Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.
Misha - could you pick one from the list that you find particularly relevant for me to look into? If the only strong ones involve pictures or videos I guess I'll go with that, but if there's a strong one that doesn't that'd be better.
I'd like to go into a topic but I don't want to do all the work and then be told that I went after low hanging fruit again!
As I said before I think Sydney has hit on many points to consider. However, I do not think we should just approach the Apollo question with one example. I think it is better to understand the contextual nature of Apollo overall. Moreover, by me picking one topic means I will have to engage on this topic by default. At this point in time I think it is fruitless. No shot at you. Yes, some post might stir me and I might answer. But, right now I would rather read what you guys put out.
Syd, back on page 2, you listed several things about the moon hoax. I've copied and answered the first 5 if you care to assist with my questions.
1.- low likelihood of 6 successful missions without significant mission-compromising life-endangering engineering failure somewhere along the line, not just a fender coming off ferchrissakes
Obviously you forgot Apollo 1 where astronauts got killed. You also forgot Apollo 13 where they didn’t make it to the moon. Also, low likelihood is misleading. Low likelihood in whom’s opinion?
2- comparison with space shuttle deaths using 80s/90s technology only going into low earth orbit
You cannot compare the two. They have two completely different missions, so it's like comparing the SR71 with technology of an A-10. However, if you insist on going there, Space shuttle success rate was 133 out of 135 or 98% whereas Apollo was 15 for 17 or 89%.
3- all real manned space efforts since then by any country have only gone into low earth orbit
Again, so what? Why go back to the moon? We’ve already been there and now other countries are sending up crafts to research, but with modern technology, humans are not necessary for the U.S. so why risk something that’s not needed? Similarly, Russia has not been there. If we did not go, why did they stop their program? Do you have a reference where Russia states they do not believe it is possible for humans to go to the moon? It appears we do have technology to send humans to Mars and we may send them their within a decade or so by a non-NASA organization.
4- likelihood of achieving successful 'flipping' of modules in space on the way out and re-docking after leaving the moon's surface 6 times over is very low; likelihood of missing rendezvous between LEM and command module high
Again, likelihood by whom’s standard? What do you think the likelihood is and how did you come up with that conclusion? It’s a statistic, but I’m not good with stats. Are you?
5- unnatural physics demonstrated in the docking maneouvre video which suggests it's a fake with models being pivoted
Could you be more specific? What unnatural physics? Also, if you say it suggests it’s fake, does that mean it is or it is not? Do you have strong evidence it is? If so, what is it?
I suspect syd won't directly address any of the points you have made.
haha, just dropped in and noticed this, it's 1 am here, but I will answer them tomorrow. They're very easily answered and debunked on a quick skim, in fact, despite really?'s pointless and snide remark. But I'll do it tomorrow or the long weekend (Queen's birthday), as I do have a job to get to.
What about the 20 or 30 summary observations indicating a hoax made after that?
Pick one to discuss! If you do it today I can look at it over the weekend.
Last edited by NinjaPuppy on 07 Jun 2013, 01:33, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Fixed HTML on Syd's quote
OK, these are questions and observations, not 'answers'. Further, it annoys me that I've addressed many of them in detail on other recent threads here, including video and pictorial evidence, and suddenly one of the sceptics is in the united states of amnesia and wants me to do it all over again. Seems like deliberate time-wasting to me.
Apollo 1 was an early prototype which didn't get off the ground, although it was a few short years til the end of the decade in the timeline demanded by the politicians. It also demonstrated egregious errors in design where 1) a pure oxygen environment was attempted as a shortcut to keep the astronauts alive in a low pressure capsule to the moon, which was a mistake, where 2) materials in the module were not proofed against fire, and 3) the hatch was extremely difficult to open from the outside in that model, whereas a replacement hatch was available or being completed which allowed easy opening. (Note that there must have been a temptation with low pressure requirements -- 20% of atmospheric pressure at sea level -- due to structural and weight considerations to instead just fake the missions instead of forcing astronauts to travel through space under those conditions for such a long time.) There are also some further clues of overall ineptness in the US space program from Apollo 1 -- Gus Grissom, who was killed in the fire, was critical of the electronic comms even on the ground at short distance, saying they couldn't get to the moon if they couldn't even communicate between two buildings on the ground; he also hung a lemon on a coat hanger in the window of the Apollo 1 module to demonstrate the space program was behind and the module was a lemon. There are of course further conspiracy theories suggesting that Grissom and the other astronauts were deliberately sacrificed as a lesson to any potential whistleblowers and because Grissom was openly and publicly critical of progress, and probably too honest to go along with a hoax.
