Moon HOAX CONSPIRACY - LEM HATCH TOO SMALL! BEST DOCUMENTARY IS 1 OF OLDEST DOCUMENTARIES | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 70064009 United States 01/15/2018 02:51 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 76121651 United States 01/15/2018 03:25 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Anyone who thinks we still went to the moon is 1984 double speak lost. Cognitive dissonance. The shills are strong in this thread. There are still some conspiracies people just can't get their mind around, this being one of them. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 70064009 It becomes more obvious it was a hoax, with each passing year. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 76121651 United States 01/15/2018 03:40 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The BEST video/documentary on the subject, written & [low budget] produced by an actual scientific investigative journalist (who was later found dead, mysteriously) is this one. He interviewed the friggin DIRECTOR of the Apollo "mission", the man responsible for training the astro-NOT$ on the usage of the L.E.M. moon lander...who goes on to look into the camera and state that he 'never had to train the astro-not$ to actually GO THROUGH THE LEM HATCH,[LOL!!!] - which is measured in the documentary & proven that it was not possibly able to allow a fully packed astronaut to enter or exit from. [the film producer then says 'so i guess they just had to TRAVEL THE 250,000 MILES TO THEN JUST "WING IT"] Good stuff, great footage, ignore the poor-mid 90's VHS quality to this copy that someone uploaded: Quoting: VHS 1897079 |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 55587021 United States 01/20/2018 10:52 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 76142371 United States 01/20/2018 11:24 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The Soviets followed the mission...why did they not blow the whistle when they supposedly saw "no landing"? ...wheat??!!??? How many experts in spaceflight and all it's sciences think the missions were impossible? Why was the LM acknowledged as an incredible engineering feat by the worlds engineers? It happened...six times. ...deal with it. Your current generation doesn't have the focus, skills and balls to even send men into orbit again! |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 55587021 United States 01/21/2018 12:01 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | we could go down the laundry list... hasselblad camera film would've MELTED in 250f radioactive solar particles would've gone right through the cameras and destroyed film --------------------------------------- another excellent webpage analyzing legendary director Stanley Kubrick's alleged involvement in the Apollo mission, fake backdrops utilized, etc. (50% rule applied here) [link to realitysandwich.com] It has now been forty years since the fabled moon landings by NASA and the Apollo gang. When it comes to the subject of the moon landings, people tend to fall into two belief groups. The first group, by far the bigger of the two groups, accepts the fact that NASA successfully landed on the moon six times and that 12 human beings have actually walked on the surface of the moon. The second group, though far smaller, is more vocal about their beliefs. This group says that we never went to the moon and that the entire thing was faked. This essay presents a third position on this issue. This third point of view falls somewhere between these two assertions. This third position postulates that humans did go to the moon but what we saw on TV and in photographs was completely faked. Furthermore, this third position reveals that the great filmmaker Stanley Kubrick is the genius who directed the hoaxed landings. 1. Motivations for Faking But why fake the moon landings at all? What would be the motivation? Authors Joseph Farrell and Henry Stevens both have shown us undeniable proof that Nazi scientists had developed advanced flying saucer technology as early as 1943. These authors also show that the US Government brought these same Nazi scientists into this country in order to build these highly advanced flying machines. Furthermore, they believe that the idea that aliens from outer space are invading the Earth is a clever cover story concocted by NASA to hide this technology. Many sources inside the military industrial complex have related to me that after John Kennedy was shown the flying saucer technology early in his Presidency, he realized that the advances in technology promised by the flying saucers could solve many of the pressing problems of the world. He saw that releasing this exotic technology would point the way towards cheap and environmentally friendly energy among other things. Soon after seeing the flying saucer technology, JFK made his famous speech asking NASA to land a man on the moon before the decade was out. Many insiders believed that this was a ploy by JFK to get NASA, and the secret government, to release their saucer technologies. Since it was obvious to everyone that standard rocket technology could not get man to the moon and back, JFK may have thought that NASA would be forced to release the knowledge of the technology behind the flying saucers in order to fulfill his vision and get to the moon by the end of the 1960s. JFK’s ploy was therefore intended to free this advanced technology from the insidious hands of the shadow government. After the assassination of Kennedy in 1963, NASA began a new plan that would solve the problem that JFK initiated. This new plan would allow NASA, and the shadow government, to keep the saucer technology secret and to still make it look like standard rocketry had taken man to the moon and back. Someone high up in the shadow government decided to fake the entire series of moon landings in order to conceal the United States’ extremely new and advanced Nazi technology both from us, the citizens, and our enemies. In some ways NASA’s position on this was understandable. We were in the middle of the cold war with the Soviet Union. Did we really want to show the Russians what we had? 2. Who Will Fake It? In early 1964 Stanley Kubrick had just finished his black satire Dr. Strangelove and was looking to do a science fiction film. While directing Dr. Strangelove, Kubrick had asked the US Air Force for permission to film one of their B-52 bombers for the movie. The Pentagon turned him down. The movie, Dr. Strangelove, was about a flight squadron that had been ordered to fly to Russia and drop nuclear bombs on that country. The Pentagon read Kubrick’s script and rejected his request to actually film the inside, and outside, of a B-52. The reason for this rejection was that Kubrick’s film was clearly a satire on the military and US nuclear policy. The Pentagon did not want to assist Kubrick in this satirical undertaking. Undaunted by the rejection, Kubrick used various special effects to create the B-52 in flight. When viewing Dr. Strangelove today, these special effects look quaint and old fashioned, but in 1963 they looked very good. It is possible that someone in NASA saw what Kubrick had done in Dr. Strangelove and, admiring his artfulness, designated Kubrick as the person best qualified to direct the Apollo Moon landing. If he could do that well on a limited budget – what could he do on an unlimited budget? No one knows how the powers-that-be convinced Kubrick to direct the Apollo landings. Maybe they had compromised Kubrick in some way. The fact that his brother, Raul Kubrick, was the head of the American Communist Party may have been one of the avenues pursued by the government to get Stanley to cooperate. Kubrick also had a reputation for being a notoriously nasty negotiator. It would have been very interesting to be a fly on the wall during the negotiations between Kubrick and NASA. In the end, it looks like Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landings in return for two things. The first was a virtually unlimited budget to make his ultimate science fiction film: 2001: A Space Odyssey; and the second was that he would be able to make any film he wanted, with no oversight from anyone, for the rest of his life. Except for his last film, Eyes Wide Shut, Kubrick got what he wanted. 3. Parelleling Events It is uncanny the way that the production of 2001: A Space Odyssey parallels the Apollo program. The film production started in 1964 and went on to the release of 2001: A Space Odyssey in1968. Meanwhile the Apollo program also began in 1964 and culminated with the first moon landings on July 20th, 1969. Also, it is very interesting to note that scientist Frederick Ordway was working both for NASA and the Apollo program and was also Kubrick’s top science advisor for 2001: A Space Odyssey. Once he negotiated the deal, Stanley, got to work. The most pressing problem for Kubrick in 1964 was to figure out a way to make the shots on the ground, on the surface of the moon, look realistic. He had to make the scenes look wide-open and expansive, like it was really done on the moon and not in a studio back lot. 4. Hollywood Trickery No one knows how many things he tried, but eventually Kubrick settled on doing the entire thing with a cinematic technique called Front Screen Projection. It is in the use of this cinematic technique that the fingerprints of Kubrick can be seen all over the NASA Apollo photographic and video material. What is Front Screen Projection? Kubrick did not invent the process but there is no doubt that he perfected it. Front Screen Projection is a cinematic device that allows scenes to be projected behind the actors so that it appears, in the camera, as if the actors are moving around on the set provided by the Front Screen Projection. The process came into fruition when the 3M company invented a material called Scotchlite. This was a screen material that was made up of hundreds of thousands of tiny glass beads each about .4 millimeters wide. These beads were highly reflective. In the Front Screen Projection process the Scotchlite screen would be placed at the back of the soundstage. The plane of the camera lens and the Scotchlite screen had to be exactly 90 degrees apart. A projector would project the scene onto the Scotchlite screen through a mirror and the light would go through a beam splitter, which would pass the light into the camera. An actor would stand in front of the Scotchlite screen, and he would appear to be “inside” the projection. Today Hollywood magicians use green screens and computers for special effects, and so Front Screen Projection has gone the way of the Adding Machine and the Model T. But for its time, especially in the 1960s, nothing worked better than Front Screen Projection for the realistic look that would be needed both for the ape-men scenes in 2001: A Space Odyssey and the faked Apollo landings. To see how Front Screen Projection looks on the screen, let’s examine the ape-men scenes at the beginning of Kubrick’s film 2001: A Space Odyssey. While viewing the stills from these scenes, or watching them in the film, one has to remember that the early scenes in 2001 with the actors in ape costumes were all done on a soundstage. None of what you are seeing in the ape-men scenes at the beginning of 2001 was actually shot outside. The scenes that surround the ape-men are actually slides of a desert being projected onto Scotchlite screens standing at the rear of the set. In order to create these desert backgrounds Kubrick sent a photographic team to Spain to shoot 8” X 10” Ektachrome slides. These slides were then projected via the Front Screen Projection system onto the Scotchlite screen. The actors in ape costumes stood in front of the screen acting out the script. If you watch 2001 on DVD you can actually occasionally see the “seams” of the screen behind the gyrating apes. Kubrick was doing Front Screen Projection in such a huge and grand fashion that the technicians were forced to sew together many screens of Scotchlite so that Kubrick could create the vastness needed for the ape scenes to be believable. In this still taken from an early scene in 2001, you can see the seams in the blue sky if you look closely: Next is the same image as above, only I have processed it through a graphic program. In this processing I have increased the gamma and increased the contrast. Please examine: Now we can clearly see the “seams” and the “stitching” of the Scotchlite Front Projection screen in the sky. To get the perspective correct, one has to realize that the Scotchlite screen is right behind the rocky outcropping set, which was built on the soundstage. The lines on the screen are the flaws in the Scotchlite screen. These flaws in the screen give the sky give a peculiar “geometry” when the image is properly processed to reveal the Front Projection Scotchlite Screen. Let’s show another example. Here is a still from the famous “water hole” scene from 2001: This next image is again the same image as above but with the gamma and contrast increased: While watching 2001, with the scenes of the ape-men one can begin to see the telltale fingerprints that always reveal when the Front Screen Projection system is being used. It should be emphasized that the sets that surround the ape-men in the movie are real. Those are “real” rocks (whether papier-mâché or real) that surround the ape-men. But behind the fabricated rocks on the set, the desert scene is being projected via the Front Screen Projector. One of the ways that you can tell the Front Screen system is being used is that the bottom horizon line between the actual set and the background Scotchlite screen has to be blocked. Kubrick strategically located rocks and other things near the bottom of the scene in order to hide the projection screen. In other words, the camera and the viewers would see the bottom of the background projection screen if it weren’t blocked in some fashion. As part of the “trick” it became necessary to place things in between the screen and the set to hide the bottom of the screen. I have Photoshopped a line differentiating the set and the background Scotchlite Front Projection Screen. Please note how everything is in focus, from the pebbles on the ground in the set to the desert mountains beyond. You will see that hiding the bottom of the Scotchlite screen is always taking place when the Front Screen Projection system is used in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Hiding the screen is one of the fingerprints; it is evidence of its use. Just like the stage magician who needs the long sleeves of his costume to hide the mechanism of his tricks, so too Kubrick needed to hide the mechanism of his trick behind the carefully placed horizon line between set and screen. Here is another example from 2001: A Space Odyssey: And here is the same image with my Photoshop line separating the set with the ape-man actor and the Scotchlite Front Projection Screen. And you will see, before this article is finished, that this same fingerprint, this same evidence, is clearly seen in all of the NASA Apollo stills and video footage. It is this fingerprint that reveals, not only that NASA faked the Apollo missions but also HOW they faked them. Let’s examine a few NASA Apollo images now. This is a still from Apollo 17. This is also a great example of the Front Screen Projection process: Again, I have Photoshopped a line indicating the back of the set. One can see that there is a slight uprising behind the rover, which is hiding the bottom of the screen. Also notice that even though everything is in focus from the lunar rover to the mountains in the background, there is a strange change in the landscape of the ground right behind my lines. This is because the photo of the mountains being used on the Front Projection system has a slightly different ground texture than the set. As we go on, we will see that this fingerprint is also consistent throughout the Apollo images. Here is another Apollo image: Now here is my version where I show the line between set and screen: Again notice that the texture of the ground changes right behind my lines. Now let’s go to some more Apollo images. We can see that the same thing occurs here as in the ape-men scenes in 2001. There is always a line separating the set from the screen. Even if you do not see it at first, it will become apparent as one grows more familiar with the Front Screen Projection process and how it is being used to fake the astronauts standing on the lunar surface. Go to any NASA site (like this one, for example) and start looking for yourself. Not all lunar surface shots are using the process. Sometimes the astronauts are just standing on the set with a completely (and suspicious) black background. The early missions used the Front Screen Projection system only when they had to. But as the missions went on, and they had to look better, Kubrick began to perfect the process. Although you can see the Front Screen Projection process on every mission, the seriously revealing images are in the later missions, particularly Apollo 14, 15, 16 and (my favorite) 17. Here are a few from Apollo 17: That astronaut is driving the lunar rover parallel to the screen and the rover is only three or four feet away from the Scotchlite. Please note how the tire treads just lead to nowhere. Actually, they are going to the edge of the set. The astronaut is about six feet in front of the Scotchlite screen. Please note how everything is in focus from the rocks and pebbles close to the camera all the way to the crystal clear mountain behind the astronaut. As we shall see very soon, even that is impossible. Also please note the other telltale evidence that permeates the Apollo images: There is a stark difference in the ground texture between the set and what is being projected onto the screen. You can almost count the number of small rocks and the granularity of the ground is clearly seen on the set. But once we get to the screen on the other side of my line this granularity disappears. This next image is a slick little piece of work. When first viewed one is sure that they are looking across the vast unbroken lunar surface from beginning to end. With the Earth rising, it is truly a stunning shot. But sure enough – a close examination reveals the set/screen line once again. Again, please note the change in the texture of the ground immediately on each side of the line. The little pebbles and dust seem to disappear behind the line. Doesn’t the fakery just make you all patriotic inside? 5. Depth of Field: More Evidence Besides the evidence of the horizon line between set and screen and the changing granularity of the texture of the ground, there is another telltale fingerprint that comes with Front Screen Projection. This has to do with a photographic situation called depth of field. Depth of field has to do with the plane of focus that the lens of the camera is tuned to. The main rule of thumb in photography is that the larger the format of the film, the less depth of field. For instance, 16mm film has a large depth of field. 35mm has a smaller depth of field, and 70 mm (which Stanley was using in 2001 as were all of the astronaut-photographers in the Apollo missions) has an incredibly small depth of field. What this means is that it is virtually impossible for two objects that are far apart in the lens of a 70mm camera to be in the same plane of focus. One of the two objects will always be out-of-focus. Filmmakers like to use depth of field because it creates soft out-of-focus backgrounds that are visually very pleasant to the human eye. While watching the ape-men scenes at the beginning of 2001, one can see that everything is in focus. Whether it is the apes, or the far away desert background, they are all in focus. This is because the Front Projection Screen on which the background desert scenes are projected is actually not far away from the ape actor. In reality the Scotchlite screen containing the desert scene is right behind the actors just as the Scotchlite screen is right behind the astronauts in the Apollo images. So whatever is projected onto that screen will usually be in the same plane of focus as the actor-ape or the actor-astronaut. This depth of field is impossible in real life using a large format film like 70 mm. Keeping everything in focus is only possible if everything is actually confined to a small place. It may look like the ape-men are somewhere in a huge desert landscape but in reality they are all on a small set in a studio. It may look like the astronauts are on a vast lunar landscape, but actually they are on a small confined set. According to the NASA literature, the Apollo astronauts were using large format Hassleblad cameras. These cameras were provided with large rolls of 70 mm film on which they took the images. This large format film is exactly the same size film that Kubrick was using when shooting 2001. The plane of focus, the depth of field, on these cameras is incredibly small. This should have been a huge problem for the astronaut-photographers, who would have to be constantly adjusting the focus. We therefore should expect to see a lot of out of focus shots taken by the astronauts. When you consider the fact that, because of their helmets, they did not even have the ability to see through the viewfinder of their