-
Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
-
FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!
Shocking New Evidence On 1969 Moon Landing
- Thread starter Jacksson_77
- Start date
yeh but this is more of a joke compared to all the serious stuff on that thread. did you actually click the link???
k sorry undersand the reasons
spiceworld
Banned
uniqueuser said:
That's a joke, right ? :dunno:
I had some doubts myself, but I finally got convinced. Do you see the dust on the pictures? They CANNOT be faked! :tongue:spiceworld said:
:hatsoff: Jackson
thanks to surfer general , alot of thought and time went into your posts.
I watched a documentory where they tried to hoax the moon landings for themselves and actually ended up convinvcing themselves that the moon landings did in fact take place. Its long winded so i wont go into detail, i used to think it was faked but now i believe it was real.
I watched a documentory where they tried to hoax the moon landings for themselves and actually ended up convinvcing themselves that the moon landings did in fact take place. Its long winded so i wont go into detail, i used to think it was faked but now i believe it was real.
Going to the bottom of the ocean, surviving @ the Poles, and climbing Mt. Everest. Those are all trials of humans and equipment. The fact that we have GPS, OnStar, Direct TV, pictures of planets from they're orbits, and the hundreds of humans who have been in orbit. Plus the fact that man has built and flown such incredible flying machines in the past 70 years, why is going to Luna seem so outlandish?
Many facts presented in the video are NOT scientifically correct.
For example, the video stated that since space is a vacuum, there was no way the flag could wave when it was placed too close to the Apollo 11 LIM "Eagle" upon the ascend module's lift-off.
This is an utter lie and goes against even classical physics.
The exhaust velocity is still sending particles (even if you can't see a trailing flame because of the fuel+oxidizer used), and those particles were bombarding the lower descent module, the pouder of the moon's surface as well as knocking the crap out of the flag.
Even in wind, the flag is not waving because of air, but because of forces on the flag -- the particles of air in the wind against the flag.
For example, the video stated that since space is a vacuum, there was no way the flag could wave when it was placed too close to the Apollo 11 LIM "Eagle" upon the ascend module's lift-off.
This is an utter lie and goes against even classical physics.
The exhaust velocity is still sending particles (even if you can't see a trailing flame because of the fuel+oxidizer used), and those particles were bombarding the lower descent module, the pouder of the moon's surface as well as knocking the crap out of the flag.
Even in wind, the flag is not waving because of air, but because of forces on the flag -- the particles of air in the wind against the flag.
There are people who don't believe we should be working on missile defense either, even though we've had it for decades.thechosenone said:
We've just refined it to the point that we can not only track and hit slower moving objects (like planes), but even point-on ballistic missiles traveling at hypersonic speeds during re-entry.
They think there is just this "artificial barrier" between things.
Same deal with space travel.
The same technology used to send an ICBM across the world is how we get men into space.
Everything from there is about weight, fuel, trajectory, etc...
We put in enough money to make a moon shot.
Many would argue that we shouldn't have, it was too much for too little at the time (myself included), but we very much did it.
Interesting thread no matter what you believe.
I personally do not believe that it was all a hoax. For several reasons.
- the Soviets were desperate to get to the Moon before the U.S.(the Cold War was in full swing). Don't you think if there was even the slightest hint of fakery about Apollo 11 that they would have screamed? As far as I know, both sides had all kinds of satellites even then to confirm missile launches and satellite trajectories. You don't think the Soviets monitored the Apollo 11 launch and flight trajectory?
- The fact is that the payload capacity of the Saturn 5 Rocket (the one used to go to the Moon) was enough to carry the items and materials needed to get men to the Moon. The Russians have never disputed this - that I am aware of. Why go to the insane amount of trouble and money to build this giant rocket that apparently worked fine and then launch it but with no one on board?
- Apollo 13 - where they all almost died. Was that a hoax also? Pretty strange hoax. What about Apollo 8? The first manned craft to leave Earth orbit. That was a hoax also I assume. Apollo 10? The dress rehearsal landing. That was a hoax also?
People the Soviets would have known and would have cried foul; guaranteed.
The only theory that could be true is that the U.S. launched ALL those missions and did all that they said they did - except they were all unmanned. But why would they bother doing that? They got these huge probes to the Moon that could easily support a human(s) and they leave them empty? Why?
No. In my opinion; the ONLY way that they could have faked a moon landing was if the Soviets were in cahoots with them - and is anyone here going to suggest that? That the Soviets agreed to allow the Americans to fake numerous Moon landings and successfully beat the Soviets to the Moon? In 1969? During the height of the Vietnam War? Ahhhh, I don't think so.
I personally do not believe that it was all a hoax. For several reasons.
- the Soviets were desperate to get to the Moon before the U.S.(the Cold War was in full swing). Don't you think if there was even the slightest hint of fakery about Apollo 11 that they would have screamed? As far as I know, both sides had all kinds of satellites even then to confirm missile launches and satellite trajectories. You don't think the Soviets monitored the Apollo 11 launch and flight trajectory?
- The fact is that the payload capacity of the Saturn 5 Rocket (the one used to go to the Moon) was enough to carry the items and materials needed to get men to the Moon. The Russians have never disputed this - that I am aware of. Why go to the insane amount of trouble and money to build this giant rocket that apparently worked fine and then launch it but with no one on board?
- Apollo 13 - where they all almost died. Was that a hoax also? Pretty strange hoax. What about Apollo 8? The first manned craft to leave Earth orbit. That was a hoax also I assume. Apollo 10? The dress rehearsal landing. That was a hoax also?
People the Soviets would have known and would have cried foul; guaranteed.
The only theory that could be true is that the U.S. launched ALL those missions and did all that they said they did - except they were all unmanned. But why would they bother doing that? They got these huge probes to the Moon that could easily support a human(s) and they leave them empty? Why?
No. In my opinion; the ONLY way that they could have faked a moon landing was if the Soviets were in cahoots with them - and is anyone here going to suggest that? That the Soviets agreed to allow the Americans to fake numerous Moon landings and successfully beat the Soviets to the Moon? In 1969? During the height of the Vietnam War? Ahhhh, I don't think so.
Last edited:
You just did with your statement just before that.9inch said:
Like what?9inch said:
There are some people who will doubt anything.
Back in the '60s/'70s, analog TV quality was always suspect.
Today, we have CGI and other capabilities, so even the highest definition would not be trusted.
Of course, those who actually use optical scopes to track objects in low-earth orbit (LEO) know the truth.
Then it's just a matter of boosting another 10Kph to geostationary.
Boeing just launched the heaviest geostationary object when they put up the latest DirecTV sat earlier this year.
It's only a little bit more to half-way to the moon.
As far as astronaut survivability, it's simple pressure.
Vacuums aren't that hard to deal with, when it's on the outside.
And putting astronaunts in space for a week, not difficult at all.
In actuality, we've had the technology since near the beginning of the 20th century.9inch said:
It was just lack of practice until we poured billions of dollars into it.
The military had successfully used mechanical and analog computers, perfected hydrolics and countless other systems by World War II.
[ SIDE NOTE: In fact, one could argue that we didn't need a digital computer in the Apollo program. ]
And that included the ballistic launch vehicle that could approach the speed for escape velocity.
So then it started with our ballistic missiles for military offense and went from there.
In fact, it was the chronic and nearsightedness to of NASA's predecessor to disallow use of military launch systems.
That quickly changed when we (the US) fell well behind the Soviets in lift capability.
Our first early shots couldn't even break escape velocity while the Russians were almost capable of launching a space station.
From there, it was a lot of people doing a lot of things at a very, very expensive rate.
All the efforts of a nation once focused on winning a war put right into winning the space race.
It's amazing what can be accomplished in only 10 years when you have the technical capability, but just lack the technical repeatability.
Ironically enough, despite the 2 Shuttle Transport System (STS) trajedies, it's been an unbelievable success and NASA's greatest achievement.
Mercury, Gemini and Apollo were sub-5 year programs -- use and lose.
The STS has been an engineering feat in the pure reality that it has been able to sustain a system of a 100,000 part bill-of-materials (BOM) 25+ years.
In fact, both trajedies were more about change in materials, and failures of material reviews (MRs) -- e.g., the sealant change on the O-Rings in 1986, and the banning of CFC syrofoam in 1997+ -- than anything else.
That's what happens over time with loss of mindshare (engineers leaving or just dying of old age), trying to track supplier changes, etc...
At the budget NASA has today, I very much agree.9inch said:
Furthermore, STS is clearly designed for Low Earth Orbit (LEO) launch, and not a very good platform for higher boost -- despite the original promises.
God knows the STS was more about what the US intelligence services and military wanted than commercial interests.
But it's really just a matter of money, time and payload you want to send.
The moon is not far away at all, once you can hit geostationary, then you're literally half-way there.
So then it's all about weight.
Now Mars would be a completely different scenario.
Mars is a crapload more difficult than the moon.
I honestly think that sending men back to the moon would be safer, cheaper and more fruitful than going to Mars.
At least for the next 50 years.
Our focus should be establishing gravation-neutral installations (the so-called "L" areas between the Earth-moon where there is no additional gravitation pull except for the norminal orbit around the sun),
as well as see what we can accomplish with a moon base.
As much as I know President Bush believes a lofty goal like Mars would boost the American pride, let's be realistic, it's not in our feasible interest for our future.
Just like the moon really wasn't either at the time we did it -- we went for the edge of the playground, but now we're still back, stuck in the sandbox.
Last edited:
[ Delete this post ]
Last edited:
People seriously failing in phyiscs ...
Remember, the only reason a flag flaps in air is because particles of the air are moving against it.
Put any light material in a vacuum then blow particles at it and you will see the same thing.
You're believing the flag wouldn't move, ignoring there is are particles being expelled from the engine,
yet you expect there should be 1,000x the force of expulsion for the descent engine to create a crater?
Even when the Delta SSTO (single stage to orbit) launch vehicle was doing its test flights, the thrust of its engine upon descent didn't put a "blast crater" in the earth's rock.
And the Delta SSTO was working an environment with 6x the gravity (moon is 1/6th G of the earth), so 6x the thrust was needed!
That's before even considering if the Delta flight demonstrator was heavier than the LIM.
I mean, the Earth is a pretty damn big, shiny thing in the sky when you on the moon -- in addition to the Sun.
Furthermore, that there is protective, reflective foil atop on the LIM, as well the rover.
In fact, during Apollo 15, at one point, Commander Scott got excited about seeing a patch of yellow powder that ended up being just a reflection against the rover's reflective foil.
Apollo 11-14 landed in "safe," barren areas.
Apollo 15+ definitely had more geological interests in mind, so the landscape differed greatly.
With the video technology at the time, I agree, they would have been easy to fake.
But the same could be said for today too.
NASA definitely had some movie-like sets for training.
So it's easy to find people who knew about those.
you, like the TV show, failed basic physics.
No offense, but the MAJORITY of people in this country have the physics aptitude of the BC Greek philosopher Aristotle.
Shows like the one you watch cater to such ignorance, so please don't lower yourself and broadcast your lack of knowledge by believing it.
Do some research and learn some basic physics concepts -- on why the flag "blew" and why you didn't see a blast crater.
You'll feel really stupid afterwards, and that's okay, programs like that one really piss me off, because they cater to non-phycists/non-engineers.
Not everyone can study everything, so I'm not trying to be an arrogant engineer.
I mean, if an accountant started rambling off on the US tax code, I'm a complete idiot.
We all have our specialties, so when engineers scoff at such a movie, understand it's because it insults their intelligence.
I invite you to talk to chemists and geologists about that, I'm just a former NASA engineer myself.
Visit Johnson Space Center (among select, other locations) sometime -- it's a mini-Mecca for geologists.
Going to the moon for putting old Glory without considering the fact that we WASTED half of the shots without any thought to Geology was rather stupid.
Engineers (including myself) can be very NEARSIGHTED at times, and Apollo was one that we SHOULD be ashamed of.
Although not completely accurate, the HBO series "From the Earth to the Moon" tried to convey some of this.
I also enjoyed the "Spider" episode, because it showed what the engineering cycle is all about -- even if the episode wasn't completely accurate, and glorified/Hollywood'ized engineering.
Then go get an engineering degree and a security clearance and work on the stuff yourself.
That's what I did.
Video imagery just won't sell people.
But photo-optics can.
I'll see you on the video imagery, but understand that igorance of physics is not a good way to prove something.
Particles from the thrust of the engine.HR186S said:
Remember, the only reason a flag flaps in air is because particles of the air are moving against it.
Put any light material in a vacuum then blow particles at it and you will see the same thing.
Oh the irony!HR186S said:
You're believing the flag wouldn't move, ignoring there is are particles being expelled from the engine,
yet you expect there should be 1,000x the force of expulsion for the descent engine to create a crater?
Even when the Delta SSTO (single stage to orbit) launch vehicle was doing its test flights, the thrust of its engine upon descent didn't put a "blast crater" in the earth's rock.
And the Delta SSTO was working an environment with 6x the gravity (moon is 1/6th G of the earth), so 6x the thrust was needed!
That's before even considering if the Delta flight demonstrator was heavier than the LIM.
Umm, I don't know, maybe the Earth is casting a lot of shadow.HR186S said:
I mean, the Earth is a pretty damn big, shiny thing in the sky when you on the moon -- in addition to the Sun.
Furthermore, that there is protective, reflective foil atop on the LIM, as well the rover.
In fact, during Apollo 15, at one point, Commander Scott got excited about seeing a patch of yellow powder that ended up being just a reflection against the rover's reflective foil.
Huh? You lost me there.HR186S said:
Apollo 11-14 landed in "safe," barren areas.
Apollo 15+ definitely had more geological interests in mind, so the landscape differed greatly.
With the video technology at the time, I agree, they would have been easy to fake.
But the same could be said for today too.
NASA definitely had some movie-like sets for training.
So it's easy to find people who knew about those.
With the exception of the last question (which I'm not sure what you're referring to),HR186S said:
you, like the TV show, failed basic physics.
No offense, but the MAJORITY of people in this country have the physics aptitude of the BC Greek philosopher Aristotle.
Shows like the one you watch cater to such ignorance, so please don't lower yourself and broadcast your lack of knowledge by believing it.
Do some research and learn some basic physics concepts -- on why the flag "blew" and why you didn't see a blast crater.
You'll feel really stupid afterwards, and that's okay, programs like that one really piss me off, because they cater to non-phycists/non-engineers.
Not everyone can study everything, so I'm not trying to be an arrogant engineer.
I mean, if an accountant started rambling off on the US tax code, I'm a complete idiot.
We all have our specialties, so when engineers scoff at such a movie, understand it's because it insults their intelligence.
The condition of the rocks sitting in a vacuum for millions of years had some pretty interesting characteristics.HR186S said:
I invite you to talk to chemists and geologists about that, I'm just a former NASA engineer myself.
Yes.HR186S said:
Visit Johnson Space Center (among select, other locations) sometime -- it's a mini-Mecca for geologists.
Actually, NASA got nailed by the geology community for being rather ignorant early in the Apollo program, and I have to agree.HR186S said:
Going to the moon for putting old Glory without considering the fact that we WASTED half of the shots without any thought to Geology was rather stupid.
Engineers (including myself) can be very NEARSIGHTED at times, and Apollo was one that we SHOULD be ashamed of.
Although not completely accurate, the HBO series "From the Earth to the Moon" tried to convey some of this.
I also enjoyed the "Spider" episode, because it showed what the engineering cycle is all about -- even if the episode wasn't completely accurate, and glorified/Hollywood'ized engineering.
Got a few, spare billion? No?HR186S said:
Then go get an engineering degree and a security clearance and work on the stuff yourself.
That's what I did.
Exactly.HR186S said:
Video imagery just won't sell people.
But photo-optics can.
Believe what you want to believe.HR186S said:
I'll see you on the video imagery, but understand that igorance of physics is not a good way to prove something.
Now hold on. Don't go that far.amstrad said:
Remember, that video deceived a lot of people who aren't engineers, physicists, etc...
I'm sure an unscrupulous tax accountant could sell me on something if I didn't have any interest in understanding the tax code.
Well, it is ignorance, and the only way to combat that is to change that.amstrad said:
Or at least ask someone who is an engineer, physicist, etc... you trust to explain it to you.
That's what I've try to do here.
Remember, the problem isn't questioning what other people consider fact.
If there is any institution that needs to be reminded of this, it is NASA.
I've professionally taken issue of the fact that some Material Reviews (MRs) done at NASA are handle more "politically" (especially "environmentally") than they should be.
The problem is when you do it from a standpoint of ignorance.
People need to remember where they get their information from and whom.
And be just as well to get an opposing viewpoint from someone who is less ignorant.
It's people who don't want to consider those viewpoints who are really ignorant.
Until this gentleman completely dismisses my commentary on the laws of physics, I won't consider him a "fucking idiot,"
just someone who hasn't yet considered an opposing viewpoint after being fed something.
Last edited:
Superfly
Closed Account
Ok ill say what i think on this & be honest. I have seen various docs on this over the years, and most of them can as good as prove the ORIGINAL moon landing was faked. The clarity & quality of he photos etc was waay over the top, the flag was fluttering in SPACE in the footage which isnt possible when theres no atmosphere on the Moon. Theres many other things about it that stinks. And are you trying to tell me that in 1969 they had the technology to land someone on the moon when as recently as the Challenger disaster in the 80's etc people were being killed on launch? There is overiding evidence it was fake & very little that it actually happened.
Some more facts:
1. The length of the shadows in the Apollo 12 pictures don't agree with the angle which the Sun should have been at.
2. Some photos contradict the TV camera pictures of the same events.
3. Some photos clearly show the light coming from "impossible" angles. In one instance, Aldrin's boot is lit from below as he descends the ladder
4. The Apollo 11 pictures show the ground in the distance being much darker than the ground in the foreground, as if the Astronauts were standing in a pool of light.
This was obviously during the cold war & the United States were intent not to let USSR have the first man on the moon, as they obviously believed this was a posibility at the time. The moon landing tv scenes were meant to be filmed situated in the Nevada dessert.
Some more facts:
1. The length of the shadows in the Apollo 12 pictures don't agree with the angle which the Sun should have been at.
2. Some photos contradict the TV camera pictures of the same events.
3. Some photos clearly show the light coming from "impossible" angles. In one instance, Aldrin's boot is lit from below as he descends the ladder
4. The Apollo 11 pictures show the ground in the distance being much darker than the ground in the foreground, as if the Astronauts were standing in a pool of light.
This was obviously during the cold war & the United States were intent not to let USSR have the first man on the moon, as they obviously believed this was a posibility at the time. The moon landing tv scenes were meant to be filmed situated in the Nevada dessert.
Last edited:
Yes and no.georges said:
There is such a thing as an "ignorant majority" that is a major issue in a Democracy.
The American founding fathers have some profound views on that, and its one of the reasons why we are not only a Democratic-Republic, but our 3 branch system is designed to prevent any majority from controlling it long-term.
The American public's stance on using RTGs (radio-thermal isotope generators) in space is probably the most profound example of ignorance I've ever seen.
This video is another great example.
I believe in the right to debate, but it does become very frustrating when the majority constantly questions a more experienced minority on a subject where the majority is not well educated on the matter.
As I said in another post, if an accountant rambles off on the tax code, most NASA engineers are going to be ignorant from that standpoint.
It's not about intelligence, it's about knowledge, experience and understanding of a subject matter.
This video is aimed at people who have an "Aristotle-like" understanding of physics.
Last edited:
Similar threads