Low likelihood when compared with all other engineering programs of a similar nature -- e.g. the space shuttle program, and the very many US rocket failures throughout the 50s and 60s using similar technology of the day. Look today also for a comparison with the rate of failure of military hardware in the field -- helicopter and plane crashes even when well serviced.
You should also read about, for instance, Richard Branson's many life-endangering engineering failures on his various adventures such as ballooning at altitude through the gulf stream, despite the best and most professional preparation -- exploding bolts going off early, or not at all, etc. Engineering failures are a huge, expected and accepted part of engineering practice in this space. The chances of all the software on a primitive computer working perfectly and properly without bugs, of being able to land the LEM by eye on the moon with a single central rocket, are very low. There is no evidence a LEM is even able to land and take off again in any environment, that has never been demonstrated to us on earth, it's nowhere on video, it only seemed to work the first time it was attempted live on the moon! I think the deception should be obvious.
During the 1986 Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, the eminent physicist Richard Feynman found that NASA’s analysis, claims and methodology were consistently incorrect. In a lengthy paper (that was so embarrassing for NASA it was relegated to a mere appendix within the Commission’s final report) Feynman made several observations that seem remarkably applicable to the NASA of eighteen years previously. He wrote:
“It would appear that, for whatever purpose, be it for internal or external consumption, the management of NASA exaggerates the reliability of its product, to the point of fantasy.”
“When playing Russian roulette the fact that the first shot got off safely is little comfort for the next.”
Feynman finished his report with these words:
“NASA owes it to the citizens from whom it asks support, to be frank, honest and informative. And so that these citizens can make the wisest decisions for the use of their limited resources for a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations – for nature cannot be fooled.”
Apollo 13 was also seen to be a 'hoax' of some sort. There are numerous possibilities -- it's possible the modules were placed in low earth orbit while they were meant to be going to the moon, and they actually had a genuine accident with O2 tanks and had to abort their low earth orbit mission, with relatively little danger. Another possibility is that it was just a 'constructed accident' to add some spice to the missions and show an error, and also signal that they might terminate future missions due to dangers. This could be the case especially if the rockets and modules were actually ditched at sea after take-off as according to some theorists -- i.e. there was no active flying mission and all communications were fabricated.
I sometimes wonder whether all the Saturn V rockets even took off, or whether file footage was re-used on later supposed launches to save money. Although I suppose a few fans would always turn up in person to watch launches, assuming security would let them.
Of course they can be compared, for the reasons given in 1. They have very very similar missions in terms of physics, engineering and preparation. The fact that you can even attempt to make this assertion proves you're either pissing about here, or you are just not qualified to discuss the topic, to be honest, and that either way I'm wasting my time with this. Really? was half right, the questions here don't really deserve an answer. A 4 year old knows better than to make a claim like that. I mean, a 4 year old would think you are taking the piss with an adult assertion like that, it's beyond juvenile and bloody-minded. Please, someone, explain the physics of space missions, pressurised capsules, calculation of trajectories and take-offs and the design of rockets to profwag, who claims to be an engineering genius in military circles.
your attempts to use percentages are also fraudulent -- why don't you instead give us percentages of embarrassing fatalities? space shuttle (1980s), low earth orbit, edge of atmosphere, beneath radiation belts -- 14, Apollo (1960s), to the moon and back, landing and taking off, performing complex operations, through radiation belts and deep space radiation -- 0. And the 'astronauts' are ageing well and still no cancers decades later beyond the normal rate of earth-bound people who are protected by the earth's magnetosphere and atmosphere!
as an aside, an sr71 and an a-10 have more in common than not, also. they are both jet engined aircraft with wings, are they not, operating against gravity and using a wing cross section to achieve lift, and with similar life support needed for the pilots when working at altitude? gimme a break here.
Missions to Mars clearly haven't happened yet, matey. I'll believe it when I see it. Why are you living in a world of make believe and future announcements? On this, though, NASA have indicated several times that they have only poor radiation research and that it is a major obstacle to a Mars mission and that further research needs to be done. I pointed out earlier that it's very suspicious a lot of radiation equipment and readings were not taken on any of the alleged manned moon missions to help with this research and reduce the danger to astronauts on the missions. In fact, it appears no radiation measuring equipment is present on the moon today, or ever has been, attempting to measure the strength of radiation and solar flares, etc and transmit the info back. if there is any such equipment by any space agency in the world, i'd be interested to know.
your question about 'why go back to the moon' is just pointless. it has no bearing on the situation that it is highly likely no person has been to the moon ever. it's almost equally pointless to conjecture why the Russians didn't go -- perhaps they knew it was a hoax and that it was not worth the effort of actually attempting to get all the engineering right and deal with radiation, and it was easier to do nothing -- after all, they were not as well off as a country as the US to continue with a space race. I don't know whether the Russians were duped or not by the footage etc. if they thought the americans had faked it, there would be a VERY STRONG inducement NOT to go, as the chance of engineering failure and an embarrassing mission failure and astronaut deaths would be very likely on a REAL attempt, and hence they would have 'proven' they weren't as good as the US, so faking the missions for the US was a strong strategic play. and they probably couldn't be bothered faking a Hollywood moon mission in the studio either, i.e. it would be too obvious by then and they didn't have the special fx equipment that Hollywood had devised. and maybe they were just too honest.
why build an ISS in low earth orbit? why do anything in space? why not 'go back to the moon', given it appears they can stamp out LEMs on an assembly line that all work perfectly without failure, and go to the moon and back any ol' time you want? No radiation risks with thin walled craft, no pressure leaks, no nothing. The space suit designs all work perfectly without a hitch or a leak for long periods, and you can dance around the moon falling over backwards onto your life support kit, no problems. Air-conditioning and batteries are never a problem, even without solar cells to power them. Surely the engineering and computing could only get better from here! Oh, wait, they've lost the blueprints for all the modules somehow. Funny that.
as for 1 and 2 above. i'm fine with stats, thanks.
I'll try to dig the videos out AGAIN, although I've already posted them before on other threads. Also posted the strong evidence of model making to enable the faked videos, using a 20' mockup of the moon on a rotating pedestal that has been photographed.
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 12 Jun 2013, 11:25, edited 5 times in total.
Here's an example:
Footage from 3:26 gets interesting. Physics impossibility is at 4:04 -- a large craft in space simply cannot decelerate to 0 m/s in almost zero time in the way shown -- these are models being rotated on pivots, whether life sized or smaller, possibly using blue screen technology with the fake moon backdrop being superimposed. Further, there are no visible exhausts from any rocket in executing the perfect manoeuvres.
If you don't understand the physics of acceleration and deceleration, the physics and engineering in rates of change of velocity, please don't make an ass out of yourself here with silly replies. Let's talk about the third and fourth derivatives of rate of change of displacement in engineering, i.e. acceleration/deceleration and 'jerk'.
Also note our Russian friends are extremely quizzical in this video, they seem to be on to it now. Can anyone read Russian and translate?
From our friend Jarrah:
Can't I pick 20 or 30?
Can't I pick 20 or 30?[/quote]
I can't research 20 or 30 topics at once!
The last couple times I just picked from your list and looked into them in detail you told me I was going after low hanging fruit - so I want to avoid that. How about giving me what you consider among the top 5 most important issues on your list. Doesn't have to be a formal ranking, just 5 topics you conisider to be key.
Now you might be starting to see my point Sydney about dedicated discussiona - when you deal with these topics in a laundry list type fashion, many points will get lost A focussed discussion is much more likely to sink in.
Also, I wouldn't be surprised that not everyone remembers every point that you've raised in the past. I can't remember every argument I'VE made on every topic I've writen on let alone what everyone else has written! But again, a focussed thread on a subtopic will also make it easier to review what has been said in other threads.
Also remember that the search feature on this forum is terrible, and while on most forums you can just right-click on a person's name and pull up their recent posts to see what they said, you can't do that here, which makes it pretty inpractical to go look up what people have written priviously.
(incidentally this is a good example on how our perspective can influence how we view others. You read his post and assume he remembers everything you wrote and is deliberately egging you on. I read it and and assume that he either doesn't remember or may not have read it in the first place. Much better to just ask him directly rather than throw a jibe.)
Of course you can. You might surprise yourself with your tremendous abilities.
You picked just one thing from a quick off the cuff list of a few things that were not intended to be definitive. Then you became obsessed with that one thing, even though it was repeated over and over that it was a risk factor, and nobody knew the answer, which was the point.
Anyhow, I will shortlist perhaps 5 sample things from the list and re-post the various pics and pieces of evidence once again.
Then we can do another 5. And then another 5...
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 11 Jun 2013, 14:54, edited 1 time in total.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests