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.
Flabbergasted
Administrator
Posts: 1244
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread post by Flabbergasted »

simonshack wrote:
Flabbergasted wrote:A 911-NASA connection? :P
As much as I don't like saying "there's no doubt in my mind" - I'll presently throw caution aside and state that there is no doubt in my mind that the folks, operatives, 'masterminds' and the general infrastructure behind the moon hoax, NASA, the nuke hoax, Hollywood and 9/11 (to name a few) are one and the same.
I don´t want to stray from the topic of the thread, but with regard to the question of who "they" are, I just remembered a scene from the movie "Conspiracy Theory", with Julia Roberts and Mel Gibson.

Image

Every "conspiracy theory" runs aground on the big question of who the conspirators are because the goals of the scams and deceptions are too conflicting to benefit a single group of people. And because if a single group were powerful enough to control international finances, military, media, academia and what not, then why are they still laboring so hard to secure global power? On the other hand, certain worldwide top-priority projects, like 9/11, aerosol geoengineering and space exploration require unified long-term global planning and action. Thus, according to Gibson´s character, at some levels the two major rival factions are warring each other (one group gets stronger by maintaining the status quo, the other by creating wars and social dissolution), at others they come together and act as one group. It's a thought to take out for cream tea on a rainy Sunday afternoon.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread post by simonshack »

+

Any NASA experts around? I was wondering what exactly this moment of the Apollo 11 launch depicts.
Thanks for a kind explanation! :)

Image GIFSoup
Image
Source video: "APOLLO 11 Launch HD" : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSLRMdYSA9M
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread post by lux »

^ That is weird.
icarusinbound
Member
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:49 am

Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread post by icarusinbound »

Having had a look back through the earlier comments posted on YouTube, there is a most-unconvincing explanation of it being the cast-shadow outline of the rocket, as it blasts a pressure-front through the clouds. Why would a rippling shockwave against a floating cloud formation create a photo-plane against which a straight-line shadow would be projected, without any real shape distortion of the depicted image?

Is this because it's a high altitude interaction, with a vertical flightpath? Is there some kind of ray-trace method that could be applied, to give a sun angle? It is very very odd, never seen anything like it ever before. What it immediately reminds you of is the representation of side-boosters falling away, by angle, which isn't what it's claiming to be.

The footage is reported as being 35mm converted to 720p, and (quite separate from the bizarre shadow 'logshot' above) does anyone else feel there's something not quite right/synched with the movements of the suited'n'booted crew, moving from the bus to the ascent gantry? It's somehow choppy, and overworked.
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

Yes, it resembles the early nuclear explosion tests or Disney movie special effects. It has that particular ephemeral "drawn by an animator" wobble to it as well. Whatever reality there originally was in it from any sort of event that did happen (model rocket? airplane?) has been erased by the effects depicting an event that didn't happen. This penultimate result (before digital conversion) was probably a montage created in Laurel Canyon.
icarusinbound
Member
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:49 am

Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread post by icarusinbound »

40th Anniversary starts today: Apollo 17 'Last Moon Mission'

Today is being observed by British msm sources as the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 17 launch. That 'mission' included the moon buggy 3-day safari, and the wince-making moonsong duet.

Cernan is being sound-bited with standard modern-day pithy phrases.

Note- the last mission carried the first scientist (geologist)....they must have decided that golf, bouncing about, and spouting well-rehearsed random male chit-chat, wasn't enough to keep entertaining the tax-paying viewers.

It may be a busy weekend- set your phasers to stun...

Daily Mail by - Mark Prigg PUBLISHED: 11:46, 7 December 2012 | UPDATED: 14:33, 7 December 2012
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... d-now.html

Last man on the moon reveals he left his camera behind as an experiment (but says he hoped someone would have returned it by now)

Eugene Cernan had hoped camera could be used to analyse radiation levels when recovered by the next visitors
Interview to mark 40th anniversary of Apollo 17 mission



Apollo 17 Commander Eugene Cernan, the last man on the moon, has revealed he left a camera on the lunar surface, hoping it would be recovered by future astronauts to measure radiation levels.

The camera, a Hasselblad used to capture many of the iconic images from the mission, was left with its lens pointing into space.

Cernan had hoped it could be used as the mission's final experiment, with future astronauts measuring the radiation collected on the lens.

Speaking on the 40th anniversary of the mission, Cernan expressed regret his footprints are still the last left on the moon.

Now 78, he told Bloomberg he thought his voyage 'wasn't the end but the beginning' for manned exploration of the Moon - and that he thought an astronaut would have set foot on Mars by the end of the century.

Three further missions planned to follow Cernan's crew were scrapped due to budget cuts.

Now, he admits leaving his camera may have been a mistake.

'I left my Hasselblad camera there with the lens pointing up at the zenith, the idea being someday someone would come back and find out how much deterioration solar cosmic radiation had on the glass.

'So, going up the ladder, I never took a photo of my last footstep. How dumb!

'Wouldn’t it have been better to take the camera with me, get the shot, take the film pack off and then (for weight restrictions) throw the camera away?

He called for manned space exploration programmes to be accelerated.

'I do think we need to go to the moon first to set up a base so we can use more advanced propulsion techniques,' he said.

'Am I willing to go to Mars? Yes, but I’m not willing to spend nine months getting there, then wait 18 more months until the planets align to come home.

'For Mars we need propulsion technologies to get us there in say, 60 days, then spend whatever length of time we want to spend – two months, six months – and return when we want to come home.

'That will require ion and nuclear propulsion and help from a base on the moon.'
Image
'How dumb': Captain Cernan, commander of Apollo 17 mission, pictured left alongside Norman Augustine, chairman of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee, now says he regrets leaving his camera

(the source page included references to a missing Apollo 17 moon-rock worth $10M having been eventually found in Bill Clinton's files...perhaps it was being used as a paperweight)
icarusinbound
Member
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:49 am

Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread post by icarusinbound »

Apollo 17: a fascinating pack of contradictions regarding 'hand injuries' allegedly experienced by Cernan and Schmitt not being consistent with the stills shots taken after the EVAs or when landed

Highly recommended - please watch this video
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR3KeHq_tJI

There is of course a disinfo aspect to this: say NASA leaks unofficial/tacit admissions that shots were taken out of sequence, said to actually have been taken before, then purported to be after the moonwalk (for implicit reasons of self-justified optimisation of the visual record). This can be seen as a lateral conjuring-trick strategy to validate the landings having happened in the first place.
"Hey guys, this was such a real-life event, the proof of it having happened is that we almost admit to having faked some of the unimportant supporting imagery. Therefore, you know that we can be trusted that the rest is all true!"


But even with that warning, do analyse the video. Interesting.
Flabbergasted
Administrator
Posts: 1244
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread post by Flabbergasted »

reel.deal wrote:If that can do a small 500 lbf rocket, imagine what can do THIS to concrete -
what can do a 9982 lbf LEM engine to the fine Moon regolite dust?! No crater?
You gotta be kidding me!
I just stumbled on a "pseudoastronomy" debunk site:
http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/
(I couldn't find any reference to it on the forum)

Anyway, there are explanations for all the silly claims of ignorant NA$A-doubters like myself, including the usual temperature issues, lack of stars, footprints and the absence of a crater below the lander .... even the absence of dust on the lander's footpads.

The explanation for the absence of dust on the lander's footpads is that the dust had "already settled before the craft touched down"! How could I have missed that!? :lol:
The Lunar Atmosphere vs. Earth’s Atmosphere

There isn’t any. Simply put, the mass of the entire atmosphere of the moon is less than the amount of gas expelled by each Apollo descent engine.

As a result, if you were to pick up a handful of lunar dust and drop it, it would fall straight down with an acceleration about 1/6th that in Earth’s gravity. It would land directly below where you released it.

But it would appear to fall faster than that when compared with actually dropping flour-like substances on Earth. This is due to Earth’s atmosphere, which adds a resistive force to the dust settling down. In addition to this resistive force preventing its downward motion, Earth’s atmosphere is not still – it moves around. This allows any light material to billow out, creating clouds of material, and rarely landing directly below the location you released it.

The Lunar Module’s Descent Engine Shut-Off

The Apollo LMs had an antenna that when it came into contact with the lunar surface would trigger a light inside the craft. This light would be a signal to the astronauts to shut off the engine. Hence, the engine would be shut off before the craft landed.

Putting the Pieces Together to Debunk the Claim

At this point, we have two facts. First, lunar dust will drop straight down if it is released – be it from an astronaut that picks it up or from the force of a rocket engine’s exhaust (which, while not strong enough to create a crater was strong enough to suspend lunar dust). Second, the Apollo engines were shut off before the craft landed.

Consequently, as soon as the engines shut off, the source of a temporary atmosphere that surrounded the craft was terminated, and the dust that was suspended in it immediately dropped towards the lunar surface. The craft still had both a horizontal component to its trajectory, and the legs were above the majority of any of the temporary atmosphere that suspended the dust.

Hence, when the craft landed, it landed both to the side of the settled dust, and the dust would have already settled before the craft touched down, preventing any from being deposited on the LM’s footpads.

http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2009/0 ... -footpads/
Heiwa
Banned
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm
Contact:

Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread post by Heiwa »

I think I can now prove that the Apollo program was a hoax. Reason why the Apollo program was a hoax was that the Saturn rocket used to get the Apollo space ships into space and to the Moon 1969 was much too weak and could not lift enough mass into space.

The Apollo 11 space ship reportedly had a mass of about 43.5 ton including about 29.4 ton fuel at departure. Most of the fuel was used for various maneuvers during the trip.

I believe much more fuel was required – say at least 85 ton – so the total departure weight of the space ship should have been 100 ton … which the Saturn rockets could not get into space. :rolleyes:

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm .
pov603
Member
Posts: 870
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:02 pm

Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread post by pov603 »

@Heiwa
This is one thing that has puzzled me regarding take off weight.
Why would they launch [any] rockets completely vertically, when even early V1 rockets were launched on sleds/ramps of a shallow angle?
Should that be bogus anyhow, even the BAe Harrier 'Jump Jet' started to be launched from the Aircraft carriers by use of a ramp when it became apparent that there would be a huge operational saving generated on fuel consumption rather than launching 'straight up'.
:huh:
Heiwa
Banned
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm
Contact:

Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread post by Heiwa »

@pov603

According NASA/Apollo info the Apollo 11 space ship + rocket third stage was first sent into Earth orbit, i.e. up and then sideways, by the rocket first (with fins) stage and second stage (w/o fins) using plenty, plenty fuel and then ... after 1.5 orbit at 7 500 m/s speed and maybe 400 000 m altitude ... at the right moment - the third stage with Apollo 11 space ship on top was sent off direction Moon burning a lot of more fuel resulting in 11 200 m/s departure speed.
And then Apollo 11 and the empty of fuel third stage rocket separated and went on to the Moon slowed down by Earth gravity most of the way.
The empty third stage missed the Moon with a tight margin, while Apollo 11 had to slow down to get inte Moon orbit ... using 10-11 tons of fuel to reduce speed that was increasing at the end of trip due to Moon gravity pulling it along.

According my simple calculations maybe 40-50-60 tons of fuel was required to slow down ... and that's the first problem (as Apollo 11 didn' carry so much fuel). Asking NASA if it is possible to slow down a 32 ton space craft (ex fuel) from 2 400 to 1 500 m/s speed with a rocket engine using only 10-11 tons fuel results in no answer. So I made the popular web page. It seems NASA then informed their crazy friends at Apollohoax.net which in turn told me in their forum that I was a criminal idiot asking such questions insulting them. And there we are today. I was then banned at Apollohoax.net so I haven't got a clue what is happening there.
Farcevalue
Member
Posts: 392
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:21 am

Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread post by Farcevalue »

Pardon my layman's inquisitive mind, but 11,200 m/s is a bit less than ten times the speed of a bullet. Are rockets really that aerodynamic? What is the rate of acceleration? Zero at the landing pad, explosive takeoff, 100 mph, 200 mph, etc. on up to 25,000 mph. Quite a feat. One would expect something to shear off at some point at that rate of speed, but perhaps I underestimate the capacity of card board and tin foil.

Secondly, isn't the earth's gravitational field what holds the moon in place? Why does it orbit instead of drifting off into space? If the earth's gravitational field is keeping the moon tethered, how can escape velocity be achieved between here and the moon?

i am sure there are perfectly reasonable scientific answers for these questions, but I am having a bit of difficulty imagining traveling at ten times the speed of a bullet.....
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread post by simonshack »

Heiwa wrote:It seems NASA then informed their crazy friends at Apollohoax.net which in turn told me in their forum that I was a criminal idiot asking such questions insulting them. And there we are today. I was then banned at Apollohoax.net so I haven't got a clue what is happening there.
Dear Heiwa,

It seems that you were banned for seven days only - over at Apollohoax.net.
"When you get back from your seven day ban perhaps you will deign to..."
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.825
They probably just needed some time-window to read & catch up with all the sound information that you patiently provided to them. Or perhaps they momentarily ran out of tissues to wipe the drool off their dripping jaws, who knows?

Just the other day, as you may remember, I was wondering what on Earth the many NASA government employees would be up to these days, now that the Shuttle sham has been retired - and with the rest of their space circus now being outsourced to private scammer-units such as JPL and SpaceX. Well - thanks to your valiant navigation into that sharkpool of a forum - I'll now take an 'educated guess': They're all typing away in their brand new cubicles at Apollohoax.net ! <_<
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread post by lux »

I once took on the sharks at the now-defunct Bad Astronomy Forum. I had 2 questions they couldn't answer (not about Apollo) in any direct way -- they would only give me links to long pages of technical data that did not address my questions. When I pointed out that the references didn't answer my questions they threatened me with a ban for not accepting their "answers."
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread post by simonshack »

lux wrote:I once took on the sharks at the now-defunct Bad Astronomy Forum.
NOW-DEFUNCT ????

Why oh why? :blink: :huh: :o
Post Reply