.. you said they didn't have rockets strong enough to get to the moon in the 60's... can you back that up?

I hope this discussion can remain on friendly terms.

Good afternoon Arbiter & all :)

Have I ever acted to the contra. :lol: I only know this from tidbits of information I had seen/heard in the past. Like I said to Ricado, this subject of whether the moon landings were real was not a issue that inspired or I cared to investigate. But since 911 and researching over "false flag" and conspiracies one can correlate some connection to this being a "hoax".


The Alien bases

The bases of the moon, One side believes we did go to the moon and found that someone was already there. The disclosure group spoke of this also and along with the airbrushed NASA pictures.
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=nTw2ZE4cljc[/youtube]

News report about aliens and the moon!

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=sr6VLmO-7N4[/youtube]

Ancient Structure On The Moon Filmed By Armstrong, 1969 (alleged)

What you see is the reason behind all this rush to land on the moon before USSR. It was bombed a few years later by those who decide for us.
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=MWkGTJEK0Mc[/youtube]

UFO buildings on the Moon.

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=zYMzVkhkrqA[/youtube]

Seek & Ye Will Find
TRUTH & JUSTICE
"IL FAUT MENTIR POUR ETRE VRAI"
User avatar
Tripz
Lifer
 
Posts: 5311
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:47 pm
Location: MAGIK ROUNDABOUT

Re: Moon Landings

Postby Cuddle_cat » Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:12 am

A probe is going to the moon this year which will photograph the Apollo landing sites. I hope the pictures taken will lay any doubts to rest but I guess conspiracy theorists will never be convinced. Not even if they were to journey to the Sea of Tranquility and find the remains of Apollo XI
Cuddle_cat
New In Town
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:56 pm

Re: Moon Landings

Postby JudgeJudy » Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:15 pm

Has anyone with a mild interest in the possibility of hoax moon landings watched a recent documentary in the cinema called In The Shadow of the Moon - or if it has come and gone in your area - hire the DVD.

Why would they fake landing on the moon 9 times ?

Are you telling me there are thousands of NASA employees and people watching rocket launchings out there who have kept this a secret for 30 odd years ?

But let me ask you to put the shoe on the other foot. Are you who are siding with the theory that this is all a hoax not sheep yourselves for believing the hoax theory ?

The moon landing hoax theory is surely one of the greatest hoaxes itself of all time.

Its going to be interesting when sometime in the future - transport to the moon is available to common folk they look back at the moon landing hoax theory and compare it all to the "earth is flat" theory.
"RIDICULOUS - Next !!!!!"

"If you live to be 100 you will never be as smart as me"

"I'm here because I'm smart, not because I'm young and gorgeous.... although I am!"
JudgeJudy
New In Town
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 11:35 am
Location: On land.

Re: Moon Landings

Postby whatsupdoc » Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:20 pm

Arbiter...Sorry for the delay in replying. Here is the link showing what I meant by the lunar rover kicking up dust...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo66TOwx ... re=related

When I find the pic showing the astronaut descending the ladder I'll post that as well. Def shows the use of flash.
User avatar
whatsupdoc
New In Town
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:52 am

Re: Moon Landings

Postby Arbiter » Fri Mar 28, 2008 9:57 am

whatsupdoc wrote:Def shows the use of flash.


Nope....

The Lunar surface is the source of light...

..ah what's the point, I've explained all that.

Carry on believing what you want.
User avatar
Arbiter
On Parole
 
Posts: 1119
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:50 pm

Re: Moon Landings

Postby Cuddle_cat » Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:23 pm

There is a probe due off before the end of 2008 which will photograph the Apollo landing sites. I guess that will not silence the doubters. But then some people believe in a flat earth.
Cuddle_cat
New In Town
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:56 pm

Re: Moon Landings

Postby Cuddle_cat » Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:25 pm

There is a whole site devoted to this nonsense. See http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi
Cuddle_cat
New In Town
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:56 pm

Re: Moon Landings

Postby Dwayne Dibley » Sun Apr 20, 2008 9:07 am

Hi all,

My 2 cents, I am 90% sure it was fake, the biscuit tin (LM) looked far too flimsy to risk the absolute PR disaster that would result in 3 dead Americans being left on the Moon, with almost no chance of recovering the bodies. I think the thought of every person in the world looking to the moon being reminded of a monumental failure and 3 corpses up there, would be too much for the Americans to handle.

The tricky bit to refute is the laser measurement device that is up there. Therefore would it not be more plausable to suggest they orbited the moon, landed the measuring device by simply releasing it with a parachute or similar and taking the all important photos and film back at the studio te ensure PR success.

If they really did go why is there no dust on the feet of the Landing Module? After all it landed on a dusty surface using a rocket as a brake whilst descending to the surface, surley there should be dust everywhere. If they did go they must have had some external help?! :alien:
I am waiting for the photos from the Japanese probe that is supposed to be photographing the entire surfce of the Moon in close detail. :wink: Although we seem to have been waiting many years for them :?:
I'm 10% that they did go!
Dwayne Dibley
New In Town
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 4:59 pm

Previous

Return to Sciences - Space, Moon Landings - Astronomy - Astrology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests