If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.
Posts: 851
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:02 pm


Unread post by pov603 » Sun Jul 21, 2019 4:07 pm

As his name would imply, Bizar...

Posts: 851
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:02 pm


Unread post by pov603 » Fri Jul 26, 2019 8:02 am

Noticed this on the “beeb” the other day: ... -were-real

0:19 - “The technology to fake the Moon landings did not exist in 1969. The technology did exist to get to the Moon...just” :blink: :lol: :puke:
Etc. etc.

Posts: 124
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:26 am


Unread post by heniek1812 » Mon Jul 29, 2019 6:29 am

One of retorts to why the Flag during Apollo 14 mission is swaying while the astronauts are inside is that it is happening during depressurization of the 240 feet cubed Ascent stage. The inside pressure is around 3.5 psi.

This oxygen would be coming out through one of these valves,
Note the cross sectional view of the valve. It is not small. Diagram implies that there should be a handle on the exterior of the hatch.
Image ... hatchb.jpg

Plus, since there were at least 2 to 3 depressurization procedures I would think that there would be no foil on that door. I still see the foil and in no picture can I see this handle or ports through which oxygen could escape IF the AFT valve was used. If it was used the foil would be ripped off by the escaping oxygen.

Anyone have any ideas on the specs of this hatch. I found a engineering diagram of the flag but the rest is cartoon drawings.

Posts: 124
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:26 am


Unread post by heniek1812 » Mon Aug 05, 2019 6:25 pm

Why is the tinfoil still moving after the Ascent Stage is long long gone ? After all this time things have not come to their lowest energy state, no motion ? Must be the Solar Wind ;-)

At 6:07

Note the operator quickly pans the camera to the ground. Now that is something to transmit to Earth.

Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm


Unread post by ICfreely » Wed Jan 01, 2020 1:47 am

File this under:

“Back” to the Future, 2024: A “Space” Fraudyssey

Can NASA really return people to the Moon by 2024?
Donald Trump wants US astronauts back on the Moon. But his ambitious plan faces formidable political, financial and technical challenges.
Alexandra Witze 08 July 2019

Will Obama's NASA take American astronauts back to the moon?
The Staff, November 8, 2012

Now that President Barack Obama is officially in the driver's seat until January 2017, NASA may be gearing up to send human beings back to the moon. According to space experts, plans to send astronauts back into lunar orbit have probably already been cleared by the Obama administration, but were kept under wraps in case Obama's re-election bid failed. Here's what you should know: ... -back-moon

President Bush Offers New Vision For NASA

"Our third goal," Bush said, "is to return to the moon by 2020, as the launching point for missions beyond." He proposed sending robotic probes to the lunar surface by 2008, with a human mission as early as 2015, "with the goal of living and working there for increasingly extended periods of time." ... ision.html

A Short History of Presidential Vacillation: Mars or the Moon
President Trump now says he wants NASA to focus on Mars instead of a second moon landing.
Haley Weiss, June 8, 2019

Bill Clinton: Earth Orbit, Again

Clinton had none of his predecessor’s starry-eyed ambitions for space exploration. Though he kept the space-station program alive, against the advice of his budget director, Clinton said that a crewed mission to Mars was too expensive to even consider. He was keen to search for evidence of life there—but only if robots were doing the work. ... rs/591319/

Could parallels not be drawn between that which is above and that which is below?

Yet Another Estimate of When Iran Will Have the Bomb
January 28th, 2013
Kevin Jon Heller

McClatchy reports that Israel now believes Iran will not be able to produce a nuclear weapon until 2015 or 2016. That is progress of a sort; Netanyahu had previously been claiming that Iran would have the bomb no later than late summer 2013 — around six months from now. But Israel is still insisting that Iran is only two or three years away from nuclear capability, so I think it is useful to recall and update the timeline I mentioned early last year of breathless Israeli and Western claims about Iran’s nuclear program:

1984: West German intelligence sources claim that Iran’s production of a bomb “is entering its final stages.” US Senator Alan Cranston claims Iran is seven years away from making a weapon.

1992: Israeli parliamentarian Benjamin Netanyahu tells the Knesset that Iran is 3 to 5 years from being able to produce a nuclear weapon.

1995: The New York Times reports that US and Israeli officials fear “Iran is much closer to producing nuclear weapons than previously thought” – less than five years away. Netanyahu claims the time frame is three to five years.

1996: Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres claims Iran will have nuclear weapons in four years.

1998: Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claims Iran could build an ICBM capable of reaching the US within five years.

1999: An Israeli military official claims that Iran will have a nuclear weapon within five years.

2001: The Israeli Minister of Defence claims that Iran will be ready to launch a nuclear weapon in less than four years.

2002: The CIA warns that the danger of nuclear weapons from Iran is higher than during the Cold War, because its missile capability has grown more quickly than expected since 2000 – putting it on par with North Korea.

2003: A high-ranking Israeli military officer tells the Knesset that Iran will have the bomb by 2005 — 17 months away.

2006: A State Department official claims that Iran may be capable of building a nuclear weapon in 16 days.

2008: An Israeli general tells the Cabinet that Iran is “half-way” to enriching enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon and will have a working weapon no later than the end of 2010.

2009: Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak estimates that Iran is 6-18 months away from building an operative nuclear weapon.

2010: Israeli decision-makers believe that Iran is at most 1-3 years away from being able to assemble a nuclear weapon.

2011: An IAEA report indicates that Iran could build a nuclear weapon within months.

2013: Israeli intelligence officials claim that Iran could have the bomb by 2015 or 2016.

The McClatchy articles quotes an Israeli intelligence officer as asking “Did we cry wolf too early?” That’s amusing: Israel (and the West) have been crying wolf over Iran’s nuclear capability for nearly three decades. ... -the-bomb/ ... a#p2397798
You Dropped a Bomb on Me The Gap Band Lyrics

full link:

Posts: 851
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:02 pm


Unread post by pov603 » Fri Mar 13, 2020 8:43 am

Just saw this on the “beeb”:
Just a few months after the triumph of Apollo 11, Nasa sent another mission to the lunar surface. But it came chillingly close to disaster. ... m-disaster
The part that caught my eye was:
Back in mission control, decisions had to be made. “I thought we were going to have to abort,” Griffin says. “But I keep looking at the plot [on the screen] and we never get off track.”
Apollo 12 Saturn 5 rocket (Credit: Nasa)
The Saturn 5's electrical systems were completely knocked out by the lightning strike (Credit: Nasa)
“Then this young man from a little college in Oklahoma named John Aaron, who was at that point around 25, I'd guess, made a call,” says Griffin.

“He says: ‘Tell him to try SCE to Aux’ – I had never heard of the switch and I said, ‘What?’”

Aaron repeated the instruction. Griffin turned to the Capcom (capsule communicator) responsible for talking to the crew, Jerry Carr.

“So, I tell him to say. ‘Try ‘SCE to Aux’ and Carr said ‘What?’…at that point, Aaron said ‘Try SCE to auxiliary’, so that’s what he transmitted to the crew.”

But Conrad had never heard of the switch either. “Try FCE to Auxiliary?” he says to the ground, and then to his crewmates: “What the hell is that?”

Fortunately, Bean knew the switch – it was right in front of him. SCE stands for Signal Conditioning Equipment, the system that processed spacecraft sensor data for transmission to the ground.
So the Mission Controller didn’t know everything he needed to know?
Then the pièce de résistance:
Bean removed the shoebox-sized camera from the equipment bay to mount it on a tripod, so viewers could watch the Moonwalk. But as Bean positions the camera, he accidentally pointed it towards the Sun. Most of the picture went black, with a bright indistinct white patch at the top of the screen.
The Apollo 12 camera failure, combined with these attempts to mock-up a Moonwalk, would later fuel conspiracy theories men never really walked on the Moon
Despite the best efforts of the astronauts and support engineers in mission control, no amount of adjustment could get the picture back. It seemed the image sensors were irreparably damaged.

Fortunately, the TV networks had a back-up plan. While continuing to carry the live voices of the astronauts, CBS switched to a studio where two actors dressed in spacesuits simulate the Moonwalk.
What a load of BS!
If it looks like a hoax, smells like a hoax and sounds like a isn’t...move along...nothing to see here...

Posts: 7001
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy


Unread post by simonshack » Wed Nov 18, 2020 9:47 pm


(courtesy of the Euronews website)

Image ... t-mondiale

Posts: 83
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:05 pm


Unread post by Altair » Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:43 am

I came across the source code for the Apollo flight computer. It seems some guy has bothered to scan the printouts so that they can be compiled and executed in a emulator:
Forgiving the fact that a computer with 24Kbytes and a 2MHz clock would hardly have the muscle to perform the complex calculations needed for stabilizing a rocket, guiding it in a complex trajectory to/from the Moon and even controlling all the onboard systems, I've peered into the code looking for what should be the most complex part, that is, the rocket control and guidance algorithm... and the conclusions for anyone who has even a bare minimum of programming knowledge is that it is an absolute fake!
Take for example, this file named 'POWERED FLIGHT SUBROUTINES': ... UTINES.agc
It's a deceptingly simple <400 line assembler program that simply cannot handle all the complexity of gimbal control.
This one is a bit more complex, for reentry control: ... ONTROL.agc
But again, as a software engineer I would by no means get onboard a "spaceship" controlled by such software!!! This simply cannot work!
Controlling physical systems is a very computationally demanding task that can only be performed by a specialized real time computer that can read, perform calculations, and control the outputs at precise intervals. Nothing that this computer, much less the software the way it's written can do.

Post Reply