Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,360 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,406,579
Pageviews Today: 1,978,015Threads Today: 483Posts Today: 10,403
05:10 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

If the Moon landing was real: How the hell did they take off FROM the moon?

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 22689420
United States
08/27/2012 12:33 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If the Moon landing was real: How the hell did they take off FROM the moon?
How can you faker a Moon landing when you have a number of other countries tracking your spacecraft (including our adversaries, the Soviets).
How do you fake hardware, when the people designing and building it are creating specifically to work in space on a lunar mission. If it wouldn't work, they would be the first to state it. NASA was not "compartmentalized" like that, close coordination between the contractors and designers was critical.

The surface temperature when the crews landed was not 250 degrees in sunlight and -250 in shade. All the missions landed in the lunar "morning" at their locations, so the ground was relatively cool...some comments were made about the shaded side of rocks being "cold". The only was heat gets around in a vaccuum is via conduction (through the material of an object) or radiation. Things cool off the same way.

I have a big mountain about 14 miles away...have taken pictures showing it in many locations around town, but the mountain always looks the same. Distance and perspective.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 14143765
United States
08/27/2012 12:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If the Moon landing was real: How the hell did they take off FROM the moon?
If we sent men to the surface of the moon successfully 6 times and back with 1960s technology in under 8 years (1962: JFK's speech. 1969: Apollo 11 allegedly), why would it now take us 18 years to return men to the moon with 2012 technology? That's ludicrous.
 Quoting: Thor's Hamster


Lack of two things
Budget
Political will

They COULD go back in just a few years IF they had the budget.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 14143765
United States
08/27/2012 12:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If the Moon landing was real: How the hell did they take off FROM the moon?
The Moon landing was a hoax.

In order to crack it, you need to compare the multitude of photographs.
Watch for terrain similarities.
Supposedly at different locations.
Watch for the same background at supposedly different locations.

Here's a video thats shows it.
Watch @ 5:08

[link to www.youtube.com]


 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22688453


Also, there is a video showing the astronauts using a template in the window to create the illusion that they were far away from earth, when in fact they were in low earth orbit.

Why would they do that? For what reason? Why aren't there more pictures of their some 480,000 mile adventure to and from the moon?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 2075492


Provably NOT a template. You only think so because the narrator of the movie SAID so. That same movie the maker cut out the part that clearly shows it was not a template and that it WAS a distant Earth.

[link to www.youtube.com]

there are MANY MANY pictures and video from their trip. If you don't THINK there are then you haven't really looked.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 14143765
United States
08/27/2012 12:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If the Moon landing was real: How the hell did they take off FROM the moon?
There was no photoshop in those days.
So the image manipulation they did was primitive.
Compare multiple photographs for repitations.

Here's a good site.
Check out the flipped flag repetation. They really can't cover their ass on this:
[link to www.aulis.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22688453


A Jack White classic. He routinely showed he knew nothing about perspective or space travel. And you've bought it hook, line and sinker.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 14143765
United States
08/27/2012 12:56 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If the Moon landing was real: How the hell did they take off FROM the moon?
The 'that was debunked long ago ' shit still works.
But it cannot fool those who are really interested in getting the truth.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22692111


Says the person with blinders on that doesn't even bother to look at the explanation.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 2773589
United States
08/27/2012 12:58 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If the Moon landing was real: How the hell did they take off FROM the moon?
Not entirely sure, but I think most astronauts are rocket scientists.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 19725671


this!!


Plus our atmosphere and outter space are 2 different things, im sure you can just release a ballast thruster or two to push off the surface of the moon and then fire engines toward earth. seems logical saying how everything is pretty much weightless in space.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 2075492
United States
08/27/2012 01:28 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If the Moon landing was real: How the hell did they take off FROM the moon?
Not entirely sure, but I think most astronauts are rocket scientists.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 19725671


this!!


Plus our atmosphere and outter space are 2 different things, im sure you can just release a ballast thruster or two to push off the surface of the moon and then fire engines toward earth. seems logical saying how everything is pretty much weightless in space.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 2773589


putin


Oh, yes... it's just so easy...la la la la la la la... let's all go to the Moon.

Oh wait, the United States is the only nation to have ever been to the moon or out of the protective atmosphere for that matter with manned space flight before or since...
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
08/27/2012 02:35 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If the Moon landing was real: How the hell did they take off FROM the moon?
Why did the astronauts appear to move so slowly on the moon? With less gravity, wouldn't they be able to move faster?
 Quoting: To shill or not to shill


I wouldn't make a blanket statement.

How do you define speed of movement? Arm waving? Leaping? Horizontal travel?

Astronauts did move at about running speed with the peculiar gait they worked out. So that's horizontal motion that isn't "slower" than Earth. But you can't compare that gait with anything that can be done in 1G.

Among the issues were stiff, cumbersome, and heavy suits. Also recall that mass is not weight; the astronauts still MASSED the same, and had the same inertia. A lot of people don't pick up on that.

Traction, however, is friction based, and that depends on weight. So they had the same inertia, but less traction to get moving...or to stop moving. Even without a suit you couldn't very well run on the Moon. Instead of accelerating you down the track, each footstep would instead send you into the air.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
08/27/2012 02:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If the Moon landing was real: How the hell did they take off FROM the moon?
Congratulations OP,

You've begun to use that least often exercised human organ; the brain. How the LEM took off from the moon is easier to explain than HOW IT LANDED. Just do a thought experiment for a minute on how you'd land a rocket regardless of gravity? Common sense tells you it would flip over.

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21457069



Heheh. Thrust vectors don't work that way.

And not that it matters, but for enhanced control the engine was mounted a lot closer to the COG than you think. That large engine bell is not the location of the thrust interaction; that happens at the engine throat. And the external tanks of the LM are mounted close to if not below that point. As are the landing legs.

Here's a thought experiment for you. A rocket taking off. Take an Estes rocket, which you can pick up yourself and try. What keeps IT from "tipping over?" And, no, it isn't COG. It also isn't aerodynamic stabilization (although that helps the irregular-burning small rockets stay on course.)

Perhaps a better experiment is to take an Estes rocket and orient it at a 45 degree angle. That means, according to the "tipping" theory, it would already be past its own motor. According to your understanding, it should roll over in flight until it is pointing to the ground, right?

Unfortunately none of this is true. Thrust vector is thrust vector. It passes through the mass. If you have designed the craft right, it passes through the COG...if it hasn't, you create a torque proportional to the difference. That's it. That torque remains the same magnitude whether the rocket is heading straight up, or in a tight spin, or barrelling into the ground.

There are so many holes in the NASA story that a child could see through it. Actually, I've known from a child that the whole thing was a hoax. No adult could ever answer my question: "Daddy, how do you land a rocket?"
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21457069


So why does anyone go to graduate school for aeronautics? Shouldn't they just let children design the next wide-body carrier?

Me, given the choice between cardiac surgery performed by a ten-year-old child, or a ten-year resident, I'll got with the one that is using more than "common sense" and a grade school education.


There are many other obvious holes in the NASA moon landing hoax:

- Cooling - how is heat transfer possible in space?
- Suits - how did those phony suits work?
- Power - how did they power things, batteries?
- Sound - how did they overcome the speech delay?
- LEM - how did that piece of tinfoil work?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21457069


It's all in the documentation. And by that I mean, there are enough diagrams out there so you can built the equivalent mechanisms and see for yourself if they work.

PEOPLE HAVE BUILT AN APOLLO GUIDANCE COMPUTER. From scratch. And ran the original programs. It isn't some great mystery how this stuff was done. Except to the uneducated and the uneducatable.

Cooling -- depends on the craft. First thing to understand is the correct model; each space craft is largely insulated from the Sun, and thus the primary source of heat is internal. You've got passive radiation, active freon and water systems to reject that.

Power -- suits and rover were batteries (I've looked up the battery formulation for the latter and did a sanity check for kJ/mass). Spacecraft had fuel cells. One of which blew up on Apollo 13.

Sound -- there is no "overcoming" of the light-speed lag, unless you mean editing of the audio in later presentations.

Your other questions are far too general to be answered in a similar manner.


What you are witnessing is the power of mind control. Every poster coming on here defending NASA is either a plant or is under a very powerful mind control spell and cannot think for himself. As you begin to examine this hoax with an open mind you will see that the evidence is all there. NASA FAKED THE MOON LANDINGS.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21457069


Or knows basic science. And trusts it because they have personally BUILT things according to that same science, things that work right here, on the ground.

Or aren't in the business of pushing some personal spyware site. Like yourself.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
08/27/2012 03:23 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If the Moon landing was real: How the hell did they take off FROM the moon?
For me some of the most damning evidence among the mountain of clues, is the pictures themselves of the moon landing.

Not only are they of professional quality, and seemingly taken by a professional photographer in big bulky suits, with huge gloves, with the camera attached to their chest... which of course may be possible. However, somehow the pictures managed to be "clear" despite all the radiation the cameras were exposed to. Test show when the film they used were exposed lower levels of radiation, the pictures were "foggy"... There was an interview somewhere with camera provider, and they said that no special modification were made to the camera to account for radiation.

I've seen a few claims that the radiation levels weren't high enough, but they always base that off the figures which NASA reports they were exposed too...

For me, there are just too many clues that contradict what NASA claims.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 2075492


So...when you strip away all the claims and counter-claims, what you are saying is there is invisible deadly camera-destroying radiation NASA didn't tell anyone about?

Because if the cameras as described are capable of dealing with the environment as described, then NASA's story is internally consistent.

All you've demonstrated is it is possible there is something NASA didn't tell you. It is entirely possible that Apollo 11 had to fight a laser duel with the giant space narwhals before they could get to the Moon, also.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
08/27/2012 03:37 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If the Moon landing was real: How the hell did they take off FROM the moon?
BS/

Background anomalies are pretty apparent.
You try to debunk using vague explanations as to why terrain shouldn't look the same from different angles. Lol
What about those shots that were said to be taken from DIFFERENT locations but are an exact copy? hmmmm?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22692111


What about them?

I don't give a flying frack what Bart Sibrel or Jack White claims NASA said. I'll go with what NASA actually said. And they don't have any such duplications.

(On the other hand, Jack has plenty of "duplications" that on any kind of close examination -- blink comparison or overlay -- prove not to be duplicates at all).


Shilling pays big time.
AND NASA is not a benovalent humanity organisation dedicated to helping science. NASA is a MILITARY ORGANISTATION AND they have millions of dollars in resources available to defend themselves against hoaxers, including paying internet shills .


Go here, and come back and tell me how you can explain yourself against a proffessional study that totally PROVES that the moon landing was a hoax:
Click on the third link from left:
[link to www.aulis.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22692111


Professional? Jack? The guy that had to own up to his complete lack of credentials in front of a congressional committee?

That's actually fairly nice work -- at presenting a pre-conclusion. Unfortunately they didn't replicate the lunar surface in three convenient-to-them ways; the local relief was greater in the mock-up, the soil substitute they used had no anisotropy, and the model table was too short -- most of the lit area that was in the real scene was not present on the table.

In addition, they also removed one of the lighting sources in the original scene.

Oddly enough, the final result shows very much the same shape of the soil reflection; a diffuse source located at a low angle, cutting off softly below knee level.

Which does NOT match their fill light. That shows a different angle and quality of light, and is a very poor duplicate. If they just adjusted their exposure -- remember, the LM is in silhouette in the original and anything in flat sunlight would have been brutally over-exposed -- they would have a decent approximation.

That is to say...at the end they had to fake the camera settings in order to achieve the result they set out for. Not exactly a scientific approach there, fellows.
Halcyon Dayz, FCD
Contrarian's Contrarian

User ID: 19507663
Netherlands
08/27/2012 03:40 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If the Moon landing was real: How the hell did they take off FROM the moon?
BS/
Background anomalies are pretty apparent.
 Quoting: Indian Coward 22692111

Anomalies are stuff you don't expect.
If your expectations are uninformed you will always find anomalies.

You try to debunk using vague explanations as to why terrain shouldn't look the same from different angles. Lol
 Quoting: Indian Coward 22692111

Have you ever seen a mountain.
With a parallax of only a few degrees, prolly less, there is no reason to expect that a distant mountain will suddenly present a different aspect.

What about those shots that were said to be taken from DIFFERENT locations but are an exact copy? hmmmm?
 Quoting: Indian Coward 22692111

Some documentary made a screw-up and used an image from the wrong mission.
You go to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal and look at the pictures in context.

Shilling pays big time.
 Quoting: Indian Coward 22692111

So how much is FOX paying you?

NASA is a MILITARY ORGANISTATION
 Quoting: Indian Coward 22692111

You are delusional.
The USA has the MILITARY as its military organisation.
A military that has its own space programme by the way.

Eisenhower deliberately established NASA as a civilian agency, and for good reason.
Just read The National Aeronautics and Space Act.

AND they have millions of dollars in resources available to defend themselves against hoaxers, including paying internet shills .
 Quoting: Indian Coward 22692111

Congress does not allow NASA to spend even a single penny on reasoning with people about a position they did not reason themselves into in the first place.
Utter waste of public funds.

This is just your typical conspiritardic paranoia and circular reasoning speaking.
Hoaxies are NOT important enough. People who disagree with you in public do so because they disagree with you.

Go here, and come back and tell me how you can explain yourself against a proffessional study that totally PROVES that the moon landing was a hoax:
 Quoting: Indian Coward 22692111

What qualifies cameramen as forensic experts?
They don't calculate any of the relevant numbers. They just compare pictures by eye, ignoring that the original might very well have been pushed in the dark room.
And they completely missed the point the Mythbusters were trying to make anyway.

But it cannot fool those who are really interested in getting the truth.
 Quoting: Indian Coward 22692111

If you were truly interested in the truth you'd have learned enough about Apollo by now that you'd had realised that hoaxing Apollo is much harder than actually going to the Moon.
Only reading the stuff the hoax peddlers want you to see is NOT doing research.

Like all hoaxies you're a sheep.
A black sheep perhaps, but still a sheep.
You mindlessly, uncritically, unthinkingly, regurgitate the nonsense fed to you by professional liars.
book

Schlock
Hatred is a cancer upon the world.
It rots the mind and blackens the heart.


Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
08/27/2012 03:42 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If the Moon landing was real: How the hell did they take off FROM the moon?
Look, like I said, it's entirely possible the moon landings occured... I get it, and I'm open to that! But unlike you, I don't just dismiss the holes in the story and the obvious clues that are out there that NASA produced this "magic"... that is careless IMO. And some of these clues are extremly laughable... you've got to admit it's a distict possibility that the moon landings could have easily been faked. I mean it's easy to see that NASA benifited in a huge way here... you at least see that is a possibility --- don't you?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 2075492


That's ass-backwards.

Hal, or I, or Astromut, aren't "dismissing" claims. We examine them, and determine if there is a logical explanation that fits what we understand of science and observations that can be made down here.

Take the lighting. I used to light professionally. I understand bounce lighting, and relative exposure levels. I don't "dismiss" the lighting foolishness out of some knee-jerk patriotism or some geek need to believe in space exploration. I dismiss them because I can do the work (and I've done it professionally).

In fact, the closest to "dismiss" you are going to find in threads like this are by the hoaxies.

Look up. Notice someone "dismissing" the explanation of reflective coating?" There is someone who has decided not to apply, look into, or otherwise think about something, but instead just blindly parrot an official line. The only caveat is that the "official line" is that of Fox TV.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
08/27/2012 03:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If the Moon landing was real: How the hell did they take off FROM the moon?
There was no photoshop in those days.
So the image manipulation they did was primitive.
Compare multiple photographs for repitations.

Here's a good site.
Check out the flipped flag repetation. They really can't cover their ass on this:
[link to www.aulis.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22688453


A Jack White classic. He routinely showed he knew nothing about perspective or space travel. And you've bought it hook, line and sinker.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 14143765


The flag one is a little trickier. Jack is perfectly capable of thinking two flags are identical when they are not, but in this case the translucency of the nylon is to blame. The clues to look for; the appearance of the stars, and the "glow" of subsurface scattering. This what the illuminated front surface of the flag looks like WHEN VIEWED THROUGH THE FLAG.
Halcyon Dayz, FCD
Contrarian's Contrarian

User ID: 19507663
Netherlands
08/27/2012 03:46 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If the Moon landing was real: How the hell did they take off FROM the moon?
But unlike you, I don't just dismiss the holes in the story and the obvious clues that are out there that NASA produced this "magic"... that is careless IMO.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 2075492

I've been looking at these alleged 'holes in the story' and 'obvious clues' for quite a while now.
Guess what? They all turned out to be wholly imaginary, if not outright manufactured.
I meant it quite literately when I said that in nearly 40 years not a single claim made by hoax promoters managed to rise above the level of brainfarts and lies.

you've got to admit it's a distict possibility that the moon landings could have easily been faked.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 2075492

It is an extremely remote possibility that it was hoaxed. It would require the hoaxers to have access to a time-machine and some other scifi tech though.
It is absolutely not a possibility that it could have been easily faked.

Faking Apollo requires a lot more than just forging 30,000 photographs and hundreds of hours of video and film.
It would require faking scientific data that still holds up to scrutiny today.
Scientific scrutiny that has means and methods not even imagined back then.

I mean it's easy to see that NASA benifited in a huge way here...
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 2075492

Yeah. They benefited by having their budget slashed and programmes cancelled, which is what happened right after the Space Race was declared to have been won.
book
Hatred is a cancer upon the world.
It rots the mind and blackens the heart.


Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
08/27/2012 03:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If the Moon landing was real: How the hell did they take off FROM the moon?
Plus our atmosphere and outter space are 2 different things, im sure you can just release a ballast thruster or two to push off the surface of the moon and then fire engines toward earth. seems logical saying how everything is pretty much weightless in space.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 2773589


Err, no.

This is "heavy boots" stuff here.


The Moon has mass. Gravity still works -- gravity is the attraction between masses, period.

If the Earth were to vanish from the universe, you'd still be caught in the gravity of the Sun and would continue on in the same orbit.

The Moon is in orbit around the Earth -- Earth's gravity reaches that far.

At 1/6 G, it's enough that if there were air on the Moon and you fell out of a lunar airplane without a parachute, you'd still die.

I hope I'm being clear!
Imanu'el love's us

User ID: 22698422
United Kingdom
08/27/2012 03:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If the Moon landing was real: How the hell did they take off FROM the moon?
It was only the 3 astronauts, right? No rocket scientists. No reconstructed apparatus. And what about the operations of firing a rocket WITH 3 MEN AND FUEL, CAMERA'S etc FROM THE MOON? How the hell could any scientist speculate that 3 astronauts would be able to take off by themseves? From point zero, the amount of fuel needed? What about the times; we needed to send disinfo to the Soviet Union... 1+1 = 2.

It was fake. Recondition your mind: Aint NO ONE been on the moon.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 6231580


Ummm...there were two men in the LEM when it lifted off from the moon, not three. The third was in the orbiting command module.

It did it with sixteen Reaction Control System (RCS) thrusters, 5.17 pounds (2.35 kg) each) mounted in four quads
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22629621


ok.... 2 men.

not much difference though; what about the technology of the time? the fuel required would have been hundreds of lbs, no? to take off from point zero. And where is the rocketry apparatus? who built it?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 6231580


bull shit , they could basically float off , there is little gravity it wouldnt take much fuel what so ever to lift off , your a fucking idiot of the highest grade ..
Imanu'el love's us
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 536288
United States
08/27/2012 03:51 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If the Moon landing was real: How the hell did they take off FROM the moon?
If we sent men to the surface of the moon successfully 6 times and back with 1960s technology in under 8 years (1962: JFK's speech. 1969: Apollo 11 allegedly), why would it now take us 18 years to return men to the moon with 2012 technology? That's ludicrous.
 Quoting: Thor's Hamster


Lack of two things
Budget
Political will

They COULD go back in just a few years IF they had the budget.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 14143765


Yeah its easier to send a trillion dollar rover to mars to pick up freakin rocks instead of making a space station on the moon...
Wait why is the space station just spinning aroung the earth????
Wouldn't that be better to BUILD a BETTER EXPANDABLE SPACE STATION ON THE MOON??? If we were there which is doubtful with the Van Allen Radiation Belt among many other oddities that have not been explained we should have had hundreds of people working on the moon and expanding all the time...

Look @ cnn and search "Moon Rover" you will see a video of NASA testing a moon lifoff craft that failed miserably - and it is the same design as the supposedly that they used on the moon over 50 years ago....why re-create the wheel or in this case a moon lander........
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 22710316
Tunisia
08/27/2012 03:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If the Moon landing was real: How the hell did they take off FROM the moon?
man never been on moon ...all is bullshitclappa
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 22590541
United States
08/27/2012 03:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If the Moon landing was real: How the hell did they take off FROM the moon?
They took off because they had F U E L.

Plus the moon has little gravity unlike Earth, so launching does not use much fuel.

Quit with the tired "moon landing was faked" nonsense.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3674642
United States
08/27/2012 03:56 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If the Moon landing was real: How the hell did they take off FROM the moon?
Well luckily they had real smart people working at NASA, unlike retards like you that can't grasp reality let alone science..
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 536288
United States
08/27/2012 03:58 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If the Moon landing was real: How the hell did they take off FROM the moon?
Maybe they used Fairy Dust....or moon dust...


To get on and off the moon....

and to sprinkle on the "Helen Keller" public......

Why haven't we went back...It would be great to use this base as a refueling location to move farther out in space...

No MOON.........spin around the exterior of our own planet...

Name another manned mission who went past that point...
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 20600082
United Kingdom
08/27/2012 03:59 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If the Moon landing was real: How the hell did they take off FROM the moon?
I completely agree with one aguement on here, I've been saying it myself for years.

IF WE COULD LAND ON THE MOON AND WALK AROUND LIKE THAT WITH 40 YEAR OLD EQUPMENT, WHY WHHHHYYYYYY, DO WE BUILD SPACE STATIONS ORBITING THE EARTH. SURELY IT WOULD BE A FUKIN BILLION TIMES EASIER WITH MODERN EQUIPMENT AND A SURFACE YOU CAN STAND ON.. BOTH BUILDING IT AND USING IT.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 536288
United States
08/27/2012 04:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If the Moon landing was real: How the hell did they take off FROM the moon?
They took off because they had F U E L.

Plus the moon has little gravity unlike Earth, so launching does not use much fuel.

Quit with the tired "moon landing was faked" nonsense.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22590541


So why did the BRAINS @ NASA test this on earth if THEY KNEW IT WOULD FAIL????????????
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 536288
United States
08/27/2012 04:01 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If the Moon landing was real: How the hell did they take off FROM the moon?
I completely agree with one aguement on here, I've been saying it myself for years.

IF WE COULD LAND ON THE MOON AND WALK AROUND LIKE THAT WITH 40 YEAR OLD EQUPMENT, WHY WHHHHYYYYYY, DO WE BUILD SPACE STATIONS ORBITING THE EARTH. SURELY IT WOULD BE A FUKIN BILLION TIMES EASIER WITH MODERN EQUIPMENT AND A SURFACE YOU CAN STAND ON.. BOTH BUILDING IT AND USING IT.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 20600082


AMEN.........this person is NOT a SHEEPLE sheep
Halcyon Dayz, FCD
Contrarian's Contrarian

User ID: 19507663
Netherlands
08/27/2012 04:23 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If the Moon landing was real: How the hell did they take off FROM the moon?
I completely agree with one aguement on here, I've been saying it myself for years.

IF WE COULD LAND ON THE MOON AND WALK AROUND LIKE THAT WITH 40 YEAR OLD EQUPMENT, WHY WHHHHYYYYYY, DO WE BUILD SPACE STATIONS ORBITING THE EARTH. SURELY IT WOULD BE A FUKIN BILLION TIMES EASIER WITH MODERN EQUIPMENT AND A SURFACE YOU CAN STAND ON.. BOTH BUILDING IT AND USING IT.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 20600082

AMEN.........this person is NOT a SHEEPLE sheep
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 536288

He says it would be cheaper to build a station on the Moon than in LEO.

Only someone ignorant of their ignorance would say that.
book
Hatred is a cancer upon the world.
It rots the mind and blackens the heart.


Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 22689420
United States
08/27/2012 08:11 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If the Moon landing was real: How the hell did they take off FROM the moon?
They took off because they had F U E L.

Plus the moon has little gravity unlike Earth, so launching does not use much fuel.

Quit with the tired "moon landing was faked" nonsense.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22590541


So why did the BRAINS @ NASA test this on earth if THEY KNEW IT WOULD FAIL????????????
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 536288


I assume you're referring to the LLTV training vehicle that had hundreds of successful flights and two crashes?

The LLTV was built as a flying "simulation" of the LM for use in Earth's gravity/atmosphere. The actual LM was built very light for lunar gravity, and could not fly or land here on Earth...it was just to fragile for the 1g environment (plus, the engine wouldn't lift it, again the 1/6g design).

So the LM was never tested on Earth. It was given a good shakedown flight in Earth orbit over several days on Apollo 9. then a "dress rehearsal" flight to the Moon on Apollo 10, where it separated from the CSM and made a simulated descent approach down to 50,000 feet above the lunar surface. At that point, they separated the ascent stage (in a low altitude "simulated launch" and rejoined the CSM in it's 60nm orbit.

The LLTV was a very successful training tool for the LM crews, and the crews heaped great praise on it's utility in the training program. The LLTV accidents were due to technical issues that were totally unrelated to the actual Lunar Module design.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
08/28/2012 12:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If the Moon landing was real: How the hell did they take off FROM the moon?
I completely agree with one aguement on here, I've been saying it myself for years.

IF WE COULD LAND ON THE MOON AND WALK AROUND LIKE THAT WITH 40 YEAR OLD EQUPMENT, WHY WHHHHYYYYYY, DO WE BUILD SPACE STATIONS ORBITING THE EARTH. SURELY IT WOULD BE A FUKIN BILLION TIMES EASIER WITH MODERN EQUIPMENT AND A SURFACE YOU CAN STAND ON.. BOTH BUILDING IT AND USING IT.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 20600082


Modern WHAT?

Is a "modern" rocket capable of generating 40x the thrust? Of getting 40x the velocity for the same mass of fuel? Are "modern" construction methods able to hold 6 psi at bay, or to support themselves under thrust, with 1/40th the mass of material and 1/40th the cost?

What magical modern technology are you thinking of that makes it cheaper to get to orbit and to survive there? iPods? What EXACTLY are you thinking of that should make the task so much cheaper?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1516077
United States
08/28/2012 12:15 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If the Moon landing was real: How the hell did they take off FROM the moon?
moon landing was real. how do i know? because faking gov't spending is one thing. but televising it on national TV is another.

the gov't isn't that smart to fake a moon landing. if you do, you are giving them too much credit.
acegotflows

User ID: 19532652
United States
08/28/2012 06:26 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If the Moon landing was real: How the hell did they take off FROM the moon?
oh I love how everyone has such knowledge on this topic.

And I love how people think that internet links are proof

And I love how debate now means shouting your points the loudest and calling names without actually addressing anything from an objective point of view. And that does not mean going line by line from what somebody said and calling names and such. Trolling somebody does not actually address the issue at hand.

And we wonder why society is being taken over the by the corporations who basically want us thinking EXACTLY LIKE THIS. Accepting the programming while not actually taking the time to think about it.


at this point it does not matter if it happened as they said it did or not, what it really comes down to is asking yourselves really simple questions.

Why not go back? Hypothetically speaking we have the technology right? So what has stopped us? That question alone is all I need to ask myself to know that there are holes in the story. And there is no science or statistic that will ever convince me otherwise.

But some people will call me stupid for that. At the same time people pray to dieties by using man made names and don't think it's disrespectful to the source of it all. GO FIGURE whatever

Last Edited by acegotflows on 08/28/2012 06:30 AM
"a foundation built on lies is always bound to crumble and those who aren't humble shall tumble to the earth"

News








Proud Member Of The Angry Mob