View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

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.

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby Arouet » 02 Jun 2013, 07:16

You think it's significant that we haven't returned to the moon?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07






Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby Arouet » 03 Jun 2013, 00:24

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!
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby Misha » 03 Jun 2013, 11:00

Arouet wrote: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!


Hi Arouet,

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.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby Arouet » 04 Jun 2013, 01:56

Ok, I give up. It's fine to be careful not to lose the forrest for the trees, but if you don't take a close look at the trees from time to time you can't really be sure how robust your forrest really is.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby ProfWag » 04 Jun 2013, 07:42

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?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby really? » 04 Jun 2013, 09:42

ProfWag wrote: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.


I suspect syd won't directly address any of the points you have made.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby SydneyPSIder » 06 Jun 2013, 23:05

really? wrote:
ProfWag wrote: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.


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?
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby Arouet » 07 Jun 2013, 00:00

SydneyPSIder wrote: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
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby SydneyPSIder » 10 Jun 2013, 14:44

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.

ProfWag wrote: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?


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.”

And:
“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.

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%.

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.

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.

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.

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?

as for 1 and 2 above. i'm fine with stats, thanks.

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'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.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby SydneyPSIder » 10 Jun 2013, 15:05

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?
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby SydneyPSIder » 10 Jun 2013, 15:51

From our friend Jarrah:

Q: Why did the Russians remain silent?

A:
Firstly, if you really want to know what Russia thought of manned lunar exploration, just ask Jodrell Bank’s Sir Bernard Lovell. In May of 1963, the President of the Soviet Academy of Sciences Mstislav Keldysh instructed him to inform NASA’s deputy administrator Hugh Dryden that Russian had to postpone manned moon flights indefinitely, because they could see no way to protect their cosmonauts from the insurmountable dangers posed by solar flare radiation3, 4, 5, 6. Well into 1966, around the time Russia put Lunik 10 in lunar orbit, Sir Bernard remained in contact with the Soviets asking when they intended to send a human to the moon.

In 1999, Sir Bernard was quoted by the BBC along these lines: “I had frequently asked my Soviet contacts when they intended to send a human being to the moon and their response was always ‘when we can be absolutely certain of getting him back alive’. And they did not believe the Americans would do this and in fact it’s pretty clear that the Americans did take considerable risk.”

Well into December 1968, Alexei Leonov and his comrades pleaded the politburo to let them pilot Zond 7 around the moon, as the Zonds 5 & 6 had already flown around the moon and returned to earth in September and November of that year – the former of which was successfully recovered. But their pleas were rejected despite having proven their capabilities with Zond 5.

Russia may likely have planned to fake their manned moon flights too. Aboard Zond 5 was an audio cassette player which played back the voices of cosmonauts Pavel Popevich and Vitali Sevastyanov7, 8, 9. At the time many thought Russia had sent the first men around the moon, but upon return of the capsule it was revealed that it was only a tape recording. NASA, who at the time weren’t officially planning a ‘manned’ moon mission until April or May 1969, responded to the tape recorder stunt by changing Apollo 8’s flight plan from a high earth orbit flight to a lunar orbit flight in December 1968.

Russia had the opportunity to claim victory over the Americans, but they let it slip through their fingers. But even if they were to cry foul on the Americans, it would only jeopardize their own program. If the USSR was to come out and say that Apollo was faked due to lethal radiation, the Americans would just as easily cry foul if the Soviets proceeded to fake their own for the same reason.

The second reason for their silence would be because of free trade deals. Since the Kennedy administration, the United States government and its allies had been selling tons of American wheat to the Soviets. It’s no different to modern times: the US cuts multi-billion dollar trade deals with the Chinese and in turn China gets kicked off America’s list of human rights violators, likewise Russia gets tons of wheat in return for silence.

Thirdly, nowadays the Russian and American space programs are partners in crime. In the early 70s the US and Soviets agreed to work cooperatively in the exploration of space. This international cooperation became a reality in 1975 with the Apollo Soyuz Test Project, the first joint mission. Many other missions followed and Russia essentially became the United States’ best ally. In the 1990s, with the Buran program cancelled, the Russians had no shuttle to get to their Mir space station, only Soyuz. And the US had no equivalent to Mir. The solution was the Shuttle-Mir program, in which US shuttles carried astronauts and cosmonauts to and from the Russian Mir space station. Now the US and Russia have collaborated towards the construction of the International Space Station, involving not only them but also every other space nation – except for the US’s best trade partner, the Chinese.

The Russians were also kind enough to give American astronauts a ride to space aboard the Soyuz during the time the shuttle was grounded. And with the termination of the shuttle program, the US will now be reliant on Russia’s Soyuz to get to the ISS. It’s essentially a one-world space government, one big happy family. No one will blow the whistle on anybody.

http://www.moonfaker.com/faqs.html
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby SydneyPSIder » 10 Jun 2013, 16:28

Arouet wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote: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.

Can't I pick 20 or 30?
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby Arouet » 10 Jun 2013, 22:09

SydneyPSIder wrote:Pick one to discuss! If you do it today I can look at it over the weekend.

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.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby Arouet » 11 Jun 2013, 00:44

SydneyPSIder wrote: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.


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.)
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby SydneyPSIder » 11 Jun 2013, 14:35

Arouet wrote:I can't research 20 or 30 topics at once!

Of course you can. You might surprise yourself with your tremendous abilities.

Arouet wrote: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.

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.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron