OFFICIAL NASA VIDEO ADMITS To NEVER SENDING PEOPLE TO THE MOON

If the hoaxers would bother to learn what the problems were in going to the Moon, and how they couldn't possibly have been solved in 1969, they would understand that Apollo could not possibly have gone there on a manned mission.

I can believe that, utterly.

Why, IDW, are you engaging in your supposed 'stealth' mode?

Shocked, I tell you.

There are people that believe all kinds of nutty things, some times these people are in the majority like for instance with religion....and the manned Apollo moon missions of the last century. It is a faith. That is the impression you get when discussing it with people who believe it, that you are questioning their religious beliefs.

No doubt about it. People like you

Non-starter.

If they didn't know, they wouldn't have not-gone.

Unless you are suggesting they did go, died, and that had to be covered up.

Which problems couldn't be solved...specifically?

So, an arbitrary standard of scale. You would be convinced by, say, gigapixel images if they only avoided CGI artifacts you are personally capable of detecting.

Do you have similar methods for detecting large-scale model photography?


Hrm. Math time. 3 inches per pixel you say. Typical bit of lunar hardware would be the rover at 122 inches long. Assume a square frame for simplicity. That's 40 x 40; barely the size of a smiley.

At 40 x 40, NASA could HAND PAINT every pixel in the image. What's your method for detecting errors here, again? It can't be a relic of, say, the Phong shader's famous reluctance to smoothly interpolate between large n-gons. And as for physical models, at 40 x 40, the lunar rover model released by Tang (yes, them), would suffice.

The "Belts"...

HBs seem to believe that one needed to go through the belts to get to the Moon. A simple understanding of orbital inclination says that's bunk. The VAB are not a single mass, it has layers (2 main belts) which are stronger towards the center and weaker towards the edges.

A cleverly designed trans lunar profile (based on their orbital inclination) allowed them to traverse, more or less, the weaker edges of the belts. Between this and their 20,000mph+ transit speed, it wasn't such a problem.

Shielding? Aluminum, plastics, insulating materials...all helped in attenuating the particles they encountered.

Yeah, it's pretty basic rocket science, but you can learn it.

IDW,
The only posts of yours I've seen removed are the ones likely reported for vulgarity, racism, and/or anti-semitism. If you could avoid that your posts would likely stay around.

The "Belts"...

HBs seem to believe that one needed to go through the belts to get to the Moon. A simple understanding of orbital inclination says that's bunk. The VAB are not a single mass, it has layers (2 main belts) which are stronger towards the center and weaker towards the edges.

A cleverly designed trans lunar profile (based on their orbital inclination) allowed them to traverse, more or less, the weaker edges of the belts. Between this and their 20,000mph+ transit speed, it wasn't such a problem.

Two points, the time required to get to the moon from the Earth was far more than the 12 hours you're claiming (237,000/20,000=@12 hrs), meaning the velocity was much lower than 20,000mph. Also, it is impossible for Apollo to have penetrated the VAB at any latitude other than the one it was launched at because it had to intersect the moon's orbit in essentially the same plane it orbits Earth to have the equatorial orbit of the moon it did and land at the Sea of tranquility. The best case scenario is 38 degrees latitude, in the thick of the VAB which BTW are extremely variable and vary from minute to minute. Radiation densities are given as averages.

Plastic and insulation can stop SOME particle radiation. They have little effect on electromagnetic radiation or high energy particles. The aluminum hull woudl make the problem worst,because particle radiation produces deadly x radiation when it impact aluminum. It also produces secondary particle radiation from the nuclei of aluminum atoms. While in the VAB the Apollo spacecraft would be bathed in electromagnetic radiation many times more powerful than an x ray machine or microwave oven is, which penetrates a body easily. It also important to understand x ray exposure in medicine is limited to a fraction of second because x radiation is in fact extremely harmful to living things. This is why I am reluctant to be x rayed, because I believe a person could easily be killed by a malfunction..

It's a transfer orbit, not a trip down the highway. You can't do simple division to figure out velocity specific to any of the bodies in question.



More complex than that. The Moon's orbit is neither aligned with Earth's equator, nor the ecliptic. Nor is the Cape on the equator; launches from there are not equatorial either (much less aligned with the solar ecliptic).



Yes; as weighted averages. Which means the excursions are known numerically and statistically. When you say freeway speeds average 70 MPH, that doesn't imply cars frequently travel at 200 MPH. And it certainly does not allow that every now and then, a car passes at relativistic velocity.



Everything has a half-thickness. Even dead skin, or nomex coveralls. This is why qualitative statements are misleading.



Which is desired behavior. The secondary emissions are of lower energies and are largely stopped in the remainder of the material (or the following layers). For an education in how this works, look at the Therac-25 incidents. And remember these were therapeutic machines specifically designed to utilize bremmstrahlung to maximum effectiveness. Yet, the patients who died, died from the original electron beam, NOT from the generated x-rays.



See Therac-25, above.

Numbers, that's what's important. You wave your hands and simply claim that because so and so source exist, the Apollo capsule "Must" have been exposed to a searing hell.

I am within miles of research reactors, tens of miles of power reactors. The local rock formations include natural uranium, and the so-called "radon daughters" (a collection of active radionuclides from the various decay chains) are known to collect in basements. There is detectable nuclear fallout in the soil, in fact, in the metals I work and in my very bones. There are cosmic ray showers. I have worked around multiple sources of hard x-rays with not always adequate shielding, and recently, too. The very sun is a source of x-rays. I can generate x-rays -- x-rays with sufficient penetrating power to expose photographic film! -- simply by unrolling a strip of tape.

This is why numbers are important. ALL of the above are non-zero hazards. In fact, several of them are known -- have been shown in large-scale studies -- to reduce my life expectancy by a measurable amount, and to mutate any progeny I might have.

But this does not make my continued existence a hoax.

Until you can quantify the actual hazards, show the energy distribution and flux and apply the half-thicknesses correctly, you are making nothing but empty claims.

Sure, but multiple studies have shown they are the people least likely to benefit from any money spent to try to reach them.

Also, which is the bandwagon fallacy? Claiming that most people have moved on from thinking the manned landings were hoaxed, or claiming that most people think they are hoaxed? Either way, its call to science by popularity contest.

Unless you go into detail. The detail being; the vast majority of people don't have strong opinions on the subject and haven't given it much thought. Those who have given it thought fall largely into two groups; those to whom it came up due to professional experience in related fields, and those who are attracted to conspiracy theories.

And it is hardly a popularity contest if you point out the majority of those who have the technical qualifications to understand the material do not find significant problems with the Apollo Project record.

Total nonsense. Qualified people with valid disqualifications are attacked,libeled, banned , stalked and threatened.That's not because they're calling hoax on something that really happened.

No, you can't, that's MY point. You said they went through the van allen radiation belts at 20,000mph and I happen to know their actual path would have had to have been spiral,in fact simply modifying an Earth orbit until it intersected with the moons orbit, meaning the time they spent in the affected zones was much longer than your 20,000mph figure is intended to indicate. Their actual velocity would have had to have been much slower, at that velocity they would have one tiny window of error and it woudl have required a tremendous deceleration to effect capture by the moons gravity.. To calculate the actual time spent in any zone you cannot cherry pick data and say they moved vertically through the zones at 20,000mph, the actual vertical velocity would have been much much lower. You also cannot use average flux values to prove anything. Particle density in the lower proton belt varies radically from minute to minute.



Let's be specific. the moons orbit in inclined at 5 degrees to the ecliptic. The Earths rotational axis is 22 degrees inclined to the Ecliptic The moons orbit varies from 0 degrees off of the equator of the earth to maximum of @27 degrees. Apollo was launched from cape Canaveral with a latitude of when the moon was in the moist advantageous position, and Apollo would have had to penetrate the VAB at no more than 27 degrees N latitude at it's lowest latitude, and no more than 33 or 24 at it's highest latitude. The latitude would be changing during the translunar injection SPIRAL trajectory. The illustrations by NASA which show the TLI are false.

.


Quack quack, sounds smart , breaks down to total nothing. You said nothign intelligent whatsover here that means anything.


Nonsense. The particles in the lower proton belt woudl go through Apollo like water though a sieve and the electrons in the outer belt would result in deadly levels of X radiation, which is not attenuate by any of the materials in the Apollo shielding.The spacecraft woudl have been worst than a microwave oven.

This is the real barrier to interplanetary space travel, why it cannot be done until the probelm is solved



Nonsense. X radiation at the levels that would be produced are deadly for short periods of time. In medical x rays the exposure is not dangerous only because the total exposure time is a fraction of a second. We're talking at least several hours, at a much higher flux.

It is not me doing the handwaving and it is not me having your material censored.

Which proves the Apollo film record is fabricated. Thank you.

No, it is essentially an ellipse (technically a "patched conic" between two ellipses).



More or less. A very eccentric Earth orbit that the is a close match to lunar orbit at the apogee.



It isn't a solely ballistic process. There are designed-in mid-course corrections.



In a sense it is already captured; it continues an ellipse that has the Moon at one of the foci. As they pass behind the Moon they are at perigee relative to the Moon and the apogee is now the Earth. The expenditure of fuel is to circularize that orbit; reduce velocity until the apogee is as close to the Moon as the perigee (or should that be perilune?)




That's right; first you have to understand the actual flight path. Then you can work out how much of it was spent where. Numbers matter. Orbital elements matter. 20,000 MPH relative to what? The Earth? The Moon? The Sun?

And, you know, the rest is a rambling mess of a Gish Gallop. Too many ideas, too few of them developed, no point in trying to discuss all of them.

You've started to do the work. Maybe in another ten years you will be able to debate properly.

Besides the van Allen belt issue he says that coming back to earth the capsule will be hotter than molten lava and the shields will have to protect against that.

They used several parachutes for Orion in that video to slow it down and they said it would have to be as big as a football field.

............

Didnt the capsule that was used in the first moon landings have a window?
Parachutes as big as a football field ? Hmm don't remember any such thing
Did we have materials back then that could withstand molten lava temperatures?

I was on the fence before, this convinced me it was most definitely faked. Thanks op.

Where? Link? Did you write a book?

Of course their footage of moon landing is hoax.
It was just too risky to take that trip for first time and do the livestream (livestream Lol)

Hmmm

Hmmmm

Hmmmm

Hmmmmm interesting

More "never been to the Moontards" Fucking idiots

Just to pick upon one point here :-

And do you have alternative data? Or is it just more supposition?

The Apollo missions were big news at the time, and were watched closely by people all over the world, including the USA's major political enemies - the USSR and China.

And it wasn't just governments who were watching. Millions of people followed the missions very closely, and many of them used telescopes to track the progress of the vehicles out from earth orbit to the moon and back.

And yet not one person, or government, has come forward in all that time to say that the observed trajectory doesn't match that published by NASA.

Furthermore, the dangers of the radiation belts were well known, and of course the sensible thing to do would be to design a trajectory which minimised the risks. Which is exactly what they did.

Now, whether or not you believe the spacecraft were manned, the fact is that several vehicles were launched to the moon, and were observed to follow the published trajectories.

If you can find data that contradicts that, then please present it...

Interesting thanks

Oooh, another good one :-



OK Sparky, show us the maths to prove this one. And I mean real calculations, not hand-waving, oh the latitude is so-and-so and the orbital inclination is such-and-such.

I'd like to see all your calculations, with details showing why a higher inclination trajectory would be impossible...

Can anyone address what this guy is saying?

Why can't they remember seeing stars?