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.

Lack of two things
Budget
Political will

They COULD go back in just a few years IF they had the budget.

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.

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

Says the person with blinders on that doesn't even bother to look at the explanation.

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.

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...

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.

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.



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.




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.




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.

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.

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).




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.

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


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.


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.


So how much is FOX paying you?


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.


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.


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.


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.

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.

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.

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.


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.


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.

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!

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 ..

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........

man never been on moon ...all is bullshit

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.

Well luckily they had real smart people working at NASA, unlike retards like you that can't grasp reality let alone science..

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...

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.

So why did the BRAINS @ NASA test this on earth if THEY KNEW IT WOULD FAIL????????????

AMEN.........this person is NOT a SHEEPLE

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

Last Edited by acegotflows on 08/28/2012 06:30 AM