|
What happened on the Moon? - A critical analysis of NASA´s Apollo Project
|
Apollo Research
User ID: 810432
11/4/2009 7:08 PM
Report abusive post | What happened on the Moon? - A critical analysis of NASA´s Apollo Project
| Quote |
English spoken with French subtitles.
Enjoy.  |
|
|
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 810432 (OP)
11/4/2009 7:20 PM | | Re: What happened on the Moon? - A critical analysis of NASA´s Apollo Project | Quote |
 |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 810432 (OP)
11/4/2009 8:43 PM | | Re: What happened on the Moon? - A critical analysis of NASA´s Apollo Project | Quote |
|
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 810432 (OP)
11/4/2009 9:26 PM | | Re: What happened on the Moon? - A critical analysis of NASA´s Apollo Project | Quote |
Part II
|
|
nomuse(NLI)
User ID: 779945
11/5/2009 4:25 AM | | Re: What happened on the Moon? - A critical analysis of NASA´s Apollo Project | Quote |
Quoting: Apollo Research 810432
4:04 No, that was not the belief at NASA. They came to Kennedy with the suggestion that he make a goal of getting to the Moon, and they gave him a timetable.
4:06 Kaysing wasn't exactly "working with the engineers" at Rocketdyne. He was managing the publications library. He had no engineering (or scientific) training.
4:29 "Primitive 1960's technology." So what is the technological requirement for a lunar mission? Do you need the kind of technology that wouldn't be around until 2020? How have you determined this? 1960's had supersonic flight, computers, radar, rockets that could reach orbit and reach other planets. This is a bit like saying that "Due to primitive Roman technology, the Romans would be unable to use a road. Um, you don't need internal combustion to make a road useful.
7:57 No, it doesn't. It looks like no flag ever did. It doesn't even look like a flag in still air. There is no way to move a piece of thin nylon like that. The flag is demonstrating to those with eyes that it is in a vacuum.
Heck, even if there was some wind, what seems to be claimed would be a gale that switches directions from North to South to East second by second. Please, show me any wind on Earth that behaves like that. And then tell me why the astronauts are not effected, and there isn't a single bit of dust or debris in the air.
9:36 Ah, the illiterate, deaf-mute whistleblowers. They can't drop a letter in a mail box, oh no. All they can do is make an error on a photograph THAT CAN BE TRACED DIRECTLY TO THEM BY THEIR BOSSES. Every spy (and every real whistleblower) in history is hanging their heads in shame at these idiots.
9:50 Not exactly. The Apollo television broadcasts were in a format that could be displayed on a small number of machines (which it was); it was also format-converted to broadcast standards using a kinescope procedure. The kinescope films remained in active circulation for years, while the original data tapes were archived (as there was little call to reference them once the video had been format converted to something that everyone could view and use).
11:25 Percy is blind as a bat. The flap is not only visible from the video angle, it visibly MOVES in the video. Perhaps Percy has been so busy writing conspiracy books he's forgotten to study camera angles and the way a camera at a different angle will record a different image?
Bored now. This is all the crappy "Dark Moon" stuff. Nothing new. Sigh. I wish these guys would do some original work for once and bring me something NEW. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 810432 (OP)
11/5/2009 9:35 AM | | Re: What happened on the Moon? - A critical analysis of NASA´s Apollo Project | Quote |
Complain all you want. After watching this a lot becomes clear as to why, how and when. |
|
Astronut
User ID: 634208
11/5/2009 9:56 AM | | Re: What happened on the Moon? - A critical analysis of NASA´s Apollo Project | Quote |
Thanks for the analysis nomuse. It's interesting how the hoax believers aren't interested in debating the substance of the material, they simply keep pimping the same stuff over and over hoping laymen will fall for it. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 790530
11/5/2009 9:57 AM | | Re: What happened on the Moon? - A critical analysis of NASA´s Apollo Project | Quote |
The Commies just can't stand it when they loose and so must discredit a great accomplishment. Even to this day, still trying to use disinformation. Yes Ivan we did go to the moon first and you didn't. Get over it. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 810432 (OP)
11/5/2009 12:45 PM | | Re: What happened on the Moon? - A critical analysis of NASA´s Apollo Project | Quote |
The Commies just can't stand it when they loose and so must discredit a great accomplishment. Even to this day, still trying to use disinformation. Yes Ivan we did go to the moon first and you didn't. Get over it. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 790530
Keep playing th divide and conquer tactic. Noone is falling for it anymore btw.
It is clear that ever since the Nazi scientists where divided between the USSR and the USA after WWII, there has been covert joint collaboration between these countries.
The cold war was a big lie, just like the Soviet failure was a lie and just like Apollo was a lie.
The bigger the lie, the harder to convince the masses that it is a lie, especially after 65 years of propaganda.
Luckily for us there are analysis out there that prove those lies without a shadow of a doubt, even though not all presented material is proof of such.
You only need to prove a single thing and the structure falls.
Personally I would rather believe scholars & specialists who are not on a payroll or agenda than the same shills using different sock puppets over and over again.
It is becoming so obvious it is almost pathetic. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 244744
11/5/2009 1:05 PM | | Re: What happened on the Moon? - A critical analysis of NASA´s Apollo Project | Quote |
4:29 "Primitive 1960's technology." So what is the technological requirement for a lunar mission? Do you need the kind of technology that wouldn't be around until 2020? How have you determined this? 1960's had supersonic flight, computers, radar, rockets that could reach orbit and reach other planets. This is a bit like saying that "Due to primitive Roman technology, the Romans would be unable to use a road. Um, you don't need internal combustion to make a road useful. Quoting: nomuse(NLI) 779945
That's an interesting aspect that the hoaxers never seem to realize. There wasn't a single technology needed that wasn't already in place in the 1960's. By the time of the moon landing, the US had sent missions to Venus (Mariner 2 and 5) and Mars (Mariner 4, 6 and 7). The USSR had already sent probes successfully to Venus (Venera 4,5 and 6) and an attempted Venus landing (Cosmos 96), as well as an attempted Mars landing with Sputnik 24.
[link to nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov]
So the launch vehicles were there, the long range communications was there, the computing power for navigation was there, etc, etc, etc. There is absolutely no reason to suspect the Apollo program for lack of technology. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 810432 (OP)
11/5/2009 1:13 PM | | Re: What happened on the Moon? - A critical analysis of NASA´s Apollo Project | Quote |
That's an interesting aspect that the hoaxers never seem to realize. There wasn't a single technology needed that wasn't already in place in the 1960's. By the time of the moon landing, the US had sent missions to Venus (Mariner 2 and 5) and Mars (Mariner 4, 6 and 7). The USSR had already sent probes successfully to Venus (Venera 4,5 and 6) and an attempted Venus landing (Cosmos 96), as well as an attempted Mars landing with Sputnik 24. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 244744
You and your fellow apollo-nuts miss the point. (as usual)
The problem is not the propulsion technology to bring hardware into orbit and beyond, the problem (as you should know) is the radiation beyond low earth orbit if you wish to bring anything alive beyond low earth orbit and back safely.
NASA knew this, the Soviets knew this. They have known it all along. But instead of either side admitting it was not possible with the technology of that time to bring a human to the Moon and back safely, they decided to stage humans on the Moon. Poor decision.
If it is so easily proven that those astronauts actually walked on the Moon, why is there no decent rebuttal of the four hour documentary out there in the same format?
No, shouting insults and sweeping statements on GLP does not count as a decent rebuttal. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 810432 (OP)
11/5/2009 1:14 PM | | Re: What happened on the Moon? - A critical analysis of NASA´s Apollo Project | Quote |
The Cold war was a big lie
Just in case you missed it. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 244744
11/5/2009 1:15 PM | | Re: What happened on the Moon? - A critical analysis of NASA´s Apollo Project | Quote |
There is absolutely no evdience to support your claims of radiation being a roadblock. Even Dr. Van Allen, who the radiation belts are named after, explained that they were not a problem for space travel. |
|
Astronut
User ID: 634208
11/5/2009 1:23 PM | | Re: What happened on the Moon? - A critical analysis of NASA´s Apollo Project | Quote |
The problem is not the propulsion technology to bring hardware into orbit and beyond, the problem (as you should know) is the radiation beyond low earth orbit if you wish to bring anything alive beyond low earth orbit and back safely. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 810432
Hmm, funny, even the Soviets safely took a pair of dogs through the van allen belts repeatedly over the course of several days. You have a poor understanding of the radiation environment and level of the threat; even van allen himself said quick trips through the belts would be safe. You can best block the kind of particle radiation trapped by the belts with low atomic number metals and fibrous insulation, like the q-felt that insulated the command module and aluminum structure surrounding it.
If it is so easily proven that those astronauts actually walked on the Moon, why is there no decent rebuttal of the four hour documentary out there in the same format? Quoting: AC
LMFAO! Let me get this straight, because no one wants to waste their time making a 4 F'ING HOUR documentary, no other rebuttle counts? We don't have to play by your arbitrary rules to debunk these claims. |
|
Astronut
User ID: 634208
11/5/2009 1:24 PM | | Re: What happened on the Moon? - A critical analysis of NASA´s Apollo Project | Quote |
The Cold war was a big lie
Just in case you missed it. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 810432
Stating something doesn't make it true, especially such an insane claim made for personal convenience. If the radiation was so deadly, please quantify the dose they would have received and show us how you came to this conclusion.
Last Edited by Astronut on 11/5/2009 at 1:25 PM |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 810432 (OP)
11/5/2009 2:03 PM | | Re: What happened on the Moon? - A critical analysis of NASA´s Apollo Project | Quote |
If the radiation was so deadly, please quantify the dose they would have received and show us how you came to this conclusion. Quoting: Astronut
If the radiation was so harmless, please quantify the dose they would have received and show us how you came to this conclusion.
Like I feel compelled doing your research.
If it is so easily proven that men went to the Moon there would be no debate at all now would there?
And if it were this easy, all G20 countries would have gone by now. How much time does need to elapse before mainstream will realise that we cannot put a man on the Moon even if we wanted to? How much time before there is a global realisation that we never did?
10 more years?
20 more years?
Will you start to doubt in thirty years?
When finally the correct technology is "invented" to travel the galaxy in a non-linear fashion (thus being protected from radiation by the artificially created gravity field) will we then make a pit stop on the Moon? |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 244744
11/5/2009 2:05 PM | | Re: What happened on the Moon? - A critical analysis of NASA´s Apollo Project | Quote |
Don't expect actual facts from the hoax believers. They haven't the data nor the intelligence to interpret it. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 244744
11/5/2009 2:06 PM | | Re: What happened on the Moon? - A critical analysis of NASA´s Apollo Project | Quote |
If the radiation was so deadly, please quantify the dose they would have received and show us how you came to this conclusion.
If the radiation was so harmless, please quantify the dose they would have received and show us how you came to this conclusion.
Like I feel compelled doing your research.
Just as we thought. You make a dumb-ass assumption and then refuse to back it up with actual facts.
So typical of you HB's. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 244744
11/5/2009 2:07 PM | | Re: What happened on the Moon? - A critical analysis of NASA´s Apollo Project | Quote |
Photographc analysis of the Apollo 17 landing site as photographed from the MRO...
[link to lroc.sese.asu.edu] |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 244744
11/5/2009 2:08 PM | | Re: What happened on the Moon? - A critical analysis of NASA´s Apollo Project | Quote |
Correction...LRO |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 810432 (OP)
11/5/2009 5:24 PM | | Re: What happened on the Moon? - A critical analysis of NASA´s Apollo Project | Quote |
Just as we thought. You make a dumb-ass assumption and then refuse to back it up with actual facts.
So typical of you HB's. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 244744
Just as I thought. You make a dumb-ass assumption and then refuse to back it up with actual facts.
So typical of you Apollo-nuts.
This can go on for days you know.. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 810432 (OP)
11/5/2009 5:26 PM | | Re: What happened on the Moon? - A critical analysis of NASA´s Apollo Project | Quote |
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 244744
Why would I dispute this?
For all we know they did land several unmanned craft on the Moon to do the EVA´s.
They may have sent several craft to the Moon, but they clearly faked the footage and pictures of men on the Moon.
All of it. |
|
nomuse(NLI)
User ID: 779945
11/6/2009 2:05 AM | | Re: What happened on the Moon? - A critical analysis of NASA´s Apollo Project | Quote |
You and your fellow apollo-nuts miss the point. (as usual)
The problem is not the propulsion technology to bring hardware into orbit and beyond, the problem (as you should know) is the radiation beyond low earth orbit if you wish to bring anything alive beyond low earth orbit and back safely.
NASA knew this, the Soviets knew this. They have known it all along. But instead of either side admitting it was not possible with the technology of that time to bring a human to the Moon and back safely, they decided to stage humans on the Moon. Poor decision.
If it is so easily proven that those astronauts actually walked on the Moon, why is there no decent rebuttal of the four hour documentary out there in the same format?
No, shouting insults and sweeping statements on GLP does not count as a decent rebuttal. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 810432
You are switching horses (as is usual for the hoax nuts). The SPECIFIC question (or, rather, claim, made by the video you presented) was that 1960's technology wasn't up to making a mission to the Moon.
Is there some development within the last twenty years in re radiation amelioration you wish to draw attention to? Perhaps 40" plasma displays shield people from high-energy cosmic rays? Perhaps electronic ignition is also good for warding off neutrons? |
|
nomuse(NLI)
User ID: 779945
11/6/2009 2:08 AM | | Re: What happened on the Moon? - A critical analysis of NASA´s Apollo Project | Quote |
If it is so easily proven that those astronauts actually walked on the Moon, why is there no decent rebuttal of the four hour documentary out there in the same format? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 810432
A rebuttal in the same format? Well, putting aside such things as Mythbusters episodes, or HOURS of YouTube video attacking the specific points commonly made by the hoax believers, the essential problem is that the "case" made by the video is an emotional one. It is short on facts and long on sell. Among those with a nodding understanding of science and logic, a basic assumption is LITERACY.
The detailed (oh, so very, very painstaking detailed) rebuttals are out there. Unfortunately for you they are written. |
|
|
