The Apollo Hoax

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Caroline
 
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2009 10:27 am
@Poseidon,
They havent been back for fifty years because it's so expensive, please read my previous post.
 
TurboLung
 
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2009 10:34 am
@Caroline,
Caroline;70833 wrote:
I thought it was a well known fact that technology and inventions are held back and what we see on the market available to the public is not a reflection on how far technology has developed, that it is alot further on then the products out there now, for instance, i find it difficult to find a vr helmet and they've been around for years. They're always holding stuff back. But they are going to poor money into NASA. Why would anyone want to fake it, has it been proved that the moon landing was fake with solid evidence? No! The reason noone has gone to the moon since is because of the massive costs involved, it's difficult to warrant funding for a space trip as it so the money they do get goes into explorations that we've not done before such as probes to mars, saturn etc, valuable funding is not wasted on another trip to the moon, what would be the point of repeating the same trip anyway?


we've been in orbit before. why continually send hundreds of ships into orbit at great expense?
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2009 10:37 am
@TurboLung,
TurboLung;70837 wrote:
why don't you tell me why they haven't been back for nearly 50-years? i am all ears [eyes]...

oh, did i mention 1k of ram was all the apollo had to run its instrumentation?


One reason why we have not gone back to the moon is the cost. Another is the fact that we do not have much reason to. What would be the purpose of spending a bunch of money to land on the moon again at this point in time? The final reason why we have not gone back to the moon is due to the fact that the current space shuttles used by the United States are orbiters and were not designed to travel beyond the earth's atmosphere.

Now the next generation of space vehicle is supposed to be able to take humans to Mars. While I question the value in that, it is interesting nonetheless.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2009 10:40 am
@TurboLung,
TurboLung;70837 wrote:
why don't you tell me why they haven't been back for nearly 50-years? i am all ears [eyes]...
Why don't you actually read my posts? As I said before, it would be exorbitantly expensive and there doesn't seem to be a good reason to go there. By the way, how many times have people gone to the North Pole on foot over the icepack since it was first done? How many people have climbed all fourteen 8000-meter peaks since Reinhold Messner first did it? Just because some things are rarely repeated doesn't mean the first instance never happened.

Oh, and India landed an unmanned craft on the moon on November 14, 2008. Not even 1 year ago. :brickwall:

Chandrayaan-1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The USSR was last on the moon in 1976, which was 33 years ago.

The USA was last there in 1972, 37 years ago.

Oh, Turbo, please explain the retroreflectors left by Apollo 11 that you can see from any observatory...

Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Apollo 11 Laser Ranging Retroreflector Experiment
Laser Beam Directed at the Lunar Retro-Reflector Array: Observations of the First Returns -- Faller et al. 166 (3901): 99 -- Science
Lunar Retroreflectors
 
Caroline
 
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2009 10:43 am
@TurboLung,
TurboLung;70840 wrote:
we've been in orbit before. why continually send hundreds of ships into orbit at great expense?

For many different reasons, - research, exploration, satellite, study and record stars and metorites, defence believe it or not and so on, all good logical reasons .I still havent found a logical explanation to why it would be faked, that alone says it all plus lack of solid evidence which is the only thing that can substantiate such a claim not speculation.

---------- Post added at 11:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:43 AM ----------

Basically we are more concerned with other things like resources and discovery, they are the main two, the moon has nothing to offer us in that respect.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2009 04:10 pm
@Caroline,
Did someone forget their history? Did someone forget the explosion of technological advancement that came from NASA's program to land on the moon?

The technology was insufficient? I don't think so.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2009 08:39 pm
@Poseidon,
Launching a rocket to the moon is hardly a technological marvel. You just need to understand ballistic physics and build a big enough ship with enough thrust. The lunar lander was hardly complicated either. And re-entry into earth? They'd been doing that ever since Yuri Gagarin.

Not to dismiss the intricacy of the engineering. My wife has a friend who is an engineer at NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab, and it's amazing the degree of failsafe precision that goes into every hinge, every latch, etc.