cameras, this would have only increased the chances that most of what they would be shooting would be out of focus. I have gone through the entire photographic record of Apollo program, both at Goddard in Greenbelt, Maryland and in the main photographic repository at NASA’s Houston headquarters. When the Apollo photographic record is examined, the exact opposite of what one would expect to find is discovered. Instead of many out-of-focus shots, we find that nearly every shot is in pristine focus. And these amateur photographer-astronauts have an uncanny sense of composition, especially when one remembers that they are not even able to look through their camera’s viewfinders. Their images have the unmistakable quality of a highly polished professional photographer. Before embarking on his film career Stanley Kubrick was a professional photographer working for Look Magazine. Honestly, even a professional photographer looking through the viewer of the camera would be hard pressed to come up with the pristine imagery and crystal clear focus of the Apollo astronaut amateur photographers. Unfortunately though, for everyone involved, the fact that everything is in focus in the Apollo record is the old telltale fingerprint of Front Screen Projection. Examine the above photographs from Apollo. Please note how everything is in focus. As one goes through the entire Apollo record they will discover that the astronaut photographers never seem to have a problem with depth of field. Even though you could never get everything to remain in focus over such vast distances here on Earth, somehow the rules of physics are bypassed when men shoot photographs on the lunar surface. Indeed the very physics of lens dynamics and depth of field apparently disappears when the astronauts shoot photographs. (Just for the record, the cameras were not altered at all by Hasselblad or anyone else). As a professional photographer and a filmmaker, I have wrestled with depth of field problems for over 40 years. I am surprised that no other photographer has noticed the lack of any such problems encountered by the astronaut-photographers. In reality, the lack of depth of field problems is a nail in the coffin of the Apollo program. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 76142371 United States 01/21/2018 12:36 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | what was the intent of the previous "wall o' text" post? We went to the Moon...landed 6 times. Done with, at the time, cutting edge technology and folks who had a sound education. Did it with slide rules, drafting boards, and "computers" that equaled the C64...maybe. And a bunch of very smart, imaginative people Oh, and they knew math, physics, and had several years experience flying manned and unmanned things around Earth, and to the Moon. There were no "show stoppers". The VAB was an issue which orbital mechanics and orbital inclination cleverly solved. The LM was light, but strong. Few skeptics seem familiar with the actual structure of the vehicle, choosing instead to deride the seemingly shabby (but non-structural) outer thermal covers of Mylar and other materials, which effectively attenuated solar radiation issues. It won international engineering awards for it's design. It wasn't lined with lead because it didn't need to be. Frankly, I doubt this generation, or the next, will have the focus to ever leave Earth orbit again. I fear the ISS will soon go unmanned, and we'll have no program to follow it. Constellation is moseying along on a shoestring budget and minimal political or popular support. Have we seen our finest hour? I fear so, but I hope not... |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 76142371 United States 01/21/2018 12:41 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ..and, for the record, if the skeptics would bother to look at ALL the photos, you will see plenty which are less than ideal quality. ...I know, it's such a bother browsing through things you have no interest in... |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 76142371 United States 01/21/2018 12:47 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The BEST video/documentary on the subject, written & [low budget] produced by an actual scientific investigative journalist (who was later found dead, mysteriously) is this one. He interviewed the friggin DIRECTOR of the Apollo "mission", the man responsible for training the astro-NOT$ on the usage of the L.E.M. moon lander...who goes on to look into the camera and state that he 'never had to train the astro-not$ to actually GO THROUGH THE LEM HATCH,[LOL!!!] - which is measured in the documentary & proven that it was not possibly able to allow a fully packed astronaut to enter or exit from. [the film producer then says 'so i guess they just had to TRAVEL THE 250,000 MILES TO THEN JUST "WING IT"] Good stuff, great footage, ignore the poor-mid 90's VHS quality to this copy that someone uploaded: Quoting: VHS 1897079 Jeesh, there are photos of the astronauts going through the hatch in training at KSC. Do some homework. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 76099879 United States 01/21/2018 01:09 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I can guarantee they did not have the electrical materials in 1969 to provide the technology for life support, heat, light, oxygen, etc., in the vehicles/spacecraft structures that are in the pics of the 'landing on the mooon' hoax. Even if they got there, they could not have effected the landing, and returned with live people. I'm an electrician with over 15,000 documented hours in industrial and commercial new construction and tenent improvement. More than that undocumented. I have books of available materials for electrical installation from decades before, during, and after the 'moon shot' From an electrical standpoint, the 1969 trip to the moon was impossible. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 75453859 Germany 01/21/2018 01:12 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The BEST video/documentary on the subject, written & [low budget] produced by an actual scientific investigative journalist (who was later found dead, mysteriously) is this one. He interviewed the friggin DIRECTOR of the Apollo "mission", the man responsible for training the astro-NOT$ on the usage of the L.E.M. moon lander...who goes on to look into the camera and state that he 'never had to train the astro-not$ to actually GO THROUGH THE LEM HATCH,[LOL!!!] - which is measured in the documentary & proven that it was not possibly able to allow a fully packed astronaut to enter or exit from. [the film producer then says 'so i guess they just had to TRAVEL THE 250,000 MILES TO THEN JUST "WING IT"] Good stuff, great footage, ignore the poor-mid 90's VHS quality to this copy that someone uploaded: Quoting: VHS 1897079 There are a lot of good documentaries with highly intelligent, credible people, both laymen & scientists. This man's report is impeccable and his in.terviews and demonstrations with that NASA director of Apollo is simply amazing |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 76142371 United States 01/21/2018 01:31 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I can guarantee they did not have the electrical materials Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76099879 in 1969 to provide the technology for life support, heat, light, oxygen, etc., in the vehicles/spacecraft structures that are in the pics of the 'landing on the mooon' hoax. Even if they got there, they could not have effected the landing, and returned with live people. I'm an electrician with over 15,000 documented hours in industrial and commercial new construction and tenent improvement. More than that undocumented. I have books of available materials for electrical installation from decades before, during, and after the 'moon shot' From an electrical standpoint, the 1969 trip to the moon was impossible. please provide your resume of avionics design and construction. ...we're not talking about household wiring here... |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 75156261 United States 01/21/2018 08:42 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I can guarantee they did not have the electrical materials Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76099879 in 1969 to provide the technology for life support, heat, light, oxygen, etc., in the vehicles/spacecraft structures that are in the pics of the 'landing on the mooon' hoax. Even if they got there, they could not have effected the landing, and returned with live people. I'm an electrician with over 15,000 documented hours in industrial and commercial new construction and tenent improvement. More than that undocumented. I have books of available materials for electrical installation from decades before, during, and after the 'moon shot' From an electrical standpoint, the 1969 trip to the moon was impossible. Prove it. Show your work. Bet you won't. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 76114098 Australia 01/21/2018 11:02 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 76114098 Australia 01/21/2018 11:06 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I can guarantee they did not have the electrical materials Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76099879 in 1969 to provide the technology for life support, heat, light, oxygen, etc., in the vehicles/spacecraft structures that are in the pics of the 'landing on the mooon' hoax. Even if they got there, they could not have effected the landing, and returned with live people. I'm an electrician with over 15,000 documented hours in industrial and commercial new construction and tenent improvement. More than that undocumented. I have books of available materials for electrical installation from decades before, during, and after the 'moon shot' From an electrical standpoint, the 1969 trip to the moon was impossible. please provide your resume of avionics design and construction. ...we're not talking about household wiring here... your credentials first please or shut it . |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 76142371 United States 01/21/2018 12:01 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Almost every technology used in Apollo was tested in the earlier programs...it was a "stepping stone" approach, where every technology possible was flown in LEO before being employed in lunar flights. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 76142371 United States 01/21/2018 12:54 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I can guarantee they did not have the electrical materials Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76099879 in 1969 to provide the technology for life support, heat, light, oxygen, etc., in the vehicles/spacecraft structures that are in the pics of the 'landing on the mooon' hoax. Even if they got there, they could not have effected the landing, and returned with live people. I'm an electrician with over 15,000 documented hours in industrial and commercial new construction and tenent improvement. More than that undocumented. I have books of available materials for electrical installation from decades before, during, and after the 'moon shot' From an electrical standpoint, the 1969 trip to the moon was impossible. were you even a glint in your daddy's eye when Apollo flew? Probably not. Do you know what power systems Apollo used in it's mission. Life support? Batteries? Fuel cells? How they budgeted their available power? It's all out there...if you're interested....just not as dramatic as the so-called hoax "theories"... |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 63861387 United States 01/21/2018 01:21 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The Soviets followed the mission...why did they not blow the whistle when they supposedly saw "no landing"? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76142371 ...wheat??!!??? How many experts in spaceflight and all it's sciences think the missions were impossible? Why was the LM acknowledged as an incredible engineering feat by the worlds engineers? It happened...six times. ...deal with it. Your current generation doesn't have the focus, skills and balls to even send men into orbit again! Why do you think that the USSR would blow the whistle? That's not the way high-level politics and international banking operate. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 76142371 United States 01/21/2018 01:41 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I can guarantee they did not have the electrical materials Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76099879 in 1969 to provide the technology for life support, heat, light, oxygen, etc., in the vehicles/spacecraft structures that are in the pics of the 'landing on the mooon' hoax. Even if they got there, they could not have effected the landing, and returned with live people. I'm an electrician with over 15,000 documented hours in industrial and commercial new construction and tenent improvement. More than that undocumented. I have books of available materials for electrical installation from decades before, during, and after the 'moon shot' From an electrical standpoint, the 1969 trip to the moon was impossible. were you alive/aware/interested in spaceflight in the 60s? Do you have any interest in anything but wiring? What technology were they "missing" in the 60s that made the landings impossible? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 74255502 United States 01/21/2018 02:15 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The Soviets followed the mission...why did they not blow the whistle when they supposedly saw "no landing"? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76142371 ...wheat??!!??? How many experts in spaceflight and all it's sciences think the missions were impossible? Why was the LM acknowledged as an incredible engineering feat by the worlds engineers? It happened...six times. ...deal with it. Your current generation doesn't have the focus, skills and balls to even send men into orbit again! Why do you think that the USSR would blow the whistle? That's not the way high-level politics and international banking operate. The notion that countries are different and apposing one another is just an illusion created for the peasants. At the top all countries are on the same team. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 54201650 United States 01/27/2018 01:05 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The BEST video/documentary on the subject, written & [low budget] produced by an actual scientific investigative journalist (who was later found dead, mysteriously) is this one. He interviewed the friggin DIRECTOR of the Apollo "mission", the man responsible for training the astro-NOT$ on the usage of the L.E.M. moon lander...who goes on to look into the camera and state that he 'never had to train the astro-not$ to actually GO THROUGH THE LEM HATCH,[LOL!!!] - which is measured in the documentary & proven that it was not possibly able to allow a fully packed astronaut to enter or exit from. [the film producer then says 'so i guess they just had to TRAVEL THE 250,000 MILES TO THEN JUST "WING IT"] Good stuff, great footage, ignore the poor-mid 90's VHS quality to this copy that someone uploaded: Quoting: VHS 1897079 |
The Deplorable Astromut Senior Forum Moderator 02/04/2018 11:03 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | which is measured in the documentary & proven that it was not possibly able to allow a fully packed astronaut to enter or exit from. Quoting: VHS 1897079 Funny, I measured it today with the last remaining original lunar module actually intended for flight, and one of gene cernan's space suits... It fits, and I have the 3D scans to prove it... Thanks for getting me started on this awesome project though, I now have my own 3D scanner thanks to this false claim. Last Edited by Astromut on 02/05/2018 10:31 AM |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 56773428 United States 02/04/2018 11:17 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The BEST video/documentary on the subject, written & [low budget] produced by an actual scientific investigative journalist (who was later found dead, mysteriously) is this one. He interviewed the friggin DIRECTOR of the Apollo "mission", the man responsible for training the astro-NOT$ on the usage of the L.E.M. moon lander...who goes on to look into the camera and state that he 'never had to train the astro-not$ to actually GO THROUGH THE LEM HATCH,[LOL!!!] - which is measured in the documentary & proven that it was not possibly able to allow a fully packed astronaut to enter or exit from. [the film producer then says 'so i guess they just had to TRAVEL THE 250,000 MILES TO THEN JUST "WING IT"] Good stuff, great footage, ignore the poor-mid 90's VHS quality to this copy that someone uploaded: Quoting: VHS 1897079 Jeesh, there are photos of the astronauts going through the hatch in training at KSC. Do some homework. Link? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 75880218 United States 02/16/2018 09:14 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The BEST video/documentary on the subject, written & [low budget] produced by an actual scientific investigative journalist (who was later found dead, mysteriously) is this one. He interviewed the friggin DIRECTOR of the Apollo "mission", the man responsible for training the astro-NOT$ on the usage of the L.E.M. moon lander...who goes on to look into the camera and state that he 'never had to train the astro-not$ to actually GO THROUGH THE LEM HATCH,[LOL!!!] - which is measured in the documentary & proven that it was not possibly able to allow a fully packed astronaut to enter or exit from. [the film producer then says 'so i guess they just had to TRAVEL THE 250,000 MILES TO THEN JUST "WING IT"] Good stuff, great footage, ignore the poor-mid 90's VHS quality to this copy that someone uploaded: Quoting: VHS 1897079 |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 76142371 United States 02/16/2018 09:20 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The BEST video/documentary on the subject, written & [low budget] produced by an actual scientific investigative journalist (who was later found dead, mysteriously) is this one. He interviewed the friggin DIRECTOR of the Apollo "mission", the man responsible for training the astro-NOT$ on the usage of the L.E.M. moon lander...who goes on to look into the camera and state that he 'never had to train the astro-not$ to actually GO THROUGH THE LEM HATCH,[LOL!!!] - which is measured in the documentary & proven that it was not possibly able to allow a fully packed astronaut to enter or exit from. [the film producer then says 'so i guess they just had to TRAVEL THE 250,000 MILES TO THEN JUST "WING IT"] Good stuff, great footage, ignore the poor-mid 90's VHS quality to this copy that someone uploaded: Quoting: VHS 1897079 Jeesh, there are photos of the astronauts going through the hatch in training at KSC. Do some homework. Link? Do YOUR homework. You need to provide the evidence supporting your claim that the hatch is too narrow. |
beeches User ID: 74276477 United States 02/16/2018 09:23 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
G3 User ID: 75255155 United States 02/16/2018 10:40 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
The Deplorable Astromut Senior Forum Moderator 02/19/2018 09:31 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | which is measured in the documentary & proven that it was not possibly able to allow a fully packed astronaut to enter or exit from. Quoting: VHS 1897079 Funny, I measured it today with the last remaining original lunar module actually intended for flight, and one of gene cernan's space suits... It fits, and I have the 3D scans to prove it... Thanks for getting me started on this awesome project though, I now have my own 3D scanner thanks to this false claim. |
Where Eagles Dare Metal-American User ID: 73836248 United States 02/19/2018 09:33 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Isaiah 40:31 - But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint. “They’ve got us surrounded again, the poor bastards.” - U.S. Army Paratrooper at Bastogne |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 5806149 United States 02/22/2018 05:10 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The BEST video/documentary on the subject, written & [low budget] produced by an actual scientific investigative journalist (who was later found dead, mysteriously) is this one. He interviewed the friggin DIRECTOR of the Apollo "mission", the man responsible for training the astro-NOT$ on the usage of the L.E.M. moon lander...who goes on to look into the camera and state that he 'never had to train the astro-not$ to actually GO THROUGH THE LEM HATCH,[LOL!!!] - which is measured in the documentary & proven that it was not possibly able to allow a fully packed astronaut to enter or exit from. [the film producer then says 'so i guess they just had to TRAVEL THE 250,000 MILES TO THEN JUST "WING IT"] Good stuff, great footage, ignore the poor-mid 90's VHS quality to this copy that someone uploaded: Quoting: VHS 1897079 I tink that Musk dude's Mars miszion is a total hoax as well |