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 SydneyPSIder » 11 Jun 2013, 14:47

Further, I have suspicions about the physics of the vernier rockets in that video. The verniers are mounted on the very top of the LM, but when they fire the entire LM pivots about its centre as though it's on a swivel, i.e. it rotates in one dimension only. However, the rocket is not placed in a line through the centre of the mass of the LM on this axis of rotation. A study of the force applied by the small vernier rocket at one end of a massive object would show that it would instead cause the LM to flip around in 3 dimensions, i.e. it would also start to tumble about the centre of mass and turn upwards as it rotated. Surprised no-one has remarked on that, least of all the thousands of first year uni physics professors out there teaching simple statics and kinematics. It's akin to trying to open a 2-handle drawer using just one handle on one side -- the drawer immediately sticks because it starts to rotate and jams in the frame.

The other problem of course is that in space, with no massive object or counterforce stopping you, once you start moving in a certain direction you continue moving in that direction. For the LM to stop dead at 4:04 would require some magical invisible 'force' to take effect immediately, and be exactly equal in size and in the opposite direction to the force that started the rotation. It's just not how verniers work. You would see a slow deceleration as another vernier fired to counteract the spin, as they would be juggling it to slow it down and get the LM in the right position and orientation. Anyhow, it doesn't really matter, as we are talking about a bunch of models on sticks here anyway.

SydneyPSIder wrote: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 » 12 Jun 2013, 11:03

Here's some pics from the Langley Research Center -- and what's with the rails, exactly? That's the kind of setup you need for special effects filming!

Even the visually differently abled Arouet must somehow be able to see what might be going on here.

Image

Image

And these are only the ones we know about. Now can you see where that vast Apollo budget went?
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby SydneyPSIder » 12 Jun 2013, 18:49

really? wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:Then of course there is the trap Bart Sibrel set for Buzz Aldrin I think it was, where it appeared Buzz could not describe what it was like passing through the van Allen belts -- you would see constant stars and flashes on the back of your retinas. He obviously hadn't experienced it when asked. Space shuttle crew have observed it more recently flying through the very lowest reaches of the belts. That would have probably continued at a slightly reduced level for the rest of the journey to the moon and back due to solar radiation. He was very uncomfortable and seemed very caught out psychologically by it, which is another telling aspect. Then there is the 'we were just passengers' excuse, 'why don't you ask NASA where we went?'. Hello? A very spirited defence, not.

Then there is the ongoing confusion between different astronauts as to whether they could see stars on the journey out. Some say yes, others say no. When you ask the nos about the yeses, they get very angry and say the yeses don't know what they're talking about. Then they go back to trying to sell their latest book or sell their memorabilia for $100,000 a pop and try to get the person questioning shut down and evicted from proceedings.

These guys are as big a hoax as the fake psychics. And so is the government behind them.


Well, I just learned something from you, you are one myopic individual who doesn't have the ability to consider anything that counters your view. And before you quip back with the same about me it would help you immensely [ I can't stress that enough] if you'd stop with the opining and actually bring facts to the table. [So called] facts from other moon hoax believers are not acceptable as facts unless those facts can be corroborated independently from an impartial source. Good luck. ;)

This is so silly. We've already posted in dozens of pics and video sequences in very recent threads on exactly this -- the Apollo space program and the fakery has been hoist on its own petard, with irregularities demonstrated in both pics and videos supplied by NASA themselves. What is this united states of amnesia thing really? and profwag keep doing? They forget from one thread to the next the clearcut evidence that has been presented, along with the more circumstantial but well reasoned arguments that also suggest the missions did not go ahead. Further, copious numbers of links have been provided to the source websites which contain the full reasoning and evidence, but they never read that stuff either. This goes beyond spoon-feeding, stupidity, rudeness and intransigence, it's wilful obstruction to prevent a case being made.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby Arouet » 12 Jun 2013, 20:24

SydneyPSIder wrote:Here's some pics from the Langley Research Center -- and what's with the rails, exactly? That's the kind of setup you need for special effects filming!

Even the visually differently abled Arouet must somehow be able to see what might be going on here.


They look like models of planets.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby really? » 12 Jun 2013, 20:28

SydneyPSIder wrote:Then of course there is the trap Bart Sibrel set for Buzz Aldrin I think it was, where it appeared Buzz could not describe what it was like passing through the van Allen belts -- you would see constant stars and flashes on the back of your retinas. He obviously hadn't experienced it when asked. Space shuttle crew have observed it more recently flying through the very lowest reaches of the belts. That would have probably continued at a slightly reduced level for the rest of the journey to the moon and back due to solar radiation. He was very uncomfortable and seemed very caught out psychologically by it, which is another telling aspect. Then there is the 'we were just passengers' excuse, 'why don't you ask NASA where we went?'. Hello? A very spirited defence, not.

Then there is the ongoing confusion between different astronauts as to whether they could see stars on the journey out. Some say yes, others say no. When you ask the nos about the yeses, they get very angry and say the yeses don't know what they're talking about. Then they go back to trying to sell their latest book or sell their memorabilia for $100,000 a pop and try to get the person questioning shut down and evicted from proceedings.

These guys are as big a hoax as the fake psychics. And so is the government behind them.


really? wrote:Well, I just learned something from you, you are one myopic individual who doesn't have the ability to consider anything that counters your view. And before you quip back with the same about me it would help you immensely [ I can't stress that enough] if you'd stop with the opining and actually bring facts to the table. [So called] facts from other moon hoax believers are not acceptable as facts unless those facts can be corroborated independently from an impartial source. Good luck. ;)

SydneyPSIder wrote:This is so silly. We've already posted in dozens of pics and video sequences in very recent threads on exactly this -- the Apollo space program and the fakery has been hoist on its own petard, with irregularities demonstrated in both pics and videos supplied by NASA themselves. What is this united states of amnesia thing really? and profwag keep doing? They forget from one thread to the next the clearcut evidence that has been presented, along with the more circumstantial but well reasoned arguments that also suggest the missions did not go ahead. Further, copious numbers of links have been provided to the source websites which contain the full reasoning and evidence, but they never read that stuff either. This goes beyond spoon-feeding, stupidity, rudeness and intransigence, it's wilful obstruction to prevent a case being made.


Dear Syd,
Do you really think NASA personnel would be so stupid as to allow these photos be made public if it's all a hoax? You don't have the technical background to forensically analyze the photos. You haven't even the slightest clue as to what the real purpose of the devices and photos were for. Nor do you even make one attempt proffer a conjecture in that direction. Even though you are absolutely blind to your own conclusion biases and blind to the conclusion biases of all the other "full reasoning" evidence links you so happily provided, we are not. So for your sake you should stop because it makes you look more and more like a tinfoil hatter. The only way you and all the other moon hoax believers will ever stop being part of the tinfoil hatter club would be to locate an damning internal NASA memo corroborating the fakery you so absolutely believe in. Syd the logic you are using is not any different than those people that believe they have the evidence for ancient astronauts by pointing at a photo like this one Image claiming it shows a man flying in a rocket.

P.S. Before you pull out the classified document argument remember there are whistle blowers as we've recently seen. It's not willful obstructionism when you haven't provided anything to obstruct.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby Misha » 13 Jun 2013, 03:08

Please continue, Sydney. Especially when Really calls you a tinfoil hat. Hey, where can I get some....
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby NinjaPuppy » 13 Jun 2013, 08:05

Misha wrote:Please continue, Sydney. Especially when Really calls you a tinfoil hat. Hey, where can I get some....

I hear that they are on sale at Skeptics-R-Us.

Image
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby really? » 13 Jun 2013, 10:16

NinjaPuppy wrote:
Misha wrote:Please continue, Sydney. Especially when Really calls you a tinfoil hat. Hey, where can I get some....

I hear that they are on sale at Skeptics-R-Us.

Image


Skeptics-R-Us can't keep them in stock. Right now they are having a BoGo sale.
Cute pooch. Is it yours NP?
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby Misha » 13 Jun 2013, 10:48

NinjaPuppy wrote:
Misha wrote:Please continue, Sydney. Especially when Really calls you a tinfoil hat. Hey, where can I get some....

I hear that they are on sale at Skeptics-R-Us.

Image


Ha! That dog don't hunt! Love it, NinjaPuppy!
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby SydneyPSIder » 13 Jun 2013, 21:03

really? wrote:Dear Syd,
Do you really think NASA personnel would be so stupid as to allow these photos be made public if it's all a hoax? You don't have the technical background to forensically analyze the photos. You haven't even the slightest clue as to what the real purpose of the devices and photos were for. Nor do you even make one attempt proffer a conjecture in that direction. Even though you are absolutely blind to your own conclusion biases and blind to the conclusion biases of all the other "full reasoning" evidence links you so happily provided, we are not. So for your sake you should stop because it makes you look more and more like a tinfoil hatter. The only way you and all the other moon hoax believers will ever stop being part of the tinfoil hatter club would be to locate an damning internal NASA memo corroborating the fakery you so absolutely believe in. Syd the logic you are using is not any different than those people that believe they have the evidence for ancient astronauts by pointing at a photo like this one claiming it shows a man flying in a rocket.

P.S. Before you pull out the classified document argument remember there are whistle blowers as we've recently seen. It's not willful obstructionism when you haven't provided anything to obstruct.

Methinks he doth protest too much. He's losing on the logic, so falls into all the usual pseudoscep alternatives to rational argument.

Here's some sample answers from Jarrah White's FAQ, a page that has been linked to numerous time on threads here already:

Q: How could so many people have kept quiet about the hoax?

A: Secrets of such magnitude have taken place. The Soviet N-1 program alone involved hundreds of thousands of scientists and engineers; yet the designing, developing, and launch of the N-1 rocket remained a well-kept secret for forty years until the USSR collapsed in 1991.

Bottom line, if Russia could keep a secret that involved thousands of people for so long, so could NASA. And anyway, not everyone at NASA would have needed to be in on the conspiracy. For example, as stated above, the technicians at Houston Mission Control Center would be unable to distinguish the difference between simulations and the real missions. Hence there is no need for them to ‘keep quiet’ about anything.

Likewise for the remainder of NASA staff and contractors located on the ground. Once the rockets were out of sight they had no way of knowing whether the CSM continued to the Moon, came down shortly afterwards, or just stayed in earth orbit. Everyone just assumed it happened the way it was reported and they had no reason to suspect otherwise. Ultimately there were only three eyewitnesses for each mission, not thousands.


http://www.moonfaker.com/faqs.html
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 14 Jun 2013, 09:22, edited 1 time in total.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby NinjaPuppy » 14 Jun 2013, 00:09

Nope, not my doggie. I found him on the internet. However, he would make an excellent avatar for this forum. ;)
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby SydneyPSIder » 14 Jun 2013, 09:25

Back to Arou's ongoing and burning radiation question for a second. On a re-reading of Jarrah White's straightforward summary of radiation risks and various measurements that have taken place by probe, in once concise post, can Arou indicate what parts are wrong?

As demonstrated by James Van Allen’s own findings, the radiation belts that surround earth would have been lethal to astronauts10, 11. It began in 1952 when James Van Allen & his team at the University of Iowa began launching Geiger counters into space aboard rockoons. Although these did not have enough lift to get into orbit, these experiments were able to detect radiation levels higher than what Van Allen had expected. Later in the late 50s and early 60s, his Geiger counters were carried aloft by the Explorer satellites and Pioneer space probes. Each time the spacecraft entered the radiation belts, the Geiger counters would become continuously busy. They encountered protons and electrons with fluxes of 40,000 particles per square centimetre per second and average energies ranging between 1-100 MeV.

Before Van Allen began shielding his Geiger counters with a millimetre of lead, the instruments detected radiation with a dose rate equivalent of 312.5rad/hr to 11,666rad/hr for the outer belt and inner belt respectively [Fig-2]12. These instruments quickly became jammed by the radiation. Even to this day, the belts are so severe that satellites must operate outside the belts: geostationary satellites operating beyond the end of the outer belt (but still within the protection of the magnetosphere) and GPS satellites operating in the gap between the two belts. Meanwhile low earth orbit satellites like the Hubble must shut down some of their instruments during South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) transit. Even after Van Allen shielded his Geiger counters with lead, the results were still equivalent to 10-100rad/hr. He concluded that effective shielding of astronauts was beyond engineering feasibility available at the time, that even a rapid transit through the belts would be hazardous, and that for these reasons the two belts must be classed as an uninhabitable region of space that all manned space flight must steer clear of.

Even if we discount the Van Allen belt, there are still other dangers to consider. The sun constantly bombards the earth-moon system with solar flares. Regardless of whether these flares deliver x-rays or protons, or are minor or major, both are a hazard to humans. A major flare delivers in excess of 100rad/hr, a minor flare can deliver 25rad/hr depending on how many centimetres of water shielding is used. The minor flares of May 10th and July 15th 1958 for example, would have required 31gm/cm2 of water just to bring their dose rates down to 25rad/hr [Fig-3]. The Apollo capsule, with its aluminium honeycomb hull and outer epoxy resin ablator, was rated at 3gm/cm2 on the walls and 8gm/cm2 on the aft heatshield. The thicker portion of the spacecraft walls would bring the dose rate of such flares down to around 1,000rem/hr. The records show that 1400 of these minor flares occurred over all nine moon flights (Tables 1 & 2). NOAA’s Comprehensive Flare Index for Major flares, also reveals that thirty of the major ones took place during the Apollo missions. By any definition, these astronauts should have been as dead as spam in a can.


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

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby really? » 14 Jun 2013, 19:55

SydneyPSIder wrote:
really? wrote:Dear Syd,
Do you really think NASA personnel would be so stupid as to allow these photos be made public if it's all a hoax? You don't have the technical background to forensically analyze the photos. You haven't even the slightest clue as to what the real purpose of the devices and photos were for. Nor do you even make one attempt proffer a conjecture in that direction. Even though you are absolutely blind to your own conclusion biases and blind to the conclusion biases of all the other "full reasoning" evidence links you so happily provided, we are not. So for your sake you should stop because it makes you look more and more like a tinfoil hatter. The only way you and all the other moon hoax believers will ever stop being part of the tinfoil hatter club would be to locate an damning internal NASA memo corroborating the fakery you so absolutely believe in. Syd the logic you are using is not any different than those people that believe they have the evidence for ancient astronauts by pointing at a photo like this one claiming it shows a man flying in a rocket.

P.S. Before you pull out the classified document argument remember there are whistle blowers as we've recently seen. It's not willful obstructionism when you haven't provided anything to obstruct.

Methinks he doth protest too much. He's losing on the logic, so falls into all the usual pseudoscep alternatives to rational argument.

Here's some sample answers from Jarrah White's FAQ, a page that has been linked to numerous time on threads here already:

Q: How could so many people have kept quiet about the hoax?

A: Secrets of such magnitude have taken place. The Soviet N-1 program alone involved hundreds of thousands of scientists and engineers; yet the designing, developing, and launch of the N-1 rocket remained a well-kept secret for forty years until the USSR collapsed in 1991.

Bottom line, if Russia could keep a secret that involved thousands of people for so long, so could NASA. And anyway, not everyone at NASA would have needed to be in on the conspiracy. For example, as stated above, the technicians at Houston Mission Control Center would be unable to distinguish the difference between simulations and the real missions. Hence there is no need for them to ‘keep quiet’ about anything.

Likewise for the remainder of NASA staff and contractors located on the ground. Once the rockets were out of sight they had no way of knowing whether the CSM continued to the Moon, came down shortly afterwards, or just stayed in earth orbit. Everyone just assumed it happened the way it was reported and they had no reason to suspect otherwise. Ultimately there were only three eyewitnesses for each mission, not thousands.


http://www.moonfaker.com/faqs.html


You must certainly know that NASA is appropriated money by through this country's federal budget. It's always been that way. So here's the implication. a.NASA swindle all the money and no one and I mean not one person in congress was the wiser or b.all of the members of congress where part of this so called
conspiracy.

In the USSR there were great incentives to keep your mouth shut because if you opened your mouth you'd either be sent to a gulag or be executed. In any event you'd disappear. Perhaps that's why it remained a well kept secret until the USSR collapsed.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby Arouet » 14 Jun 2013, 21:59

SydneyPSIder wrote:Back to Arou's ongoing and burning radiation question for a second. On a re-reading of Jarrah White's straightforward summary of radiation risks and various measurements that have taken place by probe, in once concise post, can Arou indicate what parts are wrong?


i'm pretty sure I addressed both those issues in some of my posts, I'll see if I can find them. I thought I had dug up a quote by Van Allen himself on the first part, and re: the solar flares I think it was that for big ones they would have some notice, so they knew there wouldn't be one at the start of the trip, if I recall, the danger for that would have been mainly on the back end of the trip and even then the odds were relatively low - even if a major solar flare had occurred it would have to be pointed in the right way to be a significant danger.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby really? » 14 Jun 2013, 22:55

Arouet wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:Back to Arou's ongoing and burning radiation question for a second. On a re-reading of Jarrah White's straightforward summary of radiation risks and various measurements that have taken place by probe, in once concise post, can Arou indicate what parts are wrong?


i'm pretty sure I addressed both those issues in some of my posts, I'll see if I can find them. I thought I had dug up a quote by Van Allen himself on the first part, and re: the solar flares I think it was that for big ones they would have some notice, so they knew there wouldn't be one at the start of the trip, if I recall, the danger for that would have been mainly on the back end of the trip and even then the odds were relatively low - even if a major solar flare had occurred it would have to be pointed in the right way to be a significant danger.


To the underlined. A solar flare is like a loaded gun which is only dangerous if the gun is pointed at you and fired
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron