10 Reasons Why the Moon Landing Never Happened | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1430651 United Kingdom 02/02/2012 08:52 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 9746155 United States 02/02/2012 09:09 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 1 reason we know US landed on the moon: Quoting: Anonymous Coward 9746155 The RUSSIANS never said at any point in time during the entirety of any of the missions, "Hey World, guess what, we triangulated the signal and it is coming from a studio in Burbank, CA... check it out for yourselves! Ha, ha... silly Americans." The Russians didn't have the ability to track a moon mission. With their own lunar probe missions, they acquired the help of the British to receive the data. Historical fact... and it also proves west and east were not enemies at the time as the pulmulgated cold war suggested and were cooperating in space exploration. . The purpose of the cold war was to keep the populations of both countries fearing an fearsome enemy while their own governments became more and more oppressive, it was about CONTROL. Also there is the matter of the millions of tons of grain sent to Russia free of charge. Why would we send our mortal enemy help ? I have personally roved using NASA's own biometric data and pure empirical scisnce that no Command module ever left Earth orbit, and can do it again and again using the same methodology. The fact is the biometric recordings record radiation readings that would have been exceeded just as the astronauts entered the lower proton belt of the Van Allen radiation belts, given the trajectory necessary to achieve lunar orbit. It is pure science, incontrovertible and easily proved using physics, NASA's own data, and a little calculation. The density and energy of protons in the lower proton belt would have killed the astronauts or rendered then extremely ill on the way out and they would have died during the mission at latest.. So, if two HAM radio operators on opposite sides of the country armed with synchronized clocks, an understanding of: wave modulation, trigonometry, the distance between the Earth and the Moon, slide rules, differential calculus... and telephones to call each other and compare notes... could confirm the transmission origin... why couldn't the Russians? I read a lot of shit in your post that means nothing... NOTHING!!!... when it comes to triangulating the source of a signal. |
nomuse (not logged in) User ID: 2380183 United States 02/02/2012 11:55 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
nomuse (not logged in) User ID: 2380183 United States 02/02/2012 11:59 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 1 reason we know US landed on the moon: Quoting: Anonymous Coward 9746155 The RUSSIANS never said at any point in time during the entirety of any of the missions, "Hey World, guess what, we triangulated the signal and it is coming from a studio in Burbank, CA... check it out for yourselves! Ha, ha... silly Americans." The Russians didn't have the ability to track a moon mission. With their own lunar probe missions, they acquired the help of the British to receive the data. Historical fact... and it also proves west and east were not enemies at the time as the pulmulgated cold war suggested and were cooperating in space exploration. . The purpose of the cold war was to keep the populations of both countries fearing an fearsome enemy while their own governments became more and more oppressive, it was about CONTROL. Also there is the matter of the millions of tons of grain sent to Russia free of charge. Why would we send our mortal enemy help ? I have personally roved using NASA's own biometric data and pure empirical scisnce that no Command module ever left Earth orbit, and can do it again and again using the same methodology. The fact is the biometric recordings record radiation readings that would have been exceeded just as the astronauts entered the lower proton belt of the Van Allen radiation belts, given the trajectory necessary to achieve lunar orbit. It is pure science, incontrovertible and easily proved using physics, NASA's own data, and a little calculation. The density and energy of protons in the lower proton belt would have killed the astronauts or rendered then extremely ill on the way out and they would have died during the mission at latest.. Oh hello IDW. Ever get around to actually posting those completed calculations? And are you still using bremmstahlung as the rest of the world understands it -- or your own form of Magic Electron that gets stronger with every interaction? |
nomuse (not logged in) User ID: 2380183 United States 02/02/2012 12:01 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 41 years later and not a SINGLE independent confirmation of a manned landing on the moon despite numerous missions that tried to image the sites with 6 inch resolution. With NASA's images of the sights, we see astronauts footpaths with 2 meter resolution, but images of the sites with 6 inch resolution show NO FOOTPATHS, indicating not only are NASA's imaging fakers incompetent, but that there ere no men walking around near these unmanned probes. Quoting: Anonymous Astrophysicist 1385799 No rpoof, just a NASA declared 'no fly zone' over the alleged landing sights. The Japanese don't agree with you. They consider the images and radar mapping returned by Hayabusa as entirely consistent with the visit of and current presence of material from the Apollo Project. (You also seem entirely ignorant about lighting angles, but we'll let that one slide). |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 10049174 United Kingdom 02/02/2012 12:07 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Strewth Bruce, look at these miserable faces... [link to www.hq.nasa.gov] [link to www.hq.nasa.gov] [link to www.hq.nasa.gov] |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 10051636 United Kingdom 02/02/2012 12:20 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 41 years later and not a SINGLE independent confirmation of a manned landing on the moon despite numerous missions... Quoting: Anonymous Astrophysicist 1385799 DOH! What is your definition of "independent"? Richard Hoagland with a pair of binoculars? [link to www.jaxa.jp] [link to wms.selene.jaxa.jp] |
Stefan Parlow User ID: 1068734 Austria 02/02/2012 12:44 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The "official" landing on TV was in a film studio. However, they were on the moon. "Russia will begin to populate his lunar base in 2012." (Jesus Christ - Channeling, 08, 05 10) (Note: I am also the name of the lunar base was named Unfortunately I can not remember the name no longer appears that the lunar base already exists...) I am a mystic. My homepage is also in English [link to christus-spricht.com (secure)] download book: about December 29, it will be available via my homepage. A little bit later also via online-bookstores a softcover. More than 500 visions,channelings and mystical experiences given by JESUS CHRIST! |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 10052316 United Kingdom 02/02/2012 12:51 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 10052316 United Kingdom 02/02/2012 12:52 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Halcyon Dayz, FCD User ID: 1222987 Netherlands 02/02/2012 03:20 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | A lie. A lie. 8: The shadows in the moon photos go in different directions, BECAUSE THERE WERE MULTIPLE FILM SET LIGHTS! Quoting: Anonymous OP 589518 A lie. 7: Stanley Kubrick faked it in a studio and Donald Rumsfeld admitted it. ON CAMERA! Quoting: Anonymous OP 589518 A lie. A lie. A lie. 4: Rockets need to push away from something, like air, to move. There is no air in space, so what are they pushing against? NASA FAILS AT ROCKET SCIENCE! Quoting: Anonymous OP 589518 A lie. A lie. 2: They had no computers in 1969 guide the spaceship. HOW DID THEY PILOT IT? Quoting: Anonymous OP 589518 A lie. 1: God would never allow man to walk on His moon. He put it there for us to behold, NOT to jump around on. MOON LANDING IS BLASPHEMY! Quoting: Anonymous OP 589518 You claiming to know the mind of god is probably a lie as well. OP, a troll or a moran? You decide. ============================================================= One of the biggest reasons I find strange that they even went to the moon is. Quoting: Australian Coward 9922887 They were already sending space probes out to the planets and had already sent unmanned probes to the moon to collect samples etc. They already knew everything there was to know about the moon from this, and there is not really all that much to know about the moon its fairly basic. How do you figure that? We don't even know everything there is to know about our home planet. Also your timeline re moonsamples is off. Apollo 11 was the first to collect those. So why all of a sudden would they risk human life and great expense to send human to the moon just to do the same as what the unmanned probes had done anyway? Quoting: Australian Coward 9922887 It makes no sense. Probes can't do what humans can do. Like collect 2 metre long core samples. But the Apollo Project was mostly a political gesture. It demonstrated the superiority of the USian way of doing things over the Soviet Union. Reaching for the sky makes you taller. Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1149306 United States 02/02/2012 05:17 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 10: The Van Allen belt will kill anyone in space. FACT! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 589518 9: There are no photos of the dark side of the moon. WHY? 8: The shadows in the moon photos go in different directions, BECAUSE THERE WERE MULTIPLE FILM SET LIGHTS! 7: Stanley Kubrick faked it in a studio and Donald Rumsfeld admitted it. ON CAMERA! 6: There was a coke camera visible lying on the moon. PEOPLE SAW IT! 5: Cameras don't work on the moon. THEY WOULD MELT! 3: The astronauts didn't smile when they got home. WHY NOT? 2: They had no computers in 1969 guide the spaceship. HOW DID THEY PILOT IT? 1: God would never allow man to walk on His moon. He put it there for us to behold, NOT to jump around on. MOON LANDING IS BLASPHEMY! NASA = NEVER A STRAIGHT ANSWER! Find pics of the Apollo craft...and really zoom in on it. Does that look like high tech or foil wrap to you? It looks like an insulative covering. Very similar to coverings used in many satellites. Since the LM was never designed to operate in an atmosphere it looks perfectly adequate for its intended purpose. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1149306 United States 02/02/2012 05:18 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Again another giveaway was the size of planet earth allegedly photographed from the moon. It is far too small. The earth is 4X the size of the moon. Quoting: AWOL 10014616 Please show your math involving the focal lenght of the camera used to determine the Earth was too small. What? You didn't do that? Then you have no argument. |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 589518 Australia 02/06/2012 11:08 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 12: How did they get back? To supposedly get to the moon, Apollo 11 had to launch on top of a 363 foot high Saturn V rocket. That was just to take off! Now, for the trip home, are we to believe that there just happened to be a fueled up and ready Saturn V on the moon waiting to launch them home again? Now, I know what the shills will say. "Waah, waah, but the moon has less gravity than Earth, blah blah blah." Well explain this, genuises. The Earth is 7926 miles in diameter, and the moon 3032 miles in diameter. Therefore the moon has about 40% the mass, and gravity, of Earth. THEREFORE you would need a rocket 125 feet high to launch from the moon! And to get THAT rocket to the moon in the first place would need a launch vehicle on Earth probably as big as the Empire State Building!!! LOL, explain THAT away, Catholic Athiest shills!!! |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 589518 Australia 02/06/2012 11:40 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 12: How did they get back? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 589518 To supposedly get to the moon, Apollo 11 had to launch on top of a 363 foot high Saturn V rocket. That was just to take off! Now, for the trip home, are we to believe that there just happened to be a fueled up and ready Saturn V on the moon waiting to launch them home again? Now, I know what the shills will say. "Waah, waah, but the moon has less gravity than Earth, blah blah blah." Well explain this, genuises. The Earth is 7926 miles in diameter, and the moon 3032 miles in diameter. Therefore the moon has about 40% the mass, and gravity, of Earth. THEREFORE you would need a rocket 125 feet high to launch from the moon! And to get THAT rocket to the moon in the first place would need a launch vehicle on Earth probably as big as the Empire State Building!!! LOL, explain THAT away, Catholic Athiest shills!!! ROFL, NO ANSWER, SHILLS? |
ToSeek User ID: 9653749 United States 02/07/2012 12:01 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Now, I know what the shills will say. "Waah, waah, but the moon has less gravity than Earth, blah blah blah." Well explain this, genuises. The Earth is 7926 miles in diameter, and the moon 3032 miles in diameter. Therefore the moon has about 40% the mass, and gravity, of Earth. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 589518 First off, the Moon is 2160 miles in diameter. Second, volume is proportional to the cube of the diameter. Third, the Moon is less dense than the Earth. All in all, this means that the Moon's gravity is more like 1/6 of the Earth's. Fourth, what had to be launched from the Earth was everything to get the astronauts to the Moon and back. What had to be launched from the Moon was only what they needed to get back into lunar orbit. Last Edited by ToSeek on 02/07/2012 12:02 AM |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 589518 Australia 02/07/2012 12:13 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Now, I know what the shills will say. "Waah, waah, but the moon has less gravity than Earth, blah blah blah." Well explain this, genuises. The Earth is 7926 miles in diameter, and the moon 3032 miles in diameter. Therefore the moon has about 40% the mass, and gravity, of Earth. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 589518 First off, the Moon is 2160 miles in diameter. Second, volume is proportional to the cube of the diameter. Third, the Moon is less dense than the Earth. All in all, this means that the Moon's gravity is more like 1/6 of the Earth's. Fourth, what had to be launched from the Earth was everything to get the astronauts to the Moon and back. What had to be launched from the Moon was only what they needed to get back into lunar orbit. Fuck you, shill. |
ToSeek User ID: 9653749 United States 02/07/2012 12:14 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Now, I know what the shills will say. "Waah, waah, but the moon has less gravity than Earth, blah blah blah." Well explain this, genuises. The Earth is 7926 miles in diameter, and the moon 3032 miles in diameter. Therefore the moon has about 40% the mass, and gravity, of Earth. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 589518 First off, the Moon is 2160 miles in diameter. Second, volume is proportional to the cube of the diameter. Third, the Moon is less dense than the Earth. All in all, this means that the Moon's gravity is more like 1/6 of the Earth's. Fourth, what had to be launched from the Earth was everything to get the astronauts to the Moon and back. What had to be launched from the Moon was only what they needed to get back into lunar orbit. Fuck you, shill. I always love an intelligent, respectful discussion that we so often have here on GLP. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 4021690 United States 02/07/2012 12:15 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 4: Rockets need to push away from something, like air, to move. There is no air in space, so what are they pushing against? NASA FAILS AT ROCKET SCIENCE! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 589518 WRONG! Rockets work in space (vacuum) because of one of Newton's laws: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. All of your other reasons are BULLSHIT & have been debunked. |
ZIPUX User ID: 4394297 United Kingdom 02/07/2012 12:26 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Thje Van allen belt is the most compelling, with NASA admitting they now need to develop new tech to get past it. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1067599 Soooo..... Thje Van allen belt is the most compelling, with NASA admitting they now need to develop new tech to get past it. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1067599 Soooo..... An interesting read in context to the Van Allen radiation belt. [link to www.wwheaton.com] A short quote from the above: "Unfortunately calculating the average radiation dose received by an astronaut in the belts is quite intricate in practice, though not too hard in principle. One must add up the effects of all kinds of particles, of all energies. For each kind of particle (electrons and protons in this situation) you have to take account of the shielding due to the Apollo spacecraft and the astronaut space suits. Here are some approximate values for the ranges of protons and electrons in aluminium:" |
ZIPUX User ID: 4394297 United Kingdom 02/07/2012 12:27 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Now, I know what the shills will say. "Waah, waah, but the moon has less gravity than Earth, blah blah blah." Well explain this, genuises. The Earth is 7926 miles in diameter, and the moon 3032 miles in diameter. Therefore the moon has about 40% the mass, and gravity, of Earth. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 589518 First off, the Moon is 2160 miles in diameter. Second, volume is proportional to the cube of the diameter. Third, the Moon is less dense than the Earth. All in all, this means that the Moon's gravity is more like 1/6 of the Earth's. Fourth, what had to be launched from the Earth was everything to get the astronauts to the Moon and back. What had to be launched from the Moon was only what they needed to get back into lunar orbit. Fuck you, shill. I always love an intelligent, respectful discussion that we so often have here on GLP. |
vrwil User ID: 10314195 United States 02/07/2012 12:41 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | There's no way we went to the moon. The battery technology nowadays is questionable, there's no way then batteries would've survived 250 degree temps. NASA ripped tax payers off for billions of dollars. Oh...and uh, the rockets would've had to stand the height of the Empire State building to go a quarter million miles. Gus Grisom, and his crew, died tragically in a test accident, Gus was quite outspoken about NASA's shortcomings. |
Watchamacallit User ID: 10214317 South Korea 02/07/2012 12:51 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I thought this article was funny! The American efforts were almost laughable at first. The Ranger space probes were designed to hard land on the moon. Ranger 3, launched on January 26, 1962 , missed it's target completely and went into solar orbit, Ranger 4 hit the moon but did not send back any useful information. Ranger 5 missed the moon by 450 miles and the whole program was put on hold for two years. more: [link to keelynet.com] I love rock n roll |
nomuse (not logged in) User ID: 2380183 United States 02/07/2012 04:12 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 12: How did they get back? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 589518 To supposedly get to the moon, Apollo 11 had to launch on top of a 363 foot high Saturn V rocket. That was just to take off! Now, for the trip home, are we to believe that there just happened to be a fueled up and ready Saturn V on the moon waiting to launch them home again? Now, I know what the shills will say. "Waah, waah, but the moon has less gravity than Earth, blah blah blah." Well explain this, genuises. The Earth is 7926 miles in diameter, and the moon 3032 miles in diameter. Therefore the moon has about 40% the mass, and gravity, of Earth. THEREFORE you would need a rocket 125 feet high to launch from the moon! And to get THAT rocket to the moon in the first place would need a launch vehicle on Earth probably as big as the Empire State Building!!! LOL, explain THAT away, Catholic Athiest shills!!! Nope. That's not the argument anyone with a brain is using. Your straw man is just that. |
nomuse (not logged in) User ID: 2380183 United States 02/07/2012 04:16 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | There's no way we went to the moon. The battery technology nowadays is questionable, there's no way then batteries would've survived 250 degree temps. Quoting: vrwil 10314195 NASA ripped tax payers off for billions of dollars. Oh...and uh, the rockets would've had to stand the height of the Empire State building to go a quarter million miles. Gus Grisom, and his crew, died tragically in a test accident, Gus was quite outspoken about NASA's shortcomings. Good thing they never got that hot, then. I really wonder about how some people appear to perceive thermal environments. They think film is too hot, or batteries are too hot. As if heat is somehow targeted. As if those are actually the most sensitive things in the situation. It's as if they are cooking ham and eggs, and have to suddenly ask "how is this possible...isn't the flame so hot the spoon would melt?" |
ToSeek User ID: 9492698 United States 02/07/2012 09:51 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I thought this article was funny! Quoting: Watchamacallit The American efforts were almost laughable at first. The Ranger space probes were designed to hard land on the moon. Ranger 3, launched on January 26, 1962 , missed it's target completely and went into solar orbit, Ranger 4 hit the moon but did not send back any useful information. Ranger 5 missed the moon by 450 miles and the whole program was put on hold for two years. more: [link to keelynet.com] Hey, if you're going to try to send a spacecraft on a suicide mission, of course it's going to try to fail! |
ZIPUX User ID: 4394297 United Kingdom 02/10/2012 04:56 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | what did they moon buggy run on .... wasnt batteries that for sure ... fake fake fake Quoting: where's my stapler maybe it was pedal powered Why did it not run on batteries? Because it obviously was a fucken flintsones car, since all that "high tech" shit could not possibly have existed in 1969. I think you have issues dude, they clearly had car batteries back then. Remember they only drove around in it for like 1 hour. 1969 cost of moon buggy $38,000,000 2010 equivalent cost is $226,000,000 I hours use = $3.8 million per minute, to collect moon rocks. Fucking crazy lol. |
ZIPUX User ID: 4394297 United Kingdom 02/10/2012 05:08 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Because it obviously was a fucken flintsones car, since all that "high tech" shit could not possibly have existed in 1969. I think you have issues dude, they clearly had car batteries back then. Remember they only drove around in it for like 1 hour. 1969 cost of moon buggy $38,000,000 2010 equivalent cost is $226,000,000 I hours use = $3.8 million per minute, to collect moon rocks. Fucking crazy lol. Given they cost nearly a quarter of a billion $'s each, there's three of them up there 'apparently', yes the total weight of each was around 480 pounds, around 80 pounds weight on the moon, given battery technology at the time they must have made up the most heavy part of the vehicle. Why not ditch the batteries and bring back the vehicles? No lets dump a 1/4 of a billion piece of equipment, we used for 60 minutes or so.....hmm, it starts not to make any sense to me when you just analyse the cost verses use of these vehicles, in context to the whole moon landings scenario. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 10491620 India 02/10/2012 05:52 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
ToSeek User ID: 9492698 United States 02/10/2012 10:44 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Why not ditch the batteries and bring back the vehicles? No lets dump a 1/4 of a billion piece of equipment, we used for 60 minutes or so.....hmm, it starts not to make any sense to me when you just analyse the cost verses use of these vehicles, in context to the whole moon landings scenario. Quoting: ZIPUX The moon rovers were fastened to the descent stage of the lunar module - the part that stays on the Moon. Where are you going to put it on the way back? You could conceivably fasten it to the outside of the ascent stage of the lunar module to get it back into orbit, but then you'd have to transfer it over to the command-service module and then somehow fit it inside the command module (along with the three astronauts and the Moon rocks) in order to survive reentry. And then what are you going to do with it other than put it in the Smithsonian? It wasn't designed to operate on the Earth. And there's no way of making cost-effective sense of the Apollo missions. In current dollars, each Moon landing cost about $10 billion - a quarter billion to collect a better variety of Moon rocks is petty cash by comparison. |