This guy is such a whackjob. How could they have faked all that on tv?
from Dave Mcgowan....
I should probably preface this piece by noting that until fairly recently, had I heard anyone putting forth the drug-addled notion that the moon landings were faked I would have been among the first to offer said person a ride down to the grip store. However, while conducting research into various other topics, it has become increasingly apparent that there is almost always a few morsels of truth in any 'conspiracy theory,' no matter how outlandish that theory may initially appear to be.
With that in mind (and with a few hours to kill) I ventured onto a couple of websites that fearlessly claimed that the moon landings were indeed faked. And to be perfectly honest, I have no idea if much of the information presented was scientifically valid. Lacking a background in astronomy and rocket science, the explanations as to why the flights were technologically impossible went right over my head.
[For the scientifically minded, the theory seems to be that it is not possible for man to travel through the Van Allen radiation belt. If any attempt were made to do so, the astronauts would run the risk of returning to a planet occupied by apes speaking with British accents, lobotomized humans, and Charleton Heston screaming "it's a madhouse." But here I digress.]
Many of the arguments seemed convincing, though loading on the technical jargon can frequently convert a dung heap of disinformation into a convincing argument, or at least one that discourages dissenting views, lest the dissenter reveal his ignorance. There was, however, at least one rather provocative anomaly of the moon landings that doesn't require an advanced degree in aeronautics to understand.
This concerns the condition of the lunar surface directly beneath the landing module, also known as the Eagle. As was clearly visible in the photos and videotape beamed back to Earth, the moon's surface beneath the module was in pristine condition, as was the module itself. To which you may well respond: Duh ... why shouldn't the surface be undisturbed?
Glad you asked. The answer is that the lunar module was not placed upon the moon by the hand of God. It had to actually land there. And in order for it to land there in one piece, it had to make use of immensely powerful reverse-thrust rockets. Otherwise it would have made a landing roughly comparable to a piano falling out of a high-rise apartment building.
But, you say, isn't the gravitational pull of the moon considerably less than that of the Earth? Of course it is, though this doesn't render objects weightless. A massive metal structure still has a considerable amount of weight, even on the moon. Enough so that it cannot make a cat-like landing without the use of rockets to slow its descent. It would actually make more of a splat-like landing.
That is why in the artists' renderings of the landings (which obviously couldn't be filmed), an enormous blast of flame and fire is seen shooting out of the bottom of the module. This massive reverse force serves to counteract the effects of the moon's gravitational pull, thereby allowing the module to gently set down in the lunar dust unharmed and intact.
The problem is that - unless the landing surface was paved with say, concrete - an inordinate amount of material should have been displaced by the force of the rocket blasts as the module was setting down. You can easily verify this yourself. All you have to do is get hold of a Saturn V rocket (you know - the kind Werner von Braun and his team of fellow Nazi war criminals designed to power the Apollo missions), and head out to the desert.
Once you get there, hold the rocket aloft (you might want to wear gloves and an asbestos suit for this part) and fire that bad boy up, directing the blast towards the desert floor (you might also want to grab hold of a stationary object with your free hand and hold on real tight). The result should be, if you've done this correctly, a=2 0rather large crater and a blinding dust storm.
This will, of course, eventually settle, leaving a heavy coating of dust on you and your rocket. You may also notice that the blast has lent the desert floor a distinctive scorched look. The intense heat may even have fused the sand into something resembling a large sheet of glass.
The point here is that nothing of the sort was evident in the pictures beamed back from the moon. The lunar surface was, as noted, undisturbed and the module itself was as clean as if it had just rolled off the assembly line. It appears as though it did not land at all, but was rather set in place with a crane or other such device. And of course we all know that there were very few crane operators on the moon at that time.
How then did the module get there? Perhaps, you say, the surface was so compact that even the massive thrusts of the rockets could not dislodge it. That might be a reasonable explanation were it not for the fact that the astronauts themselves - who with the moon's reduced gravitational pull weighed in at about 20 pounds apiece (OK, so I just made that figure up, but you get the point) - made readily identifiable footprints from the moment their feet hit the ground.
It appeared, in fact, as though the lunar soil had roughly the same consistency as baby powder. And yet, amazingly en ough, not a single grain of this soil was displaced by the landing of the module. Despite my initial skepticism, I had to admit that I had no logical explanation for this phenomenon, and was compelled to take a closer look at the Apollo program.
The first thing that I discovered was that the Soviet Union - prior to the time that we up and landed on the moon - was solidly kicking our ass in the space race. They launched the first satellite, sent the first man into space, sent the first woman into space, performed the first docking maneuver in space, performed the first space walk, and landed the first unmanned rocket on the moon - a full decade before the Apollo 11 flight.
Everything the U.S. did, prior to actually landing on the moon, had already been done by the Soviets, who clearly were staying at least a step or two ahead of our top-notch Nazi team. The smart money clearly was on the Soviets to make it first to the moon, if anyone was to do so. They had a considerable amount of time, money, scientific talent and national pride riding on that goal.
And yet, despite the long odds, the Americans made it first. Not only did we make it first, but after thirty-one long years the Soviets apparently still haven't figured out how we did it. The question that is clearly begged here is: why? Why, even if we grant that the U.S. made it first, did the Soviets never m atch this feat?
Is it just that they were really poor losers? Perhaps the conversation went something like this:
Boris: Comrade, the Yankee imperialists have beaten us to the moon. What should we do?
Ivan: Let's just shit-can our entire space program.
Boris: But comrade, we are so close to success. And we have so much invested in the effort.
Ivan: Fuck it; if we can't be first, we aren't going.
Boris: But I beg of you comrade. The moon has so much to teach us, and the Americans will surely not share the knowledge they have gained with us.
Ivan: Nyet!
In truth, the entire space program has been from its inception little more than an elaborate cover for the research, development and deployment of space-based weaponry. For this reason alone, it is inconceivable that the Soviets would not have followed the Americans onto the moon, simply for the sake of their own national defense.
In fact, while we're on the subject, why has America not returned to the moon in nearly thirty years? Following the alleged landings, there was considerable talk of establishing a space station on the moon, and of possibly even colonizing Earth's satellite. Yet all such talk was quickly forgotten, and for twenty-eight years now not a single human has left the Earth's orbit.
Not a single human, that is, from any country on the planet. Again, the ques tion that comes to mind is: why? Why has no nation ever duplicated this miraculous feat? Clearly, the technology is there. Technology has advanced to such a degree in the last three decades that virtually any industrialized nation currently has technology that is light-years beyond what the United States had in 1969.
And yet no one has made an attempt to once again land a man on the moon. Is this because we already learned everything we need to know about the moon? Of course not. That is an absurd supposition. Would it be possible to make six random landings on the surface of the Earth and come away with a complete and thorough understanding of this heavenly body? Again, of course not.
And are we to believe that the scientific community has come up with no new questions in the intervening decades that beg for answers? I should think not. Why then has not France, or Germany, England, Japan, or any of a number of other technologically advanced nations made any effort to reach the moon?
Why, for that matter, has not private industry made any effort to reach the moon. In this age of the mega-corporation, there are any number of private firms that have the financial resources to mount such an effort. And quite a profitable one it could be. There are, no doubt, any number of minerals, compounds, etc. that could be mined from the moon that are unavailable here on planet Earth. With the proper marketing, and of course a built-in monopoly, there are vast fortunes to be made, new frontiers to exploit.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 714941 (OP) 6/30/2009 4:51 PM
This guy is such a whackjob. How could they have faked all that on tv?
from Dave Mcgowan....
I should probably preface this piece by noting that until fairly recently, had I heard anyone putting forth the drug-addled notion that the moon landings were faked I would have been among the first to offer said person a ride down to the grip store. However, while conducting research into various other topics, it has become increasingly apparent that there is almost always a few morsels of truth in any 'conspiracy theory,' no matter how outlandish that theory may initially appear to be.
With that in mind (and with a few hours to kill) I ventured onto a couple of websites that fearlessly claimed that the moon landings were indeed faked. And to be perfectly honest, I have no idea if much of the information presented was scientifically valid. Lacking a background in astronomy and rocket science, the explanations as to why the flights were technologically impossible went right over my head.
[For the scientifically minded, the theory seems to be that it is not possible for man to travel through the Van Allen radiation belt. If any attempt were made to do so, the astronauts would run the risk of returning to a planet occupied by apes speaking with British accents, lobotomized humans, and Charleton Heston screaming "it's a madhouse." But here I digress.]
Many of the arguments seemed convincing, though loading on the technical jargon can frequently convert a dung heap of disinformation into a convincing argument, or at least one that discourages dissenting views, lest the dissenter reveal his ignorance. There was, however, at least one rather provocative anomaly of the moon landings that doesn't require an advanced degree in aeronautics to understand.
This concerns the condition of the lunar surface directly beneath the landing module, also known as the Eagle. As was clearly visible in the photos and videotape beamed back to Earth, the moon's surface beneath the module was in pristine condition, as was the module itself. To which you may well respond: Duh ... why shouldn't the surface be undisturbed?
Glad you asked. The answer is that the lunar module was not placed upon the moon by the hand of God. It had to actually land there. And in order for it to land there in one piece, it had to make use of immensely powerful reverse-thrust rockets. Otherwise it would have made a landing roughly comparable to a piano falling out of a high-rise apartment building.
But, you say, isn't the gravitational pull of the moon considerably less than that of the Earth? Of course it is, though this doesn't render objects weightless. A massive metal structure still has a considerable amount of weight, even on the moon. Enough so that it cannot make a cat-like landing without the use of rockets to slow its descent. It would actually make more of a splat-like landing.
That is why in the artists' renderings of the landings (which obviously couldn't be filmed), an enormous blast of flame and fire is seen shooting out of the bottom of the module. This massive reverse force serves to counteract the effects of the moon's gravitational pull, thereby allowing the module to gently set down in the lunar dust unharmed and intact.
The problem is that - unless the landing surface was paved with say, concrete - an inordinate amount of material should have been displaced by the force of the rocket blasts as the module was setting down. You can easily verify this yourself. All you have to do is get hold of a Saturn V rocket (you know - the kind Werner von Braun and his team of fellow Nazi war criminals designed to power the Apollo missions), and head out to the desert.
Once you get there, hold the rocket aloft (you might want to wear gloves and an asbestos suit for this part) and fire that bad boy up, directing the blast towards the desert floor (you might also want to grab hold of a stationary object with your free hand and hold on real tight). The result should be, if you've done this correctly, a=2 0rather large crater and a blinding dust storm.
This will, of course, eventually settle, leaving a heavy coating of dust on you and your rocket. You may also notice that the blast has lent the desert floor a distinctive scorched look. The intense heat may even have fused the sand into something resembling a large sheet of glass.
The point here is that nothing of the sort was evident in the pictures beamed back from the moon. The lunar surface was, as noted, undisturbed and the module itself was as clean as if it had just rolled off the assembly line. It appears as though it did not land at all, but was rather set in place with a crane or other such device. And of course we all know that there were very few crane operators on the moon at that time.
How then did the module get there? Perhaps, you say, the surface was so compact that even the massive thrusts of the rockets could not dislodge it. That might be a reasonable explanation were it not for the fact that the astronauts themselves - who with the moon's reduced gravitational pull weighed in at about 20 pounds apiece (OK, so I just made that figure up, but you get the point) - made readily identifiable footprints from the moment their feet hit the ground.
It appeared, in fact, as though the lunar soil had roughly the same consistency as baby powder. And yet, amazingly en ough, not a single grain of this soil was displaced by the landing of the module. Despite my initial skepticism, I had to admit that I had no logical explanation for this phenomenon, and was compelled to take a closer look at the Apollo program.
The first thing that I discovered was that the Soviet Union - prior to the time that we up and landed on the moon - was solidly kicking our ass in the space race. They launched the first satellite, sent the first man into space, sent the first woman into space, performed the first docking maneuver in space, performed the first space walk, and landed the first unmanned rocket on the moon - a full decade before the Apollo 11 flight.
Everything the U.S. did, prior to actually landing on the moon, had already been done by the Soviets, who clearly were staying at least a step or two ahead of our top-notch Nazi team. The smart money clearly was on the Soviets to make it first to the moon, if anyone was to do so. They had a considerable amount of time, money, scientific talent and national pride riding on that goal.
And yet, despite the long odds, the Americans made it first. Not only did we make it first, but after thirty-one long years the Soviets apparently still haven't figured out how we did it. The question that is clearly begged here is: why? Why, even if we grant that the U.S. made it first, did the Soviets never m atch this feat?
Is it just that they were really poor losers? Perhaps the conversation went something like this:
Boris: Comrade, the Yankee imperialists have beaten us to the moon. What should we do?
Ivan: Let's just shit-can our entire space program.
Boris: But comrade, we are so close to success. And we have so much invested in the effort.
Ivan: Fuck it; if we can't be first, we aren't going.
Boris: But I beg of you comrade. The moon has so much to teach us, and the Americans will surely not share the knowledge they have gained with us.
Ivan: Nyet!
In truth, the entire space program has been from its inception little more than an elaborate cover for the research, development and deployment of space-based weaponry. For this reason alone, it is inconceivable that the Soviets would not have followed the Americans onto the moon, simply for the sake of their own national defense.
In fact, while we're on the subject, why has America not returned to the moon in nearly thirty years? Following the alleged landings, there was considerable talk of establishing a space station on the moon, and of possibly even colonizing Earth's satellite. Yet all such talk was quickly forgotten, and for twenty-eight years now not a single human has left the Earth's orbit.
Not a single human, that is, from any country on the planet. Again, the ques tion that comes to mind is: why? Why has no nation ever duplicated this miraculous feat? Clearly, the technology is there. Technology has advanced to such a degree in the last three decades that virtually any industrialized nation currently has technology that is light-years beyond what the United States had in 1969.
And yet no one has made an attempt to once again land a man on the moon. Is this because we already learned everything we need to know about the moon? Of course not. That is an absurd supposition. Would it be possible to make six random landings on the surface of the Earth and come away with a complete and thorough understanding of this heavenly body? Again, of course not.
And are we to believe that the scientific community has come up with no new questions in the intervening decades that beg for answers? I should think not. Why then has not France, or Germany, England, Japan, or any of a number of other technologically advanced nations made any effort to reach the moon?
Why, for that matter, has not private industry made any effort to reach the moon. In this age of the mega-corporation, there are any number of private firms that have the financial resources to mount such an effort. And quite a profitable one it could be. There are, no doubt, any number of minerals, compounds, etc. that could be mined from the moon that are unavailable here on planet Earth. With the proper marketing, and of course a built-in monopoly, there are vast fortunes to be made, new frontiers to exploit.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 714941
Oh fuck,another one who thinks a huge tin box with buttons and knobs went there and landed,fuck me are you right in the fucking head,we still can not get there yet,going take years to get a craft to land on the moon,may be the big tin bucket flew round the moon but i think not,your the fucking idiot that believes they did,think before you post dafty.
Look at it this why if they did we would have a base there now we have not got a base have we dafty cunt.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 701822 6/30/2009 5:00 PM
Careful, there are a lot of them "idiots" here, too.
Quoting: Andromeda
I am such an idiot. OP, listen to both sides, weigh it out, dig a bit outside the realm of the space program itself and you should also come to the conclusion that, indeed, something is amiss.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 634208 6/30/2009 5:09 PM
"This concerns the condition of the lunar surface directly beneath the landing module, also known as the Eagle. As was clearly visible in the photos and videotape beamed back to Earth, the moon's surface beneath the module was in pristine condition, as was the module itself."
Well of course the module will be "pristine," but the surface? Far from it; bits of dust and rock scoured the surface beneath the engine bell, leaving small grooves.
[link to history.nasa.gov]
"To which you may well respond: Duh ... why shouldn't the surface be undisturbed? Glad you asked. The answer is that the lunar module was not placed upon the moon by the hand of God. It had to actually land there. And in order for it to land there in one piece, it had to make use of immensely powerful reverse-thrust rockets."
This is why people who know nothing about rockets and astronomy should refrain from pretending to be experts on it. The engine that landed the LEM did all of its high thrust work high over the moon, far away from the surface. By the time it was hovering the throttle had been greatly reduced. It had also lost most of its mass by that point from burning nearly all of its descent fuel. That left a mass of about 7000kg to land. That means it only required about 2,500 pounds of force to keep it hovering over the moon. A harrier jet, on the other hand, produces about 10 times that much force to lift off, all without leaving a crater (and yes, I've personally seen a harrier land on grass and dirt before).
Anonymous Coward User ID: 714941 (OP) 6/30/2009 5:12 PM
Careful, there are a lot of them "idiots" here, too.
I am such an idiot. OP, listen to both sides, weigh it out, dig a bit outside the realm of the space program itself and you should also come to the conclusion that, indeed, something is amiss.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 714960
The article I posted does not take into consideration that the dust and the atmosphere are very different on the moon and that is why the rocket thrust did not disturb the soil or create a crater. This writer even thought the moon dust should have been turned to glass...what an idiot....where do we ever see soil turned to glass?
Anyway The earth surface is not the moon. Dust does not "coat surfaces" as it does here...
Mcgowan is an ignoramous.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 684422 6/30/2009 5:15 PM
The reason is the moon program was intended to hide something else in plain sight. That need is no longer present because massive moon and Mars bases have now been constructed. IMHO. If you already have a massive moonbase what would be the point of going to the moon for the public? It would be more difficult to hide the construction and questions might arise. Some of it could have been staged in a studio but thats not the point. The point is where those trillions of dollars missing at the Pentagon and paid to the bankers REALLY went.
Phasesphere Captain Trypps User ID: 714966 6/30/2009 5:18 PM
"This concerns the condition of the lunar surface directly beneath the landing module, also known as the Eagle. As was clearly visible in the photos and videotape beamed back to Earth, the moon's surface beneath the module was in pristine condition, as was the module itself."
Well of course the module will be "pristine," but the surface? Far from it; bits of dust and rock scoured the surface beneath the engine bell, leaving small grooves.
[link to history.nasa.gov]
"To which you may well respond: Duh ... why shouldn't the surface be undisturbed? Glad you asked. The answer is that the lunar module was not placed upon the moon by the hand of God. It had to actually land there. And in order for it to land there in one piece, it had to make use of immensely powerful reverse-thrust rockets."
This is why people who know nothing about rockets and astronomy should refrain from pretending to be experts on it. The engine that landed the LEM did all of its high thrust work high over the moon, far away from the surface. By the time it was hovering the throttle had been greatly reduced. It had also lost most of its mass by that point from burning nearly all of its descent fuel. That left a mass of about 7000kg to land. That means it only required about 2,500 pounds of force to keep it hovering over the moon. A harrier jet, on the other hand, produces about 10 times that much force to lift off, all without leaving a crater (and yes, I've personally seen a harrier land on grass and dirt before).
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 634208
Yeah! that's right the LEM was hovering above the moon and had slowed way down....they were able to turn off the thrusters....so that is why the photos showed the astronaut's footprints but not the any trace of the high powered stuff required to break the fall...
see. this guy IS a complete idiot....
And of course, the Russians were happy to give up all the grief and expense of working on getting to the moon....they were broke.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 704343 6/30/2009 5:24 PM
Yeah! that's right the LEM was hovering above the moon and had slowed way down....they were able to turn off the thrusters....so that is why the photos showed the astronaut's footprints but not the any trace of the high powered stuff required to break the fall...
see. this guy IS a complete idiot....
And of course, the Russians were happy to give up all the grief and expense of working on getting to the moon....they were broke.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 714941
Well...to be entirely correct, the descent engine DID push a bunch of dust. You can see it in the 16mmm landing camera. In several of the surface photographs, too, you can actually see the divot under the engine bell, and the "scoured" look of the surface there is very clear. It isn't the crater the hoaxnards expect, but it is very much there.
The closest analogy I have is a Harrier landing on a nice hard-pack. On all the dirt runways I ever visited/jumped from/blew holes in (I was a combat engineer in the 82d Airborne), the underlying dirt is very solid and neither a man nor a truck nor the jet blast of a Harrier is going to dig into it. On the other hand, there is a thin layer of "fines" on top that will blow all to hell and gone from prop wash alone.
That's about the structure of the regolith; incredibly fine powder to less than an inch or so, and compact, interlocked, vacuum-welded stuff after that. The astronauts all reported immense difficulty in pounding the flag pole more than a few inches down, for instance.
So what I see in film and photographs; the smooth, scooped-out portion directly under the engine, the large discolored area around the landing zone, and the fine powdery surface that the astronauts actually walked on (they didn't, you know, walk around UNDER THE SPACECRAFT) is all fully consistent.
It's also worth noting that for dust control, and more importantly to keep the hot exhaust from bouncing back in their faces, the engine cut out automatically before they touched the surface. They fell the last couple of meters in free-fall. But they were moving at more-or-less zero relative when that happened.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 597339 6/30/2009 5:51 PM
TOO BAD THEY HAVE ALL BEEN CONFISCATED!
I knew a guy that worked on the program. When he retired he got a pen in a stand that had some moondust in it. The men in black showed up couple years after he passed in early 90's. They took the pen back from his family. They said all moon rocks and dust must be returned to the govt'!
Skeptic the First User ID: 709162 6/30/2009 6:04 PM
If NASA hands you a rock, how do you know it came from the moon? Some "moon rocks" are so much like earth rocks that NASA bizarrely claims that the earth rocks came from the moon:
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
---
From the 1950s through the 1990s, NASA aerodynamicist Dean R. Chapman and others advanced the "lunar origin" theory of tektites.
---
Perhaps the better question is: Where would the military-industrial-intelligence complex get rocks that are interestingly different from ordinary earth rocks?
One obvious answer is Antartica. Wernher von Braun, famed NASA rocket scientist, traveled to Antarctica with other NASA bigwigs in 1967:
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
---
During the local summer of 1966/67, von Braun participated in a field trip to Antarctica, organized for him and several other members of top NASA management.
---
Another obvious answer is thermonuclear explosions. Only the military is allowed to explode hydrogen bombs underground, and only the military has access to those sites beforehand and afterward. It would be a simple matter to collect rocks afterward, and not much more difficult to set up various "rock creation" experiments beforehand.
...And yet, they've been studied by academics from a hundred different nations.
There's probably a couple dozen lunar samples in labs right now; I know there's still papers being written on them.
Plus quite a few chunks in museums. For the conspiracy-minded; which would you prefer to break into for the sample that would prove The Great Moon Rock Conspiracy; a government lab, or the Chicago Museum of Natural History? It's not like they require docents to have security clearances...!
Anonymous Coward User ID: 439828 6/30/2009 6:07 PM
"To which you may well respond: Duh ... why shouldn't the surface be undisturbed? Glad you asked. The answer is that the lunar module was not placed upon the moon by the hand of God. It had to actually land there. And in order for it to land there in one piece, it had to make use of immensely powerful reverse-thrust rockets."
This is why people who know nothing about rockets and astronomy should refrain from pretending to be experts on it. The engine that landed the LEM did all of its high thrust work high over the moon, far away from the surface. By the time it was hovering the throttle had been greatly reduced. It had also lost most of its mass by that point from burning nearly all of its descent fuel. That left a mass of about 7000kg to land. That means it only required about 2,500 pounds of force to keep it hovering over the moon. A harrier jet, on the other hand, produces about 10 times that much force to lift off, all without leaving a crater (and yes, I've personally seen a harrier land on grass and dirt before).
Yeah! that's right the LEM was hovering above the moon and had slowed way down....they were able to turn off the thrusters....so that is why the photos showed the astronaut's footprints but not the any trace of the high powered stuff required to break the fall...
see. this guy IS a complete idiot....
And of course, the Russians were happy to give up all the grief and expense of working on getting to the moon....they were broke.
This guy is such a whackjob. How could they have faked all that on tv?
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 714941
Hah and this idiot believes that space travel exist.
If NASA had sent men to the moon as they claim then one of their most important missions was proving they were there with irrefutable evidence. Any idiot knows... ...that tons of beautiful moonscapes with lots and lots of bright stars clusters can be verified to serve as irrefutable evidence. No other evidence would be so absolute and irrefutable as that. Of course those are the two major pieces of evidence they failed to provide.
Please explain us how they could have gone to the Moon... and we shall see who is the greatest Idiot...
Anonymous Coward User ID: 652879 6/30/2009 6:15 PM
Well, I'm certainly one of the idiots that questions it.
Can't help but wonder why it takes so long in this age to go back when it took such a short span to get there the first time?
They certainly had a lot at stake in the 60s, definitely enough to have faked it and I doubt it would have been difficult to do. Remember that back then few people questioned their government's integrity. (Unfortunately not enough do now, but at least a light has been shining on past shananigans, a light that does not portray the US in a very favourable way)
Anonymous Coward User ID: 707943 6/30/2009 6:18 PM
Perhaps the better question is: Where would the military-industrial-intelligence complex get rocks that are interestingly different from ordinary earth rocks?
Quoting: Skeptic the First 709162
"Interestingly different?"
Sheesh, do you think geologists are so clueless they look at a strange rock and go, "Doesn't look like any rock I know...must be from the Moon!"
No, sir, the geology of the Moon makes numerous predictions about what we SHOULD see on an authentic Lunar sample.
The geology of Earth makes numerous predictions about what we should see in native materials.
Guess which list the Apollo samples follow?
(Not to get too long an answer here, but the largest difference is that water is a component of almost all terrestrial geology. It is part of the basic molecular structure of most minerals. It isn't as simple as a sample from Earth being "wet," it is that the molecular structure is of a kind that forms in the presence of water. The lunar materials were formed in the almost-complete absence of water, and have not ever been exposed to water.)
One obvious answer is Antartica. Wernher von Braun, famed NASA rocket scientist, traveled to Antarctica with other NASA bigwigs in 1967:
Quoting: Skeptic the First 709162
Prescient of him, considering the Antarctica lunites were not identified until the 80's, and were only done so by comparing them with the structure of the Apollo (and Soviet) samples.
Also stupid in so many other ways. Why send your leading ROCKET scientist to do a TOP SECRET bit of GEOLOGY? That's like sending Robert Oppenheimer in a highly publicized vacation to Tunguska to translate the alien writing on the secret crashed space vehicle. No, leave Oppy doing the physics of designing a bomb, and QUIETLY send some good linguists to check out the alien writing.
Another obvious answer is thermonuclear explosions. Only the military is allowed to explode hydrogen bombs underground, and only the military has access to those sites beforehand and afterward. It would be a simple matter to collect rocks afterward, and not much more difficult to set up various "rock creation" experiments beforehand.
Quoting: Skeptic the First 709162
Only the Military, the Nuclear Industry, and the AEC have access to bomb-grade U-238. Why not take that and pass it off as being Moon Rocks? It would be just as convincing to geologists as Trinitite.
(Which is to say, not at all. You might as well gather up purple Play-Doh and try to pass that off as Apollo samples.)
Skeptic, I'd really like to know your professional field (or interest). You've shown such an incredible level of disdain for every one of the sciences, I have to wonder if there is anything that you consider subtle, complex, and well-understood by the practitioners thereof. Or, in your mind, is the entire world filled with fumblers and incompetents who make up bullshit to cover their own lack of any deep understanding?
Anonymous Coward User ID: 715018 6/30/2009 6:22 PM
Careful, there are a lot of them "idiots" here, too.
Quoting: Andromeda
I'm one of those "idiots".
There are 2 space programs. One to keep the masses busy and the other one.
I'm not saying we never went to the moon, all I'm saying is that the '69 "moon landing" was fake.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 714814 6/30/2009 6:24 PM
Last time someone did the math, it was just barely sorta possible.
Which is to say; the Space Shuttle hasn't got the Delta-V to even touch a Moon Landing. And the SSME (the shuttle main engines) can't be re-started.
Assuming you could solve or circumvent that, the plan would be basically to take an Atlas or Centaur or something and lift up a bunch more fuel and solid rocket boosters. It's not that much delta-V you need to get to lunar orbit insertion; I think it's something like half again as much as the Shuttle used to get to LEO. So, it would be a real challenge, but I assume you could send up more fuel and/or boosters, send out guys on EVAs to attach them, and then wait for a good window for a Hohlman Transfer.
The shuttle also doesn't have the navigation or communication for this, but that's simpler than the booster problem. I figure, were it a crash emergency, you could probably jury-rig something up in six months. You might lose a few ISS guys on EVAs, but it is possible.
But then the Shuttle still needs to get down. The Shuttle isn't designed to land on an airless surface in the first place. Now, we could add to our shopping list some kind of lander...heck, maybe the X-prize people can get something working really, really quick.
There's another option I'll touch on in a moment, but first I need to point out the big problem is in getting back. Without a stack configuration, or a separate lander, the Shuttle isn't going to have the delta-V to return home. And even if it did....hey, maybe you can do a Centaur stack and throw some boosters at the Moon to be rendezvoused with there... the Shuttle has no way of dumping the Delta-Vee of the return to Earth.
The Shuttle uses its heat tiles to dump the velocity of LEO. Coming from the Moon is quite a bit more velocity; well beyond the capability of those cute little tiles. You need something more like an Apollo-era heat shield to do it.
But all is not lost. All we have to do, really, is have enough delta-V to break lunar orbit and fall, aim towards one of the Maria, and do litho-breaking on the bottom of the Shuttle itself. After all, it isn't going to be of any use for a return journey, even if we had a way of making one.
The chance of anyone surviving the landing is very, very small, but one way or another...we would have gotten a shuttle to the Moon.
Skeptic the First User ID: 709162 6/30/2009 6:36 PM
...And yet, they've been studied by academics from a hundred different nations.
Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
The less gullible academics now call the moon rocks "not representative," a polite academic phrase for "of little value and dubious origin":
[link to www.cosmosmagazine.com]
---
A rare, golf-ball-sized lunar meteorite recently discovered in the snow fields of Antarctica can tell us more about the Moon than samples taken directly from the lunar surface, according to researchers.
...
Lunar meteorites found on the Earth seem to be more representative of the Moon as a whole, he said.
---
You are interpreting. No where in the article or within the scientific discussion being sited is there doubt that the Apollo samples are from the Moon.
The only point being made is that -- surprise surprise! -- a small number of nice flat places on Nearside doesn't add up to all the geologic variety available on the Moon.
I have a feeling it slipped Skeptic's attention why the Soviet samples are considered less scientifically useful than the Apollo samples, or why the later Apollo missions were Rover missions.
He probably thinks if you stand in one place in some random country on Earth you can dig up representative geological samples for the whole Earth....without even moving your feet.
(I should perhaps throw in that I live in a VERY geologically diverse area, where a drive of a couple of miles is enough to drastically change the kinds of samples available.)
Anonymous Coward User ID: 715041 6/30/2009 6:50 PM
Of course it was faked. What is even better is that the moon isn't even a naturally occurring celestial body. It is a satellite that was put in place thousands of years ago as a space station for manevolent extraterrestrials- Reptilians to monitor humans on Earth.
Skeptic the First User ID: 709162 6/30/2009 7:20 PM
No, sir, the geology of the Moon makes numerous predictions about what we SHOULD see on an authentic Lunar sample.
Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
Baloney. Just the other way around. Gullible geologists assume that NASA's rocks came from the moon, and then come to "conclusions" about the moon's geology and history from those.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
---
Geological studies of the Moon are based on a combination of Earth-based telescope observations, measurements from orbiting spacecraft, lunar samples, and geophysical data.
...
The Moon is the only extraterrestrial body for which we possess samples with a known geologic context.
---
The lunar materials were formed in the almost-complete absence of water, and have not ever been exposed to water.
Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
That is considered an unsolved problem with the "moon rocks." As we all know, NASA now openly hopes to find water on the moon:
[link to www2.jpl.nasa.gov]
---
In the 1990s, the Clementine and Lunar Prospector robotic spacecraft each found indications that the Moon may hold supplies of water ice in permanently shaded areas near its poles.
...
If the Moon has stashed some water ice in its polar shadows, comets probably delivered the stuff. Comets are largely ice, and they have been colliding into the Earth, the Moon and the rest of the solar system for billions of years.
---
Prescient of him, considering the Antarctica lunites were not identified until the 80's, and were only done so by comparing them with the structure of the Apollo (and Soviet) samples.
Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
Chuckle. So you admit that alleged lunar meteorites are identified as such simply on the basis that they are similar to NASA's "moon rocks"? Didn't it occur to you that the notorious Nazi von Braun might simply have collected some unusual rocks from Antarctica, knowing that gullible geologists ever afterward would assume that any similar discovered rock is of lunar origin--just as you admit they do in practice?
Why send your leading ROCKET scientist to do a TOP SECRET bit of GEOLOGY?
Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
Professional geologists might balk at knowing participation in such a hoax. In contrast, Nazis positively revel in deceiving the public.
Only the Military, the Nuclear Industry, and the AEC have access to bomb-grade U-238. Why not take that and pass it off as being Moon Rocks? It would be just as convincing to geologists as Trinitite.
Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
Very deceptive of you to change the subject to uranium. Trinitite was found at, and named after, the site of the first publicly admitted heavy-atom nuclear bomb explosion. Trinitite actually shows considerable similarity to tektite (which NASA bizarrely claims comes from the moon, despite geological evidence).
But as far as I can find, we simply have no idea what results from a hydrogen bomb explosion, because the military won't let us examine such sites (before and after) for ourselves.
Or, in your mind, is the entire world filled with fumblers and incompetents who make up bullshit to cover their own lack of any deep understanding?
Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
Anyone who assumes that the military-industrial-intelligence complex is telling the truth is certainly incompetent--and that's being charitable.
Disclaimer: This website exists for entertainment purposes only. The reader is responsible for discerning the validity, factuality
or implications of information posted here, be it fictional or based on real events. Moderators on this forum make every
effort to review the material posted on this site however, it is not realistically possible for our small staff to manually
review each and every one of the more than 10,000 posts GodlikeProductions gets on a daily basis.
The content of post
on this site, including but not limited to links to other web sites, are the expressed opinion of the original poster and are in
no way representative of or endorsed by the owners or administration of this website. The posts on this website are the opinion of
the specific author and are not statements of advice, opinion, or factual information on behalf of the owner or
administration of GodlikeProductions.
This site may contain adult content and if you feel you might be offended by such content, you should log off immediately.
Not all posts on this website are intended as truthful or factual assertion by their authors. Some users of this website are participating in internet role playing, with or without the use of an avatar. NO post on this website should be considered factual information on face value alone. Users are encouraged to USE DISCERNMENT and do their own follow up research while reading and posting on this website. Godlikeproductions.com reserves the right to make changes to, corrections and/or remove entirely at any time posts made on this website without notice. In addition, Godlikeproductions.com disclaims any and all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of a post on this website.
This site is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. You should not assume that this site is error-free or that it will be suitable for the particular purpose which you have in mind when using it. In no event shall Godlikeproductions.com be liable for any special, incidental, indirect or consequential damages of any kind, or any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
Some events depicted in certain posting and threads on this website may be fictitious and any similarity to any person living or dead is merely coincidental. Some other articles may be based on actual events but which in certain cases incidents, characters and timelines have been changed for dramatic purposes. Certain characters may be composites, or entirely fictitious.
We do not discriminate against the mentally ill!
Fair Use Notice: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to civil rights, economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science & technology, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information please visit: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Please be aware any communications sent complaining about a post on this website may be posted publicly at the discretion of the administration.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at anytime.
Mail Webmaster with questions or comments about this site.
