The MOON HOAX

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.
carcdr
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 3:11 am
Contact:

Unread post by carcdr »

ULTIMA2 4 Oct 31 2009, 05:46 AM wrote:
carcdr 4 Oct 31 2009, 05:26 AM wrote:
Let the record show that no answer has been given about how the lunar rovers arrived on the surface of the moon.

When are you going to admit that the evidence shows the first set of reflectors were set by the astronauts? I have still not seen any evidence that debates the fact that the reflectors were set up by the Apollo missions.

As far as the lunar rovers, just spend about 30 seconds doing some research.

http://www.fi.edu/pieces/schutte/LRV.html
The LRV was folded up and placed inside the lunar module. The chassis (body) of the LRV is hinged in three places so it was folded in thirds and the 4 wheels were pivoted or turned nearly flat against the folded chassis. It occupied only 30 cubic feet. It was stowed inside the descent stage of the lunar module in quadrant Number 1 to the right of the ladder down which the astronauts descended to the Moon's surface.
30 cubic feet = roughly 3 feet by 3 feet by 3 feet (give or take a bit - 3.1 feet is closer).

(For the math-disinclined, 3x3x3 = 27, 4x4x4=64 - the box was just a hair more than 3 feet on a side).

This 3x3x3 box contained the whole lunar rover, its 4 tires, fenders, its power plant (what kind of power was that?), two seats, chassis, and antennae?

Imagine that.
carcdr
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 3:11 am
Contact:

Unread post by carcdr »

ULTIMA2 4 Oct 31 2009, 05:46 AM wrote:
When are you going to admit that the evidence shows the first set of reflectors were set by the astronauts?

ULTIMA1/2/3+Thrifty

I have still not seen any evidence that debates the fact that the reflectors were set up by the Apollo missions.

Read my responses.

Stop wasting my time. I demand to speak with your managers. You clearly do not have the training / skills to engage me in enlightened conversation.
godzilla
Member
Posts: 179
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 9:43 pm
Contact:

Unread post by godzilla »

ULTIMA2 @ Oct 30 2009, 10:44 PM wrote:
carcdr 4 Oct 31 2009, 06:43 AM wrote:
Read my responses.

Stop wasting my time. I demand to speak with your managers. You clearly do not have the training / skills to engage me in enlightened conversation.
So in other words you have no evidence to debate the fact that the reflectors were set up on the moon by the Apollo missions.

MODS, since thier has been no evidence posted to debate the reflectors being placed on the moon by the Apollo missions or the moon landng itself i think it is time to close this thread.
That's kind of hilarious! :lol:
"It's not a matter of what is true that counts but a matter of what is perceived to be true." - Henry Kissinger
terbates
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:05 pm
Contact:

Unread post by terbates »

Thrifty @ Oct 31 2009, 06:02 AM wrote:
terbates 4 Oct 31 2009, 04:59 AM wrote: How is it that other countries were watching the Apollo missions, when ALL the alleged missions occurred on the far side of the moon?

Or the constant pix of astro-NOTS with the sun shooting from the back and yet we see full frontal detail of them when it should be in the shade.

Perhaps you could clue us in on how emulsion film survived not only the temperature shifts on the moon but survived the Van Allen Belts twice?
Why do you think the missions occurred on the far side? I have never seen this claim before from anyone.

One of the basic things that photographers learn when setting up a shot is fill light. Fill light can be reflected from most any surface. It does not have to be a highly reflective surface. The moon's surface reflects enough light to provide some fill. It certainly lights up the night sky a lot when it is full.

The nuclear power industry used to use film badges to record radiation exposure. This meant they used film that had varying sensitivities to radiation. If all photographic film was ruined by exposure to some unspecified dose of radiation, then the use of film badges would have been a waste of time.

The key to asking your radiation/film question (not answering it) is to determine how much radiation the film is exposed to, then determine how much it takes to fog or otherwise damage it. Got that data for us? It is available. It has to be to determine that the film was not up to the task. I need this in your question. Thanks.
You shouldn't really post without knowing what you're talking about, unless you would like to claim you've been mislead all these years.

1. It's a known fact never been up for questioning where the alleged landing sites were; you need to look at a map of those alleged sites, they were ALL claimed to be on the far side of the moon. Look it up.

2. You said "watching" the Apollo missions, not tracking. And if you now want to change your story into things regarding Australians watching "telementery" data not actually watching us, you probably don't want to dig that can of worms up; there's too many holes in that ship to sail after all these years!

3. You may be too young to understand the silver film world back then; if so, you would have have the experiences some of us have had with film fogging. And remember, we are talking about gamma rays here also in a constant bombardment state from 1K to 20K miles out from launch both ways. You would know how little fogging can affect exposed film.

4. There has never been any logging of astro-nots setting up reflectors to take pictures; you are grasping at straws, a lot of the face mask pictures of the alleged shots would show the lite source pin points.

When you are ready for more of my hundred questions I have let me know; you should probably shit can your answers so far to the first ones you responded to.
terbates
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:05 pm
Contact:

Unread post by terbates »

carcdr @ Oct 31 2009, 06:43 AM wrote:
ULTIMA2 4 Oct 31 2009, 05:46 AM wrote:
When are you going to admit that the evidence shows the first set of reflectors were set by the astronauts?

ULTIMA1/2/3+Thrifty

I have still not seen any evidence that debates the fact that the reflectors were set up by the Apollo missions.

Read my responses.

Stop wasting my time. I demand to speak with your managers. You clearly do not have the training / skills to engage me in enlightened conversation.
I would hope you're not insulting enough to lay the claim that the fact there are reflectors on the moon as "proof" man did go to the moon. Can we lay that reasoning to bed please?
terbates
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:05 pm
Contact:

Unread post by terbates »

Thrifty @ Oct 31 2009, 05:46 AM wrote:
carcdr 4 Oct 30 2009, 06:21 AM wrote: ps. Extra marks. Exactly how did the lunar rovers - the dune buggies - get transported to the moon? Were they stored in the LEM or what?
Perhaps they were folded up and attached to the exterior of the LEM? The astronauts lowered them from the LEM and unfolded/assembled it on the lunar surface? There are pictures on the net that show it being done.
With respect......7 milliion dollars spent on a dune buggy and not one pix at any time of anyone unloading and unfolding that contraption on the moon?
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

ULTIMA12 has been launched to search for ULTIMA11. No sign yet. Possibly preparing to deploy reconnaissance vehicle ULTIMA, ULTIMA13 or others ...

Thrifty was last seen eyeballing the mission launches. He may have snuck aboard the Russian vessel.

Any further references to the propaganda film "Dark Side of the Moon" will be dealt with accordingly.
idschmyd
Member
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:33 pm
Contact:

Unread post by idschmyd »

Thrifty @ Oct 31 2009, 02:54 AM wrote:
idschmyd 4 Oct 31 2009, 12:59 AM wrote: Yip, that wooden lump may not be the original lump handed over by the US, which may qualify as a 'hole' in the man's detailed and compelling document. Where might the Rusky authorities (those other satans of spin and destruction) have obtained moon rock, bearing in mind they don't claim to have landed there?
What I was suggesting is that the original owner (after NASA) may have switched the rock and given up the fake instead.

I'm not sure where you get your info from, but the Soviets have indeed claimed to have landed on the moon and returned lunar samples. Check out Luna 16, 20, 24. Those were some of the unmanned Soviet lunar missions.
OUCH. I did say I'd swerved the topic to date. I crawl corrected on Russian claims, if not necessarily on Russian achievements, and will take more care in future. So thanks for the fish. But the validity of rock samples is not a particularly important aspect in the case against Apollo manned return journies to the moon, is it? Even the validitiy of the reflector, or the kooky image of it, or of its function or necessity, are not high imapct parts of the case.
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

Regardless of what is on the moon now - and regardless of how it got there - to say men went to the moon in 1969 and humanity as a whole watched the pure images of that event on television is folly.

It is interesting to hear scientific and political discourse on the reason for this hoax, but it must be understood for what it is - a hoax.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Unread post by simonshack »

ULTIMA12 has been launched to search for ULTIMA11. No sign yet. Possibly preparing to deploy reconnaissance vehicle ULTIMA, ULTIMA13 or others ...


"Mission Control to Lunar Module, Mission Control to Lunar Module ! : When shit happens on the Moon, don't try to fix it yourself !"
APOLLO 12 MAINTENANCE
Image
You've gotta LOVE that US flag glued upon the aluminum foil.... :lol: :lol: :lol:
http://www.septemberclues.org
carcdr
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 3:11 am
Contact:

Unread post by carcdr »

Is that dust that I see underneath the LEM? With footprints in the dust?

Simple yes/no answer.

(Extra marks if you can guess why I am surprised to see dust (if that is what it is) underneath the LEM).
ozzybinoswald
Banned
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:52 am
Contact:

Unread post by ozzybinoswald »

NEWULTIMA @ Nov 4 2009, 01:09 PM wrote:
So your saying that the astronuats that landed on the moon are all liers?
No such animal exists.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Unread post by simonshack »

THE ULTIMATE LIARS' SHOW OF ALL TIMES :

APOLLO11 PRESS CONFERENCE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo6 ... re=related

As far as I'm concerned, this press conference tells me these 3 guys never went to the Moon. Full stop.
http://www.septemberclues.org
brianv
Member
Posts: 3971
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Unread post by brianv »

No! The "arstronuats" who didn't land on the moon are "liers".
brianv
Member
Posts: 3971
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Unread post by brianv »

NEWULTIMA @ Nov 4 2009, 05:47 PM wrote:
brianv 4 Nov 4 2009, 05:45 PM wrote: No! The "arstronuats" who didn't land on the moon are "liers".
I see a lot of talk but no evidence to debate the truth of the moon landings.
Apollo 11 "took off" on the 16th and arrived at the moon 237,000 miles away three days later on the 19th. Then it came back again on the same tank of gas!

There weren't any moon-landings ffs!
Post Reply