Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,366 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 608,348
Pageviews Today: 781,983Threads Today: 157Posts Today: 3,201
07:34 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 11551180
United Kingdom
02/28/2012 05:24 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
On the Moon, the lack of air means that the sky is dark. Even when the Sun is high off the horizon during full day, the sky near it will be black.

If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day.


so what did the astronauts say


ZIPUX

User ID: 4394297
United Kingdom
02/28/2012 05:28 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
"Twenty-eight percent of all Americans, according to a Gallup poll cited in the Los Angeles Times on October 13, 1976, have seen through the sham and now believe the moon landing to be a fake"

That was 1976....sheesh wonder what the figure is today?


[link to krishna.org]
 Quoting: ZIPUX


Do you realize you're quoting a page that claims that the Moon is 800,000 miles farther away than the Sun?
 Quoting: ToSeek


Yes, I expected that to be pointed out. Regardless it was just some info, during a process of my looking for information I remember coming across decades ago within esoteric literature, in context to the discussion here. I only posted the selected data, which is erroneous I hasten to add, of which I only learned later.

Perhaps it was a localised gallop poll, as in fact I am aware that generally within the US only 6% of the population believe the moon landings to be a hoax. Here in the UK it's 25%.

Think of what you like of the disparity.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 11398639
United States
02/28/2012 05:30 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
the moon has one sixth the gravity of earth.

if it has gravity it has atmosphere.

simple !
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11551180


EVERYTHING that has mass has gravity. Does a satellite have an atmosphere? Is the EXTREMELY thin atmosphere on the Moon appreciably different from a vacuum?
ToSeek

User ID: 11622838
Portugal
02/28/2012 05:36 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
"Twenty-eight percent of all Americans, according to a Gallup poll cited in the Los Angeles Times on October 13, 1976, have seen through the sham and now believe the moon landing to be a fake"

That was 1976....sheesh wonder what the figure is today?


[link to krishna.org]
 Quoting: ZIPUX


Do you realize you're quoting a page that claims that the Moon is 800,000 miles farther away than the Sun?
 Quoting: ToSeek


Yes, I expected that to be pointed out. Regardless it was just some info, during a process of my looking for information I remember coming across decades ago within esoteric literature, in context to the discussion here. I only posted the selected data, which is erroneous I hasten to add, of which I only learned later.

Perhaps it was a localised gallop poll, as in fact I am aware that generally within the US only 6% of the population believe the moon landings to be a hoax. Here in the UK it's 25%.

Think of what you like of the disparity.
 Quoting: ZIPUX


I'm just impressed that the Christians aren't the only ones with nutty creationists. ;)
ZIPUX

User ID: 4394297
United Kingdom
02/28/2012 05:39 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
the iss is inside the Van Allen radiation bel, aka Low Earth orbit, so you fail, the moon is outside.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11601721


Yeah, I have read a lot of information the last few days due to this thread, trying to learn as much as I am able, the VanAllen belts are way underestimated by NASA.

Some people..... even the Russians stated that it would take 4 feet thickness of lead to keep astronauts safe and alive on such a perilous mission through the radiation, and beyond.
The 'mean' of what I am reading is that the Apollo missions were not equipped to travel through such high levels of radiation, or cope with solar radiation. There seems little question as to the reality of this.
 Quoting: ZIPUX



Please provide said quote.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11398639



I have contributed hugely to this discussion here today, I'm winding down now, it's 22.31(GMT) here, enjoying my usual scotch n soda ...and I'm sure you're just as familiar with Google yourself......the statement is out there...along with 'x. amount of aluminium , around 4 inches minimum and many other list of data regarding the many metals all of which are useless anyway, in context to the many dangers of radiation of the Van Allen fields and solar radiation issues on such perilous voyages.

I'm not writing a University dissertation here neither previously, hence like many a poster here I do not include 'x' number of footnotes to every posting. Most of the content is generally known of, if anyone is in the least interested and slightly knowledgable about the issue under discussion here.

Last Edited by ZIPUX on 02/28/2012 05:42 PM
ToSeek

User ID: 11622838
Portugal
02/28/2012 05:39 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
the moon has one sixth the gravity of earth.

if it has gravity it has atmosphere.

simple !
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11551180


1/6th the Gravity but only 1/4 the diameter of Earth.

Make of that what you will : )
 Quoting: Spittin'Cesium


The mass of a spherical object correlates with the cube of its diameter. The Moon is also less dense than the Earth, so its mass is only about 1/81 of Earth's. On the other hand, gravitational pull at the surface varies by the inverse square of the diameter. So the Moon's surface gravity is strengthened by a factor of 16 relative to the Earth. Putting the results together, and you end up with the Moon's surface gravity being about a sixth of Earth's.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 11398639
United States
02/28/2012 05:43 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
If the conspiracy theory is indeed true, then why did NASA spend billions and billions of dollars for expensive equipment, scholarship funds for gifted children with IQs 160 and up, and wasting their whole lives just to fool the whole world? Also, how come NASA were able to send people in space to repair satellites and stuff without being sure that they could really send people in space? How come their space suits and ships and other equipments improved if they really didnt have actual data of the effects of going out in space? Conspiracists state your so-called "facts" with biased evidence. Who's fooling who now? Hypocrites.
 Quoting: KlLLUMINATI


If you had read through the thread, you would have already learned that the budget 'so called', is just a number pulled out of a hat and published, who can prove or disprove how much Nasa got or did not?
 Quoting: ZIPUX


Just the multiple audits conducted during Apollo. Sure, no proof at all.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11398639


I made that point as it's a valid one.

In context to, not just believe what your told to believe, how can we as outsiders and nobodies actually prove anything, including the so called NASA budget and how much they were given from US taxpayers, you cannot. Hence the comment, you're taking it completely out of context.

It's ok for Donald Rumsfeld to just lose 2.3 trillion $'s, be totally unaccountable for such a huge amount of money, again only quoted to contextualise my initial comment respecting the 'so called' NASA budget. It could just as well be a number pulled out of a hat, who the hell is going to hold anyone accountable, and no one can prove anything anyway....!!

In context to the discussion here which has moved on rather a lot since I made that comment, what are you doing, looking back to see what you can troll and 'dis'.


Warning Alert. Super fucking shill.
 Quoting: ZIPUX


You forget that the NASA budget was paid out to multiple contractors and sub-contractors that actually built the equipment. It didn't just disappear.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 11398639
United States
02/28/2012 05:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
the iss is inside the Van Allen radiation bel, aka Low Earth orbit, so you fail, the moon is outside.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11601721


Yeah, I have read a lot of information the last few days due to this thread, trying to learn as much as I am able, the VanAllen belts are way underestimated by NASA.

Some people..... even the Russians stated that it would take 4 feet thickness of lead to keep astronauts safe and alive on such a perilous mission through the radiation, and beyond.
The 'mean' of what I am reading is that the Apollo missions were not equipped to travel through such high levels of radiation, or cope with solar radiation. There seems little question as to the reality of this.
 Quoting: ZIPUX



Please provide said quote.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11398639



I have contributed hugely to this discussion here today, I'm winding down now, it's 22.31(GMT) here, enjoying my usual scotch n soda ...and I'm sure you're just as familiar with Google yourself......the statement is out there...along with 'x. amount of aluminium , around 4 inches minimum and many other list of data regarding the many metals all of which are useless anyway, in context to the many dangers of radiation of the Van Allen fields and solar radiation issues on such perilous voyages.

I'm not writing a University dissertation here neither previously, hence like many a poster here I do not include 'x' number of footnotes to every posting. Most of the content is generally known of, if anyone is in the least interested and slightly knowledgable about the issue under discussion here.
 Quoting: ZIPUX


So in other words you can't provide it. Got it.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1275410
Canada
02/28/2012 05:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
astro is not a paid shill.


he just happens to be on a conspiracy site and does not believe in a single conspiracy.


....wait a minute
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11617509


cruise

amusing isn't it ?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 8597527


If I'm a paid shill, why am I helping to get the GLP observatory up and running, and why would Trinity let me anywhere near the telescopes, let alone work on them for days at a time?
 Quoting: Astromut



why would he allow a certain 'institute' to be inolved with the site?


(cannot name the institute in question due to censorship on this site, google will answer it for you though)


I very much doubt that astro would want to discuss this institute ;)

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11617509


Now I get why I was banned... makes it pretty clear now.
ZIPUX

User ID: 4394297
United Kingdom
02/28/2012 05:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
the moon has one sixth the gravity of earth.

if it has gravity it has atmosphere.

simple !
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11551180


EVERYTHING that has mass has gravity. Does a satellite have an atmosphere? Is the EXTREMELY thin atmosphere on the Moon appreciably different from a vacuum?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11398639


No, the answer provided already is scientific, 'kinda you got your head up your ass, and I know what I'm talking about kind of way'.

The moon for all intents and purpose has no atmosphere, the planetary object emits gases such as Argon and Helium and even Hydrogen. Due the the mass of the moon 1/80 of Earth's it cannot hang onto it. Solar wind, literally blows it away.

The best way to describe it as, compared to the Earth, it's not an atmosphere compared to, as it cannot even absorb radiation as the Earth does, in that context it has no atmosphere.

It does, but it's ppm cubic metre is so small an amount, it's regarded as a vacuum.

Last Edited by ZIPUX on 02/28/2012 05:59 PM
ZIPUX

User ID: 4394297
United Kingdom
02/28/2012 06:07 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
...


If you had read through the thread, you would have already learned that the budget 'so called', is just a number pulled out of a hat and published, who can prove or disprove how much Nasa got or did not?
 Quoting: ZIPUX


Just the multiple audits conducted during Apollo. Sure, no proof at all.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11398639


I made that point as it's a valid one.

In context to, not just believe what your told to believe, how can we as outsiders and nobodies actually prove anything, including the so called NASA budget and how much they were given from US taxpayers, you cannot. Hence the comment, you're taking it completely out of context.

It's ok for Donald Rumsfeld to just lose 2.3 trillion $'s, be totally unaccountable for such a huge amount of money, again only quoted to contextualise my initial comment respecting the 'so called' NASA budget. It could just as well be a number pulled out of a hat, who the hell is going to hold anyone accountable, and no one can prove anything anyway....!!

In context to the discussion here which has moved on rather a lot since I made that comment, what are you doing, looking back to see what you can troll and 'dis'.


Warning Alert. Super fucking shill.
 Quoting: ZIPUX


You forget that the NASA budget was paid out to multiple contractors and sub-contractors that actually built the equipment. It didn't just disappear.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11398639


This 'issue' has been extensively covered by this thread already. The Manhattan Project employed over 200,000 people, very few knew of the actual goal and intent, how easy is it within NASA to achieve an hidden agenda, not that I'm saying that occurred, one just need to be open to the possibility, and not just take at face value what one is 'told'.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1275410
Canada
02/28/2012 06:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
...


Just the multiple audits conducted during Apollo. Sure, no proof at all.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11398639


I made that point as it's a valid one.

In context to, not just believe what your told to believe, how can we as outsiders and nobodies actually prove anything, including the so called NASA budget and how much they were given from US taxpayers, you cannot. Hence the comment, you're taking it completely out of context.

It's ok for Donald Rumsfeld to just lose 2.3 trillion $'s, be totally unaccountable for such a huge amount of money, again only quoted to contextualise my initial comment respecting the 'so called' NASA budget. It could just as well be a number pulled out of a hat, who the hell is going to hold anyone accountable, and no one can prove anything anyway....!!

In context to the discussion here which has moved on rather a lot since I made that comment, what are you doing, looking back to see what you can troll and 'dis'.


Warning Alert. Super fucking shill.
 Quoting: ZIPUX


You forget that the NASA budget was paid out to multiple contractors and sub-contractors that actually built the equipment. It didn't just disappear.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11398639


This 'issue' has been extensively covered by this thread already. The Manhattan Project employed over 200,000 people, very few knew of the actual goal and intent, how easy is it within NASA to achieve an hidden agenda, not that I'm saying that occurred, one just need to be open to the possibility, and not just take at face value what one is 'told'.
 Quoting: ZIPUX


Indeed... all that was needed was the astronauts, the people that got them from the launch ramp, and the film crew. All the scientists in the NOC could have easily been fooled with the many dry run data they gathered all throughout the testing phases.

That's a 15 people at most, not counting the ones that were in on it already.
ZIPUX

User ID: 4394297
United Kingdom
02/28/2012 06:15 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
...


Yeah, I have read a lot of information the last few days due to this thread, trying to learn as much as I am able, the VanAllen belts are way underestimated by NASA.

Some people..... even the Russians stated that it would take 4 feet thickness of lead to keep astronauts safe and alive on such a perilous mission through the radiation, and beyond.
The 'mean' of what I am reading is that the Apollo missions were not equipped to travel through such high levels of radiation, or cope with solar radiation. There seems little question as to the reality of this.
 Quoting: ZIPUX



Please provide said quote.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11398639



I have contributed hugely to this discussion here today, I'm winding down now, it's 22.31(GMT) here, enjoying my usual scotch n soda ...and I'm sure you're just as familiar with Google yourself......the statement is out there...along with 'x. amount of aluminium , around 4 inches minimum and many other list of data regarding the many metals all of which are useless anyway, in context to the many dangers of radiation of the Van Allen fields and solar radiation issues on such perilous voyages.

I'm not writing a University dissertation here neither previously, hence like many a poster here I do not include 'x' number of footnotes to every posting. Most of the content is generally known of, if anyone is in the least interested and slightly knowledgable about the issue under discussion here.
 Quoting: ZIPUX


So in other words you can't provide it. Got it.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11398639


I responded, can't I just chill for an evening now.....? I'll try and find it again tmoz....

Last Edited by ZIPUX on 02/28/2012 06:16 PM
Spittin'Cesium

User ID: 5369266
United Kingdom
02/28/2012 06:52 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
...



Please provide said quote.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11398639



I have contributed hugely to this discussion here today, I'm winding down now, it's 22.31(GMT) here, enjoying my usual scotch n soda ...and I'm sure you're just as familiar with Google yourself......the statement is out there...along with 'x. amount of aluminium , around 4 inches minimum and many other list of data regarding the many metals all of which are useless anyway, in context to the many dangers of radiation of the Van Allen fields and solar radiation issues on such perilous voyages.

I'm not writing a University dissertation here neither previously, hence like many a poster here I do not include 'x' number of footnotes to every posting. Most of the content is generally known of, if anyone is in the least interested and slightly knowledgable about the issue under discussion here.
 Quoting: ZIPUX


So in other words you can't provide it. Got it.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11398639


I responded, can't I just chill for an evening now.....? I'll try and find it again tmoz....
 Quoting: ZIPUX


Hello there ZIPUX : )

I don't think you should go with the thinking that to traverse the V.A Belts there would be needed 4-6 Feet of Lead to protect the Astro's from the Radiation absorption as I think that is one of the many Red Herrings put out there to muddy the Waters with relation to the Apollo Missions.

Not that I disagree with the notion that the Films shown of the Apollo Missions may well have been fake.

But that's still not to say that I believe we never went to the Moon : )

Last Edited by Spittin'Cesium on 02/28/2012 06:54 PM
The thing that hath been,
is That which shall be;
and that which is done is that which shall be done:and there is no new thing under the Sun.
Ecclesiastes 9:1
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 11430884
United States
02/28/2012 07:03 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
No blast craters under the Lunar Landers: Game Over.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1382159


There shouldn't be a blast crater under the lander any more than there should be a blast crater under a harrier. The LM weighed 2,634 lbs on the moon at touchdown, having spent nearly all the descent stage fuel. Slightly less than that is what is needed for thrust to land the vehicle at terminal approach. By comparison a harrier uses ten times as much thrust to lift off. The full 10,000 lb thrust of the LM's engine was only needed at the start of the descent high above the moon in order to decelerate from lunar orbital velocity.
 Quoting: Astromut


k, now the cracks in your science are appearing...

Harriers only take off on CONCRETE and not dusty concrete, either - surgically clean concrete.

If there were 2500lb of force concentrated over less than one meter square just before touchdown, there would be a blast impression down to the solid surface that is at least 2 inches under the dust - if you believe the other things that NASA says.

There also would have been a trail on the surface left by the engine blast.

The lander was not coming down quickly for the final phase, but drifting slowly and would have been close enough to kick up an ENORMOUS amount of dust, which would not all "blow away" from the lander but swirl around it crazily.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1094960
United States
02/28/2012 07:19 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
...


COME ON ASTRONUTS, QUIET MATE AND STFU YOU PAID SHILL.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11536488


I'm not a paid shill, prove your defamatory statement or retract it.
 Quoting: Astromut


For all the facts, opinions, and false claims, flying back and forth, there are certain things that we all have to admit to be true...right or wrong.


1. NASA has solid evidence that it went to the moon, with pictures, videos, eye witness accounts, rocks, the actual astronauts and capsules, etc, etc, etc,

2. It has been proven that much of that evidence from NASA's moon missions can be duplicated or faked. Like it or not, photos and videos have been duplicated on sound stages and sets many times...it does not mean the moon mission was a fake, only that some of the evidence for that mission "could" be duplicate or faked.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1094960

I disagree. The lunar footage could not have been faked in the late 60's or early 70's.
 Quoting: Astromut


You statement is contradictory to your own view

The same cameras, same film, same astronauts, could have been used for a fake, as it was supposedly used on the moon. The only think that would change is the background.

Gone With the Wind, Ben Hur, The Ten Commandments, etc, etc, etc, Hollywood built spectacular sets with far smaller budgets than NASA. Shots from space the same thing...all it takes is motivation and money...NASA had both

Camera the same, film the same, astronauts the same, you are wrong astromut, the Lunar footage could have been faked.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1275410
Canada
02/28/2012 07:32 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
...


I'm not a paid shill, prove your defamatory statement or retract it.
 Quoting: Astromut


For all the facts, opinions, and false claims, flying back and forth, there are certain things that we all have to admit to be true...right or wrong.


1. NASA has solid evidence that it went to the moon, with pictures, videos, eye witness accounts, rocks, the actual astronauts and capsules, etc, etc, etc,

2. It has been proven that much of that evidence from NASA's moon missions can be duplicated or faked. Like it or not, photos and videos have been duplicated on sound stages and sets many times...it does not mean the moon mission was a fake, only that some of the evidence for that mission "could" be duplicate or faked.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1094960

I disagree. The lunar footage could not have been faked in the late 60's or early 70's.
 Quoting: Astromut


You statement is contradictory to your own view

The same cameras, same film, same astronauts, could have been used for a fake, as it was supposedly used on the moon. The only think that would change is the background.

Gone With the Wind, Ben Hur, The Ten Commandments, etc, etc, etc, Hollywood built spectacular sets with far smaller budgets than NASA. Shots from space the same thing...all it takes is motivation and money...NASA had both

Camera the same, film the same, astronauts the same, you are wrong astromut, the Lunar footage could have been faked.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1094960


Woops.. Astromut dun gone goofed. Nice catch AC
Spittin'Cesium

User ID: 5369266
United Kingdom
02/28/2012 07:37 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
...


I'm not a paid shill, prove your defamatory statement or retract it.
 Quoting: Astromut


For all the facts, opinions, and false claims, flying back and forth, there are certain things that we all have to admit to be true...right or wrong.


1. NASA has solid evidence that it went to the moon, with pictures, videos, eye witness accounts, rocks, the actual astronauts and capsules, etc, etc, etc,

2. It has been proven that much of that evidence from NASA's moon missions can be duplicated or faked. Like it or not, photos and videos have been duplicated on sound stages and sets many times...it does not mean the moon mission was a fake, only that some of the evidence for that mission "could" be duplicate or faked.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1094960

I disagree. The lunar footage could not have been faked in the late 60's or early 70's.
 Quoting: Astromut


You statement is contradictory to your own view

The same cameras, same film, same astronauts, could have been used for a fake, as it was supposedly used on the moon. The only think that would change is the background.

Gone With the Wind, Ben Hur, The Ten Commandments, etc, etc, etc, Hollywood built spectacular sets with far smaller budgets than NASA. Shots from space the same thing...all it takes is motivation and money...NASA had both

Camera the same, film the same, astronauts the same, you are wrong astromut, the Lunar footage could have been faked.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1094960


It very easily could have been faked,Imo.

I'm not sure why AN would have said the shots could'nt of been faked back then?

Surely,at least it's possible Astro,no!?
The thing that hath been,
is That which shall be;
and that which is done is that which shall be done:and there is no new thing under the Sun.
Ecclesiastes 9:1
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 11430884
United States
02/28/2012 07:43 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
In your arguments, some of you people are forgetting that, by 1960, the Rosthchilds well and truly owned every single aspect of American life - through the networks of education, foundations, defense contractors, etc, etc.

The question of money is moot, because the Roths have controlled money since 1913.

The question of media is moot, because the Roths have owned it since 1821.

The rots have owned the education system since about WW1 and most of the government as well.

If you just stop and consider the amount of centralized control they have, it's easier to conceive how something of this magnitude could be hoaxed.

I was never a hoax tard, but it does strike me as laughable that most of the people arguing for the landing's authenticity state "facts" that are only supplied by NASA.

NOBODY on GLP know ANYTHING first hand. None of us even knows if the laws of physics we learned in college are even true. All of the experiments we preformed could be carefully integrated to avoid certain areas...

I'll tell you one thing I learned first-hand:

When I was minoring in astronomy and majoring in engineering, I spent a lot of time with my tenured astro prof after class.

I had read that the Japanese had supposedly made progress with cold fusion and I asked him why we weren't working on it. He told me flat out that if he so much as mentioned that subject, his career would be over. Poof!

When I asked why, he said that all of the money for universities comes from foundations and industries who have put a taboo on anything that could cut into their system.

So, there you have it from a PhD astrophysicist, that there is an outside control exerted on the academic establishment.

I'll give you some more info that will make you scratch your head:

My grandfather was a PhD astrophysicist for the Navy. He spent 20 years studying high altitude atmospheric phenomena involving electromagnetic resonance, spectral analysis, long-range chromatography, etc.

He had never heard of HAARP when I asked him.

This is because the level of compartmentalization in the realm of science is extreme. If it weren't, the smart people connect the dots and realize we are being scammed.

Don't gimme that "national security" fucking horseshit, either. All countries are controlled by the Rothschilds, so there is no such thing as "national security."

It's all a ruse to keep the people focused and arguing.

Ask yourself what could have been happening behind the scenes to our freedoms while everybody was going gaga over the moon program?

Huh?

I bet you'll shit bricks of you go look.
Astromut
Voice Chat Moderator

User ID: 922113
United States
02/28/2012 07:46 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
You statement is contradictory to your own view

The same cameras, same film, same astronauts, could have been used for a fake, as it was supposedly used on the moon. The only think that would change is the background.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1094960

Are you suggesting they filmed it on a different part of the moon than they say them filmed it? Because that's not what I'm talking about.
Gone With the Wind, Ben Hur, The Ten Commandments, etc, etc, etc, Hollywood built spectacular sets with far smaller budgets than NASA. Shots from space the same thing...all it takes is motivation and money...NASA had both
 Quoting: AC

Over-simplifying. Building a set is one thing, making dust that doesn't billow, despite being kicked over a meter high, and immediately falls back down to the ground at 1/6th gravity, that was impossible to fake back then. Nevermind the sheer length of the raw footage of the EVAs with no cuts, they were in a vacuum at 1/6th gravity in that footage. In other words, they were on the frickin moon.
astrobanner2
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1275410
Canada
02/28/2012 07:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
You statement is contradictory to your own view

The same cameras, same film, same astronauts, could have been used for a fake, as it was supposedly used on the moon. The only think that would change is the background.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1094960

Are you suggesting they filmed it on a different part of the moon than they say them filmed it? Because that's not what I'm talking about.
Gone With the Wind, Ben Hur, The Ten Commandments, etc, etc, etc, Hollywood built spectacular sets with far smaller budgets than NASA. Shots from space the same thing...all it takes is motivation and money...NASA had both
 Quoting: AC

Over-simplifying. Building a set is one thing, making dust that doesn't billow, despite being kicked over a meter high, and immediately falls back down to the ground at 1/6th gravity, that was impossible to fake back then. Nevermind the sheer length of the raw footage of the EVAs with no cuts, they were in a vacuum at 1/6th gravity in that footage. In other words, they were on the frickin moon.
 Quoting: Astromut


How did they test their gear before going on the moon? They couldn't recreate vacuum chambers for those purposes?
Astromut
Voice Chat Moderator

User ID: 922113
United States
02/28/2012 08:03 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
It very easily could have been faked,Imo.
 Quoting: Spittin'Cesium

Oh really? How do you propose to "very easily fake" the conditions of kicking dust around in 1/6th gravity and in a vacuum? No, slowing down the footage won't work, the numbers wouldn't add up if you did ( [link to www.youtube.com] ). You could build a gigantic flying vacuum chamber and have it to parabolic dives to create 1/6th gravity, but your shots are going to be extremely limited to about 30 seconds each, which does not fit with the Apollo footage.
astrobanner2
Astromut
Voice Chat Moderator

User ID: 922113
United States
02/28/2012 08:04 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
You statement is contradictory to your own view

The same cameras, same film, same astronauts, could have been used for a fake, as it was supposedly used on the moon. The only think that would change is the background.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1094960

Are you suggesting they filmed it on a different part of the moon than they say them filmed it? Because that's not what I'm talking about.
Gone With the Wind, Ben Hur, The Ten Commandments, etc, etc, etc, Hollywood built spectacular sets with far smaller budgets than NASA. Shots from space the same thing...all it takes is motivation and money...NASA had both
 Quoting: AC

Over-simplifying. Building a set is one thing, making dust that doesn't billow, despite being kicked over a meter high, and immediately falls back down to the ground at 1/6th gravity, that was impossible to fake back then. Nevermind the sheer length of the raw footage of the EVAs with no cuts, they were in a vacuum at 1/6th gravity in that footage. In other words, they were on the frickin moon.
 Quoting: Astromut


How did they test their gear before going on the moon? They couldn't recreate vacuum chambers for those purposes?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1275410


Sure they have vacuum chambers, they don't have gravity chambers.
astrobanner2
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1275410
Canada
02/28/2012 08:37 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
You statement is contradictory to your own view

The same cameras, same film, same astronauts, could have been used for a fake, as it was supposedly used on the moon. The only think that would change is the background.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1094960

Are you suggesting they filmed it on a different part of the moon than they say them filmed it? Because that's not what I'm talking about.
Gone With the Wind, Ben Hur, The Ten Commandments, etc, etc, etc, Hollywood built spectacular sets with far smaller budgets than NASA. Shots from space the same thing...all it takes is motivation and money...NASA had both
 Quoting: AC

Over-simplifying. Building a set is one thing, making dust that doesn't billow, despite being kicked over a meter high, and immediately falls back down to the ground at 1/6th gravity, that was impossible to fake back then. Nevermind the sheer length of the raw footage of the EVAs with no cuts, they were in a vacuum at 1/6th gravity in that footage. In other words, they were on the frickin moon.
 Quoting: Astromut


How did they test their gear before going on the moon? They couldn't recreate vacuum chambers for those purposes?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1275410


Sure they have vacuum chambers, they don't have gravity chambers.
 Quoting: Astromut


Upon research, they did, but none that could be applied to this type of scenario (one is a plane, the other a long shaft)
Astromut
Voice Chat Moderator

User ID: 922113
United States
02/28/2012 08:41 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
...

Are you suggesting they filmed it on a different part of the moon than they say them filmed it? Because that's not what I'm talking about.
...

Over-simplifying. Building a set is one thing, making dust that doesn't billow, despite being kicked over a meter high, and immediately falls back down to the ground at 1/6th gravity, that was impossible to fake back then. Nevermind the sheer length of the raw footage of the EVAs with no cuts, they were in a vacuum at 1/6th gravity in that footage. In other words, they were on the frickin moon.
 Quoting: Astromut


How did they test their gear before going on the moon? They couldn't recreate vacuum chambers for those purposes?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1275410


Sure they have vacuum chambers, they don't have gravity chambers.
 Quoting: Astromut


Upon research, they did, but none that could be applied to this type of scenario (one is a plane, the other a long shaft)
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1275410

A plane is not a chamber, as in something you can just suck the gravity out of and keep a 1/6th gravity environment indefinitely. It's not at all like a vacuum chamber. I discussed the limitations of using a plane, among other limitations, here:
[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]

Last Edited by Dr. Astro on 02/28/2012 08:41 PM
astrobanner2
Astromut
Voice Chat Moderator

User ID: 922113
United States
02/28/2012 08:44 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax

astrobanner2
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1275410
Canada
02/28/2012 08:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
...


How did they test their gear before going on the moon? They couldn't recreate vacuum chambers for those purposes?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1275410


Sure they have vacuum chambers, they don't have gravity chambers.
 Quoting: Astromut


Upon research, they did, but none that could be applied to this type of scenario (one is a plane, the other a long shaft)
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1275410

A plane is not a chamber, as in something you can just suck the gravity out of and keep a 1/6th gravity environment indefinitely. It's not at all like a vacuum chamber. I discussed the limitations of using a plane, among other limitations, here:
[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]
 Quoting: Astromut


Yes, you must of missed the part of my comment where I said that it didn't apply in this situation. I was just correcting your sentence on them not having any gravity chambers.
Astromut
Voice Chat Moderator

User ID: 922113
United States
02/28/2012 08:49 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
...


Sure they have vacuum chambers, they don't have gravity chambers.
 Quoting: Astromut


Upon research, they did, but none that could be applied to this type of scenario (one is a plane, the other a long shaft)
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1275410

A plane is not a chamber, as in something you can just suck the gravity out of and keep a 1/6th gravity environment indefinitely. It's not at all like a vacuum chamber. I discussed the limitations of using a plane, among other limitations, here:
[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]
 Quoting: Astromut


Yes, you must of missed the part of my comment where I said that it didn't apply in this situation. I was just correcting your sentence on them not having any gravity chambers.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1275410

I didn't miss it. I guess I should have put more qualifiers re: planes in my original post. I felt it was rather redundant to do so considering my immediately preceding post, but clearly it's not safe to ever speak with amount of tongue being planted in my cheek.
astrobanner2
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
02/28/2012 08:56 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
For all the facts, opinions, and false claims, flying back and forth, there are certain things that we all have to admit to be true...right or wrong.


1. NASA has solid evidence that it went to the moon, with pictures, videos, eye witness accounts, rocks, the actual astronauts and capsules, etc, etc, etc,

2. It has been proven that much of that evidence from NASA's moon missions can be duplicated or faked. Like it or not, photos and videos have been duplicated on sound stages and sets many times...it does not mean the moon mission was a fake, only that some of the evidence for that mission "could" be duplicate or faked.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1094960


Accepted, with the caveat that most of it would be difficult and some of it would be extremely difficult, expensive, and involve a lot of people.


3. All the astronauts who went to the moon were military personnel. The NASA astronauts of the 60's and 70's were a very unique group of special human beings. It is fact that they all followed orders and served their country proudly.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1094960


Almost all. Niel had left active service before joining the program. Harrison Schmitt was never in the military.

But the point is still good.

Accusing these astronauts of lying to the world is difficult to do...unless they were following orders, then it is not the astronauts who are lying to the world.

I look at this issue as a common sense thing.

Could we have gone to the moon in 1969 two years before the invention of the Ford Pinto?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1094960


But after the Concorde, the SR71 Blackbird, and the 747 jumboliner. As well as more-or-less simultaneous with the integrated circuit and the first compact computers. Also post color television, ICBMs, and hydrogen bombs. Not exactly a primitive, wallowing time!

And if we did that over 40 years ago, wouldn't we be further along in space then we are now, I mean a moon base or even an observatory on the moon would seem logical by now, don't ya think?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1094960


Rocketry is a developed technology. It was only a few years back that a significant change to internal combustion engines came along (the hybrid), and liquid-fueled rocketry is older than that. And let's look at electric cars, which appeared BEFORE the Model T -- still barely cracking the market.

In the deepest mine on Earth (pushing technology in one way) hard-rock miners are still struggling with muscles and hand tools. In farms across the world workers are stooping to pick and weed.

We should not fall for the hype of the computer industry and the consumer electronics industry and think that the latest gaming card/giant-size television/compact subwoofer is truly a monumental advance in human understanding. The changes of the digital age are important, but the change in the performance of steel, wheat, cotton-poly blends, and rocket fuel, are much smaller.

I lean towards 65% we went, 35% we faked it...and reasons for faking were cold war motivated.

One last reality, if we did go, we have the proof still sitting on the surface of the moon. With all the satellites and cameras in space, you would think that by now we could take a picture of the landing site.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1094960


Can and did.

If we can send rovers to Mars, we could send a rover to the moon...logically we should have. The better question is, why haven't we? Is there nothing there that is of interest to science? Or maybe we already know what "is" or "is not" there.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1094960


I am not a planetologist, but I'd rather see a rover on Mars. I'd rather see even a poor probe go to Enceladus than even a very good probe go to the Moon. I want a close-up fly-by, followed by an actual geological mission, in the Kuiper Belt. There I think are solutions to deep mysteries about the formation of the solar system (and by extension, other systems).

The biggest advantage I see in exploring the Moon now is if it is preparatory to attempting long-duration stays there. And I'm not alone in that thinking; this is why the concentration is on mapping, and on exploring the polar areas and the possible water ice there. There is much less reason to return to the Apollo sites.

In fact, even the recent images of those sites by the probes of various nations are merely a by-product of what the probes were doing in the first place.

There just aren't enough National Geographic subscribers to send a lander just to take pictures of Tranquility Base, and the only people besides armchair tourists who would even care already made up their minds long ago to discard any and all new material that comes their way. If anything has been made clear over the last few years of Kaguya et al, it is that the hoax believers will not be convinced by any evidence, and it is pointless of them to look for it and of anyone else to pander to their search.
Spittin'Cesium

User ID: 5369266
United Kingdom
02/28/2012 08:57 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
...


How did they test their gear before going on the moon? They couldn't recreate vacuum chambers for those purposes?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1275410


Sure they have vacuum chambers, they don't have gravity chambers.
 Quoting: Astromut


Upon research, they did, but none that could be applied to this type of scenario (one is a plane, the other a long shaft)
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1275410

A plane is not a chamber, as in something you can just suck the gravity out of and keep a 1/6th gravity environment indefinitely. It's not at all like a vacuum chamber. I discussed the limitations of using a plane, among other limitations, here:
[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]
 Quoting: Astromut


Astro,we simply do not know for sure if they actually had the Video Editing abilities needed back then or not,most inventions are in an lag with the Day.

The only person that could say for definite would be someone who is 'Deep-Black' if we are working from the perspective of the proponents that the Videos shown of the Apollo Missions were faked,of which I am One..for now.
The thing that hath been,
is That which shall be;
and that which is done is that which shall be done:and there is no new thing under the Sun.
Ecclesiastes 9:1

News








Proud Member Of The Angry Mob