But to bemoan the primitivity of human ingenuity in 1969, well into the nuclear age, the computer age, the jet age, both overstates the complexity of the lunar missions and understates the technological capabilities of the time.
 
TurboLung
 
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 02:04 am
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus;70842 wrote:
One reason why we have not gone back to the moon is the cost. Another is the fact that we do not have much reason to. What would be the purpose of spending a bunch of money to land on the moon again at this point in time? The final reason why we have not gone back to the moon is due to the fact that the current space shuttles used by the United States are orbiters and were not designed to travel beyond the earth's atmosphere.

Now the next generation of space vehicle is supposed to be able to take humans to Mars. While I question the value in that, it is interesting nonetheless.



come on, you want me to believe that they wouldn't have gone back to the moon at least once in 50-years. it wouldn't be expensive compared to 1960. the apollo ran on 1k of memory [very believable :sarcastic:] so imagine how cheap and easy today's trip would be. and, you think that they wouldn't go to the moon in preperation for mars, but go into orbit all the time in 50 years, spending billions?
 
xris
 
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 04:01 am
@TurboLung,
TurboLung;71329 wrote:
come on, you want me to believe that they wouldn't have gone back to the moon at least once in 50-years. it wouldn't be expensive compared to 1960. the apollo ran on 1k of memory [very believable :sarcastic:] so imagine how cheap and easy today's trip would be. and, you think that they wouldn't go to the moon in preperation for mars, but go into orbit all the time in 50 years, spending billions?
So because they have not gone back means they did not in 69.I just watched a programme on the landings by the bbc,i forgot there was actually six landings.Why hoax six when one would have done the trick?Watch the bbc programme on their sight and be convinced.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 06:53 am
@TurboLung,
TurboLung;71329 wrote:
come on, you want me to believe that they wouldn't have gone back to the moon at least once in 50-years?
Again, the FIRST moon landing was 40 years ago, there were what 5 or 6 manned landings and around 15 unmanned landings. And India landed a probe on the moon last November. Are these all conspiracies? All ~ 20 of them? Or just the first one that you have a YouTube video of?
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 05:00 pm
@Aedes,
I think that we should be more concerned about all of these Mars conspiracies.

CNN.com - What an Opportunity! Mars rover reaches new milestone - Sep 28, 2006

Mars Rover Visits Crater, Then Poses For a Picture - New York Times

Raging dust storm halts Mars rover's progress - space - 05 July 2007 - New Scientist

Mars rover escapes from sand dune - space - 06 June 2005 - New Scientist

Mars rover's disability leads to major water discovery - space - 23 May 2007 - New Scientist

SPACE.com -- Next Mars Rover Gets Huge Heat Shield

Mars rover stuck in the mud - Telegraph

Scientists see Mars in a new light one year after rovers set down. (02-JAN-05) Chicago Tribune (Chicago, IL)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/7851173
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 08:19 pm
@Poseidon,
Since a friend of ours was the engineer at JPL for part of one of the Mars rovers, I'd be surprised if he was duped the whole time and he was designing it for nothing.
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Wed 24 Jun, 2009 12:55 pm
@Aedes,
Sorry if it wasn't clear, but I was being factitious.Smile Turbolung has to account for not only his comical claim that we still are not able to get to the moon(which is implied in his uninformed query about why we still haven't gone back), but the fact that NASA has been getting data from their rovers on mars for quite a while.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Wed 24 Jun, 2009 01:52 pm
@Poseidon,
Yeah, I know ... NASA has been getting data about earth for a long time too, but I still think it's a crock that we claim to have been there.
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Wed 24 Jun, 2009 02:34 pm
@Aedes,
You're probably right, I think this merits some further investigation. While we're at it, I've always suspected that Sir Edmund Hillary's trek to the top of mount Everest was a hoax set up to get rid of the sort of people who die during climbing accidents, because the idea was pleasing to the Queen.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Wed 24 Jun, 2009 06:46 pm
@Zetetic11235,
Zetetic11235;71818 wrote:
While we're at it, I've always suspected that Sir Edmund Hillary's trek to the top of mount Everest was a hoax set up to get rid of the sort of people who die during climbing accidents, because the idea was pleasing to the Queen.


