Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax

I don't play the blocking game. That's for wussies who can't make a sentence. I'm not here to try to convince anybody of anything, that's just a waste of time. I got one of my two points answered by noname which is better than I got at Baut (thanks noname). Not even a pointer over there, just a bunch of people trying to show who has the calculator with the most precision.

Since this is a public forum I can address any question I like to anyone I like just like anyone can jump in and talk about frogs on a JFK thread. OK with you?

I'm not telling him to write a book. I just asked why he didn't. That isn't even slightly insulting, unlike your quoted post here.

Hey everyone, this dude from Germany says there's no hoax, so there must not be. Move along now, nothing to see here.

EXCEPT FOR RODNEY!!!

Distance to moon = 238857 miles

Time for apollo to reach moon = 70 hours

Average speed for apollo on way to moon = 3412.24 mph

but

To reach orbit the space shuttle reaches 18000 mph.

The ISS travels around earth at 17500 mph.

question 1: if the saturn IV had to get close to 18000 mph to reach orbit , why did they slow down to just 3400 mph for the journey across space ??

question 2: how did apollo get out of orbit at 3412 mph ?? if this was possible the ISS would have flown out into space long ago travelling at 17500 mph ??

question 3: why did it take apollo approx. 3 days to reach the moon , in the space shuttle it would only take about 13.5 hours to reach the moon ??

Apollo first got into Earth orbit with a speed of 18000 mph. Then they fired the third-stage rocket again to achieve a speed of 25000 mph, enough to break out of Earth orbit and head for the Moon. But all the time they're climbing out of Earth's gravity well and therefore slowing down.

By the time the spacecraft is to the point where the Moon's gravity is stronger than the Earth's, they're only traveling a thousand miles an hour or so. Then they speed up a bit while approaching the Moon and have to fire the service module's main engine in order to slow down enough to go into lunar orbit.

Just who do you think I am at Baut? I'm not the astronut from Baut, by the way. I'm not the first person to think of that screen name.

I don't want to make money off of it. Doing so would introduce a monetary motivation in my posts and I'm serious when I say I'm not paid to post. If I ever decide to write a book on the subject I will no longer actively "debunk" - I will not post if there's a conflict of interest, even though the same people who would point that monetary motivation out don't care that their own Lucus blatantly used his posts to generate interest in his 20 and 30 dollar DVDs until he sold out of them.

What "names" have I called you? Shall I list the various names I get called? No, because I really don't care. I don't care what names you or anyone else calls me, I don't care what you or anyone else thinks of me personally. It's utterly irrelevant. At the same time, I do not call people names, but I do tell it as it is and sometimes that's unpleasant in and of itself. If you display ignorance I will state it as such, but I will not simply call you a "fucking idiot" or a "dipshit" or a "fucking tool" etc.

That's what scam artists like Lucus do in order to generate sales. I am not a scam artist. If I need to I do refer people to my previous posts. I'm very good at finding my own posts, and fortunately the forum allowing searching within threads makes that process even easier and faster.

Liar. That is a statement of fact, not "name calling," by the way. I haven't called anyone "stupid." Like I just said, the forum allows for searching within threads. I have not called anyone stupid here. Anyone can search the thread for the word stupid and see for themselves that I did not anyone here stupid.

The truth is always the same. It's easily debunked too.

The Golden Vizor should always be in use for EV Missions in Sun-Lit areas..only when the Astro was in a heavily shaded area could they adjust it as needed for vision purposes but this would increase the amount of Heat Loss and enhance the possibilty of Radiation Damage to the Eyes and Skin if allowed for too long.

"All I need to know about space walking I learned from watching deep impact" hoaxie is back I see.
[link to i.dailymail.co.uk]
[link to jamesmcgillis.com]
[link to www.atlas.ch]
[link to img.dailymail.co.uk]
[link to a57.foxnews.com]
If you were intellectually honest you'd have to claim that ISS/shuttle was fake too.

Actually he did show Alan Bean swear on the bible but that does not count. The original mr. bean did NOT know he had to pass through the Van Allen Belts to get to the Moon.
ROFL

Btw the Son of God never walked on water here on earth and Man the Son of a Bitch never walked on the Moon.

And why have the NASA NAZIs been too chicken to go beyond the safe zone of about 400 miles since 1973?

Everything Never A Straight Answer says they did using astro-NOTS could have been done using robotics.
that is a fact.

Last Edited by Raphael on 03/27/2012 06:46 PM

I'm just going to give shit to these retards. I honestly couldn't care whether this thing was faked or not.

These things work both ways. The evidence used to insinuate fakery has been debunked. Hoax believers need to find more evidence. Instead all I see is bitching & people taking offense because they can't come up with shit.

It's funny how people throughout this entire thread get so defensive towards proven FACTS. The above post is just one example, & it's hillarious. & in their deffensive posts, they trip over their own words & spout hypocritical statements. Lol.

Maybe you people shouting "HOAX" need to get out of your moms basements & actually do something with your lives. You don't live in a fantasy world of lies - & getting so defensive once your fantastic reality is threatened is evidence that you base your existence around such claims. It's not healthy. Your words on this forum aren't going to change the world.

You people carry on like fucking children for christs sake. There are more important things to worry about in todays day & age than whether the moon landing was faked or not. If it was, cool story bro. If it wasn't, suck shit for wasting so much of your will & effort on such an insignificant thing.

Life achievments: PROVED THE MOON LANDING WAS FAKE. Yeah, thats gonna put food on the table for your family. Oh wait, you're still in moms basement. Whoops..

Do you even listen to yourself? Amazing, just amazing.

Just wondering, have you ever been forcibly institutionalized?

The space shuttle did not have the delta-V to go beyond LEO, nor was its ceramic tile heat shield and wings designed to withstand trans-lunar velocity re-entries. It was designed for LEO only as a sort of space truck for building space stations and servicing LEO satellites.

that's good for your opinion but you still don't have a reference saying it absolutely required.

Does he have to know or remember them to travel on the preplanned course? if you were on a cross country flight would you have to know if you flew over a particular city?

Besides, they went AROUND the majority of the belts. They only skimmed the outer edge.

still waiting for a response on:

- weird nature of moon landing video streaming at the time

- awkward press conferences and evasive behavior by astronauts after the fact

- presence of "moon landing hoax" on government lists of people to be suspected of domestic terrorism

What are you referring to?



It's been pointed out repeatedly that these astronauts just came out of several weeks inside an isolation ward the size of a mobile home. How many of us would be chipper under those circumstances?



You have any actual evidence of this?

Fair enough about the astronauts, although Armstrong's later (and very rare) public appearances, especially at the white house with the young science students raise questions for me.

Isn't it accepted that the media in '68 was made to film a 3rd hand projected image of the live video stream on a wall which accounts for the crappy (even by 60's standards) video quality?

The MIAC report has references to moon landing hoax although it's in the same paragraphs as Bob Barr voters, environmental extremists and a dozen other unrelated groups so make what you want of government paranoia and bungling.

No. The media was given the highest possible format conversion in the standard method practiced at the time -- essentially the same method used to archive live television shows by the broadcast media themselves, and the method used to distribute shows originally broadcast in NTSC to other markets using PAL or similar.

The actual lunar broadcast was not NTSC. Big metropolitan stations of the period were broadcasting several MEGAwatts, and their subscribers were expected to be within thirty miles. By any standards, the Apollo broadcasts were extremely low-power, limited-bandwidth. They broadcast in a slow-scan format, black and white for Apollo 11 and color-sequential for the later missions.

So there is simply nothing that anyone of the period other than a few special-built displays could do with the original broadcast stream. It HAD to be converted to something that could be beamed to ordinary subscribers.

lol
they will never give up op.

Nor should we...for three reasons.

1/ FACT is everything the NASA NAZIs accomplished that they claimed astroNOTs did, could have been done by using ROBOTS and much cheaper.

2/ why has NOBODY sent a human beyond what appears to be a 400 mile safe zone since 1972?

The NASA NAZIs respond it is too expensive to recreate a trip back to the MOON.
Maybe that is because it never happened in the first place.

Been 40 years since.
Get with the program.

Here is the real reason the entire charade is smoke and mirrors...IMHO...the stakes are much much higher.
It is the ultimate tool perhaps in man's battle with the elements and mother nature.

3/ what is more important really? pretending to land a man on the moon, landing a man on the moon, OR controlling the weather on earth using the MOON?

NASA NAZIs are a FAIL when viewed in the bigger picture.

They pretended flying through the vacuum of space was a cake-walk, only needing to get past the Van Allen belts and all was clear ... well today we know that reality is plain and simple

Since those BS missions took place between 1969-72 we have learned that space is far more hostile than the NASA space cowboys let on.

namaste

RaphaEL

Last Edited by Raphael on 04/09/2012 01:01 PM

Interesting about the moon.

we share a center of gravity or barycenter with the moon...give me a lever long enough and I can move mountains dude.



namaste

It's truly amazing how you hoaxies think that anyone with "common sense" can assess complex scientific issues simply because they have the desire. This is not to even mention the obvious bias they couple with their rank ignorance. It is to laugh.

Nope. You'll just re-focus on another aspect of the conspiracy you are SURE exists.

Bullshit. The focus goes, inexorably, to lack of credentials and education due to a plethora of laughably false assumptions which could only be made by those who are out of their depth in the discussion.

The hoaxies want to start with the assumption that no one really knows anything about astronomy; photography; etc, etc, etc. It simply isn't true. Knowledgeable people DO know something about those things, even though most hoaxies don't seem to know the most elementary things in those areas.

I am reminded of when Nancy Lieder exhorted astronomers to image her coordinates for "planet X", which she said would be seen at magnitude 10-11. Someone took that image, showing nothing of the sort at her coordinates. Nancy then took a left turn and picked out bits of fluff and image artifacts, claiming THOSE to be her planet. In other words, why trust the jackass? Would it REALLY "put to rest" the hoax story? Of course not. The hoaxies would just say that he "nervously" complied with the request, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc...

Magnitude +10?

How exactly is it ever a naked-eye object, then? Do the aliens living on it light off a bonfire every now and then (would have to be a heck of a bonfire...I'm thinking gigaton-range nuclear weapons might be a good start)

Yes. That was her prediction/claim- that it would be imaged at mag 10-11 in early 2002 or so. I bet it's still archived somewhere- maybe even on her own site. She never really was concerned about the internal contradictions in her story. Of course she originally claimed that it was "visible to the naked eye" way back in 1996 or so. She later amended that to say "telescope/computer assisted eye". Heh.

Here is one reference to Nancy's silly claim. After images were taken by John Oliver, proving Nancy wrong, she began picking out stuff right at the noise floor- mag 18-20, and calling them her planet, never addressing the radical contradiction to her standing magnitude claim.


[link to www.zetatalk.com]


Remember that OBSERVATORY grade scopes are required until
mid-2002, as the distance away precludes reflecting sunlight until
that time (it reflects only 1/81 the sunlight that Pluto does at this
time), and precludes a significant increase in size until that time
(it is only about 3 times the size of Pluto in your scopes at this
time). Also a reminder that the predominant color of the inbound
planet is red, specifically in the infra-red range (the means by which
it was located in 1983 by the IRAS team), and the lack of infra-red
capability in all but specialized equipment eliminates the dominant
color that Planet X exudes (thus look for a Magnitude 11 object, not
Magnitude 2 which it is when equipment has infra-red capabilities).
Screen FOR red, go to your local observatory, and insist that the
coordinates specified by the Zetas be used, and none others, and as the
coordiantes are given to be used at any location, look AROUND the
spot for something not in the star charts.

Here is John Olivers page (from the wayback archives) where he kept a running analysis of Nancy's astronomical claims. I'm sure there are many broken links in it by now. I'll post it to the debunker thread too.

[link to web.archive.org]