Very Happy

Oh, I'm sure she'd have loved a frozen shard from George Leigh Mallory's ice-besotten hindquarters presented in a silver-plated Nepali icebox, God save her...
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Wed 24 Jun, 2009 11:24 pm
@Aedes,
My only point regarding the advance of technology that resulted from the space program was that complaints about technological capacity of the time are mute. Technology advanced greatly under the program.
 
Poseidon
 
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2009 11:55 am
@Poseidon,
Quote:
1) When the astronauts are putting up the American flag it waves. There is no wind on the Moon.

2) No stars are visible in the pictures taken by the Apollo astronauts from the surface of the Moon.


3) No blast crater is visible in the pictures taken of the lunar landing module.

4) The landing module weighed 17 tons and yet sat on top of the sand making no impression. Next to it astronauts' footprints can be seen in the sand.

5) The footprints in the fine lunar dust, with no moisture or atmosphere or strong gravity, are unexpectedly well preserved, as if made in wet sand.

6) When the landing module took off from the Moon's surface there is no visible flame from the rocket.

7) If you speed up the film of the astronauts walking on the Moon's surface they look like they were filmed on Earth and slowed down.

8) The astronauts could not have survived the trip because of exposure to radiation from the Van Allen radiation belt.

9) The rocks brought back from the Moon are identical to rocks collected by scientific expeditions to Antarctica.

10) All six Moon landings happened during the Nixon administration. No other national leader has claimed to have landed astronauts on the Moon, despite 40 years of rapid technological development.
ha-ha-ha!

Moon landing anniversary: 10 reasons the Apollo landings were 'faked' - Telegraph

well the telegraph has caught on to it
space exploration should be banned in america for 100 years!

10 REASONS

:detective::poke-eye:Laughing
 
xris
 
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2009 12:11 pm
@Poseidon,
So you are actualy saying all six are frauds and the near disaster was also a fraud.I'm sorry my ansome but you are becoming a bit of a chinese water torture in more than one way.It appears that no matter how we dispute your reasoning you play back the same old nonsense time and time again.There is no real reason why we should even try to counter your beliefs as your not ever ever going to be convinced they landed on the moon.
 
Dave Allen
 
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2009 12:12 pm
@Poseidon,
Poseidon;77236 wrote:
3) No blast crater is visible in the pictures taken of the lunar landing module.
Wasn't this thoroughly debunked when it was brought up a page ago?

From the same Telegraph webpage:

1 It doesn't wave - it is an effect of the video camera. It is held up by a bar. The flag only waves when the pole is still vibrating from having been touched.
2 The range of the film /video can't capture both the brightness of midday sun and the dimness of the stars at the same time. A camera set up to photograph objects in daylight will not record stars. They are just too faint. Try it.
3 Why would there be one - some of the dust that was blown away by the rocket could have settled back in the same place. The landing was in 1/6 Earth gravity and was done very gently. The rocket thrust required was much less than that of a Harrier jet.
4 The impression was filled by the feet of the lander.
5 There is no wind to mess them up.
6 Not all rocket exausts looks lke a flame
7 That's the same for scuba divers - it doesn't mean that they are all fake.
8 Marie Curie survived years of contact with Radium - a very radioactive metal. The astronauts crossed the Van Allen belts at 25000 mph. Their exposure was too short to do harm.
9 The ones in Antarctica may have been blown off the moon by an impact.
10 They didn't need to - the Russians gave up so they didn't have anything to prove.

One way to debunk the debunkers - have them explain why the Russians never claimed the U.S. didn't make it to the moon. They would have if they could have, but the Russkies KNEW that a landing had happened - they monitored it from their own instruments.

if the Russians never raised a sound about a hoax, then the landing actually happened.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 01:41:09